Search results

This paper aims to explore the value of geographic diversification in the context of deglobalization, drawing evidence from a quasi-natural experiment – the Brexit referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the UK.

This study applies an event study methodology to estimate the impact of the Brexit vote on a cross-section of firms with varying levels of geographic diversification – undiversified UK firms, UK firms with significant operations in the European Union (EU) and globally diversified UK firms. This study deploys a Heckman two-stage regression approach to address sample selection bias.

This study finds that undiversified UK firms experienced negative cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around the Brexit referendum. The value of UK firms with majority sales within the UK declined by 0.9 percentage points, on average, in the three days centred on the Brexit referendum. In contrast, UK firms that are globally diversified, with the majority of sales within the EU are unaffected, while diversified firms in the rest of the world generated positive CARs of 1.8 percentage points over the same period. These results are robust to firm characteristics, selection bias and alternative measures of CARs and diversification.

This study is subject to some limitations that open avenues for future work. There are a few available proxies of diversification and further work on developing other proxies is much needed. Further work may also examine the long-term impact of diversification on UK firms. This study considered Brexit as a quasi-natural experiment, and this study could be applied to other deglobalization events like COVID-19 and can enhance the generalizability of diversification strategy in the deglobalized world. Findings may stimulate future work to explore how another form of diversification – product diversification has affected firm returns around Brexit. Finally, this study has focused on the UK as its base case. It may be interesting to corroborate the findings by exploring the impact of Brexit on European firms, who hitherto Brexit, had some operations in the UK.

This work offers some insights for policymakers and regulators around the impact of deglobalization on local firms. Findings suggest that these trends significantly negatively impact the most vulnerable firms (smaller firms with less global reach), while their larger counterparts with significant global reach might be insulated. This finding is important for determining the nature of support needed by different firms in times of deglobalization. The work also offers insights to managers of firms operating in countries where there are real prospects of deglobalization. Specifically, the work highlights the importance of geographic diversification when free movement of goods, services and people is restricted.

This study shows that a certain group of globally diversified firms earned significantly higher returns from the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, thereby highlighting the value of geographic diversification in a time of deglobalization.

Albeit the growing academic research on emerging economies corporate governance (CG) environments within accounting and finance literature, there exists a dearth of cross-country studies using a qualitative approach to understand practitioners’ behaviour vis-a-vis diffusion of international CG practices in emerging economies. This study aims to fill this oversight through a comparative analysis of the divergence and convergence of CG systems operational in three emerging economies (Cameroon, Kenya and Pakistan) while highlighting different institutional and contextual impacts on behaviour of governance actors. The paper uses an interface between critical realism and new institutional economics theory to explore the implementation and execution of CG in Cameroon, Kenya and Pakistan.

The study analysed 24 in-depth semi-structured interviews and conducted with key governance practitioners across the three countries.

The findings show that CG implementation processes in Cameroon, Kenya and Pakistan are nascent and driven by international forces rather than local initiatives. CG lacks institutional identity across the three countries as regulatory coercion acts as a key driver for CG adoption and practitioner accounts are mixed regarding the impact of CG on firm performance.

The paper evidences that the lack of governance identify, compliance and slow implementation process of governance regulations and its impact on firm performance in emerging economies is caused by the fact that local institutional characteristics prevalent in these economies may not be suitable for a “copy and paste” of Western form of governance regulations. Furthermore, governance actors do not see the relevance of recommended CG practices except as a regulatory burden.

The paper contributes to close the lacuna in the seemingly little qualitative comparative study that has examined practitioner’s perception vis-à-vis the diffusion of international governance practices in emerging economies. Specifically, it uncovers how different institutional and contextual factors impact on the behaviour of governance actors and how their behaviours may constrain adoption, implementation and compliance with recommended governance practices.

This paper aims to explore whether fair value Levels 1 and 2 measurements are more value relevant than Level 3 fair value measurements in a less-active market. Specifically, this research addresses two objectives. Firstly, it examines the value relevance of fair value measures for each disclosure level of fair value. Secondly, it assesses the impact of corporate governance on the value relevance of less observable fair value disclosures (Levels 2 and 3).

Drawing insights from agency theorising, this research adopts a quantitative approach (regression analysis) that investigates data from a less active financial market (South Africa).

Contrary to agency theory suppositions, the results show that investors in a less active market value management inputs more than market (more transparent) information. The authors also observe that investors pay limited interest to corporate governance structures when pricing fair value measurement, implying that they rely on factors beyond corporate governance mechanisms.

The authors’ findings offer useful evidence to standard setters and preparers of financial information. While the International Accounting Standard Board suggests that investors value transparent financial information, the data shows that investors in less-active markets value management’s inputs more than those of the market.

This study proposes a novel measure for management’s horizon (short-termism or myopia vs long-termism or hyperopia) derived from easily obtainable firm-level accounting and stock market performance data. The authors use the measure to explore the impact of managements’ horizon on firms’ investment efficiency.

The authors rely on two commonly used but uncorrelated measures of management performance: accounting performance (return on capital employed, ROCE) and stock market performance (average abnormal return, AAR). The authors combine these measures to develop a multidimensional framework for performance, which classifies firms into four groups: efficient (high accounting and high market performance), poor (low accounting and low market performance), myopic (high accounting and low market performance) and hyperopic (low accounting and high market performance). The authors validate this framework and deploy it to explore the relationship between horizon and firms’ investment efficiency.

In validation tests, the authors show that management myopia (hyperopia) explains firms’ decision to cut (grow) research and development investments. Further, as expected, myopic (hyperopic) firms are associated with significantly more (less) accrual and real earnings management. The empirical tests on the link between horizon and investment efficiency suggest that myopic managers cut new investments while their hyperopic counterparts grow the same. Ultimately, the authors find that myopia (hyperopia) exacerbates(mitigates) the over-investment of free cash flow problem.

The authors introduce a framework for assessing management’s horizon using easily obtainable measures of performance. The framework explains inconsistencies in prior empirical research using different measures of performance (accounting versus market). The authors demonstrate its utility by showing that the measure explains decisions around research and development investment, earnings management and firm investments.