Purpose – For Chinese companies that cross-list in Chinese A share and Hong Kong (H share) markets, the H share price has been consistently lower than the A share price by an average of 85% in recent years. This is puzzling because most institutional differences between the two markets have been eliminated since 2007. The purpose of this study is to explain the puzzle of the price difference of AþH companies. Design/methodology/approach – Using all A and H share Chinese firms in the period 2007–2013 and a simultaneous equations approach, this study identifies three new explanations for the recent price difference. Findings – First, utilizing a unique earning quality measure that is directly related to non-persistent components of fair value accounting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), this study finds that the lower the earnings quality, the lower the H share price relative to the A share price, and hence the greaterthe price difference. Second, the higherthe myopic investor ownership in A share firms, the largerthe A share price relative to the H share price. Third, the short-selling mechanism introduced to the A share market since 2010 helps reduce the price difference. Originality/value – First, this study identifies three new explanations for the puzzle of the AH price difference which remains substantial even afterthe institutional and accounting standards differences between the two markets were eliminated. Second, we examine the impact of the implementation of fair value accounting under IFRS in an emerging market on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares and reveal that it can induce an unintended negative consequence on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares. Third, this study contributes to the literature on short sales by providing its mitigating role in pricing differences across two different markets. Finally, this study makes improvements in research design, which utilizes a unique measure of earnings quality that is directly related to the implementation of IFRS and a simultaneous equations approach that minimizes endogeneity concern.

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.

This paper provides evidence on the significant impact of illiquidity or non-marketability on security valuation. A typical listed company in China has several types of share outstanding: (i) common shares that are only tradable on stock exchanges, (ii) restricted institutional shares (RIS) that are not tradable and can only be transferred privately or through irregularly scheduled auctions, and (iii) state shares that are only transferable privately. These types of share are identical in every aspect, except that market regulations make state and RIS shares almost totally illiquid. Our analysis focuses on the price differences between RIS and common shares of the same company, using both auction and private-transfer transactions for RIS shares. Among our findings, the average discount for RIS shares relative to their floating counterpart is 77.93% and 85.59%, respectively based on auction and private transfers. The price for illiquidity is thus high, significantly raising the cost of equity capital. This illiquidity discount increases with both the floating shares’ volatility and the firm’s debt/equity ratio, but decreases with firm size, return on equity, and book/price and earnings/price ratios (based on the floating share price). However, RIS share price can either increase or decrease with the quantity being transacted, depending on whether it is through a private placement or an auction.