Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 522–559 | Cite as

An examination of the impact of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act on the attractiveness of U.S. capital markets for foreign firms

  • Peter Hostak
  • Thomas LysEmail author
  • Yong George Yang
  • Emre Carr
Article

Abstract

We examine whether voluntary deregistrations after the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) were intended to benefit common shareholders by avoiding firms’ costs of complying with SOX or to protect the control rents of managers or controlling shareholders (MCOs). We find that, compared with foreign firms that maintained their SEC registrations, foreign firms that voluntarily deregistered on average had weaker corporate governance, had a significantly less negative stock market reaction when SOX was passed, and suffered a significant price decline when they announced their decision to deregister. We also find evidence indicating that the deregistrations were (to a lesser extent) motivated by firms’ compliance costs related to SOX. Taken together, our results suggest that both agency costs (that is, private benefit of control of the MCOs) and the compliance cost of SOX play a role in motivating foreign firms to withdraw from the U.S. market.

Keywords

Sarbanes–Oxley Act Voluntary delisting Cross-listing Corporate governance 

JEL Classification

G15 G18 G38 K22 M48 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial supports from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region, China (Project No. CUHK4623/06H), Charlton College of Business, and the Accounting Research Center at the Kellogg School are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Ying Cao, Peter Easton (the editor), Mark Lang, Mingyi Hung, Bin Ke, Jim McKeown, Margaret Neale, Gordon Richardson, Katherine Schipper, T. J. Wong, and especially two anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Northwestern University, Pennsylvania State University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the Harvard University IMO Conference, and the 2007 AAA Annual Meeting for valuable comments.

References

  1. Bancel, F., & Mittoo, U. (2001). European managerial perceptions of the net benefits of foreign stock listings. European Financial Management, 7, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergman, M. (2004). No easy exit: The challenges for non-US issuers seeking to delist. Wall Street Lawyer, 7, 15–18.Google Scholar
  3. Choi, J., Kim, J., Liu, X., & Simunic, D. (2009). Cross-listing audit fee premiums: Theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 84, 1429–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, J., & Wong, T. J. (2007). Auditors’ governance functions and legal environments: An international investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24, 13–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeFond, M., Hung, M., Carr, E., & Zhang, J. (2011). Was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act good news for corporate bondholders? Accounting Horizons, 25, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doidge, C., Karolyi, G., & Stulz, R. (2010). Why do foreign firms leave U.S. equity markets? Journal of Finance, LXV, 1507–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyck, A., & Zingales, L. (2004). Private benefits of control: An international comparison. The Journal of Finance, 59, 537–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engel, E., Hayes, R., & Wang, X. (2007). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and firms’ going-private decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44, 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan, J. P. H., & Wong, T. J. (2002). Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francis, J. (1984). The effect of audit firm size on audit prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 6, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossman, S., & Hart, O. (1988). One share-one vote and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jain, P., & Rezaee, Z. (2006). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and security market behavior: Early evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen, M. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76, 323–339.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, A. (2002). Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2006). What works in securities laws? Journal of Finance, 61, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leuz, C., Nanda, D., & Wysocki, P. (2003). Earnings management and investor protection, an international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics, 69, 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leuz, C., Triantis, A., & Wang, T. (2008). Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linck, J., Netter, J., & Yang, T. (2009). The effects and unintended consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on corporate boards. Review of Financial Studies, 22, 3287–3328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litvak, K. (2007). The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on non-US companies cross-listed in the US. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marosi, A., & Massoud, N. (2008). You can enter but you cannot leave…—US securities markets and foreign firms. Journal of Finance, 63, 2477–2506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCreevy, C. (2007). Capital marketplace. The Wall Street Journal, A17.Google Scholar
  24. Mitton, T. (2002). A cross-firm analysis of the impact of corporate governance on the East Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pagano, M., Roell, A., & Zechner, J. (2002). The geography of equity listing: Why do companies list abroad? The Journal of Finance, 57, 2651–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patell, J. (1976). Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical tests. Journal of Accounting Research, 14, 246–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perino, M. (2003). American corporate reform abroad: Sarbanes-Oxley and the foreign private issuer. European Business Organization Law Review, 4, 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Report on the Proportionality Principle in the European Union (by Institutional Shareholder Services, Shearman & Sterling LLP, & ecgi). (2007). Available at: http://www.ecgi.org/osov/documents/final_report_en.pdf.
  29. Romano, R. (2005). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of quack corporate governance. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 1521–1612.Google Scholar
  30. Seetharaman, A., Gul, F., & Lynn, S. (2002). Litigation risk and audit fees: Evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simunic, D. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stulz, R. (1990). Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weisbach, M. S. (1988). Outside directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 431–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wingate, M. (1997). An examination of cultural influence on audit environments. Research in Accounting Regulation (Suppl 1), 129–148.Google Scholar
  36. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, I. (2007). Economic consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44, 74–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Hostak
    • 1
  • Thomas Lys
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yong George Yang
    • 3
  • Emre Carr
    • 4
  1. 1.Vysoka Skola ManazmentuCity University of SeattleTrencinSlovakia
  2. 2.Kellogg School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.School of AccountancyThe Chinese University of Hong KongMa Liu ShuiHong Kong
  4. 4.Berkeley Research Group, LLCWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations