《The internationalization of Chinese companies firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The internationalization of Chinese companies firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance.doc（31页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、The internationalization of Chinese companies: firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governanceGerhard Klinga and Utz Weitzelb a University of Southampton, b Radboud University NijmegenTHIS IS NOT THE FINAL (POST-REVIEW) VERSIONYOU FIND THE FINAL VERSION HERE:Kling, G. and U. Weitzel
2、(2012) The internationalization of Chinese companies: firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance, Research in International Business and Finance, forthcomingA prominent issue in the internationalization of Chinese firms is that many are state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and that co
3、rporate governance in China is highly idiosyncratic. This paper identifies firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance mechanisms that foster internationalization. We find that Chinese cross-border mergers create shareholder value, but not more than domestic expansions. Corporate
4、 governance mechanisms matter, jointly and individually. While state-ownership predicts fewer cross-border mergers, a favourable board structure and corporate transparency explains higher M&A returns. As in more mature markets, firm- and industry-specific determinants also affect M&As in China.1. In
5、troductionIn 2005, Graham and Pettis asked the question: “whos afraid of CNNOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation)?” and started a media frenzy. The general perception has been that Chinese firms acquire foreign companies and assets at an alarming rate. The main issue of the internationalizati
6、on of Chinese firms is that most are state-owned enterprises (SOEs); hence, internal and external corporate governance mechanisms are very different. In contrast to research in political economy and corporate governance, the literature in international business and finance often approaches the inter
7、nationalization of Chinese firms more generically without accounting for the peculiarities of the Chinese governance system (Child and Rodrigues, 2005). An exception is the study by Cui and Jiang (2009) that contends that SOEs face barriers to enter foreign markets due to local political opposition.
8、Our study goes beyond the distinction of SOEs and private entities and incorporates a broad range of corporate governance measures. It focuses on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of Chinese companies and hence a particular mode of entry. Apart from studying cross-border M&A, it also includes domestic
9、transactions to analyse differences in underlying drivers and success. Only a few studies focus on outward FDI and they use aggregated data (Liu et al., 2005). In contrast, our study compiles firm-level data on cross-border M&A. In particular, the study tests the impact of three theoretical perspect
10、ives on the internationalization through M&A and its success. The first perspective underlines the importance of external and internal governance mechanisms and is based on the corporate governance and political economy literature. Second, by drawing on the Resource-based View, we incorporate firm s
11、pecific proxies that contribute to better access to resources and capabilities, including the firms past acquisition experience and financing capabilities. Third, industry specific effects can influence the degree and success of internationalization. Our contribution is threefold. First, this paper
12、extends the FDI literature by analyzing the determinants of cross-border M&A initiated by Chinese acquirers. Joint hypothesis tests confirm that not only governance mechanisms, but also firm- and industry-specific factors affect the decision to acquire foreign assets. Second, this paper adds to the
13、international diversification literature by analyzing the determinants and performance of Chinese cross-border acquirers. In particular, it supports recent evidence on the internationalization of emerging market multinationals (Aybar and Ficici, 2009) by showing that Chinese cross-border M&As do not
14、 create more shareholder value than domestic transactions. For domestic M&A, these results also add to the limited but growing literature on Chinese M&A performance. Third, with regard to the corporate governance literature, in particular for emerging markets multinationals, the paper identifies gov
15、ernance mechanisms with explanatory power: the decision to acquire foreign assets is negatively affected by state ownership and positively by the separation of the positions of CEO and chairman of the board. The latter governance mechanism also influences the success of M&A. In addition, corporate t
16、ransparency measured by disclosure of executives compensation and issuing shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (H-shares) enhances M&A performance.The paper is structured as follows. The second section develops the conceptual framework, followed by the development of hypotheses in Section 3. The f
17、ourth section discusses the dataset and construction of variables. Section 5 reports and discusses the empirical results, and Section 6 concludes.2. The conceptual frameworkCui and Jiang (2009) conduct a survey of 138 Chinese firms and determine whether firms choose joint ventures or wholly owned su
18、bsidiaries to enter foreign markets. While they survey firms that internationalized, we focus on the first step, whether firms internationalize and how successful they are in doing this. Our study refers to M&A and thus ignores greenfield investments, which is due to two reasons. First, before the s
19、tart of our sample period (in 1999), 83% of all FDI was conducted through M&A (UNCTAD, 2000, p.14). Hence, the decision to internationalize overlaps with the decision to acquire foreign targets. Second, there is no reliable data source that identifies greenfield investments. As pointed out by Cui an
20、d Jiang (2009), even aggregated data on FDI in China is not reliable. The Report of Industrial Enterprise Statistics published by the National Bureau of Statistics of China is the best data source for Chinese companies, as it covers all firms with revenues exceeding 5 million Renminbi. However, the
21、report does not include information on outward FDI. The Ministry of Commerce provides some data on FDI but the data quality and coverage is not comprehensive. One solution, used by Cui and Jiang (2009), is to conduct a survey. However, next to a limited number of observations and a possible self-rep
22、orting bias, most surveys do not allow for time-varying patterns except if the firms are approached several times (dynamic surveys). Most studies on Chinese M&A focus on domestic transactions. Overall, the results are ambiguous. For the year 1997, Sun and Wang (1999) find that the performance of reo
23、rganized companies significantly improved, but they do not find more general support for this relationship. For the same year, Chen and Zhang (1999) argue that the cumulative abnormal returns of reorganized firms increased, albeit not statistically significant. For the period from 1994 to 1998, Feng
24、 and Wu (2001) contend that reorganized companies exhibited operative performance improvements, although the performance declined since 1998. For a similar period from 1993 to 2002, Zhang (2003) show that stock returns of acquiring firms decreased. From 1999 to 2000, however, Li and Chen (2002) repo
25、rt positive abnormal returns for acquiring firms. One reason for these ambiguous results could be that many studies do not account for different forms of equity transfers. Gao & Kling (2008) distinguished between transactions among SOEs, nationalisations, privatisations and transactions between inde
26、pendent companies. Yet their event study is only based on 134 transactions. We suggest that Chinese mergers are more context-specific, involving a rich spectrum of firm-, deal- and industry determinants, as well as internal and external governance mechanisms. This particularly applies to cross-borde
27、r M&A decisions, which most of the prior studies neglect. An exception is Cui and Jiang (2009), who select a strategic behaviour approach to model the mode of entry of Chinese firms. Our focus, however, is on drivers of M&A internationalisation and cross-border merger success.3. Development of hypot
28、hesesRecent research on the success of diversification through internationalization paints a rather bleak picture for shareholders. Gao et al. (2008) find that internationally and geographically dispersed US firms experience a significant valuation discount. This effect is especially pronounced for
29、diversifications via M&A. This stands in contrast to Gande et al. (2009), who contend that valuation levels of US firms increases with global diversification. As a possible explanation for the contrasting results, Doukas and Kan (2006) argue that the global diversification discount may only apply to
30、 shareholders, whereas bondholders benefit from risk-reduction. Particularly for multinationals from emerging markets, Aybar and Ficici (2009) show that cross-border M&As do not create value and that more than half of the transactions even point to value destruction. Thus, for shareholders of Chines
31、e cross-border acquirers we expect the following:Hypothesis 1. In comparison with domestic M&As, shareholders of Chinese acquirers do not benefit from cross-border M&As.Firm specific drivers of internationalization can be based on the Resource-based View, which propounds that firms can attain compet
32、itive advantage if they possess resources not held by others (Wernerfelt, 1984). Amit and Schoemaker (1993) regard resources as the first step in the value chain and the driver of capabilities, competencies and competitive advantage. In contrast to resources, capabilities are firm-specific (Barney e
33、t al., 2001). In addition, firms with competitive advantage possess the ability to extract more value from M&A, for synergies can be realised easier, and better access to resources (i.e. finance) provides additional synergies. Accordingly, firm-specific variables that improve access to resources and
34、 capabilities translate into competitive advantage, which in turn stimulates internationalization.Hypothesis 2. Chinese firms with good access to resources and capabilities possess competitive advantage that enhances the likelihood of internationalization through cross-border M&A.Hypothesis 3. Share
35、holders of Chinese acquirers with better access to resources and capabilities benefit more from M&A, as the value creation potential is higher due to the acquirers superior ownership.In the merger literature there is ample evidence that corporate and public governance mechanisms affect cross-border
36、merger activity and success (Rossi and Volpin, 2004; Weitzel and Berns, 2006). For Chinese FDI, Luo et al. (2010) use a political economy view to assess the impact of policy changes on outward FDI. It is also important to account for regional disparities in terms of external governance, for the qual
37、ity of institutions differs substantially within China (Fan & Wang, 2004). In China, corporate governance is a key issue for shareholders, as fraud and tunnelling are widespread (Gao and Kling, 2008a). Zhang (2007) argue that relying on the market mechanism is not sufficient to enhance corporate gov
38、ernance in China. Instead, legal sanctions and enforcement need to be strengthened. State ownership and control is a key issue in Chinese corporate governance. Even after years of privatization, SOEs still play a major role in China. Apart from state influence through share ownership, the State-owne
39、d Asset Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) exercises considerable administrative control. SASAC founded in May 2003 supervises the 196 largest SOEs. For instance, SASAC can appoint top executives and plays a vital role in M&As between SOEs. Quiang (2003) contend that the state directl
40、y or indirectly appoints 69% of all directors and CEOs based on figures for 2001. Accordingly, we state the following hypotheses.Hypothesis 4. Chinese acquirers with better internal and external corporate governance conduct more cross-border M&A, because they have easier access to foreign markets, a
41、nd investors have more trust in their quality of governance.Hypothesis 5. Chinese acquirers with better internal and external corporate governance exhibit better value creation potential from M&A, because their superior governance helps to realise synergies.Apart from firm specific resources and cap
42、abilities, the industry structure has a profound impact on internationalization (Yip, 1992). In addition, corporate governance in China is partially industry-specific (i.e. protected industries). Accordingly, we derive the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 6. Industry-specific effects determine the p
43、ropensity to conduct cross-border M&A.Hypothesis 7. The success of cross-border and domestic M&A depends on industry-specific effects.4. Data and definition of variablesThe M&A data refers to the Thomson Reuters Financial M&A database (SDC database). We refine the dataset to include only: (1) acquis
44、itions announced between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008; (2) Chinese acquirers that are publicly listed on one (or more) Chinese stock exchanges in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Shenzhen; (3) acquisitions that do not involve a recapitalization, repurchase of own shares, or a spin-off to existing sh
45、areholders; (4) where the transaction value of the deal is recorded in the database. This creates a dataset of 4374 domestic and cross-border transactions by Chinese acquirers. We include corporate governance measures from the China Stock Market Research Series (CSMAR) and financial variables from t
46、he CSMAR and the SDC database. This subset contains 2237 observations.In order to test Hypotheses 1-7, we employ two dependent variables. For Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6, we distinguish between domestic and cross-border M&As by constructing a dummy variable (cross) that indicates the acquisition of a
47、non-Chinese target. To test Hypotheses 1, 3, 5, and 7, we need a measure of M&A success. Some studies on M&As in China, particularly in conjunction with the restructuring of SOEs, use operational measures of performance derived from balance sheets (Sun and Wang, 1999). As there are many irregulariti
48、es in the accounting of reorganized firms, balance sheet figures do not reflect firm performance reliably (Chen & Yuan, 1998). An alternative approach is the stock return event study, which has been and still is the predominant method (MacKinlay, 1997; Zollo and Meier, 2008). Significant changes in
49、share prices at the announcement of M&As are likely to reflect changes of future firm value. Following Fuller et al. (2002) and Dong et al. (2006), we estimate a modified market adjusted model and compute cumulated abnormal returns (CARs) for the three day period around the announcement date (-1,+1).(1)Here, CAR_1i is acquirer is cumulated abnormal return, winsorized between 5% and 95%, ri is the stock return on acquirer i and rm is the market return of all other Chinese firms at the same stock exch
