We rely on a unique data set to estimate the impact of disclosure standards and auditor‐related characteristics on ownership concentration in 190 privatized firms from 31 countries. Accounting transparency can help alleviate the agency conflict between minority investors and controlling shareholders, which is evident in the extent of ownership concentration, since the expropriation of corporate resources hinges on these private benefits remaining hidden. After controlling for other country‐level and firm‐level determinants, we find weak (no) evidence that extensive disclosure standards (auditor choice) reduce ownership concentration. In contrast, we report strong, robust evidence that ownership concentration is lower in countries with securities laws that specify a lower burden of proof in civil and criminal litigation against auditors, consistent with Ball's [2001] predictions. Collectively, our research implies that minority investors worldwide value legal institutions that discipline auditors in the event of financial reporting failure over both the presence of a Big 5 auditor and better disclosure standards. Re‐estimating our regressions on a broad sample of western European public firms provides similar evidence on all of our predictions.

This paper seeks to provide an answer to the following question: when and how does privatization work? Using a sample of 230 firms headquartered in 32 developing countries, we document a significant increase in profitability, efficiency, investment and output. Our analysis shows that the changes in performance vary with the extent of macro-economic reforms and environment, and the effectiveness of corporate governance. In particular, economic growth is associated with higher profitability and efficiency gains, trade liberalization is associated with higher levels of investment and output, while financial liberalization is associated with higher output changes. Further, control relinquishment by the government is a key determinant of profitability, efficiency gains and output increases. Finally, we find higher improvements in efficiency for firms in countries in which stock markets are more developed and where property rights are better protected and enforced. These results for a sample of developing countries differ from those reported in a contemporaneous study by D'Souza et al. [D'Souza, J., Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C., 2001. Why do privatized firms improve performance? Evidence from developed countries. Unpublished working paper. University of Oklahoma] which focuses on developed countries. These diverging findings suggest that privatization in developing countries indeed obeys to particular constraints and has a dynamic of its own.

We examine the effect of economic policy uncertainty on the relation between investment and the cost of capital. Using the news-based index developed by Baker et al. (2016) for twenty-one countries, we find that the strength of the negative relation between investment and the cost of capital decreases during times of high economic policy uncertainty. An increase in policy uncertainty reduces the sensitivity of investment to the cost of capital most for firms operating in industries that depend strongly on government subsidies and government consumption as well as in countries with high state ownership. Consistent with the price informativeness channel, we find that an increase in policy uncertainty reduces the investment-cost of capital sensitivity for firms from more opaque countries, firms with low analyst coverage, firms with no credit rating, and small firms. We conclude that economic policy uncertainty distorts the fundamental relation between investment and the cost of capital.

We investigate the role of ownership structure and investor protection in postprivatization corporate governance. Using a sample of 209 privatized firms from 39 countries over the period 1980 to 2001, we find that the government relinquishes control over time to the benefit of local institutions, individuals, and foreign investors, and that private ownership tends to concentrate over time. Firm size, growth, and industry affiliation, privatization method, as well as the level of institutional development and investor protection, explain the cross-firm differences in ownership concentration. The positive effect of ownership concentration on firm performance matters more in countries with weak investor protection.

This paper investigates the effects of privatization for a panel of 189 firms from strategic industries headquartered in 39 countries, and privatized between 1984 and 2002. Strategic firms can hardly be compared to manufacturing or competitive industries as they are generally under state monopoly, and involve specific issues such as regulation, political and institutional constraints. We examine the change in ownership and postprivatization means of control by the government, and assess whether positive changes in performance obtain in these particular industries that include firms from the financial, mining, steel, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, and oil sectors. We document that governments continue to exert influence on former state-owned firms after three years by retaining golden shares and/or appointing politicians to key positions in the firm. Our multivariate results reveal a negative effect of state ownership on profitability and operating efficiency, which the presence of a sound institutional and political environment moderates.

We examine the importance of Big Four audits in reducing agency costs evident in corporate debt maturity worldwide. Analyzing a large sample of public firms from 42 countries reveals that the fraction of long‐term debt in firms' capital structures rises with the presence of a Big Four auditor, suggesting that higher‐quality audits substitute for short‐term debt for monitoring purposes. In additional analyses, we find that the role that auditor choice plays in debt maturity is concentrated in firms from countries with strong legal institutions governing property rights and creditor rights. Collectively, our research implies that Big Four audits matter to corporate debt maturity, although the impact is isolated in firms operating in countries with more protective legal regimes.

We rely on a unique dataset of 176 privatizations from 32 countries to extend recent research on the link between the political economy and accounting transparency by examining the importance of shareholders’ proportionate holdings to auditor choice. Consistent with our predictions on shareholders’ diverging interests in high-quality financial reporting that manifests in auditor choice, we report strong, robust evidence that privatized firms worldwide become less (more) likely to appoint a Big Four auditor with the extent of state (foreign) ownership. Moreover, we find that these relations between shareholders’ equity stakes and auditor choice strengthen when country-level governance institutions are weaker.

Motivated by recent research on the link between geographic proximity and information risk, we examine the impact of geographic location on a firm's ownership structure and cost of equity capital using a large sample of newly privatized firms from 47 countries. We find that the greater the firm's distance from domestic financial centers, the lower foreign investors' participation and ownership. We also find that strong country-level institutions governing investor protection mitigate the information disadvantage of foreign investors. In additional analyses, we find that investors require higher cost of equity capital for distant privatized firms, especially in countries with weak governance institutions. We conclude that geographic location is an important determinant of post-privatization ownership structure and cost of equity capital. Our results are robust to alternative explanations and suggest that improving country-level governance institutions can mitigate the adverse effect of location in remote areas.