Beginning with Banz (1981), I review 30years of research on the size effect in equity returns. Since Fama and French (1992), there has been a vigorous, ongoing debate on whether the size premium is a compensation for systematic risk. Since the late 1990s, research on the size effect has been characterized by two developments that are seemingly contradictory. At last, theoretical models have emerged in which the size effect arises endogenously as a result of systematic risk. However, recent empirical studies assert that the size effect has disappeared after the early 1980s. In this review, I address this disconnect between recent theoretical and empirical research.

This paper examines (i) whether market reactions to cross-listings differ across destination markets and (ii) to what extent the following explanations for value creation around cross-listings can account for differences in market reactions across cross-listings on various destination markets: overcoming market segmentation, increased market liquidity, improved information disclosure, and better investor protection ("bonding"). We analyze 526 cross-listings from 44 different countries on eight major stock exchanges and document significant announcement returns of 1.3% on average for cross-listings on US exchanges, 1.1% on London Stock Exchange, 0.6% on exchanges in continental Europe, and 0.5% (not significant) on Tokyo Stock Exchange. We find evidence consistent with improved disclosure and bonding creating value for cross-listings on US exchanges, while overcoming segmentation and bonding are associated with higher announcement returns on the London Stock Exchange. The evidence is mixed for continental European exchanges and for Tokyo. Our results highlight the role of the destination market in value creation around cross-listings. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

We provide a firm-level analysis of the relation between corruption and growth for private firms and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Vietnam. We obtain three different measures of the perceived corruption severity from a 2005 survey among 741 private firms and 133 SOEs. We find that corruption hampers the growth of Vietnam’s private sector, but is not detrimental for growth in the state sector. We document significant differences in the corruption severity across 24 provinces in Vietnam that can be explained by the quality of provincial public governance (such as the costs of new business entry, land access, and private sector development policies). Our results suggest that corruption may harm economic growth because it favors the state sector at the expense of the private sector and that improving the quality of local public governance can help to mitigate corruption and stimulate economic growth.