Recent researches suggest that private benefits of control of managers are a key predictor of acquisition performance and that there exists a negative correlation between measures of private benefits and acquirer announcement returns. However, empirical evidence has not confirmed such a negative relationship. The study in this paper shows that this relationship between private benefits of control of managers and acquisition performance may depend on the level of government shareholding. The study is based on an analysis of a sample of 246 M&A events from the listed companies of Chinese state-controlled enterprises, during the period 2001-2006 and it reveals that, under a low level of government shareholding, private benefits of control are positively correlated with the performance of acquiring firm; but private benefits of control are negatively correlated with the performance of acquiring firm under high government shareholding. Results also indicate that the private benefits of control of managers are important determinants of the acquiring firm performance. These findings sharpen the current understanding of the relationship between private benefits of control of managers and acquiring firm performance.

We document the market response to an unexpected announcement of proposed sales of government-owned shares in China. In contrast to the “privatization premium” found in earlier work, we find a negative effect of government ownership on returns at the announcement date and a symmetric positive effect in response to the announced cancellation of the government sell-off. We argue that this results from the absence of a Chinese political transition to accompany economic reforms, so that the positive effects on profits of political ties through government ownership outweigh the potential efficiency costs of government shareholdings. Companies with former government officials in management have positive abnormal returns, suggesting that personal ties can substitute for the benefits of government ownership. In both cases, we may rule out explanations based on a supply effect of the share sales. We further find that the “privatization discount” is higher for firms located in Special Economic Zones, where local government discretionary authority is highest, And that companies with relatively high welfare payments to employees, which presumably would fall with privatization, benefit disproportionately from the privatization announcement.

In this paper, we investigate the agency costs of government ownership and their impact on corporate governance and firm value. China is used as a laboratory because of the prevalent state shareholdings in exchange-listed firms. In this context, we specifically consider the trade-offs involved in the voluntary formation of an audit committee when the controlling shareholder is the state. The decision to improve corporate governance (in this case, introduce an audit committee) is shown to be value relevant and a function of existing agency relationships and non-trivial implementation costs. Our findings are robust to the level of pyramid groups, the ownership-control wedge, and financial leverage. The research adds to the debate regarding the effect of government shareholdings on corporate culture and performance - a topic that has taken on renewed importance in recent times.