The Effect of Cross‐Border Mergers and Acquisitions on Earnings Quality: Evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fruitful research on the motives and outcomes of cross‐border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) of Chinese multinational corporations ( MNCs ), there has been scant research on the impact of cross‐border M&As on corporate governance. In this article, we fill the research gap by exploring whether cross‐border M&As may lead to an improvement in corporate governance of Chinese acquirers. In particular, we examine the impact of cross‐border M&As on earnings quality of Chinese MNCs . We find that the acquisition of a target firm from a developed country leads to a significant improvement on the acquirer's earnings quality. In comparison, the acquisition of a target from an emerging market does not have such an impact. Our results are robust to various corporate governance measures, alternative econometric methods, and controls of relevant firm characteristics and macroeconomic variables. Finally, we show that the effect of cross‐border M&As on earnings quality is more pronounced in non‐state‐owned enterprises (non‐ SOEs ) that have conducted large M&A deals. Our article offers new insight to the international business literature on latecomer perspective and liability of foreignness. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".