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.

Going public often creates an agency conflict between the owner–manager and minority shareholders. This problem is especially severe in countries with poor legal investor protection, such as France. We examine the controlling position of owner–managers in French initial public offering (IPO) firms. We find that investors anticipate the increased agency conflict associated with a lock on control and lower firm value when the owner–manager is more powerful. Shareholder agreements in which the owner–manager agrees to share control with other pre-IPO owners enhance firm value. We also report that higher cash flow ownership by the owner–manager is positively related to firm value when he is not in full control. Finally, we document that the large (non-pecuniary) private benefits of control in France may motivate owner–managers to retain control after the IPO.

Using a comprehensive database of firms from 21 European countries over the period 1998–2008, we find that venture capital investment has a positive effect on the rate of new business creation. This is especially true in countries with higher entry costs, higher protection of intellectual property rights, and lower taxes on capital gains. Our results suggest that, controlling for country and industry characteristics, venture capital is beneficial to bringing new ideas to the marketplace in the shape of new companies.

We investigate whether and how government interventions in the U.S. banking sector influence the stock market performance of corporate borrowers during the financial crisis of 2007–2009. We measure firms’ exposures to government interventions with an intervention score that is based on combined information on the firms’ structure of bank relationships and their banks’ participation in government capital support programs. We find that government capital infusions in banks have a significantly positive impact on borrowing firms’ stock returns. The effect is more pronounced for riskier and bank-dependent firms and for those that borrow from banks that are less capitalized and smaller.

We test whether stock liquidity affects acquirer returns through its hypothesized effect on institutional monitoring. We find that firms with lower stock liquidity have higher acquirer gains for takeovers of private targets, but not for takeovers of public targets. The negative relation between liquidity and acquirer gains is stronger when the threat of disciplinary trading (exit) by institutions is weaker and acquirers have higher agency costs. Acquirers of private targets with lower stock liquidity are more likely to withdraw deals and experience higher involuntary CEO turnover following value-destroying acquisitions. Our results support the hypothesis that stock liquidity weakens institutions' incentives to monitor management decisions, except in those cases where the disciplining effect of the threat of exit may be particularly high.

This paper investigates the selling process of firms acquired by private equity versus strategic buyers. In a single regression setup we show that selling firms choose between formal auctions, controlled sales and private negotiations to fit their firm and deal characteristics including profitability, R&D, deal initiation and type of the eventual acquirer (private equity or strategic buyer). At the same time, a regression model determining the buyer type shows that private equity buyers pursue targets that have more tangible assets, lower market-to-book ratios and lower research and development expenses relative to targets bought by strategic buyers. To reflect possible interdependencies between these two choices and their impact on takeover premium, as a last step, we estimate a simultaneous model that includes the selling mechanism choice, buyer type and premium equations. Our results show that the primary decision within the whole selling process is the target firm's decision concerning whether to sell the firm in an auction, controlled sale or negotiation which then affects the buyer type. These two decisions seem to be optimal as then they do not impact premium.