The Cross-Listing and Cross-Trading of German Companies in the U.S. and of Foreign Companies in Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 58-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Bessler ◽  
Fred R. Kaen ◽  
Colin Schneck
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Cross Listing ◽  
The Cross ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: Evidence From the ADRs of Tiger Cub Economies

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 432
Author(s):  
Lee-Hsien Pan ◽  
Shuo Chen ◽  
Chieh-Chung Wu ◽  
K. C. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Firm Performance ◽  
American Depositary Receipts ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Cross Listing ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Depositary Receipts ◽  
The U.S

This paper examines the effects of cross listing and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) on corporate governance and firm performance of the cross-listed firms from four Tiger Cub Economics: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. We find that these non-U.S. firms that list their shares as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) experience an improvement in corporate governance and a decrease in firm performance after issuing ADRs in the U.S. However, SOX appears to be effective in enhancing firm performance for these ADRs, though it has little impact on improving corporate governance.

Employment at the U.S.-based enterprises of foreign companies

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 1307-1316
Author(s):  
N.E. Petrovskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Companies ◽  
The U.S

U.S.-Listed Foreign Companies' Choice of a U.S.-Based versus Home Country-Based Big N Principal Auditor and the Effect on Audit Fees and Earnings Quality

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharad C. Asthana ◽  
K. K. Raman ◽  
Hongkang Xu
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Home Country ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Just Price ◽  
Reporting Environment ◽  
The U.S

SYNOPSIS We examine why U.S.-listed foreign companies choose to have a U.S.-based (rather than home country-based) Big N firm as their principal auditor for SEC reporting purposes and the effects of that choice for audit fees and earnings quality. We find that the likelihood of the Big N principal auditor being U.S.-based is decreasing in client size and the level of investor protection in the home country, and increasing in the proportion of income earned outside the home country. We also find compelling evidence that U.S.-based Big N auditors are associated with higher-quality earnings (albeit for a higher fee), despite two factors—the greater distance between the U.S.-based (vis-à-vis home country-based) Big N auditor and the client, and the likelihood that much of the audit work is done outside the U.S.—which potentially could lower the earnings quality of the U.S.-listed foreign client when the Big N principal auditor is U.S.-based. Overall, our study suggests that the higher fees associated with a U.S.-based Big N principal auditor is not just price protection; rather, U.S.-based Big N principal auditors are also improving the financial reporting environment by reporting higher-quality audited earnings for their U.S.-listed foreign clients. JEL Classifications: L11; L15; M42.

Cross-listing of real estate investment trusts (REITs)

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-527
Author(s):  
Kim Hin David Ho ◽  
Kwame Addae-Dapaah ◽  
Fang Rui Lina Peck
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Foreign Market ◽  
Real Estate Investment Trusts ◽  
Domestic Market ◽  
Risk Exposure ◽  
Real Estate Investment ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cross Listing ◽  
Market Beta ◽  
The Cross

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the common stock price reaction and the changes to the risk exposure of the cross-listing for real estate investment trusts (REITs). Design/methodology/approach The paper adopts the event study methodology to assess the abnormal returns (ARs). Pre- and post-cross-listing changes in the risk exposure for the domestic and foreign markets are examined, via a modified two-factor international asset pricing model. A comparison is made for two broad cross-listings, namely, the depositary receipts and the dual ordinary listings, to examine the impacts from institutional differences. Findings Cross-listed REITs generally experience positive and significant ARs throughout the event window, implying significant superior returns associated with the cross-listing for REITs. On systematic risks, REITs exhibit significant decline in their domestic market β coefficients after the cross-listing. However, the foreign market β coefficients do not yield conclusive evidence when compared across the sample. Research limitations/implications Results are consistent with prudential asset allocation for potential diversification gains from the cross-listing, as the reduction from the domestic market beta is more significant than changes in the foreign market beta. Practical implications The results and findings should incentivise REIT managers to explore viable cross-listing. Social implications Such cross-listing for REITs should enhance risk diversification. Originality/value This is a pioneer study on cross-listing of REITs. It provides a basis for investment decision making, and could provoke further research and discussion.

Cross-Listing Audit Fee Premiums: Theory and Evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 1429-1463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Hag Choi ◽  
Jeong-Bon Kim ◽  
Xiaohong Liu ◽  
Dan A. Simunic
Keyword(s):  
Home Country ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Cross Listing ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
The Cross ◽  
The Difference

ABSTRACT: We study the effects of cross-listings on audit fees. We first develop a model in which legal environments play a crucial role in determining the auditor's legal liability. Our model and analysis predict that auditors charge higher fees for firms that are cross-listed in countries with stronger legal regimes than they do for non-cross-listed firms and that the cross-listing audit fee premium increases with the difference in the strength of legal regimes between the cross-listed foreign country and the home country. We then empirically test these predictions. The results of our cross-country regressions strongly support our predictions. In addition, we find no significant cross-listing fee premium for firms that are cross-listed in countries whose legal regimes are. no stronger than those of their home countries. This suggests that cross-listing audit fee premiums are associated with increased legal liability and not with increased audit complexity per se. Our findings help explain why cross-listing premiums occur and what determines their magnitude.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document