Download Free International Cross Listing And The Bonding Hypothesis Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online International Cross Listing And The Bonding Hypothesis and write the review.

The authors describe a new view of cross-listing that links the impact on firm valuation to the firm's ability to develop an active secondary market for its shares in the U.S. markets. Contrary to previous research, cross-listing may not provide benefits for all firms, even when those firms meet the highest regulatory requirements for disclosure and supervision. When cross-listed firms are divided into two groups on the basis of their share turnover in the home market relative to the U.S. market, the firms that develop active trading in the U.S. market experience an increase in valuation. Cross-listed firms that remain predominantly traded in the home market following cross-listing are valued similarly to non-cross-listed firms. To gain the full benefits of cross-listing, a foreign firm must convince investors that their shareholder rights will be protected. The effectiveness of this reputational bonding is witnessed in the amount of trading on the U.S. market relative to the home market.
Essay from the year 2005 in the subject Business economics - Banking, Stock Exchanges, Insurance, Accounting, grade: very good (UK: grade A), University of Glasgow (Department of Accounting and Finance), course: International Financial Management, language: English, abstract: Some non-American companies benefit from a US-listing and others do not even cross-list in the US. Several empirical studies show that foreign companies, which are listed in the US, are worth more. However, less than one out of 10 large public non-American companies float their shares in the US (Doidge et al., 2004). Why is cross-listing beneficial to some companies and not to others? In 1997 more than 4,700 companies were internationally cross-listed. But, during the past several years this number decreased significantly by 50% to 2,300 (end of 2002) companies (Karolyi, 2004). Today more and more foreign companies acknowledge that they cannot cross-list in the US. Moreover, some companies admit that they are no longer even willing to cross-list, because of the high costs and strict requirements (Economist, 2005). Still, there must be a benefit for some to cross-list. A number of studies point out that the benefits regarding cross-listing include a lower cost of capital, access to foreign capital markets, an extended global shareholder base, greater liquidity in the trading of shares, publicity, visibility and prestige. On the other hand, these companies face costs, which might erode the benefits. Typical costs associated with a US-listing are the SECreporting, reconciliation of financial statements with home and foreign standards, direct listing costs, compliance requirements, exposure to legal liabilities, taxes and various trading frictions as well as investment banking fees (Karolyi, 2004 and Doidge et al., 2004). This essay aims to examine the empirical evidence regarding the merit of cross-listing shares on foreign equity markets, especially listing shares in the US. First, it critically reviews the conventional wisdom. Secondly, it examines the new approach of the cross-listing premium. Finally, it ends with a summary of this project and my own opinions.
This paper questions the bonding hypothesis on cross-listing - namely, the idea that firms may list on a foreign stock market with a view to renting that market's superior corporate governance system. A critical review of extant evidence reveals that an opposite, quot;avoiding hypothesisquot; more aptly describes firms' cross-listing behavior in this regard. The dominant factor in global cross-listing patterns appears to be informational distance, which comprises aspects of geographical and cultural distance. The greater the distance between an issuer's origin and destination markets the greater are the hurdles to utilizing the destination market's regulatory regime. Drawing on recent advances in psychological research, this paper concretizes the notion of cultural distance in the context of corporate governance. Potential effects of such distance are demonstrated using Korean corporate governance as a representative case of Confucian governance. The paper concludes with a discussion of home-market dominance in price formation processes of cross-listed stocks.
In its June 2010 Morrison v. National Australia Bank ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court unexpectedly decided that key fraud-related provisions of U.S. securities laws would only apply to transactions in foreign securities that take place on U.S. exchanges. We document a statistically significant and economically large increase in the price of U.S. cross-listed foreign stocks relative to their currency-adjusted equivalent home-market shares around the decision, which we associate with the newly differentiated legal status accorded U.S. cross-listed shares by Morrison. We interpret the market's reaction to the decision as affirming that investors, both foreign and domestic, value how U.S. securities laws apply, an important element of the “bonding” hypothesis as a motive for international cross-listings.
This paper examines the implications for the traditional "legal bonding" hypothesis arising from future "reverse" cross-listings, meaning the cross-listing by issuers from jurisdictions with stronger investor protections into capital markets and on exchanges where investor protections are deemed less robust. We use as examples the first "Indian Depositary Receipt" or IDR IPO in May 2010, and IPOs we believe will complete on a future Shanghai Stock Exchange "international board". This analysis serves to dilute one of the long-standing negative implications of the traditional legal bonding account -- that reverse cross-listings by issuers from jurisdictions with stronger investor protections into weaker investor protection markets exhibit abnormal negative price effects, allegedly because of market expectations that the foreign listing will facilitate conduct impermissible in the home market. More importantly, this analysis allows for a more nuanced understanding of the bonding hypothesis along either vector, and why firms cross-list into foreign jurisdictions, regardless of the receiving legal and regulatory environment. Those other factors include: the simple quest for capital, the possibility of higher initial valuations in capital controls-segmented markets and eventually higher secondary market values with the easing of such controls and thus enhanced global liquidity, the reduced cost ensured by listing in a less burdensome regulatory and enforcement environment, and a cluster of reasons which we describe as "consumer-commercial markets bonding", distinct from the legal and regulatory system bonding that has featured so long in the traditional legal bonding hypothesis. This "consumer-commercial markets bonding" includes the advertising of goods, services and corporate identity into a given consumer market, identification of the issuer as a global firm but with local identity and ownership, demonstrated commitment to key markets and the customers and regulators connected with those markets, a tipping of the hat to the sovereign legal-regulatory establishment of the receiving jurisdiction, and appeals to the receiving market's regulators for the provision of franchise or licensing benefits.
While many nations are still struggling from the global financial crisis and regaining their financial security, investors are considering alternative options for investing their money; and the secure financial sector is China appears as a viable option. International Cross-Listing of Chinese Firms examines the successful techniques and strategies that Chinese companies are using within their financial practices. It highlights the foreign-based multinational enterprise theories related to the major international stock markets. By providing the latest theories and research, this book will be beneficial for business practitioners, researchers, and managers interested in the relationship between cross-listing and firm valuation of Chinese firms.