Using Chinese publicly listed firms from 2007 to 2020, this study empirically explores the impact of non-controlling shareholders’ network on the corporate excess goodwill. We find that the centrality of non-controlling shareholders’ network significantly decreases the excess goodwill from mergers and acquisitions, indicating that non-controlling shareholders’ network can restrain the goodwill bubbles. Moreover, the inhibitory effect of non-controlling shareholders’ network on excess goodwill stems from pressure-resistant institutional investors and individual investors. This effect is achieved through the information effect, resource effect, and governance effect. Furthermore, this inhibitory effect is more pronounced in firms located in less developed regions and legal environments, and firms with lower audit quality. In conclusion, non-controlling shareholders’ network plays a positive role in the restriction of excess goodwill in listed companies.

This study investigates the impact of non-controlling shareholders' network on corporate excess goodwill using Chinese publicly listed companies from 2007 to 2020. We find that a stronger centrality of non-controlling shareholders' network leads to a significant decrease in excess goodwill resulting from mergers and acquisitions. This implies that the non-controlling shareholders’ network has a significant inhibitory effect on the occurrence of goodwill bubbles. Mechanism analysis finds that non-controlling shareholders' network can inhibit excess goodwill thorough information effect, resource effect, and governance effect. Furthermore, this inhibitory effect is attributed to pressure-resistant institutional investors and individual investors, and is more pronounced in firms located in less developed intermediary market and legal system environment, as well as firms with lower audit quality. In summary, the non-controlling shareholders' network plays a positive role in curbing excess goodwill in listed companies.

Capital misallocation is a crucial factor that hinders the high-quality development of the capital market. Taking mergers and acquisitions (M&A) cases of Chinese listed companies from 2007 to 2019 as samples, this study finds that there is a mismatch between the target firm’s profit quality and the M&A premium. Moreover, based on the dual perspective of acquirer and target motivations, this study demonstrates that the target firm’s insufficient motivation to improve its information quality is the primary cause of a capital mismatch. Factors that can enhance the motivation of the target, such as improving financial services and facilitating labour flow, are the cure for capital misallocation. It is a crucial study to understand China’s capital misallocation and of great theoretical and practical significance to understand the combination of efficient markets and effective governments in emerging markets.

Distinct from existing studies on general institutional investors and institutional investor cliques, this study examines how common institutional owners, who simultaneously hold more than 5% equity blocks in at least two publicly traded firms within the same industry, influence firms’ bad mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in China. Contrary to the “conspiracy tort” view, according to which common institutional owners are more likely to vote for bad M&A deals to pursue internalized gains from industry portfolios (Antón et al., 2022b), our results strongly support the “synergy governance” view, according to which common institutional owners perform more actively and effectively in monitoring against bad M&As and improving M&A quality. There is further evidence that common institutional owners with greater peer linkages and industry power and longer-term holdings are more likely to oppose deals with negative acquirer returns. Finally, we find that the effect of common institutional ownership on M&As is more pronounced among firms with stronger earnings management, moderate stock return synchronicity, less management shareholding and higher management expenses. The results are consistent with the “synergy governance” hypothesis whereby common institutional owners are able to leverage their advantages of industry information and supervisory experience to improve the information environment and corporate governance of the firms they hold. Overall, in China’s market, common institutional owners play an active external governance role and effectively improve M&A quality.

This study examines the effects of acquirer characteristics, information asymmetry on method of payment of Chinese acquirers based on a sample of 1370 mergers and acquisitions that occur between 1998 -2008. Using both Buy and Hold Abnormal Returns (BHAR) and Calendar Time Abnormal Returns (CTAR) approaches, we find that Chinese acquirers experience pre-acquisition abnormal returns ranging from 14.29%-121% over the period 12-36 months prior to the acquisition relative to 3 different portfolio benchmarks. In the pre-bid period, acquisitions financed by shares outperform acquisitions financed by cash. However, in the post-acquisition period, we document no significant difference between cash- and equity-financed acquisitions. We document a number of factors that determine the method of payment by Chinese acquirers: acquirer market value, Tobin’s Q, state ownership and leverage have significant effects on the method of payment.

This study examines how corporate governance influences short-term and long-term bidder returns from China’s domestic mergers and acquisitions during 2001-2010. We examine a range of corporate governance measures covering ownership structure, board structure, insider ownership and managerial incentives while controlling for bidder and deal characteristics. Our initial results from events analyses show that market responses differ in ways which suggest a difference in how the market’s assessment of share price from the perspectives of short run and long run. Bidders obtain significant positive abnormal returns over the five-day event period but suffer significant wealth losses for two years following the deal completion. Our further analyses on factors driving the price difference show that executive ownership (positive) and state ownership (negative) exert opposite effects on the announcement period returns. The returns further differ by way of payments with positive (negative) effects from stock (cash) financing. Our long-term regression analyses show that the positive impact of executive ownership remains. Independent directors record a negative effect on abnormal returns. Nevertheless, board independence measured by the composite corporate governance index exerts a significant, positive effect on shareholder wealth. Our study highlights the need for the state to accelerate the share structure reform and formulate policies that encourage executive ownership and sound corporate governance.

We empirically evaluate 20 prominent contributions to a broad range of areas in the empirical corporate finance literature. We assemble the necessary data and then apply a single, simple econometric method, the connected-groups approach of Abowd, Karmarz, and Margolis (1999), to appraise the extent to which prevailing empirical specifications explain variation of the dependent variable, differ in composition of fit arising from various classes of independent variables, and exhibit resistance to omitted variable bias and other endogeneity problems. In particular, we identify and estimate the role of observed and unobserved firm- and manager-specific characteristics in determining primary features of corporate governance, financial policy, payout policy, investment policy, and performance. Observed firm characteristics do best in explaining market leverage and CEO pay level and worst for takeover defenses and outcomes. Observed manager characteristics have relatively high power to explain CEO contract design and low power for firm focus and investment policy. Estimated specifications without firm and manager fixed effects do poorly in explaining variation in CEO duality, corporate control variables, and capital expenditures, and best in explaining executive pay level, board size, market leverage, corporate cash holdings, and firm risk. Including manager and firm fixed effects, along with firm and manager observables, delivers the best fit for dividend payout, the propensity to adopt antitakeover defenses, firm risk, board size, and firm focus. In terms of source, unobserved manager attributes deliver a high proportion of explained variation in the dependent variable for executive wealth-performance sensitivity, board independence, board size, and sensitivity of expected executive compensation to firm risk. In contrast, unobserved firm attributes provide a high proportion of variation explained for dividend payout, antitakeover defenses, book and market leverage, and corporate cash holdings. In part, these results suggest where empiricists could look for better proxies for what current theory identifies as important and where theorists could focus in building new models that encompass economic forces not contained in existing models. Finally, we assess the relevance of omitted variables and endogeneity for conventional empirical designs in the various subfields. Including manager and firm fixed effects significantly alters inference on primary explanatory variables in 17 of the 20 representative subfield specifications.

We examine effects of capital structure management and misvaluation on the payment method in mergers and acquisitions. In a sample of 3,097 transactions, we find evidence both for leverage optimization and misvaluation as drivers for the decision to pay with cash or stock. Our evidence also shows that it is difficult to pay with overvalued stock unless justified by economic fundamentals. Few bidders try and often only succeed after going hostile. Paying with cash while capital structure optimization suggests stock payment is more common. These firms are reluctant to pay with undervalued stock and experience positive long-term excess returns.

Coordination costs among a firm’s shareholders have an important impact on the market for corporate control. I use two measures, one based on the geographic distance among institutional shareholders and the other based on the correlation in their portfolio allocation decisions, to proxy for coordination costs. I find that target firms with low shareholder coordination costs experience significantly higher abnormal returns around the takeover announcement. In a similar vein, acquirer firms with low shareholder coordination costs are associated with higher acquisition announcement returns. These effects are particularly pronounced after the 1992 proxy reform that relaxes the restrictions on communication and coordination among shareholders. These findings suggest that the ease of coordination among shareholders plays an important role in the market for corporate control by raising the bargaining power of target shareholders and enhancing the monitoring role of both target and acquirer shareholders.

Various studies have been done on wealth effects and financial performance of firms in different countries but have yielded mixed results. Data on completed deals of Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions (CBMAs) comprising public listed firms with more than ten percent of share acquisition in five East Asian countries were analysed using event study and key financial ratios. Although the results for average abnormal returns in Indonesia and Korea were inconclusive, the results for Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines suggest that the market had reacted positively adding value to the target firms at merger announcements. There was a significant improvement in targets’ free cash flow after CBMAs when compared to both before CBMAs and also control firms after CBMAs. The results also reveal that that these five East Asian countries have moved towards more efficient markets.