MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220698953 · doi:10.1111/corg.12445

The corporate governance consequences of small shareholdings: Evidence from sovereign wealth fund cross‐border investments

2022· article· en· W4220698953 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Governance An International Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicState Capitalism and Financial Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereign wealth fundCorporate governanceBusinessEquity (law)ShareholderAccountingEarningsFinancial systemMonetary economicsFinanceEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research Question/Issue Existing research on sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) has largely explored how they affect target firm value, overlooking the role they play in corporate governance. This paper examines the impact of SWFs' cross‐border equity acquisitions on targets' corporate governance and the role the institutional environment of SWF countries plays in shaping this impact. Research Findings/Insights We use a difference‐in‐differences approach and find that, on average, SWF investments are negatively related to target firms' corporate governance. This impact holds for small SWF cross‐border equity investments only and is stronger for firms that are weakly governed and for those located in jurisdictions with weak shareholder protection. The negative relation is more pronounced when SWFs' home countries have lower‐quality investor protection, corruption control, governmental effectiveness, and law enforcement than their host countries. We find further that SWF investments are positively associated with target firms' earnings management and negatively associated with investment efficiency. Finally, target firm value is found to decrease after SWF investments. Theoretical/Academic Implications The evidence that SWFs' small equity investments are detrimental to target firms' corporate governance is broadly consistent with the view that SWFs are passive investors. Managers can exploit this passivity, as evidenced by higher earnings management, reduced investment efficiency, and lower firm value. Practitioner/Policy Implications This study has important policy implications for investors, SWF managers, and policymakers. The passive role of SWFs in corporate governance should prompt minority shareholders to look for alternative monitoring mechanisms. Moreover, SWF managers may realize the need to target firms with strong corporate governance at the outset to compensate for the post‐acquisition decline. Host country policymakers may need to condition SWF investments on commitments to improve the corporate governance of investee firms, which would be akin to the performance requirements imposed on inward foreign direct investment (FDI). This is particularly relevant for SWFs from countries with weak institutions that are targeting countries with strong institutions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it