An accounting-based valuation approach to valuing corporate governance in Taiwan

We estimate the proportion of firm value that is related to governance mechanisms in a cointegrated system based on the Feltham and Ohlson (1995) accounting-based valuation model. Using a comprehensive set of 32 governance measures in five categories for Taiwan firms, we find that governance measures related to ownership structure and the divergence between cash flow rights and control rights capture variations in stock prices over time. Controlling for book value, net operating assets, and abnormal operating earnings which account for up to 59% of firms’ equity value over time, the governance measures in addition track at least 39% of the equity value of these firms. We further identify that the shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of the controlling family, the critical control level of a firm, and the voting rights of the largest shareholder for ultimate control are sufficient governance measures to track changes in firm value. Our results shed some light on the extent of the equity value that can be generated by a firm’s governance practices and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

An Ohlson valuation framework for valuing corporate governance: The case of Taiwan

We examine the relation between a firm's market value, financial performance, and corporate governance as a cointegrated system in the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework. Using a comprehensive set of 29 governance measures in 4 categories for Taiwanese firms, we find that governance related to ownership structure and divergence between cash flow rights and control rights are important for a firm's market valuation. In particular, information about shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of controlling family, and voting rights are influential for firm value. Controlling for book value and residual incomes in the model, these governance measures track much of the remaining firm valuation that is unrelated to a firm's financial performance. Our findings provide some insight into the intrinsic value of corporate governance and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

Corporate governance and capital allocations of diversified firms

We examine how various aspects of corporate governance structures affect the capital allocation inefficiency that drives the value discounts of diversified firms. Diversified firms with more effective internal or external governance mechanisms experience more efficient investment allocations at both the firm and segment levels and show less of a diversification discount. The efficiency of the investment allocation process is better for diversified firms with high board independence, low board busyness, high institutional ownership, high outside director ownership, high CEO equity-based pay, high audit quality, and strong shareholder rights. The results hold after controlling for other potential influences. Our evidence suggests that corporate governance considerations are important in assessing the relation between investment efficiency and firm value for diversified firms.     

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.     

Economic shock,owner-manager incentives,and corporate restructuring: Evidence from the financial crisis in Korea

We examine how owner-managers incentives and firm-specific measures of corporate governance affect restructuring decisions during an economy-wide shock. Using a large sample of Korean firms that had experienced a severe financial crisis during 1997–1998, we find that the likelihood of restructuring is negatively related to the divergence of cash flow rights and control rights of controlling shareholders, and that the announcements of restructuring by chaebol firms with such divergence are greeted more negatively by investors. However, firm-specific measures of corporate governance such as total debt, bank loans, and equity ownership by unaffiliated financial institutions mitigate these negative effects, thereby influencing firms to choose value-maximizing restructuring policies. Our results suggest that the controlling shareholders' incentives to expropriate other investors are high during an economic shock. Our results also highlight the importance of corporate governance in mitigating such expropriation incentives, and provide important implications for the role of corporate governance during an economic shock, such as the 2007–2008 global financial crisis.     

Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US

Using governance metrics based on antitakeover provisions and inside ownership, we find that firms with weaker corporate governance structures actually have smaller cash reserves. When distributing cash to shareholders, firms with weaker governance structures choose to repurchase instead of increasing dividends, avoiding future payout commitments. The combination of excess cash and weak shareholder rights leads to increases in capital expenditures and acquisitions. Firms with low shareholder rights and excess cash have lower profitability and valuations. However, there is only limited evidence that the presence of excess cash alters the overall relation between governance and profitability. In the US, weakly controlled managers choose to spend cash quickly on acquisitions and capital expenditures, rather than hoard it.     

The American keiretsu and universal banks: Investing,voting and sitting on nonfinancials’ corporate boards

This paper investigates the equity investments and voting rights that American banks control through their trust business. The paper also studies whether the voting rights American banks control through their trust business help explain their presence on firms’ corporate boards. We find that on average the largest 100 American banks control 10% of the voting rights of S&P 500 firms. We also find that there are several firms in the S&P 500 index in which the top banks control more than 20% of their voting rights, and several firms in the country in which these banks control more than 60% of their voting rights. Our investigation into the presence of American bankers on corporate boards shows that bankers are more likely to join the boards of firms in which they control a large voting stake. We also find that banks’ lending relationships help explain bankers’ board memberships. Our results further show that bankers who have both a voting stake in a firm and a lending relationship with it have a higher likelihood of joining the firm's board of directors.     

Control/ownership structure,creditor rights protection,and the cost of debt financing: International evidence

We explore the effect of governance on bond yield-spreads and ratings in a multinational sample of firms. We find strong evidence that ultimate ownership (i.e., the voting/cash-flow rights wedge) and family control have a positive and significant effect on bond yield-spreads, and a negative and significant effect on bond ratings. Control in the hands of widely held financial firms has a positive effect on bond ratings only, while State control has no effect on either bond yield-spreads or ratings. We also find that a higher protection of debtholders’ rights generally reduces bond yield-spreads and increases bond ratings. Our results additionally show that, for both bondholders and rating agencies, the enforcement of debt laws is crucially important. Finally, we document a negative effect of debt covenants on debt costs when there is a high expropriation risk and poor creditor rights protection.     

Government ownership and corporate governance: Evidence from the EU

The ongoing global financial crisis has led to the largest increase in state intervention since the Great Depression. Direct government ownership in publicly-traded corporations has increased dramatically since 2008. How will this increase in public ownership affect the governance of these erstwhile private companies? We examine the impact of government ownership on corporate governance using a sample of firms from the European Union, a region that is relatively familiar with active government participation. Our main finding is that government ownership is associated with lower governance quality. We further show that while government intervention is negatively related to governance quality in civil law countries, it is positively related to governance quality in common law countries. Finally, we find that the preferential voting rights of golden shares are especially damaging to governance quality.     

The role of state and foreign owners in corporate risk-taking: Evidence from privatization

Using a unique database of 381 newly privatized firms from 57 countries, we investigate the impact of shareholders' identity on corporate risk-taking behavior. We find strong and robust evidence that state (foreign) ownership is negatively (positively) related to corporate risk-taking. Moreover, we find that high risk-taking by foreign owners depends on the strength of country-level governance institutions. Our results suggest that relinquishment of government control, openness to foreign investment, and improvement of country-level governance institutions are key determining factors of corporate risk-taking in newly privatized firms.     

The impact of governance reform on performance and transparency

This study examines the influence of Mexico’s efforts to improve corporate governance on firm performance and transparency. We utilize compliance data from the Code of ‘Best’ Corporate Practices, disclosed annually by public firms in Mexico, as a measure of corporate governance strength. We document a significant increase in compliance over 2000–2004 indicating Mexican companies view non-compliance as costly. However, we find no association between the governance index and firm performance, nor is there a relation with transparency. Instead, we find firms with greater compliance resort to the more costly mechanism of making dividend payments (higher propensity to pay and greater yield) to reduce agency conflicts. We conclude these associations are the direct result of the institutional features of the Mexican business environment, which is characterized by concentrated ownership of insiders, interlocked boards of directors, a lack of insider trading enforcement, and generally poor protection of minority investors. Our results show that monitoring mechanisms alone are not enough to fundamentally change economic behavior.     

Corporate ownership structure and the choice between bank debt and public debt

This article examines the relation between a borrowing firm's ownership structure and its choice of debt source using a novel data set on corporate ownership, control, and debt structures for 9,831 firms in 20 countries from 2001 to 2010. We find that the divergence between the control rights and cash-flow rights of a borrowing firm's largest ultimate owner has a significant negative impact on the firm's reliance on bank debt financing. In addition, we show that the control-ownership divergence affects other aspects of debt structure including debt maturity and security. Our results indicate that firms controlled by large shareholders with excess control rights may choose public debt financing over bank debt as a way of avoiding scrutiny and insulating themselves from bank monitoring.     

Corporate Governance in China: a Step Forward

Recently, the presumed benefits of corporate governance have become one of the most contentious issues especially for emerging markets in Asia where institutional settings are quite different from other parts of the world. Using an internationally accepted benchmark (OECD's Principles of Corporate Governance, OECD, 2004 ), this study evaluates the progress of corporate governance practice of Chinese listed companies. A corporate governance index (CGI) is constructed to measure the quality of corporate governance practices of the 100 largest listed firms in China during 2004‐2006. The results show that Chinese companies have been making progress in the corporate governance reform. The findings also show a positive relation between market valuation and overall corporate governance practices, as measured by the CGI, among these Chinese listed companies. Additional investigation reveals that the rights of shareholders are the main driver in the relationship.     

The role of internal corporate governance mechanisms on default risk: A systematic review for different institutional settings

Recent financial downturns, characterized by the significant failures of firms, have revealed the need to control credit risk. Latest literature has shown that weak corporate governance structures are related to high levels of default risk, leading to financial instability. In this context, we aim to summarize the literature that focuses on the role that internal corporate governance plays in the credit risk of firms, specifically considering three corporate governance components: ownership structure, board structure and financial stakeholders’ rights and relations. Additionally, we analyse whether the effectiveness of the internal mechanisms depends on particular key factors, especially the institutional setting and the type of mechanisms considered. Finally, new lines of research are identified for future research.     

Executive compensation and corporate governance in China

We investigate executive compensation and corporate governance in China's publicly traded firms. We also compare executive pay in China to the USA. Consistent with agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated to firm performance. The study shows that executive pay and CEO incentives are lower in State controlled firms and firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important. We find that firms with more independent directors on the board have a higher pay-for-performance link. Non-State (private) controlled firms and firms with more independent directors on the board are more likely to replace the CEO for poor performance. Finally, we document that US executive pay (salary and bonus) is about seventeen times higher than in China. Significant differences in US-China pay persist even after controlling for economic and governance factors.     

Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors

We examine whether institutional investors affect corporate governance by analyzing portfolio holdings of institutions in companies from 23 countries during the period 2003–2008. We find that firm-level governance is positively associated with international institutional investment. Changes in institutional ownership over time positively affect subsequent changes in firm-level governance, but the opposite is not true. Foreign institutions and institutions from countries with strong shareholder protection play a role in promoting governance improvements outside of the U.S. Institutional investors affect not only which corporate governance mechanisms are in place, but also outcomes. Firms with higher institutional ownership are more likely to terminate poorly performing Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and exhibit improvements in valuation over time. Our results suggest that international portfolio investment by institutional investors promotes good corporate governance practices around the world.     

Governance and Performance Implications of Diversification Strategies: Evidence from Large U.S. Firms

Recent research focuses on explaining the diversification discount. However, there is little direct evidence regarding the relation among ownership structure, corporate governance, and corporate diversification. The results in this paper suggest that agency issues do not account for firms adopting a particular diversification strategy. Also, the performance consequences of the shift in the diversification strategy and the subsequent changes in institutional and block ownership structures are not related to agency issues. In fact, investors seem not to avoid diversified firms per se. We suggest that observed board and ownership differences between diversified and focused firms are due to their being at different stages of corporate evolution.     

R around the world: New theory and new tests

Morck, Yeung and Yu show that R² is higher in countries with less developed financial systems and poorer corporate governance. We show how control rights and information affect the division of risk bearing between managers and investors. Lack of transparency increases R² by shifting firm-specific risk to managers. Opaque stocks with high R²s are also more likely to crash, that is, to deliver large negative returns. Using stock returns from 40 stock markets from 1990 to 2001, we find strong positive relations between R² and several measures of opaqueness. These measures also explain the frequency of crashes.     

Ownership structure and financial constraints: Evidence from a structural estimation

This article examines the impact of the divergence between corporate insiders' control rights and cash-flow rights on firms' external finance constraints via generalized method of moments estimation of an investment Euler equation. Using a large sample of U.S. firms during the 1994-2002 period, we find that the shadow value of external funds is significantly higher for companies with a wider insider control-ownership divergence, suggesting that companies whose corporate insiders have larger excess control rights are more financially constrained. The effect of insider excess control rights on external finance constraints is more pronounced for firms with higher degrees of informational opacity and for firms with financial misreporting, and is moderated by institutional ownership. The results show that the agency problems associated with the control-ownership divergence can have a real impact on corporate financial and investment outcomes.     

Managerial incentives and corporate leverage: evidence from the United Kingdom

This paper investigates the effect of managerial incentives and corporate governance on capital structure using a large sample of UK firms during the period 1999–2004. The analysis revolves around the view that managerial incentives are important in determining a firm's leverage. However, we argue that the exact impact of these incentives on leverage is likely to be determined by firm‐specific governance characteristics. To conduct our investigation, we construct a simple corporate governance measure using detailed ownership and governance information. We present evidence of a significant non‐monotonic relationship between executive ownership and leverage. There is also strong evidence suggesting that corporate governance practices have a significant impact on leverage. More importantly, the results reveal that the nature of the relation between executive ownership and leverage depends on the firm's corporate governance structure.