Dr. San Martín-Mosqueira, Pablo

This study analyses the impact of firm-level variables as well as country-level institutional factors on firm value in the Latin American region. The theoretical framework used to develop the research hypotheses has followed a corporate governance approach. The sample includes public firms from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru for the 1997–2013 period. The main findings indicate that ownership concentration, capital structure, and dividend policy are significant drivers of the market value of the firm. The results from determinants at the country-level show that legal enforcement and regulatory systems positively impact the market value of the firm, whilst the findings show unexpected results concerning the development of the financial system.

Improvements in transparency at the country level have modified the relevance of bank debt maturity as a control mechanism. The novelty of this research is that we provide empirical evidence that the maturity of bank borrowing is contingent on the characteristics of the regulatory and the institutional setting about corporate governance. The main implication of our paper is that corporate governance rules have greater influence in civil-law countries than in common-law countries in promoting efficiency in the use of bank debt maturity. The value of this paper is that our results confirm that the implementation of similar regulations on transparency across countries with different legal systems favors the alignment of the role played by short-term bank debt in addressing asymmetric information, agency costs, and inefficient liquidation.

The goal of this paper, which follows a corporate governance approach, is to assess whether within country changes in governance (e.g. in legal and regulatory systems and financial development) and changes in corporate ownership concentration can predict a change in the value of Latin American firms. Using fixed-effect panel data models with a representative sample of firms for the period from 1997 to 2013, we observe that the investors’ rights and their legal protection as well as the rule of law are associated with a premium in the firm market value. Contrary to what was expected, in immature financial markets, as found in Latin America, firms take advantage of both the asymmetries of information and the multiple market frictions to be overvalued. So, as the financial system develops, firm value drops. At the firm-level, results confirm the hypothesis of the expropriation of minority shareholders.

From a corporate governance point of view, this paper addresses the question about how board gender diversity influences managerial opportunistic behavior for solving agency conflicts from a sample of European countries. Specifically, we analyzed indexed non-financial companies from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom for the period 2006–2016. Several panel data techniques are used in the empirical analysis to deal with the endogeneity and heterogeneity problems. To the best of our knowledge our research is novel in the literature by providing a multi-country approach in board gender diversity, as well as considering contextual country variables and the role of the regulatory system as determinants of earnings management. Our results confirm the benefits of having a balanced board in terms of gender diversity. An equilibrated board tends to mitigate earnings management practices, reinforcing the value of the laws passed in recent decades in Europe. Our analysis reveals that the regulatory framework regarding board gender diversity established by each country has a determinant role in reaching equality in decision-making positions, as a founding value of the European Union. We provide several policy recommendations from our main findings.

In this paper we analyse the relationship between the investment of Pension Fund Managers (AFPs) and the cost of corporate debt (public and private). Using a sample of 93 non-financial Chilean listed firms between 2009 and 2014, we find that AFPs increase the probability of issuing bonds. Moreover, in line with our crowding out hypothesis, we show that AFPs increase the cost of bank borrowing. In line with the monitoring view, we find that AFPs decrease bond yields. On average, our results suggest that AFPs improve corporate governance by influencing information disclosure and by reducing the intensity of lending relationships with banks.

Using a sample of 595 firms listed in the capital markets of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru for the period of 2000---2015, we confirm prior literature by showing that when power distribution among several large shareholders (contestability) increases, firms’ financial performance is enhanced. More interestingly, we find that these relations are even more significant in family-owned firms, emphasising the relevance of contesting control in this kind of firm. Furthermore, contestability has a greater influence in family firms that have the most concentrated ownership. We also find that the legal framework attenuates the impact of the balance of ownership. Here, contesting control acts as an internal corporate governance mechanism that provides an alternative to the external legal setting. Taken together, our results mean that in institutional settings characterised by weak investor protection and possible conflicts of interest among shareholders, oversight by multiple large, non-related shareholders (balanced ownership concentration) becomes an important governance mechanism.