Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (53) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (53)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (53)
Keywords
- Corporate Governance (53) (remove)
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.
A widely recognized paper by Colin Mayer (1988) has led to a profound revision of academic thinking about financing patterns of corporations in different countries. Using flow-of-funds data instead of balance sheet data, Mayer and others who followed his lead found that internal financing is the dominant mode of financing in all countries, that therefore financial patterns do not differ very much between countries and that those differences which still seem to exist are not at all consistent with the common conviction that financial systems can be classified as being either bank-based or capital market-based. This leads to a puzzle insofar as it calls into question the empirical foundation of the widely held belief that there is a correspondence between the financing patterns of corporations on the one side, and the structure of the financial sector and the prevailing corporate governance system in a given country on the other side. The present paper addresses this puzzle on a methodological and an empirical basis. It starts by demonstrating that the surprising empirical results found by Mayer et al. are due to a hidden assumption underlying their methodology. It then derives an alternative method of measuring financing patterns, which also uses flow-of-funds data, but avoids the questionable assumption. This measurement concept is then applied to patterns of corporate financing in Germany, Japan and the United States. The empirical results are very much in line with the commonly held belief prior to Mayer’s influential contribution and indicate that the financial systems of the three countries do indeed differ from one another in a substantial way.
A widely recognized paper by Colin Mayer (1988) has led to a profound revision of academic thinking about financing patterns of corporations in different countries. Using flow-of-funds data instead of balance sheet data, Mayer and others who followed his lead found that internal financing is the dominant mode of financing in all countries, that financing patterns do not differ very much between countries and that those differences which still seem to exist are not at all consistent with the common conviction that financial systems can be classified as being either bank-based or capital market-based. This leads to a puzzle insofar as it calls into question the empirical foundation of the widely held belief that there is a correspondence between the financing patterns of corporations on the one side, and the structure of the financial sector and the prevailing corporate governance system in a given country on the other side. The present paper addresses this puzzle on a methodological and an empirical basis. It starts by comparing and analyzing various ways of measuring financial structure and financing patterns and by demonstrating that the surprising empirical results found by studies that relied on net flows are due to a hidden assumption. It then derives an alternative method of measuring financing patterns, which also uses flow-of-funds data, but avoids the questionable assumption. This measurement concept is then applied to patterns of corporate financing in Germany, Japan and the United States. The empirical results, which use an estimation technique for determining gross flows of funds in those cases in which empirical data are not available, are very much in line with the commonly held belief prior to Mayer’s influential contribution and indicate that the financial systems of the three countries do indeed differ from one another in a substantial way, and moreover in a way which is largely in line with the general view of the differences between the financial systems of the countries covered in the present paper.
Die Frage nach den Zusammenhängen zwischen Normanerkennung und ökonomischem Verhalten lassen sich anhand der Wirkung von Corporate Governance Kodizes schlaglichtartig beleuchten. Der vorliegende Beitrag liefert erste theoretische Bausteine zum Zusammenwirken von Corporate Governance Kodizes und verbindlichen gesetzlichen Normen auf der Grundlage des Comply or Explain-Grundsatzes, indem er zunächst die Wirkungsweise des Kapitalmarktes, wie sie von der ökonomisch fundierten Gesellschaftsrechtstheorie vorausgesetzt wird, dem Mechanismus des Comply or Explain gegenüberstellt. Die empirischen Studien zur Wirksamkeit des Kapitalmarktes bei der Durchsetzung des Deutschen Corporate Governance Kodex im Wege des Comply or Explain lassen Raum für weitere Normanerkennungs- und –befolgungsmechanismen, die sich in Parallele zur Diskussion im Bereich der Corporate Social Responsibility und den sogenannten „business cases“ hierfür verdeutlichen lassen. Die dabei aufscheinenden Berührungspunkte ökonomischer Motivation mit sozialen Interessen geben Gelegenheit, auf Fairnessnormen als Grenzen des traditionellen Rationalmodells einzugehen. Ein ähnliches Nebeneinander und Ineinandergreifen von Eigennutzinteresse und intrinsischer Motivation lässt sich anhand der Anreizwirkung bei der Managervergütung veranschaulichen. Ihre gesetzliche Regelung im VorstAG lässt zum Teil eine empirische Absicherung vermissen. Damit schließt sich der Kreis der Analyse der Verbindlichkeitsstrukturen im Wirtschaftsrecht, nach der sich diese einem einheitlichen theoretischen Modell entziehen und deren empirische Grundlagen noch nicht zweifelsfrei geklärt sind.
Am 30. Juli 2002 hat der US-amerikanische Präsident George Bush den Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 unterzeichnet. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Artikelgesetz, das vor allem Änderungen im Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ( Exchange Act ) vorsieht. Das Gesetz bezweckt nach der dem Gesetzestext vorangestellten Begründung den Schutz von Anlegern durch genauere und verlässlichere wertpapierrechtliche Publizitätspflichten. Der Gesetzgeber möchte sicherstellen, dass Unternehmen richtige und verlässliche Angaben machen, wenn sie periodisch bei der USamerikanischen Wertpapieraufsichtsbehörde SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) einzureichende Berichte oder Ad-hoc Mitteilungen veröffentlichen.
We investigate the decisions of listed firms to go private once again. We start by revealing that while a significant number of firms which go public is VC-backed, an overproportional share of these VC-backed firms go private later on (they stay on the exchange for an average of 8.5 years). We interpret this very robust pattern such that IPOs of VC-backed firms are to a large extent a temporary rather than a permanent feature of the corporate governance of these firms. We investigate various potential hypotheses why VCs actually seem to be able to bring marginal firms to the exchange by relating the going-private decisions to various characteristics of the IPO market as well as to VC characteristics. We find strong support for the certification ability of VCs: more experienced and reputable VCs are more able to bring marginal firms to public exchanges via an IPOs. These marginal firms backed-by more reputable and experienced VCs are more likely to go private later on. Hence, our analysis suggests that IPOs backed by experienced VCs are most likely to be a temporary rather than the final stage in the life of the portfolio firm. We find no support that reputable VCs underprice their IPO-exits more implying that they have no need to leave more money on the table to take the marginal firms public.
Our study provides evidence on the share price reactions to the announcement of equity issues in Germany, where capital market is characterized by institutional features distinct from the U.S. market. German seasoned equity issues yield a positive market reaction which contrasts to the significant negative abnormal returns reported for the U.S. We provide evidence that these results are due to differences in both issuing characteristics and floatation methods, and in the corporate governance and ownership structures of the two countries. Our study explains much of the empirical puzzle of different market reactions to seemingly similar events across financial markets.
Some of the most widely expressed myths about the German financial system are concerned with the close ties and intensive interaction between banks and firms, often described as Hausbank relationships. Links between banks and firms include direct shareholdings, board representation, and proxy voting and are particularly significant for corporate governance. Allegedly, these relationships promote investment and improve the performance of firms. Furthermore, German universal banks are believed to play a special role as large and informed monitoring investors (shareholders). However, for the very same reasons, German universal banks are frequently accused of abusing their influence on firms by exploiting rents and sustaining the entrenchment of firms against efficient transfers of firm control. In this paper, we review recent empirical evidence regarding the special role of banks for the corporate governance of German firms. We differentiate between large exchangelisted firms and small and medium sized companies throughout. With respect to the role of banks as monitoring investors, the evidence does not unanimously support a special role of banks for large firms. Only one study finds that banks´ control of management goes beyond what nonbank shareholders achieve. Proxyvoting rights apparently do not provide a significant means for banks to exert management control. Most of the recent evidence regarding small firms suggests that a Hausbank relationship can indeed be beneficial. Hausbanks are more willing to sustain financing when borrower quality deteriorates, and they invest more often than arm´s length banks in workouts if borrowers face financial distress.
Recent empirical work shows that a better legal environment leads to lower expected rates of return in an international cross-section of countries. This paper investigates whether differences in firm-specific corporate governance also help to explain expected returns in a cross-section of firms within a single jurisdiction. Constructing a corporate governance rating (CGR) for German firms, we document a positive relationship between the CGR and firm value. In addition, there is strong evidence that expected returns are negatively correlated with the CGR, if dividend yields and price-earnings ratios are used as proxies for the cost of capital. Most results are robust for endogeneity, with causation running from corporate governance practices to firm fundamentals. Finally, an investment strategy that bought high-CGR firms and shorted low-CGR firms would have earned abnormal returns of around 12 percent on an annual basis during the sample period. We rationalize the empirical evidence with lower agency costs and/or the removal of certain governance malfunctions for the high-CGR firms.