Knowledge that Transforms

We examine the global equity supply chains of U.S. multinationals to explore how tax and nontax country characteristics affect whether firms use foreign holding companies and where they locate them. We find that U.S. multinationals supply equity from headquarters to their foreign operating companies through foreign holding companies located in countries that lightly tax equity distributions. We also find that foreign holding companies tend to be located in countries with less corruption and investment risk than the countries in which the operating companies they own are located. In addition, we provide empirical evidence that the Netherlands, a well-known location for international tax planning, is a particularly popular site for foreign equity holding companies. Our findings contribute to a nascent literature that examines ownership chains in multinational companies and a larger literature on subsidiary location decisions for multinationals. The findings also provide empirical evidence that could be useful to governments in developed countries as they attempt to reform international tax policy.

This study examines changes in CEOs׳ incentive to manage their firms׳ reported earnings during their tenure. Earnings overstatement is greater in the early years than in the later years of CEOs׳ service, and this relation is less pronounced for firms with greater external and internal monitoring. These results suggest that new CEOs try to favorably influence the market׳s perception of their ability in their early years of service, when the market is more uncertain. Also, consistent with the horizon problem, earnings overstatement is greater in the CEOs׳ final year, but this result obtains only after controlling for earnings overstatement in their early years of service.

Using hand-collected data on analyst locations, we study how geographic proximity affects analyst coverage decisions for U.S. firms that went public during 1996–2009, along with the impact of local coverage on firm visibility. Analysts are 80% more likely to cover local firms than non-local ones, and nearby non-underwriter analysts initiate coverage one to three weeks earlier than distant ones. Proximity matters most for smaller, less visible firms, for firms with less complex operations and for lower status analysts. Less visible firms may use local analyst coverage as a stepping-stone to increase visibility with other analysts and institutional investors.

Decades of research confirm that, on average, stock split announcements generate positive abnormal returns. In our sample, 80% of CEO stock option grants are timed to occur on or before the split announcement date. With the average market-adjusted announcement return of 3.1%, awarding the grant before the split announcement results in an average gain per CEO-grant of 451,748. We find additional evidence consistent with timing of CEO stock trading around the split announcement. In the case of CEO stock sales, about two-thirds occur after the split announcement, resulting in an average gain of 345,613.

Li and You (this volume) study public firms’ common stock return reactions to two events: when analysts’ initiate coverage of the firm and when they terminate coverage. They test the returns for evidence of three sources of value added by analysts: (1) more monitoring of the firm, (2) reduced information asymmetry about the firm, and (3) greater demand for the firm’s common stock. They find consistent support for analysts adding value by increasing demand, but not monitoring or by reducing information asymmetry. Their findings also indicate that analysts’ initiations supply little new information. I review these findings, put them in perspective with related research, and note research directions.