Do minority acquisitions transfer better corporate governance practices? An analysis of UK's cross-border minority investments

This study examines the influence of minority shareholders on the transfer of corporate governance practices into companies in other countries where they invest. By analysing UK firms that acquired a minority ownership in foreign firms between 1993 and 2014, we find evidence of better corporate governance in the board structure of target foreign firms following UK firms taking a minority shareholding, the extent and nature of the changes varying depending on the quality of investor protection in the country the foreign target firm is located. Our findings contribute to the on-going debates on the spillover effect of better corporate governance practices via cross-border mergers and acquisitions as well as relationship between internal (board of directors) and external (country's quality of investor protection) corporate governance mechanisms.     

Contractual corporate governance

Companies have the choice to deviate from their national corporate governance standards by opting into another system. They can do so via contractual devices – such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions, (re)incorporations, and cross-listings – which enable them to choose their preferred level of investor protection and regulation. This paper reviews these three main contractual governance devices, their effect on value, and whether their adoption by firms induces a race to the bottom or a race to the top. Indeed, firms may opt for less shareholder-orientation or investor protection (shareholder-expropriation hypothesis) rather than for more stringent rules that require firms to focus on shareholder value (bonding hypothesis).     

A theory of optimal expropriation, mergers and industry competition

We model a competitive industry where managers choose quantities and costs to maximize a combination of firm profits and benefits from expropriation. Expropriation is possible because of corporate governance ‘slack’ permitted by the government. We show that corporate governance slack induces managers to choose levels of output and costs that are higher than would otherwise be optimal. This, in turn, benefits consumers - the equilibrium price is lower - and other stakeholders such as suppliers and employees. Depending on the government’s social welfare objective, less-than-perfect investor protection can be optimal. We show why some mechanisms suggested by the literature as improving investor protection - legal change, cross-listing, domestic mergers - may not be effective. We provide a theoretical argument showing the efficacy of cross-border mergers. The stronger corporate governance of a foreign acquirer, imposed on the domestic target firm, benefits merging shareholders and those of competing unmerged domestic firms.     

The internationalization of Chinese companies: Firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance

A prominent issue in the internationalization of Chinese firms is that many are state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and that corporate governance in China is highly idiosyncratic. This paper identifies firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance mechanisms that foster internationalization. We find that Chinese cross-border mergers create shareholder value, but not more than domestic expansions. Corporate governance mechanisms matter, jointly and individually. While state-ownership predicts fewer cross-border mergers, a favourable board structure and corporate transparency explains higher M&A returns. As in more mature markets, firm- and industry-specific determinants also affect M&As in China.     

The Value of Investor Protection: Firm Evidence from Cross-Border Mergers

International law prescribes that in a cross-border acquisitionof 100% of the target shares, the target firm becomes a nationalof the country of the acquiror, and consequently subject toits corporate governance system. Therefore, cross-border mergersprovide a natural experiment to analyze the effects of changesin corporate governance on firm value. We construct measuresof the change in investor protection in a sample of 506 acquisitionsfrom 39 countries. We find that the better the shareholder protectionand accounting standards in the acquiror's country, the higherthe merger premium in cross-border mergers relative to matchingdomestic acquisitions.     

Consolidation and value creation in the insurance industry: The role of governance

We examine the long run performance of M&A transactions in the property–liability insurance industry. We specifically investigate whether such transactions create value for the bidders’ shareholders, and assess how corporate governance mechanisms, internal and external, affect such performance. Our results show that M&A create value in the long run as buy and hold abnormal returns are positive and significant after 3 years. While tender offers appear to be more profitable than mergers, our multivariate evidence does not support the conjecture that domestic transactions create more value than cross-border transactions. Furthermore, positive returns are significantly higher for frequent acquirers and in countries where investor protection is weaker. Internal corporate governance mechanisms, such as board independence, and CEO share ownership, are also significant determinants of the long run positive performance of bidders.     

Corporate Governance,Companies’ Disclosure Practices and Market Transparency: A Cross Country Study

We examine the link between corporate governance, companies’ disclosure practices and their equity market transparency in a study of more than 5,000 listed companies in 23 countries covering the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2008. Our results confirm the belief that better‐governed firms make more frequent disclosures to the market. We also find greater disclosure in common law relative to code law countries. However firms with better governance in both code and common law countries make more frequent disclosures. We measure market transparency by the timeliness of prices. In contrast to single country studies, results show, for the 23 countries collectively, better corporate governance is associated with less timely share prices. This would suggest that a firm substitutes better corporate governance for transparency. We are thus led to the conclusion that even if information is disclosed more frequently by better‐governed firms, it does not necessarily follow that information is reflected in share prices on a timelier basis.     

Corporate Governance and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from Germany

Recent empirical work shows evidence for higher valuation of firms in countries with a better legal environment. We investigate whether differences in the quality of firm‐level corporate governance also help to explain firm performance in a cross‐section of companies within a single jurisdiction. Constructing a broad corporate governance rating (CGR) for German public firms, we document a positive relationship between governance practices and firm valuation. There is also evidence that expected stock returns are negatively correlated with firm‐level corporate governance, if dividend yields are used as proxies for the cost of capital. An investment strategy that bought high‐CGR firms and shorted low‐CGR firms earned abnormal returns of around 12% on an annual basis during the sample period.     

Cross-border enforcement of securities laws and dividend payouts

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, numerous countries signed a special nonbinding arrangement to enhance cross-border enforcement of securities laws. This agreement is the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information (MMoU). This study examines whether and how a country's MMoU entry affects firms' dividend payout policies. Relative to domestic US firms, foreign firms cross-listed in the US report a significant increase in dividend payouts after their home country entered the MMoU. Furthermore, the effect of MMoU on corporate dividend payouts is pronounced for (1) firms with high agency costs, (2) countries with low external governance quality, and (3) countries with poor disclosure environments. Furthermore, we find that MMoU significantly changes the corporate governance structure. Our findings collectively corroborate the prediction of the dividend outcome model and are consistent with the notion that strengthening cross-border regulatory enforcement of foreign firms improves protection for outside shareholders and increases dividend payouts.     

Form versus substance: The effect of ownership structure and corporate governance on firm value in Thailand

We examine the relation between the quality of corporate governance practices and firm value for Thai firms, which often have complex ownership structures. We develop a comprehensive measure of corporate governance and show that, in contrast to conventional measures of corporate governance, our measurement, on average, is positively associated with Tobin’s q. Furthermore, we find that q values are lower for firms that exhibit deviations between cash flow rights and voting rights. We also find that the value benefits of complying with “good” corporate governance practices are nullified in the presence of pyramidal ownership structures, raising doubts on the effectiveness of governance measures when ownership structures are not transparent. We conclude that family control of firms through pyramidal ownership structures can allow firms to seemingly comply with preferred governance practices but also use the control to their advantage.     

Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Chinese listed firms

This study examines the impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on acquirers’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on a sample of Chinese listed firms, we find that firms with cross-border M&A activities experience an improvement in subsequent CSR performance. Specifically, the CSR rating is approximately 8.24% higher in firms with cross-border M&As than in those without such activities. We also find that this positive influence is more pronounced in firms with low initial CSR ratings than in those with high initial CSR ratings at the time when a cross-border M&A deal is completed. Additional analyses reveal that this positive effect is mainly driven by the target firms from countries with high social preference relative to China and that the enhancement in CSR driven by cross-border M&As translates into higher operating performance and easier access to finance. Overall, our findings demonstrate that cross-border M&As can serve as a critical channel for acquirers from a country with low institutional quality to build a better reputation through environmentally friendly behaviour and socially responsible engagement, and therefore gain capital market benefits.     

How corporate governance affect firm value? Evidence on a self-dealing channel from a natural experiment in Korea

Prior work in emerging markets provides evidence that better corporate governance predicts higher market value, but very little evidence on the specific channels through which governance can increase value. We provide evidence, from a natural experiment in Korea, that reduced tunneling is an important channel. Korean legal reform in 1999 changed the board structure of “large” firms (assets > 2 trillion won) relative to smaller firms. In event studies of the reform events, we show that large firms whose controllers have incentive to tunnel earn strong positive returns, relative to mid-sized firms. In panel regressions over 1998–2004, we also show that better governance moderates the negative effect of related-party transactions on value and increases the sensitivity of firm profitability to industry profitability (consistent with less tunneling).     

Legal protection of investors,corporate governance,and the cost of equity capital

This study examines the effect of firm-level corporate governance on the cost of equity capital in emerging markets and how the effect is influenced by country-level legal protection of investors. We find that firm-level corporate governance has a significantly negative effect on the cost of equity capital in these markets. In addition, this corporate governance effect is more pronounced in countries that provide relatively poor legal protection. Thus, in emerging markets, firm-level corporate governance and country-level shareholder protection seem to be substitutes for each other in reducing the cost of equity. Our results are consistent with the finding from McKinsey's surveys that institutional investors are willing to pay a higher premium for shares in firms with good corporate governance, especially when the firms are in countries where the legal protection of investors is weak.     

Managerial foreign experience and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China

This study investigates the relationship between managerial foreign experience and corporate risk-taking. We find that foreign experienced managers in Chinese firms are positively associated with corporate risk-taking and that this mainly exists in private firms rather than in state owned enterprises (SOEs). In privately owned firms, the degree of corporate internationalization and operating leverage are potential channels through which foreign experienced managers affect corporate risk-taking. Moreover, the positive association is more pronounced for managers' practical, rather than educational foreign experience and for managers who gain their foreign experience from countries or regions with advanced management practices and better corporate governance. Short-term visits overseas has no impact on corporate risk-taking. Additionally, the relationship is more persistent among private firms with better corporate governance and those operating in weak local economy. Finally, we find evidence that the risk-taking behaviour from foreign experienced managers is an important mechanism for companies to enhance their value.     

On the role of foreign directors: Evidence from cross-listed firms

We examine the determinants of appointment of U.S. independent directors (USIDs), and their impact and effectiveness, on the boards of cross-listed foreign firms versus non-cross-listed firms. For non-cross-listed firms, significant determinants of USID presence include factors related to both advising and monitoring roles, whereas for cross-listed firms, appointment of USIDs are related to monitoring factors. We find that USIDs have a significantly positive impact on cross-listed firms’ value, especially for firms from countries that are culturally and institutionally different from U.S. and countries with weak investor protection. The positive value effect is strongest for firms in which USIDs serve on governance committees. We also find that cross-listed firms with UISDs are better at acquiring both domestic and cross-border targets and have higher CEO turnover sensitivity. For non-cross-listed firms, USIDs have negative or no impact on value.     

To Steal or Not to Steal: Firm Attributes, Legal Environment, and Valuation

Data on corporate governance and disclosure practices reveal wide within‐country variation that decreases with the strength of investors' legal protection. A simple model identifies three firm attributes related to that variation: investment opportunities, external financing, and ownership structure. Using firm‐level governance and transparency data from 27 countries, we find that all three firm attributes are related to the quality of governance and disclosure practices, and firms with higher governance and transparency rankings are valued higher in stock markets. All relations are stronger in less investor‐friendly countries, demonstrating that firms adapt to poor legal environments to establish efficient governance practices.     

What matters and for which firms for corporate governance in emerging markets? Evidence from Brazil (and other BRIK countries)

A central issue in corporate governance research is the extent to which “good” governance practices are universal (one size mostly fits all) or instead depend on country and firm characteristics. We report evidence that supports the second view. We first conduct a case study of Brazil, in which we survey Brazilian firms' governance practices at year-end 2004, construct a corporate governance index, and show that the index, as well as subindices for ownership structure, board procedure, and minority shareholder rights, predicts higher lagged Tobin's q. In contrast to other studies, greater board independence predicts lower Tobin's q. Firm characteristics also matter: governance predicts market value for nonmanufacturing (but not manufacturing) firms, small (but not large) firms, and high-growth (but not low-growth) firms. We then extend prior studies of India, Korea, and Russia, and compare those countries to Brazil, to assess which aspects of governance matter in which countries, and for which types of firms. Our “multi-country” results suggest that country characteristics strongly influence both which aspects of governance predict firm market value, and at which firms that association is found. They support a flexible approach to governance, with ample room for firm choice.     

Corporate Governance,Valuation, and Performance: Evidence from a Voluntary Market Reform in Brazil

In December 2000, the São Paulo Stock Exchange launched a new premium market segment for companies that voluntarily commit to “good practices of corporate governance.” We construct a composite index (NM6) that combines six proxies for the main governance practices targeted by Bovespa's reform. We find that higher scores for our index are related to greater market value but not to better operating performance. An investment strategy that purchased stocks of firms with high NM6 and sold stocks of firms with low NM6 would have earned abnormal returns of 10.68% per year from 2001 to 2005.     

Does Corporate Governance Predict Future Performance? Evidence from Hong Kong

This study uses time‐series data to examine the relation between changes in the quality of corporate governance practices and subsequent market valuation among large listed companies in Hong Kong. The results indicate that firms that exhibit improvements in the quality of corporate governance display a subsequent increase in market valuation, whereas firms that exhibit deterioration in the quality of corporate governance practices tend to encounter a decline in market valuation. Additionally, the impact is greater for firms that are included in the MSCI index or with a China affiliation. The results provide evidence in support of the notion that good corporate governance can predict future market valuation.     

Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets

We use recent data on firm-level corporate governance (CG) rankings across 14 emerging markets and find that there is wide variation in firm-level governance in our sample and that the average firm-level governance is lower in countries with weaker legal systems. We explore the determinants of firm-level governance and find that governance is correlated with the extent of the asymmetric information and contracting imperfections that firms face. We also find that better corporate governance is highly correlated with better operating performance and market valuation. Finally, we provide evidence that firm-level corporate governance provisions matter more in countries with weak legal environments.