We examine the impact of mixed ownership on the performance of venture capital (VC) firms in China. We use successful/unsuccessful exits from VC-financed entrepreneurial companies and number of patent applications by VC-financed companies as proxies for VC firms’ performance. Consistent with existing research on the inferior performance of SOEs relative to non-SOEs, we find that on average government-controlled VC firms (GVCs) underperform domestic private investors-controlled VC firms (PVCs). More importantly, we find that introducing minority private investors (i.e., mixed ownership) helps improve the performance of GVCs. However, we find no evidence that introducing minority government investors (i.e., mixed ownership) helps improve the performance of PVCs. Our results provide relevant information to the ongoing debate on the role of the government investors and private investors in developing the VC industry in emerging markets.

This study investigates the relationship between gender diversity on the board and dividend payouts in China using a large sample over the period 2003–2017. Our results provide robust and strong evidence showing that gender diversity on the board is positively associated with cash payments of dividends. The empirical outcomes confirm that gender diversity on the board facilitates corporate governance and subsequently promotes dividend payouts. We demonstrate that gender diversity on the board has the greatest effect when the board has critical mass participation (three or more female directors) compared with only their token participation. However, independent female directors increase dividend payouts, while female executive directors do not have a significant impact. Furthermore, we extend the literature on the relationship between dividend payments and government ownership by providing evidence that gender diversity has a higher impact on dividend payouts for state-owned enterprises than non-state-owned enterprises. After controlling the endogeneity problems, our findings are reliable and robust.

This study investigates the impact of ultimate government ownership or control on the cost of debt of Chinese listed corporations. We first examine the relative level of cost of debt of corporations under government control compared to corporations under individual or family control. We then explore circumstances under which government control is likely to reduce a corporation’s cost of financing. Our results suggest that the benefits of government control are conditional on firm-specific financial circumstances and internal- and external-corporate governance environment. We find that, on average, government controlled corporations have lower cost of debt but the effect is not homogeneous. Government controlled corporations have lower cost of debt when they are highly financially constrained and have higher risk of being expropriated by controlling shareholders and in provinces where the local government is less effective, but not otherwise.

In this paper, we empirically examine the relationship between government ownership, synchronicity and M&A performance in Chinese market. We found strong evidence to support “Helping Hand Hypothesis” that bidders with high government ownership yield better performance in both the short run and the long run. We also document a negative relationship between synchronicity measure and M&A performance. Various explanations have been offered to explain this phenomenon. In addition, we find both political influence and stock market valuation play an important role to forecast M&A outcome in China market. Within hot political period, government-related bidders yield better performance in the short run, while in high valuation period, public bidders receive higher premium.

We examine the effects of government ownership on the change in valuation and the uses of proceeds of firms after they raise equity funds – the time when the agency problems of free cash flows are larger. We find that investors generally react more negatively to an equity offering decision by a company whose government ownership is higher. Firms generally increase cash dividend payments after offering equity, and firms with extremely high government ownership increase cash dividends more than other firms do. Further analysis shows that investors react more negatively to an offering decision if they expect the issuer to increase cash dividends post-offering. Our study suggests agency problems exist in equity offerings in China, and firms tunnel resources by offering shares to the public followed by an increase in cash dividends.

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.