This study investigates whether and how the central discipline inspection of the securities regulators affects the information environment and investor valuation in the Chinese capital market. Based on the private equity placement (PEP) events, we find that the self-interested media outlets provide more negative coverage of the passed PEP firms during the inspection period than those passed outside the inspection period, resulting in poorer stock returns. Additionally, we find that the negative effect of the inspection on the PEPs’ market reactions is attenuated in media-connected firms and firms with higher advertising expenditure. However, we do not find significant long-term market performance differences between the passed PEP firms during the inspection period and those passed outside the inspection period. Additional results show that during the inspection period, the securities regulators tend to approve the PEP applicants with better initial announcement returns. Moreover, sophisticated investors pay a higher price for the shares of these passed PEP firms during the inspection period. Collectively, our findings suggest that anti-corruption campaigns have unintended effects that hinder retail investors’ access to objective information.

We study the demand for government participation in China’s venture capital and private equity market. We conduct a large-scale, non-deceptive field experiment in collaboration with the leading industry service provider, through which we survey both sides of the market: the capital investors and the private firms managing the invested capital by deploying it to high-growth entrepreneurs. Our respondents together account for nearly $1 trillion in assets under management. Each respondent evaluates synthetic profiles of potential investment partners, whose characteristics we randomize, under the real-stakes incentive that they will be introduced to real partners matching their preferences. Our main result is that the average firm dislikes investors with government ties, indicating that the benefits of political connections are small compared to the cons of having the government as an investor. We show that such dislike is not present with government-owned firms, and this dislike is highest with best-performing firms. Additional results and follow-up surveys suggest political interference in decision-making is the leading mechanism why government capital is unattractive to private firms. We feed our experimental estimates and administrative data into a simple model of two-sided search to discuss the distributional effects of government participation. Overall, our findings point to a “grabbing hand” interpretation of state-firm relationships reflecting a desire by the government to keep control over the private sector.

This paper examines the interactive effect of private equity (PE) and excess control rights on the process of firms’ going public. We find that firms with high excess control rights have more earnings management before IPO, and they are more likely to seek PE investors especially when the earnings management is high. We further show that the involvement of PE investors increases the probability of the firms’ IPO application being approved by the regulators in firms with high excess control rights. However, PE backed firms with high excess control rights are found to have a higher IPO fee, lower initial returns and lower long term post-IPO performance. We argue that in emerging markets where the protection of minority shareholders is weak and the economy is dominated by relationship and networks, ultimate owners have a strong incentive to have PE investors help them access the IPO market at the expense of minority shareholders’ interests, especially when they have excess control rights. In fact, instead of playing a monitory role, PE investors actually conspire with the ultimate owners to exploit minority shareholders’ interests and both PE investors and controlling shareholders become big winners, while minority shareholders are the only losers in the IPO process.

How do private equity (PE) investors affect a firm’s decision-making during the IPO process? The special IPO approval system for China’s stock market provides a unique setting to investigate this issue. In China, all IPO candidates need to submit an application to the China Securities Regulatory Commission and only approved firms can then be listed. Using data from ChiNext, we documented that pre-IPO PE investors, who invested in a firm less than a year prior to the IPO filing day, are associated with higher earnings management at the IPO, while longterm PE investors are associated with lower earnings management at the IPO. We propose that this is because long-term PE investors may prefer conservative financial statements to increase the probability of gaining approval in order to guarantee successful exit; on the other hand, pre- IPO PE investors are more likely to have political connections that can help the firms gain approval and they share the profits through a high IPO price. Consistent with this explanation, we find that local pre-IPO PE investors, who are more likely to have strong political connections, are associated with a higher probability of IPO approval. The evidence suggests that PE investors do have an impact on a firm’s decision-making during the IPO process. It also points to an important cost of the IPO approval system in China as well as the rent-seeking behavior associated with it.

This paper extends Lerner and Schoar’s (2004) argument on illiquidity puzzle of private equity funds. We examine the roles that investment illiquidity, along with bounded rationality and rent-seeking behavior, plays in private-equity buyouts. Collectively, investors employ club deals to screen out fund managers who might misuse discretionary rights to engage buyout deals. A club deal is launched by a group of private equity firms that pool their assets together, make a joint bid for a buyout target, and monitor the buyout processes collectively. Thus, this paper aims at clarifying whether or not such discretionary rights improve the choice of buyout target by, as well as the performance of private equity funds. We found that the performance of buyout funds persisted and affected the choice of the club deal as the major monitoring mechanism. This paper contributes to our understandings of investment behavior in private equity buyouts as follows. First, the performance of buyout funds has improved for at least two time periods between 1999 and mid-2007. The phenomenon that fund performance affects the choice of club deals is consistent across a variety of private equity funds, such as buyout, venture, growth, and mezzanine funds. Moreover, risk preference does not affect choice of club deals directly; instead, it has a moderating effect on choice of club deals through its interaction with the location of reference point for risk aversion. Finally, both fund size and fund sequence have U-shaped relations to the choice of club deals, while deal value of buyouts is related positively to the choice of club deals.

This paper examines the relationship between private benefits and the discount of private equity offerings. Measuring private benefits in terms of both control rights and cash flow, we find that private benefits are primarily attributed to control right rather than ownership. By using a measure, the Banzhaf power index, that could better reflects the largest shareholder’s relative influence over the firm. We find that the largest shareholder’s control power decreases, even though her ownership increases after private placement. It indicates that the largest shareholder is willing to give up some control power in private placement. In addition, we find that motivation and the type of investors in private placements significantly influences price discount.