Working paper series / Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften : Finance & Accounting
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Corporate Governance (23) (remove)
Institute
162
Stakeholderorientierung, Systemhaftigkeit und Stabilität der Corporate Governance in Deutschland
(2006)
Since the time of Germany’s belated industrialisation, corporate governance in Germany has been stakeholder oriented in the dual sense of attaching importance to the interests of stakeholders who are not at the same time shareholders, and of providing certain opportunities for these stakeholders to influence corporate decisions. Corporate governance is also systemic. It is a system of elements that are complementary to each other, and also consistent. In other word, it is composed of elements for which it is important that they fit together well, and in the German case these elements did fit together well until quite recently. Corporate governance as a system is itself an element of the German bank-based financial system at large and possibly even of the entire German business and economic system. Stakeholder orientation of governance is consistent with the general structure this system, and even represents one of its central elements. In retrospect, German corporate governance has also proved to be surprisingly stable. Its fundamental traits date back to the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. There are strong reasons to assume that the systemic features, that is, its complementarity and consistency, have greatly contributed to its past stability. Since about ten years now, there are growing tendencies to question the viability and stability of the German corporate governance system and even the financial system as a whole. One of the central topics in the new debate concerns the stakeholder orientation of the system, which some observers and critics consider as the main weakness of the “German model” under the increasing pressures of globalisation and European integration. As far as their development over time is concerned, systems of complementarity elements exhibit certain peculiarities: (1) They do not adjust easily to changing circumstances. (2) Changes concerning important individual elements, such as the stakeholder orientation of governance, tend to jeopardize the viability and the stability of the entire system. (3) While they appear to be stable, systems shaped by complementary may simply be rigid and tend to break under strong external pressure. “Breaking” means that a system undergoes a fundamental transformation. It seems plausible to assume that the German financial system is already in the middle of such a transformation. It is yet another consequence of its systemic character that this transformation is not likely to be a smooth and gradual process and that it will not lead to a “mixed model” but rather to the adoption of a capital market-based financial system as it prevails in the Anglo-Saxon countries. In such a system, corporate governance cannot be geared to catering to the interests of stakeholders, and an active role for them would not even make any economic sense.
118
A financial system can only perform its function of channelling funds from savers to investors if it offers sufficient assurance to the providers of the funds that they will reap the rewards which have been promised to them. To the extent that this assurance is not provided by contracts alone, potential financiers will want to monitor and influence managerial decisions. This is why corporate governance is an essential part of any financial system. It is almost obvious that providers of equity have a genuine interest in the functioning of corporate governance. However, corporate governance encompasses more than investor protection. Similar considerations also apply to other stakeholders who invest their resources in a firm and whose expectations of later receiving an appropriate return on their investment also depend on decisions at the level of the individual firm which would be extremely difficult to anticipate and prescribe in a set of complete contingent contracts. Lenders, especially long-term lenders, are one such group of stakeholders who may also want to play a role in corporate governance; employees, especially those with high skill levels and firm-specific knowledge, are another. The German corporate governance system is different from that of the Anglo-Saxon countries because it foresees the possibility, and even the necessity, to integrate lenders and employees in the governance of large corporations. The German corporate governance system is generally regarded as the standard example of an insider-controlled and stakeholder-oriented system. Moreover, only a few years ago it was a consistent system in the sense of being composed of complementary elements which fit together well. The first objective of this paper is to show why and in which respect these characterisations were once appropriate. However, the past decade has seen a wave of developments in the German corporate governance system, which make it worthwhile and indeed necessary to investigate whether German corporate governance has recently changed in a fundamental way. More specifically one can ask which elements and features of German corporate governance have in fact changed, why they have changed and whether those changes which did occur constitute a structural change which would have converted the old insider-controlled system into an outsider-controlled and shareholder-oriented system and/or would have deprived it of its former consistency. It is the second purpose of this paper to answer these questions.
3
Paper Presented at the Conference on Workable Corporate Governance: Cross-Border Perspectives held in Paris, March 17-19, 1997 To appear in: A. Pezard/J.-M. Thiveaud: Workable Corporate Governance: Cross-Border Perspectives, Montchrestien, Paris 1997. The paper discusses the role of various constituencies in the corporate governance of a corporation from the perspective of incomplete contracts. A strict shareholder value orientation in the sense of a rule that at any time firm decisions should be made strictly in the interest of the present shareholders would make it difficult for the firm to establish long-term relationships as the potential partners would have to fear that, at a later stage of the co-operation, the shareholders or a management acting only on their behalf could exploit them because of the inevitable incompleteness of long-term contracts. One way of mitigating these problems is to put in place a corporate governance system which gives some active role to the other stakeholders or constituencies, or which makes their interests a well-defined element of the objective function of the firm. A commitment not to follow a policy of strict shareholder value maximization ex post can be efficient ex ante. Such a system would clearly differ from what is advocated by proponents of a "stakeholder approach", as it would limit the rights of the other constituencies to those which would have been agreed upon in a constitutional contract concluded between them and the founder of the firm at the time when long-term contracts are first established.
100
Untersuchungsgegenstand ist der empirische Gehalt der ökonomischen Theorie eines Hedgings auf Unternehmensebene. In den USA wurde die Hedging-Theorie in einer Reihe von empirischen Studien aufgegriffen. Die Befunde sind zumeist konsistent mit dem Erklärungsansatz von Froot/Scharfstein/Stein (1993), wonach eine Verringerung der Cashflow-Volatilität – unter der Annahme steigender Außenfinanzierungskosten – zu einer Reduzierung von Unterinvestitionskosten führt. Bei deutschen Unternehmen besitzt dieser Ansatz bemerkenswerterweise jedoch nur einen geringen Erklärungsgehalt. Die Ergebnisunterschiede können auf unterschiedliche Kapitalmarktverhältnisse zurückgeführt werden: Die unterstellten steigenden Kosten der Außenfinanzierung besitzen für deutsche Unternehmen aufgrund der Dominanz des Bezugsrechtsverfahrens sowie der Rolle der Hausbank als Mechanismus zur Überwindung von Informationsproblemen eine vergleichsweise geringere Bedeutung. Die Managerinteressen erweisen sich bei deutschen Unternehmen als eine wesentliche Hedging-Determinante. Zwischen der Höhe des gebundenen Managervermögens und der Hedging-Wahrscheinlichkeit besteht entsprechend der Hedging-Theorie ein signifikanter positiver Zusammenhang. Entgegen den amerikanischen Befunden kann jedoch eine disziplinierende Wirkung von Großaktionären auf die Hedging-Entscheidung nicht beobachtet werden. Zur Berücksichtigung der spezifischen deutschen Kapitalmarktverhältnisse wird der Einfluss von Bankenbeteiligungen und Familienunternehmen auf die Hedging-Entscheidung untersucht. Ein Bankeneinfluss auf die Derivateeinsatz-Entscheidung kann jedoch nicht festgestellt werden. Entgegen Diversifikations- und Kapitalmarktüberlegungen besteht bei Familienunternehmen interessanterweise eine signifikant geringere Hedging-Wahrscheinlichkeit.
143
Seit der Einführung des Deutschen Corporate Governance Kodex (Kodex) im Jahr 2002 sind deutsche börsennotierte Unternehmen zur Abgabe der Entsprechenserklärung gemäß § 161 AktG verpflichtet (Comply-or-Explain-Prinzip). Auf der Basis dieser Information soll durch den Druck des Kapitalmarkts die Einhaltung des Kodex überwacht und gegebenenfalls sanktioniert werden. Dabei wird regelmäßig postuliert, dass bei überdurchschnittlicher Befolgung bzw. Nichtbefolgung der Kodex-Empfehlungen eine Belohnung durch Kurszuschläge bzw. eine Sanktionierung durch Kursabschläge erfolgt. Die Ergebnisse einer Ereignisstudie zeigen, dass die Abgabe der Entsprechenserklärung keine erhebliche Kursbeeinflussung auslöst und die für das Enforcement des Kodex angenommene (und erforderliche) Selbstregulierung durch den Kapitalmarkt nicht stattfindet. Es wird daher kritisch hinterfragt, ob der für den Kodex gewählte und grundsätzlich zu begrüßende flexible Regulierungsansatz im System des zwingenden deutschen Gesellschaftsrechts einen geeigneten Enforcement-Mechanismus darstellt. This paper studies the short-run announcement effects of compliance with the German Corporate Governance Code (‘the Code’) on firm value. Event study results suggest that firm value is unaffected by the announcement, although such market reactions to the first time disclosure of the declaration of conformity were widely assumed by the private and public promoters of the Code. This result from acceptance of the German Code add evidence to the hypothesis that regulatory corporate governance initiatives that rely on mandatory disclosure without monitoring and enforcement are ineffective in civil law countries.
40
This paper studies the incentives of German firms to voluntarily disclose cash flow statements over time. While cash flow statement are mandated under many GAAP regimes, its disclosure has not been mandatory in Germany until recently. Nevertheless, an increasing number of firms provides cash flow statements voluntarily. These firms are likely to be influenced by recommendations of the German accounting profession, IAS 7 as well as the respective standards of other countries. The idea of the paper is to study this influence by looking at the adoption pattern over time and the format of the cash flow statement. It documents the development of voluntary cash flow statement disclosures by German firms with respect to ”milestones” in the evolution of German professional recommendations and respective international standards. The cross-sectional determinants of voluntary and international cash flow statements are analyzed using probit regressions and factor analysis. The results are generally consistent with the idea that capital-market forces drive voluntary cash flow statements that are in line with international reporting practice.
154
It is widely believed that the ideal board in corporations is composed almost entirely of independent (outside) directors. In contrast, this paper shows that some lack of board independence can be in the interest of shareholders. This follows because a lack of board independence serves as a substitute for commitment. Boards that are dependent on the incumbent CEO adopt a less aggressive CEO replacement rule than independent boards. While this behavior is inefficient ex post, it has positive ex ante incentive effects. The model suggests that independent boards (dependent boards) are most valuable to shareholders if the problem of providing appropriate incentives to the CEO is weak (severe).
80
Vor dem Hintergrund allgemeiner Bedingungen der Anreizkompatibilität wird für verschiedenen Kapitalmarktmodelle untersucht, ob zwischen den Anteilseignern eines Unternehmens Einmütigkeit besteht und, wenn ja, mit welchem Unternehmensziel der finanzielle Nutzen der Anteilseigner maximiert wird. Von besonderer Bedeutung für die Anreizkompatibilität der üblichen linearen Erfolgsteilung ist die Bedingung pareto-effizienter Risikoteilung. Sind für den Erfolg des Unternehmens spezifische Störterme relevant und soll der Entscheidungsträger in relativ starkem Umfang am Erfolg beteiligt werden, ist die Risikoteilung zwischen ihm und den (anderen) Anteilseignern pareto-inferior. Anreizkompatible erfolgsorientierte Belohnungs- bzw. Prämienfunktionen für den Entscheidungsträger sind dann konvex und zustandsabhängig. Aktienoptionsprogramme können als Approximationen an solche Prämienfunktionen interpretiert werden.
15
Seit zwanzig Jahren befaßt sich die Finanzmarktforschung einerseits mit Fragen der Bewertung und des Managements von Finanztiteln auf effizienten Kapitalmärkten und mit Fragen der Managementkontrolle auf unvollkommenen Märkten. Der folgende selektive Überblick konzentriert sich auf zentrale Aspekte der Theorie und Empirie der Managementkontrolle bei asymmetrischer Information. Ziel ist die Auseinandersetzung mit der unlängst vorgetragenen These zu den Mythen der Unternehmenskontrolle (Martin Hellwig 1997). Der aktuelle Überblick wird entwickelt vor dem Hintergrund der Gutenberg’schen Position eines eigenständigen Unternehmensinteresses, losgelöst von den Interessen der shareholder oder anderer stakeholder. Diese Position von Gutenberg verbindet sich im dritten Band der „Grundlagen der BWL: Die Finanzen“ von 1969 mit der Forderung nach Einhaltung eines sog. finanziellen Gleichgewichts. Erst in jüngster Zeit werden auch kapitalmarkttheoretisch fundierte Modelle entwickelt, die auch Raum bieten für eine Autonomie des Managements gegenüber dessen stakeholders.
146
The German corporate governance system has long been cited as the standard example of an insider-controlled and stakeholder-oriented system. We argue that despite important reforms and substantial changes of individual elements of the German corporate governance system the main characteristics of the traditional German system as a whole are still in place. However, in our opinion the changing role of the big universal banks in the governance undermines the stability of the corporate governance system in Germany. Therefore a breakdown of the traditional system leading to a control vacuum or a fundamental change to a capital market-based system could be in the offing.