Corporate Governance and Implications for Minority Shareholders in Turkey

This paper reports on the ownership and control structures of publicly listed firms in Turkey using data from 2001. While holding companies and non-financial firms are the most frequent owners at the direct level, families ultimately own more than 80 percent of all publicly listed firms in Turkey. Pyramids and dual class shares are common devices that families use to separate their cash-flow rights from control rights. We also show that such deviations result in significantly lower market to book ratios suggesting large agency costs because of the conflict of interests between controlling families and minority shareholders.Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance, Business Groups, Family Ownership, Turkey

The gender wage gap in top corporate jobs is still there

We investigate the gender wage gap in top corporate jobs for the years 2000 till 2004. Using data from the OSIRIS database, we ¯nd that female managers receive 24.0 percent less in total compensation (salary, bonuses, other payments and exer- cised stock options) than their male colleagues. When we control for personal, ¯rm and industry characteristics, this di®erence reduces to 15.9 percent. Controlling for occupational segregation, i.e. \glass ceiling", reduces the di®erence to 6.0 percent. Additional results that fully consider the role of stock option indicate a 9.0 to 12.1 percent di®erence. These results suggest that the main sources of the gender wage gap in top corporate jobs are occupational segregation and a di®erent endowment of male and female managers with stock options.

How Effective is European Merger Control?

This paper applies a novel methodology to a unique dataset of large concentrations during the period 1990-2002 to assess merger control’s effectiveness. By using data gathered from several sources and employing different evaluation techniques, we analyze the economic effects of the European Commission’s (EC) merger control decisions and distinguish between blockings, clearances with commitments (either behavioral or structural), and outright clearances. We run an event study on merging and rival firms’ stocks to quantify the profitability effects of mergers and merger control decisions. We back up our results and methodology by using alternative measures for the merger’s profitability effects based on balance sheet data and obtain consistent results. Our findings suggest that outright blockings solve the competitive problems generated by the merger. Remedies are not always effective in solving the market power concerns, at least not on average. Nevertheless, both structural (divestitures) and behavioral remedies do help restore effective competition when correctly applied to anticompetitive mergers during the first investigation phase. Yet, they are on the whole ineffective or even detrimental when applied after the second investigation phase. Finally, remedies - especially behavioral ones - seem to constitute a rent transfer from merging firms to rivals when mistakenly applied to pro-competitive mergers

Is the Event Study Methodology Useful for Merger Analysis? A Comparison of Stock Market and Accounting Data

We use a sample of 167 mergers during the period 1990-2002 involving 544 firms either as merging firms or competitors. We contrast a measure of the merger’s profitability based on event studies with one based on accounting data. We find positive and significant correlations between them when using a long window around the announcement date. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Ist die "event study" Methodologie nützlich für die Analyse von Fusionen? Ein Vergleich von Aktienmärkte und Bilanzdaten) Wir analysieren eine Stichprobe von 167 Fusionen, die zwischen 1990 und 2002 stattgefunden haben und welche 544 Unternehmen -entweder als fusionierende Parteien oder als Wettbewerber- involviert haben. Wir vergleichen eine auf "event studies" basierende Rentabilitätsmaß der Fusion zu einer alternativen Maß, die durch Bilanzdaten konstruiert wurde. Wir finden, dass diese zwei maße positiv und signifikant korrelieren besonders wenn wir ein langes Fenster um die Fusionsankündigung in dem "event study" benutzen.Mergers, Merger Control, Event Studies, Ex-post Evaluation

EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment

Mergers that substantially lessen competition are challenged by antitrust authorities. Instead of blocking anticompetitive transitions straight away, authorities might choose to negotiate with the merging parties and allow the transactions to proceed with modifications that restore or preserve the competition in the involved markets. We study a sample of 167 mergers that were under the European Commission’s scrutiny from 1990 to 2002. We use an event study methodology to identify the potential anticompetitive effects of mergers as well as the remedial provisions on these transactions. Stock market reactions around the day of the merger’s announcement provide information on the first question, whereas the stock market reactions around the commission’s final decision day convey information about the outcome of the bargaining process between the authority and the merging parties. We first classify mergers according to their effects on competition and then we develop hypotheses on the effects that remedies are supposed to achieve depending on the merger’s competitive outcome. We isolate several stylized facts. First, we find that remedies were not always appropriately imposed. Second, the market seems to be able to predict remedies’ effectiveness when applied in phase I. Third, the market also seems able to produce a good prior to phase II’s clearances and prohibitions, but not to remedies. This can be due either to a measurement problem or related to the increased merging firms’ bargaining power during the second phase of the merger review. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Auflagen im Fusionskontrollverfahren der EU: Eine erste empirische Bewertung) Fusionen, die den Wettbewerb auf einem Markt vermindern oder verhindern, werden von Antitrustbehörden angefochten. Anstatt wettbewerbswidrige Zusammenschlüsse direkt zu blockieren, können die Behörden beschließen, mit den Parteien zu verhandeln und die Fusion mit Auflagen zu genehmigen, durch die der Wettbewerb in den entsprechenden Märkten wieder hergestellt oder aufrechterhalten wird. Wir analysieren eine Stichprobe von 167 Fusionen, die von der Europäischen Kommission zwischen 1990 und 2002 überprüft worden sind. Wir verwenden eine "event study" - Methodologie, um sowohl die möglichen wettbewerbswidrigen Wirkungen von Fusionen als auch die Wirkung der von der Behörde beschlossenen Auflagen zu untersuchen. Die Reaktion der Aktienpreise der beteiligten Unternehmen - sowohl der fusionierenden als auch der Wettbewerber - um den Tag der Fusionsankündigung liefert Informationen für die erste Frage, während die Reaktionen von Aktienpreisen um den Tag der EU-Kommissionsentscheidung Informationen über das Ergebnis der geheimen Verhandlungen zwischen der Behörde und den involvierten Parteien geben. Zuerst klassifizieren wir Fusionen entsprechend ihrer Effekte auf den Wettbewerb und dann entwickeln wir Hypothesen auf die Wirkung, welche die Auflagen in Abhängigkeit von den Wettbewerbseffekten der Fusion erzielen soll. Unsere Analyse ergibt einige stilisierte Fakten. Zuerst finden wir, dass die Auflagen von der EU-Kommission nicht immer adäquat angewandt wurden. Auflagen scheinen jedoch eine Wirkung auf die fusionierenden Unternehmen zu haben. Sie sind besonders effektiv, wenn sie bereits in Phase I des Fusionskontrollverfahrens eingesetzt werden. Jedoch scheint der Markt unfähig zu sein, eine gute Vorhersage für die Wirkung von Auflagen in Phase II zu produzieren. Dieses Ergebnis kann entweder auf einem Meßproblem beruhen oder es wird durch eine erhöhte Verhandlungsstärke der fusionierenden Unternehmen während der zweiten Phase der Fusionskontrolle verursacht.Merger Control, Remedies, European Commission, Event Studies.

EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment

Mergers that substantially lessen competition are challenged by antitrust authorities. Instead of blocking anticompetitive transitions straight away, authorities might choose to negotiate with the merging parties and allow the transactions to proceed with modifications that restore or preserve the competition in the involved markets. We study a sample of 167 mergers that were under the European Commission’s scrutiny from 1990 to 2002. We use an event study methodology to identify the potential anticompetitive effects of mergers as well as the remedial provisions on these transactions. Stock market reactions around the day of the merger’s announcement provide information on the first question, whereas the stock market reactions around the commission’s final decision day convey information about the outcome of the bargaining process between the authority and the merging parties. We first classify mergers according to their effects on competition and then we develop hypotheses on the effects that remedies are supposed to achieve depending on the merger’s competitive outcome. We isolate several stylized facts. First, we find that remedies were not always appropriately imposed. Second, the market seems to be able to predict remedies’ effectiveness when applied in phase I. Third, the market also seems able to produce a good prior to phase II’s clearances and prohibitions, but not to remedies. This can be due either to a measurement problem or related to the increased merging firms’ bargaining power during the second phase of the merger review

Is the Event Study Methodology Useful for Merger Analysis? A Comparison of Stock Market and Accounting Data

Using a sample of 167 mergers during the period 1990-2002 involving 544 firms either as merging firms or competitors, we contrast a measure of the merger’s profitability based on event studies with one based on accounting data. We find positive and significant correlations between them when using a long window around the announcement date and, for rivals, in case of anticompetitive mergers

How effective is European merger control?

This paper applies an intuitive approach based on stock market data to a unique dataset of large concentrations during the period 1990-2002 to assess the effectiveness of European merger control. The basic idea is to relate announcement and decision abnormal returns. Under a set of four maintained assumptions, merger control might be interpreted to be effective if rents accruing due to the increased market power observed around the merger announcement are reversed by the antitrust decision, i.e. if there is a negative relation between announcement and decision abnormal returns. To clearly identify the events' competitive effects, we explicitly control for the market expectation about the outcome of the merger control procedure and run several robustness checks to assess the role of our maintained assumptions. We find that only outright prohibitions completely reverse the rents measured around a merger's announcement. On average, remedies seem to be only partially capable of reverting announcement abnormal returns. Yet they seem to be more effective when applied during the first rather than the second investigation phase and in subsamples where our assumptions are more likely to hold. Moreover, the European Commission appears to learn over time. --Merger Control,Remedies,European Commission,Event Studies

Rating based indexing of Istanbul Stock Exchange, lessons from its failure and Novo Mercado's sucess in to advance corporate governance reforms

This paper compares the objectives, processes and outcomes of different approaches adopted by BOVESPA and ISE for differentiating “better governed” firms listed on their respective boards. Novo Mercado of BOVESPA, launched at the end of December 2000, was able to attract over 30 companies within 5 years, whereas ISE CG Index, announced in February 2005, is not yet launched due to lack of interest from the issuers

How Effective is European Merger Control?

This paper applies a novel methodology to a unique dataset of large concentrations during the period 1990-2002 to assess merger control’s effectiveness. By using data gathered from several sources and employing different evaluation techniques, we analyze the economic effects of the European Commission’s (EC) merger control decisions and distinguish between blockings, clearances with commitments (either behavioral or structural), and outright clearances. We run an event study on merging and rival firms’ stocks to quantify the profitability effects of mergers and merger control decisions. We back up our results and methodology by using alternative measures for the merger’s profitability effects based on balance sheet data and obtain consistent results. Our findings suggest that outright blockings solve the competitive problems generated by the merger. Remedies are not always effective in solving the market power concerns, at least not on average. Nevertheless, both structural (divestitures) and behavioral remedies do help restore effective competition when correctly applied to anticompetitive mergers during the first investigation phase. Yet, they are on the whole ineffective or even detrimental when applied after the second investigation phase. Finally, remedies - especially behavioral ones - seem to constitute a rent transfer from merging firms to rivals when mistakenly applied to pro-competitive mergers.Mergers; Merger Control; Remedies; European Commission; Event Studies; Expost Evaluation