Market Reaction to Information Technology Investment Announcements in Russian Firms

This study examines the stock market reaction to announcements of information technology (IT) investments by Russian firms. While several similar studies have been published in the context of highly developed economies like the USA, very few such studies have been conducted in transition economies, and perhaps none previously in Russia. Based on 91 announcements between 2009 and 2012, three research hypotheses are tested. Similar to the results reported in previous studies from other countries, industry sector of the company making the IT investment has little effect on the market reaction. Also similar to the results reported from the USA, the Russian stock market seems to respond more positively to innovative IT investments than to non-innovative investments. However, in contrast to the results reported in a study conducted in Poland, where IT investments through global vendors seem to be perceived more positively than investments through local vendors, in Russia investments through global vendor are received negatively by the stock market

The effects of research and development expenditure on long-term stock returns: an analysis of the BRICS nations

Research and development (R&D) facilitate and drive innovation, which plays a critical role in increasing competitiveness for firms and contributing to economic growth. This study examines a sample of 970 firms from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) between 2007-2020 who increased their R&D expenditure or had an unexpected increase in R&D expenditure from one year to the next. The Fama and French (1993) three factor and Carhart (1997) four factor models are used to assess whether these firms earned abnormal returns in the long run. The study finds that value weighted portfolios of firms that increased their R&D expenditure or experienced unexpected R&D expenditure increases exhibited long term positive abnormal returns. This suggests that investors fail to respond immediately to the good news about R&D, consistent with the phenomenon of investor underreaction, and therefore presents an opportunity for market participants to earn abnormal returns by investing in BRICS companies engaged in R&D

Chinese Overseas M&A Performance and the go Global Policy

This paper investigates whether stock markets view Chinese OMAs as increasing shareholder wealth. The subject is of interest given the influential role that the government plays in Chinese firms’ overseas activities, and the fact that the government may have objectives other than maximization of shareholder wealth. We examine 145 OMAs by Chinese acquiring firms over the year 1994-2008. We find some evidence that markets positively responded to news of Chinese OMAs. However, we also find that markets responded less favorably after China implemented its Go Global policy encouraging overseas investment. We hypothesize two reasons for this: First, the expansion of OMAs under Go Global resulted in Chinese firms pursuing less attractive targets, on average. Second, Go Global re-directed investment towards industries having national strategic value but diminished profit value. Using a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition procedure, we find no evidence to support this latter hypothesis. Thus, to whatever extent strategic interests may motivate China’s Go Global policy, it does not appear that their pursuit has come at the expense of shareholder wealth.Economic Development; China Economy; Overseas Mergers and Acquisitions; Event Study; Go Global

Corporate Response To The War In Ukraine: Stakeholder Governance Or Stakeholder Pressure?

This Article empirically investigates the corporate response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the framework of the stakeholder capitalism debate. Some describe corporate leaders’ decision to withdraw from Russia as an example of stakeholder governance, maintaining that they placed social responsibility over profits. Others question the authenticity of corporate support for Ukraine and argue that companies left Russia mainly driven by operational and reputational concerns. Against this backdrop, we conduct an empirical study of reactions to the outbreak of the war from companies in the S&P500 and STOXX600 indices. We explore whether managers effectively decided mostly on ethical and moral grounds, or whether perhaps there was another possible channel. In particular, we focus on assessing the role played by stakeholder pressure exercised on companies to leave Russia. First, we examine whether revenue exposure to Russia was associated with the corporate decision to withdraw or suspend Russian activities, and the speed of the decision’s announcement. The findings indicate that firms which quickly announced their withdrawal from Russia actually had little revenue exposure to the country. Furthermore, we conduct a Twitter-based test of the virality of boycott campaigns and examine their relationship with managers’ decision to take positive action in supporting Ukraine and exiting Russia. Our analysis shows that the decision to withdraw from Russia is significantly positively associated with boycott campaigns. Finally, our research underscores important differences across market sizes. The smallest companies in our sample (mid-cap companies) are on average the most exposed to the Russian economy, whereas the Twitter boycott campaigns concentrated markedly on bigger firms (large and mega-cap firms). Overall, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that corporate leaders tend to promote stakeholder interests when they face potential reputational damage that could affect shareholder wealth, or when it represents a good marketing move, so called “woke-washing”. The analysis also supports and reinforces the view that pressure from stakeholders – magnified by the use of social media – can successfully influence the corporate decision to pursue certain social goals and not only profits. However, our results highlight how size matters in the stakeholder capitalism debate. Stakeholder pressure on management can be an important and effective factor in achieving a socially desirable outcome, but it tends to focus on large, high-profile companies, while other market participants are left free to operate without this meaningful managerial constraint