This paper presents evidence of the shareholder wealth effect of institutional activism using its spillovers on non-target companies. The spillovers are instructive because they are a response to an exogenous shock and thus create an environment to conduct a clean event study. In particular, we examine the spillover effects of the first target announcement of the Korea Corporate Governance Fund. As the very first sign of institutional activism in the country, this announcement creates an expectation of similar governance efforts even in non-target companies, especially in those companies whose governance is currently poorer and thus the scope for future activism is greater. Consistent with institutional activism contributing to shareholder wealth, we find that, among non-targets, those firms granting fewer rights to outside shareholders experience a more positive stock price reaction. Further analysis lends additional support to the positive wealth effect of institutional activism.

This paper proposes an investor heterogeneity approach to the different domestic stock holdings between domestic and foreign investors. Specifically, we hypothesize that domestic and foreign investors evaluate domestic stocks via different models and thus arrive at different valuations for them; consequently, the two investor groups are attracted to different sets of domestic stocks. Using panel data from Korea, we find strong support for our hypothesis. More precisely, we find that the foreign ownership of a stock increases with foreigners’ valuation for the stock in excess of that of domestic investors. As we control for various firm characteristics known to be correlated with foreign ownership, our results indicate that the valuation difference between domestic and foreign investors can help explain the allocation of domestic stocks between the two groups over and above the existing explanations.

During the 1997 Korean financial crisis, firms with higher ownership concentration by unaffiliated foreign investors experienced a smaller reduction in their share value. Firms that had higher disclosure quality and alternative sources of external financing also suffered less. In contrast, chaebol firms with concentrated ownership by controlling family shareholders experienced a larger drop in the value of their equity. Firms in which the controlling shareholders’ voting rights exceeded cash flow rights and those who borrowed more from the main banks also had lower returns. Our results suggest that change in firm value during a crisis is a function of firm-level differences in corporate governance measures.

Prior work in emerging markets provides evidence that better corporate governance predicts higher market value, but very little evidence on the specific channels through which governance can increase value. We provide evidence, from a natural experiment in Korea, that reduced tunneling is an important channel. Korean legal reform in 1999 changed the board structure of “large” firms (assets extgreater2 trillion won) relative to smaller firms. In event studies of the reform events, we show that large firms whose controllers have incentive to tunnel earn strong positive returns, relative to mid-sized firms. In panel regressions over 1998–2004, we also show that better governance moderates the negative effect of related-party transactions on value and increases the sensitivity of firm profitability to industry profitability (consistent with less tunneling).