Investor Protection,Investment Efficiency and Value: The Case of Cross‐Listed Firms

We examine the impact of improved investor protection due to cross‐listing on foreign firms’ investment decisions and firm value. While we find that cross‐listing increases firms’ capital expenditures and mergers and acquisitions activities, cross‐listed firms also invest more in research and development, make better acquisition decisions, and have higher profitability compared to non‐cross‐listed firms. Moreover, cross‐listing is associated with better cash utilization by foreign firms for investments. These improvements in investments and cash utilization are more pronounced for firms cross‐listed on US exchanges and for firms from countries with weak investor protection laws.     

Corporate Bankruptcy in Korea: Only the Strong Survive?

We analyze whether the build‐up of financial vulnerabilities led listed Korean companies to bankruptcy. We find that pre‐crisis leverage is systematically high for both poor performing/slow growing firms and for profitable/fast‐growing firms. Pre‐crisis leverage raises the probability of bankruptcy, which is lower for firms: (1) relying more on (renegotiable) bank credit; (2) with less inter‐firm debt; and (3) having higher interest coverage ratios. Finally, none of these liquidity variables help predict bankruptcies for chaebol‐firms, suggesting that liquidity constraints are more stringent for non‐chaebol. Thus, in a systemic crisis it is not only the strong/healthy that survive.     

Family Control and Financing Decisions

This study uses a comprehensive European dataset to investigate the role of family control in corporate financing decisions during the period 1998–2008. We find that family firms have a preference for debt financing, a non‐control‐diluting security, and are more reluctant than non‐family firms to raise capital through equity offerings. We also find that credit markets are prone to provide long‐term debt to family firms, indicating that they view their investment decisions as less risky. In fact, our empirical results demonstrate that family firms invest less than non‐family firms in high‐risk, research and development (R&D) projects, but not in low‐risk, fixed‐asset capital expenditure (CAPEX) projects, suggesting that fear of control loss in family firms deters risk‐taking. Overall, our findings reveal that the external financing (and investment) decisions of family firms are in greater (lesser) conflict with the interests of minority shareholders (bondholders).     

Why and How UK Firms Hedge

This paper attempts to differentiate among the theories of hedging by using disclosures in the annual reports of 400 UK companies and data collected via a survey. I find, unlike many previous US studies, strong evidence linking the decision to hedge and the expected costs of financial distress. The tests show that this is mainly because my definition of hedging includes all hedgers and not just derivative users. However, when the tests employ the same hedging definition as previous US studies, financial distress cost factors still appear to be more important for this sample than samples of US firms. Therefore, a secondary explanation for the strong financial distress results might be due to differences in the bankruptcy codes in the two countries, which result in higher expected costs of financial distress for UK firms. The paper also examines the determinants of the choice of hedging method distinguishing between non‐derivative and derivatives hedging. My evidence shows that larger firms, firms with more cash, firms with a greater probability of financial distress, firms with exports or imports and firms with more short‐term debt are more likely to hedge with derivatives. Thus, differences in opportunities, in incentives for reducing risk and in the types of financial price exposure play an important role in how firms hedge their risks.     

Exchange Rate Changes and the Operating Performance of Multinationals

Using a sample of 261 US multinationals over the period 1984–2002, we examine the relation between exchange rate changes and the profitability of foreign operations. We find that the impact of exchange rate changes on foreign operations’ profitability is not statistically significant in the majority of industries. Furthermore, according to our variance components analysis, exchange rate changes explain less than 2% of the variation in foreign operations’ profitability for most industries. We also find that the impact of exchange rate changes on foreign operations’ profitability is generally weak for non‐US multinationals from Australia, Canada, Japan and the UK. Our evidence is consistent with the finding of prior studies that the impact of exchange rate changes on firm value is not significant for most multinationals.     

Do dividend changes predict the future profitability of firms?

Many previous studies have been conducted to test whether corporate dividend changes predict the future profitability of firms. While the debate continues, we assess the information content of dividends (ICD) hypothesis in the Korean market as it provides an interesting experimental setting for testing the hypothesis in the context of corporate governance. We find that it is difficult to support the ICD hypothesis if one accepts nonlinear patterns in earnings. However, when we divide the sample in terms of Chaebol vs. non‐Chaebol and high‐growth vs. low‐growth firms, we find that the ICD hypothesis becomes valid, especially for non‐Chaebol firms and for low‐growth firms. Therefore, we suggest that the validity of the ICD hypothesis may be dependent on firm characteristics such as the corporate governance structure and growth stage.     

The Dependency of the Banks' Assets and Liabilities: Evidence from Germany

Two decades of developments in risk‐transfer instruments may have fundamentally changed the extent to which banks practice on‐balance sheet term and liquidity transformation. These changes should be deliberated in on‐balance sheet asset‐liability dependencies. By using correlation analyses, we investigate asset‐liability dependency for all three sectors of German universal banks from 1994 to 2007 and find that it declined over our sample period. We also investigate whether asset‐liability dependency varies systematically with a bank's affinity for using risk‐transfer instruments, regulatory capital, and profitability and document several differences between the three sectors of German universal banks.     

Why newly listed firms become acquisition targets

We study the operating, financial, and ownership structure characteristics of newly listed firms which become acquisition targets shortly after their initial public offerings. We examine whether such firms get acquired because of their successful performance or as an alternative to delisting. We find that firms, which do relatively well in terms of operating as well as stock performance and attract institutional investor interest, draw the attention of acquirers. Furthermore, we observe that investments made by newly listed target firms do not destroy shareholder value and have comparable profitability to investments made by newly listed firms which grow by acquisitions. Overall, firms acquired shortly after listing are on a growth trajectory similar to that of surviving firms.     

Exits,Performance, and Late Stage Private Equity: the Case of UK Management Buy‐outs

Using a hand‐collected dataset of 1,225 buy‐outs, we examine post buy‐out and post exit long term abnormal operating performance of UK management buy‐outs, during the period 1980–2009. Our univariate and panel data analysis of post buy‐out performance conclusively show positive changes in output. We also find strong evidence for improvements in employment and output and a lack of significant changes in efficiency and profitability following initial public offerings (IPO) exits. IPOs from the main London Stock Exchange (LSE) market outperform their counterparts from the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) only in terms of changes in output. For secondary management buy outs (SMBOs), performance declines during the first buy‐out but in the second buy‐out performance stabilises until year three, after which profitability and efficiency fall while employment increases. Although private equity (PE) backed buy‐outs do not exhibit either post buy‐out or post exit underperformance, they fail to over‐perform their non‐PE backed counterparts. In the subsample of buy‐outs exiting via IPOs on the AIM, PE firms do not outperform non‐PE buy‐outs. Our findings highlight the importance of tracing the overall performance of buy‐outs over a longer period and controlling for sample selection bias related to the provision of PE backing.     

Is Investment‐Cash Flow Sensitivity Caused by Agency Costs or Asymmetric Information? Evidence from the UK

We investigate the investment‐cash flow sensitivity of a large sample of the UK listed firms and confirm that investment is strongly cash flow‐sensitive. Is this sensitivity a result of agency problems when managers with high discretion overinvest, or of asymmetric information when managers owning equity are underinvesting if the market (erroneously) demands too high a risk premium? We find that investment‐cash flow sensitivity results mainly from the agency costs of free cash flow. The magnitude of the relationship depends on insider ownership in a non‐monotonic way. Furthermore, we obtain that outside blockholders, such as financial institutions, the government, and industrial firms (only at high control levels), reduce the cash flow sensitivity of investment via effective monitoring. Finally, financial institutions appear to play a role in mitigating informational asymmetries between firms and capital markets. We corroborate our findings by performing additional tests based on the stochastic efficient frontier approach and power indices.     

The Long‐Term Effect of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act on Cross‐Listing Premia

This paper uses a triple difference approach to assess whether the adoption of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act predicts long‐term changes in cross‐listing premia of affected foreign firms. I measure cross‐listing premia as the difference between the Tobin's q of a cross‐listed company and a non‐cross‐listed company from the same country matched on propensity to cross‐list (first difference). I find that average premia for firms cross‐listed on levels 2 or 3 (subject to SOX) declined in the year of SOX adoption (2002) and remained significantly below their pre‐SOX level through year‐end 2005 (second difference). Firms listed on levels 2 or 3, which are subject to SOX, experienced larger declines in premia than firms listed on levels 1 or 4, which are not subject to SOX (third difference). The estimated decline is 0.15–0.20 depending on specification. Riskier firms and firms from high‐disclosing and high‐GDP countries suffered larger post‐SOX declines. Firm size predicts smaller declines in premia in well‐governed countries. Faster‐growing firms in poorly‐governed countries experienced smaller declines in premia. The results are robust to the use of different before‐and‐after periods; the use of annual, quarterly, or monthly data; the use of individual companies' Tobin's q's instead of matched pairs, and different regression specifications. The overall evidence is consistent with the view that SOX negatively affected cross‐listed premia, and particularly hurt riskier firms and firms from well‐governed countries, while perhaps helping high‐growth firms from poorly‐governed countries. At the same time, after‐SOX, level‐23 firms continue to enjoy a substantial premium, estimated at about 0.32.     

Abnormal Returns from Takeover Prediction Modelling: Challenges and Suggested Investment Strategies

While takeover targets earn significant abnormal returns, studies tend to find no abnormal returns from investing in predicted takeover targets. In this study, we show that the difficulty of correctly identifying targets ex ante does not fully explain the below‐expected returns to target portfolios. Target prediction models’ inability to optimally time impending takeovers, by taking account of pre‐bid target underperformance and the anticipation of potential targets by other market participants, diminishes but does not eliminate the potential profitability of investing in predicted targets. Importantly, we find that target portfolios are predisposed to underperform, as targets and distressed firms share common firm characteristics, resulting in the misclassification of a disproportionately high number of distressed firms as potential targets. We show that this problem can be mitigated, and significant risk‐adjusted returns can be earned, by screening firms in target portfolios for size, leverage and liquidity.     

Distressed Debt Restructuring in the Presence of Credit Default Swaps

The availability of credit insurance via credit default swaps has been closely associated with the emergence of empty creditors. We empirically investigate this issue by looking at the debt restructurings (distressed exchanges and bankruptcy filings) of rated, nonfinancial U.S. companies over the period January 2007–June 2011. Using different proxies for the existence of insured creditors, we do not find evidence that the access to credit insurance favors bankruptcy over a debt workout. However, we document higher recovery prices following a distressed exchange in firms where empty creditors are more likely to emerge.     

TRADING COSTS OF NON‐U.S. STOCKS ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP,ANALYST FOLLOWING,AND MARKET REGULATION

We investigate the differences in market microstructure between U.S. and non‐U.S. stocks cross‐listed on the New York Stock Exchange using a sample of 316 pairs of matched stocks. We find that non‐U.S. stocks have wider spreads and larger adverse‐selection costs than U.S. stocks even after controlling for macro‐level institutional differences. Regression analysis shows that spreads and adverse‐selection costs are negatively correlated with institutional ownership and analyst followings. Thus, the higher spreads and adverse‐selection costs for non‐U.S. stocks can be partly explained by the lower institutional ownership and analyst following of non‐U.S. stocks. In addition, we find that although the spreads and adverse‐selection costs for non‐U.S. stocks are significantly higher before the implementation of Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD), the differences become even greater after Regulation FD, suggesting that Regulation FD has improved the information environment for U.S. stocks.     

ADRs,Analysts, and Accuracy: Does Cross Listing in the United States Improve a Firm's Information Environment and Increase Market Value?

This paper investigates the relation between cross listing in the United States and the information environment of non‐U.S. firms. We find that firms that cross list on U.S. exchanges have greater analyst coverage and increased forecast accuracy than firms that are not cross listed. A time‐series analysis shows that a change in analyst coverage and forecast accuracy occurs around cross listing. We also document that firms that have more analyst coverage and higher forecast accuracy have higher valuations. Furthermore, the change in firm value around cross listing is correlated with changes in analyst following and forecast accuracy, suggesting that cross listing enhances firm value through its effect on the firm's information environment. Our findings support the hypothesis that cross‐listed firms have better information environments, which are associated with higher market valuations.     

Do Firms Decouple Corporate Governance Policy and Practice?

We test whether Thai listed firms with higher levels of good governance policy adoption are less likely to violate listing rules and laws designed to protect shareholders. Our results suggest that firms on average implement, substantively as opposed to symbolically, recommended governance policies, as violations occur less frequently among firms with higher governance policy adoption scores. However, we also find evidence of symbolic governance among a small group of ‘talk‐only’ firms that issue statements about governance while lagging in the adoption of policies related to shareholder rights and the board of directors.     

Do Emerging Market Firms Follow Different Dividend Policies From U.S. Firms?

We find that emerging market firms exhibit dividend behavior similar to U.S. firms, in the sense that dividends are explained by profitability, debt, and the market‐to‐book ratio. However, empirical dividend policy equations are structurally different, indicating different sensitivities to these variables. Additionally, emerging market firms seem to be more affected by asset mix, which seems to be due to their greater reliance on bank debt. Overall, country factors are as important in dividend policies as previous studies find them to be in capital structure decisions.     

Emerging from Bankruptcy with When‐Issued Trading

We examine the set of firms that emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and traded on a when‐issued basis before their official return to the regular way in NASDAQ, Amex, or NYSE. We find that this when‐issued market is liquid and price efficient. The when‐issued closing price is a good indicator of the first closing price in the regular way market. Emerging firms that have when‐issued trading experience lower regular way volatility and smaller relative spreads than those without when‐issued trading. Our probit regressions show that firm size is an important determinant of the adoption of when‐issued trading.     

Venture Capital Backing and Overvaluation: Evidence from the High‐Tech Bubble

We investigate the association between venture capital (VC) backing and the likelihood of firm overvaluation in the high‐tech bubble period. We find strong evidence that a VC‐backed firm is more likely than a non‐VC‐backed firm to be overvalued during the bubble period. A further investigation suggests that such an association exists only for VC‐backed firms that have gone public recently and VC‐backed firms over which venture capitalists (VCs) have high ownership or control. But outside the bubble period, all the differences in overvaluation between VC‐backed and non‐VC‐backed firms disappear. Our findings provide additional evidence supporting VC opportunism in boom periods.     

Do Banks Price Litigation Risk in Debt Contracting? Evidence from Class Action Lawsuits

Class action lawsuits can be detrimental to debtholders because they deteriorate defendant firms’ financial position and lower these firms’ value. This study examines whether banks price their borrowers’ litigation risk in debt contracting. We find that banks charge 19% higher interest spreads on loans to lawsuit firms after litigation. In addition, banks monitor lawsuit firms more closely by using tighter non‐price terms. The results are robust after correcting for possible endogeneity issues using the propensity score matching approach. We further find that the effects of lawsuit filing are more pronounced for firms with weaker corporate governance. Following a lawsuit in the industry, banks also perceive an increased likelihood of litigation for industry peer firms and adjust price and non‐price terms accordingly. Finally, we find that the magnitude of the lawsuit filing effect is greater for firms with lower ex‐ante litigation risk. Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that banks, as informed stakeholders, perceive litigation risk to be detrimental and price this risk in debt contracting.