The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act and the Choice of Bond Market by Foreign Firms

This paper examines the economic impact of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) by studying foreign firms’ choice of whether to issue bonds in the U.S. public bond market or elsewhere before and after the law's enactment in 2002. After controlling for firm characteristics, bond features, home‐country attributes, and market conditions, I find that foreign firms rely less on the U.S. public bond market after SOX. Additionally, some determinants of choosing the U.S. public bond market have changed since the passage of SOX: firms listing equities on U.S. stock exchanges, adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and doing large bond issuances are more likely to choose this market in the post‐SOX period than in the pre‐SOX period. Overall, these results are consistent with a shift in the expected costs and benefits of choosing the U.S. public bond market following SOX. This paper provides the first evidence about how SOX influences debt financing decisions and alters capital flows across international bond markets.     

Has New York become less competitive than London in global markets? Evaluating foreign listing choices over time

We study the determinants and consequences of cross-listings on the New York and London stock exchanges from 1990 to 2005. This investigation enables us to evaluate the relative benefits of New York and London exchange listings and to assess whether these relative benefits have changed over time, perhaps as a result of the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. We find that cross-listings have been falling on US exchanges as well as on the Main Market in London. This decline in cross-listings is explained by changes in firm characteristics instead of by changes in the benefits of cross-listing. We show that after controlling for firm characteristics there is no deficit in cross-listing counts on US exchanges related to SOX. Investigating the valuation differential between listed and non-listed firms (the cross-listing premium) from 1990 to 2005, we find that there is a significant premium for US exchange listings every year, that the premium has not fallen significantly in recent years, and that it persists when allowing for time-invariant unobservable firm characteristics. In contrast, no premium exists for listings on London's Main Market in any year. Firms increase their capital-raising activities at home and abroad following a cross-listing on a major US exchange but not following a cross-listing in London. Our evidence is consistent with the theory that an exchange listing in New York has unique governance benefits for foreign firms.     

Valuation effects of international stock exchange listings

A comprehensive data set consisting of 346 U.S. firm stock listings on ten different stock exchanges is examined in order to determine the valuation consequences of listing on a foreign stock exchange. For the sample of U.S. firms listing abroad, abnormal returns in U.S. trading were: (1) positive around the date of acceptance on the foreign exchange; (2) negative on the first trading day; and (3) negative in the post-listing period for firms listing on the Tokyo and Basel exchanges. Tests for the equality of stock return variances between event periods and market model estimation periods failed to reveal a definitive impact.     

What drives delistings of foreign firms from U.S. Exchanges?

We examine time dependency in the factors motivating delistings of foreign firms from major U.S. Exchanges over the period 1962–2006. For firms listing before Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), we find that governance has no significant effect on delisting but after SOX, it becomes one of the main forces driving delisting. For firms whose delisting decision is most likely attributable to SOX, we find they realize low benefits from listing – they originate from countries with strong home market governance, and from listing onward realize low trading volume, analyst coverage, and make little use of capital raising. Our results suggest that SOX has had a large influence on the benefits seek from a U.S. listing, leading firms from well governed countries and low capital raising needs to delist.     

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.     

THE EFFECT OF CROSS‐LISTING ON TRADING VOLUME: REDUCING SEGMENTATION VERSUS SIGNALING INVESTOR PROTECTION

We examine the relation between cross‐listing on the U.S. and UK regulated and unregulated exchanges and trading volume for a sample of 500 foreign firms from 34 countries. We find that the increase in trading volume is a function of both reducing segmentation and signaling investor protection. In addition, we find that home market trading volume, firm size, firm returns, and analyst forecast accuracy are the major determinants of a firm's trading volume. We also show that U.S. and UK investors trade foreign securities that originate from low‐investor‐protection countries more than they trade those from high‐investor‐protection countries, which is consistent with the bonding hypothesis.     

U.S. International Equity Investment

Using a comprehensive data set of all U.S. investment in foreign equities, we find that the single most important determinant of the amount of U.S. investment a foreign firm receives is whether the firm cross‐lists on a U.S. exchange. Correcting for selection biases, cross‐listing leads to a doubling (or more) in U.S. investment, an impact greater than all other factors combined. Much of this increased U.S. investment is purchased in the foreign market, implying that the cross‐listing effect reflects something more fundamental about a firm than easier acquisition of its securities. We also demonstrate that cross‐listing is an important determinant of U.S. international investment at the country level and describe easy‐to‐implement methods for including a cross‐listing variable as an endogenous control.     

Foreign institutional investment: Is governance quality at home important?

This paper examines the investment preferences of foreign institutional investors investing in the U.S. market. We analyse both firm and country-level determinants that influence the foreign institutional investors' allocation choices. At the country level, we find that the governance quality in a foreign institutional investor's home country is a determinant of their decision to invest in the U.S. market. Our findings indicate that investors who come from countries with governance setups similar to that of the U.S. invest more in the United States. The investment levels though, are more pronounced for countries with governance setups just below that of the U.S. Our results are consistent with both the ‘flight to quality’ and ‘familiarity’ arguments, and help reconcile prior contradictory empirical evidence. At the firm level, we present unequivocal evidence in favour of the familiarity argument. Foreign institutional investors domiciled in countries with high governance quality prefer to invest in U.S. firms with high corporate governance quality. This effect is primarily driven by grey (non-monitoring) institutional investors.     

How Representative Are Firms That Are Cross‐Listed in the United States? An Analysis of Accounting Quality

We provide evidence on the characteristics of local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings for firms cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges relative to a matched sample of foreign firms currently not cross‐listing in the United States to investigate whether U.S. listing is associated with differences in accounting data reported in local markets. We find that cross‐listed firms differ in terms of the time‐series properties of earnings and accruals, and the degree of association between accounting data and share prices. Cross‐listed firms appear to be less aggressive in terms of earnings management and report accounting data that are more conservative, take account of bad news in a more timely manner, and are more strongly associated with share price. Furthermore, the differences appear to result partially from changes around cross‐listing and partially from differences in accounting quality before listing. We do not observe a similar pattern for firms cross‐listed on other non‐U.S. exchanges or on the U.S. over‐the‐counter market, suggesting a unique quality to cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges.     

Do cross-listers bond to U.S. markets? An examination of earnings quality around SOX

Sarbanes–Oxley [SOX, hereafter] was expected to improve the overall quality of financial reporting. A large amount of research has documented the influence of SOX on companies' reporting behaviors and how those behaviors have impacted the capital market as a whole (Cohen et al., 2008; Engel et al., 2007; Lobo & Zhou, 2006). While the assumption is that the far-reaching regulation impacts all U.S.-listed companies, this paper considers whether SOX has had a differential impact on the earnings quality of foreign filers that cross-list on U.S. exchanges. Despite some minor exceptions, these foreign companies are expected to meet the same reporting standards as domestic U.S. companies. Using a sample of cross-listers around the enactment of SOX, the results suggest that cross-listed companies do not strictly comply with SOX. At the same time, a size-matched sample of domestic U.S. companies shows significant improvement across the same set of earnings quality measures. This differential impact raises concerns about the ability of domestic regulations to impose compliance on foreign filers. While some may believe that cross-listed companies are bonding themselves to U.S. regulations and reporting quality, the evidence in this paper suggests that foreign companies are more interested in the reputational gains associated with a listing in the U.S.     

Foreign cultures, Sarbanes–Oxley Act and cross-delisting

Using a sample of foreign firms listed in U.S. and delisting shares over the period 2000 and 2010, this paper studies the impact of Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) on the cross-delisting behavior of foreign firms based on the firm characteristics, legal tradition, overall culture and degree of individualism of the country of domicile. Pre-SOX, the propensity to delist is lower for firms from countries with cultural similarities to the U.S. and higher for firms from individualistic societies. Post-SOX these trends are reversed. Consistent with the existing research we find that the delisting decision of foreign firms cross-listed in the U.S. is based on the potential gains from listing based on the growth opportunities, length of presence in the U.S. and legal regulations of the country of domicile. Out findings provide evidence of the cultural factors that impact the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.     

Foreign issuers in the U.S. PIPE market

We document that the use of private investment in public equity (PIPE) by foreign firms listed on U.S. exchanges is growing even faster than its use by U.S. firms. On average, foreign firm PIPE stock deals represent a similar proportion of the firm's market capitalization to U.S. firm PIPEs, but suffer less of a share price discount than U.S. firm PIPE issuances, a relation that is robust to consideration of exchange, deal size, share turnover and return volatility. We document that hedge funds are only small investors in foreign firm PIPEs issued in the U.S., which tend to be purchased by pensions, government funds and corporations. PIPE, in combination with the reverse merger method of going public, provides a cost-effective means for foreign firms to raise capital in the U.S. capital market.     

A Breakdown of the Valuation Effects of International Cross‐listing*

It is well known that cross‐listing domestic stocks in foreign exchanges has significant valuation effects on the listed company's shares. Using a sample of firms with dual shares, we explore the differential effects of cross‐listing on prices and we are able to separate the different sources of the benefits of cross‐listing. These sources include market segmentation, liquidity, and the bonding of controlling shareholders to lower expropriation of firm resources. Our results show that even though the market segmentation and bonding effects are both statistically significant, the economic significance of segmentation is more than double that of bonding. Furthermore, we document an economically and statistically significant increase in the liquidity of both share classes after the listing. Overall, our results explain why less and less firms are willing to list in the USA: Sarbanes Oxley has increased the cost of adopting better governance while its benefits are not substantial; and market segmentation has decreased significantly in the last years.     

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.     

Controlling shareholders and market timing: Evidence from cross-listing events

We find partial support for a permanent increase in firm value following U.S. cross-listings. Cross-listed firms with capital-raising intentions on U.S. exchanges and firms cross-listing after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act exhibit an increase in firm value. Yet, investors are worse off in the long run when owning insider-controlled cross-listings. Compared to non-insider-owned cross-listings, insider-owned firms have a greater rise in value around the cross-listing year but also a larger decline in the post-cross-listing years. In fact, insider-owned firms lose value by the fifth year, compared with their value before cross-listing. Lastly, we show that liquidity and visibility enhance the value of cross-listings.     

Can a stock exchange improve corporate behavior? Evidence from firms' migration to premium listings in Brazil

Because Brazil's legal system lacked protection for minority shareholders and trading of Brazilian shares flowed to U.S. exchanges, in 2001 the São Paulo Stock Exchange, Bovespa, created three premium exchange listings that require more stringent shareholder protections. This paper examines the effects of a commitment to improved corporate disclosure and governance by firms' voluntary migration to these premium listings. Our analysis finds that a firm's migration brings positive abnormal returns to its shareholders, particularly when its shares did not have a prior cross-listing on a U.S. exchange and also when the firm chooses a premium listing with the highest standards. Migration to a premium listing also leads to a significant increase in the trading volume of non-voting shares. Firms that choose a premium listing tend to have growth opportunities that they finance with subsequent seasoned equity offerings. These results suggest that a premium listing is a mechanism for bonding to improved corporate behavior that can be less costly than cross-listing on a U.S. exchange.     

Takeovers,market monitoring,and international corporate governance

We theoretically and empirically examine the role of international takeover markets in curtailing dominant shareholder moral hazard for firms with higher value‐added from acquisitions. In equilibrium, such firms strategically list shares in the markets of their targets and voluntarily dilute dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events to lower their expected acquisition costs. Empirical tests, using a sample of foreign firms cross‐listing on U.S. stock exchanges during 1990–2003, support the framework. We find a strong influence of post‐listing dilution of dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events on the likelihood of acquisitions and their cost to the acquirers, in both U.S. and non‐U.S. markets.     

What Companies Need to Know About International Cross‐Listing

This article addresses four questions about cross‐listing by non‐U.S. companies on a U.S. stock exchange: Why do companies cross‐list? Does a U.S. listing increase firm value? If so, what are the sources of the increased valuation? And finally, how has the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) affected the value of a U.S. listing? Both managerial surveys and academic research show that companies list in the U.S. to increase visibility and share liquidity, to broaden their shareholder base, to gain access to cheaper financing and reduce the cost of capital, and, in some cases, to implement a global business strategy. Foreign companies also typically cross‐list after periods of strong market performance and experience a positive valuation effect around the time of listing, but then underperform the market in the period after the cross‐listing. On average, cross‐listed companies exhibit higher valuations than their home‐market peers, but with significant variation based on firm characteristics: The valuation premiums are larger for smaller companies with higher past sales growth, higher ROAs, and lower financial leverage. In the long run, the companies that show a permanent increase in valuation are those that succeed in expanding their U.S. shareholder base and improving their levels of shareholder protection. Finally, the evidence suggests that SOX, while perhaps deterring some would‐be overseas listings, has not seriously eroded the net benefits of a U.S. listing.     

Contracts valuation assessment noise and cross-border listing of equities on U.S. and U.K. stock markets

This study develops and tests the hypothesis that firms in the home country have capital market incentives to cross-border list on foreign stock exchanges that have similar financial reporting with local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Non-U.S. firms' contracts and the underlying GAAP are based on the home-country culture and institutional climates. This connection with culture and institution makes the local GAAP's assessment of the contracts less spurious relative to foreign GAAP. Ball et al. [J. Account. Econ. 29 (2000) 1] note that contracting with stakeholders in the home markets is based on local GAAP's numbers, while cross-border listing provides settings in which the value relevance of local GAAP-based contracts is assessed based on foreign GAAP. Therefore, foreign investors' assessment of the contracts using foreign stock exchange GAAP or mindset of foreign GAAP is likely to result in an assessment noise, which is value irrelevant. The level of assessment noise depends on the differences between foreign and local GAAP. Because of the valuation implications of the assessment noise, we expect cross-border listing to diminish as the likelihood of assessment noise increases.As predicted, we find that assessment noise undermines cross-border listing on U.S. stock exchanges. Because U.S. and local GAAPs are based on different cultural and institutional environments, assessment noise arises if U.S. investors use the mindset of U.S. GAAP financial reports to assess local GAAP-based contracts of cross-border firms. The results are robust in the London Stock Exchange in which assessment noise is induced by interpreting local GAAP contracts as if they were based on U.K. GAAP. As expected, the influences of assessment noise on cross-border listings are more robust in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that harmonization of financial reporting is critical in attenuating the influences of assessment noise on global capital market developments.     

International Transmission of U.S. Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from Stock Prices

This paper analyzes intraday changes in firm‐level equity prices around interest rate announcements to assess the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to the global economy. We document that foreign firms on average are roughly as sensitive to U.S. monetary policy as U.S. firms, although we also find considerable cross‐sectional variation across firms. In particular, foreign stocks in cyclically sensitive industries show stronger responses to interest rate surprises, consistent with a demand channel of policy transmission. In addition, transmission of U.S. policy appears to be stronger to economies with fixed exchange rates. Evidence for a credit channel is weaker.