International financial law scholarship is undergoing a revolution. The financial crisis of 2008 has led to a dramatic rethinking of the “givens,” and has attracted a new community of scholars to the field. Until 2008, international legal theory played only a minor role in international financial law. The implicit and taken for granted neoclassical economic theory that undergirded debates about global financial regulation was presumed to be all the theory that could or should apply, and the analysis focused rather simply and uniformly on questions of efficiency and social welfare. Since the financial crisis, however, the mainstream debate has shifted its focus to so-called “macro-prudential issues” and to an awareness of a need for some sort of global, or at least a transnationally coordinated response to systemic risk.
Posts Tagged ‘Legal systems’
Scores of governments around the world have chosen to introduce international standards as domestic law, even though they were not legally obliged to do so. The drafters of these standards are not sovereigns or international organizations, but transnational regulatory networks: informal meetings of experts from various countries, some with government affiliations, and others without. Networks have puzzled scholars for years. Fascinated by the institutional novelty of the network phenomenon, some theorists praised their speed, informality, and lack of hierarchy. Others were not so enthralled. They were concerned about the influence of interest groups or the weight of big countries. This debate has examined both the inputs to the network phenomenon—preferences—and the outputs—global coordination—but has not discussed the mechanism: how do we get from preferences to standards? How do these networks come together, what is their strategy for their success? My new study, Three Pathways to Global Standards: Private, Regulator, and Ministry Networks, seeks to open up the black box of network standard setting and analyze these mechanisms. It proposes a new theoretical framework that distinguishes among private, regulator, and ministry networks, and presents empirical evidence that illustrates why these three network types appeal to different countries for different reasons.
On December 23, 2013, the Federal Reserve System celebrated its centennial. Over the course of that century, the Fed has become one of the most important governmental agencies in the history of the American republic, a transformation one scholar has labeled “the most remarkable bureaucratic metamorphosis in American history.” Its policies influence nearly every aspect of public and private life. Given this importance and influence, “[n]o one can afford to ignore the Fed.”
At the core of that “remarkable bureaucratic metamorphosis” is a much-invoked but as often misunderstood set of institutional arrangements that constitute the Fed’s unique independence. In the standard popular and academic account, law is at the center of that independence: indeed, it is the statute itself, under this view, that defines that independence. Economists and political scientists interested in central bank independence—having written enough on the phenomenon to give it an acronym (CBI)—take as given that law defines central bank independence. And legal academics, in the exceptional event that they have taken note of the Fed, have analyzed its independence within the context of administrative law and agency independence generally. Again, unsurprisingly, statutes are at the center of that analysis, too.
Whether mandatory disclosure regulation and insider ownership affect a firm’s cost of capital is an important question in financial economics. In our paper, Mandatory Disclosure Quality, Inside Ownership, and Cost of Capital, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine this question on a large global sample of more than 10,000 firms across 35 countries.
Theory predict that disclosure regulation is negatively related to the cost of capital due to two separate effects: (i) an information effect in which better disclosure improves investors’ prediction of future cash flows, or (ii) a stewardship effect in which better disclosure improves managerial alignment with shareholders and therefore increases expected cash flows. The stewardship effect is not unique to disclosure, but is also present in other governance mechanisms that increase managerial alignment such as inside ownership. As a result, these alternative alignment mechanisms potentially reinforce or substitute for the stewardship effect of disclosure. We test this argument by examining whether inside ownership is negatively associated with the cost of capital and how inside ownership affects the relation between disclosure and the cost of capital.
The competition by states for incorporations has long been the subject of extensive scholarship. Views of this competition differ radically. While some commentators regard it as “The Genius of American Corporate Law,” others believe it leads to a “Race to the Bottom” and yet others have taken the position that it barely exists. Despite this lack of consensus among corporate law scholars, scholars in other fields have treated state competition for incorporations as a paradigm case of regulatory competition.
The legal rules governing businesses’ organizational choices have varied across nations along two main dimensions: the number of different forms that firms could adopt; and the extent to which firms had the contractual freedom to modify the available forms to suit their needs. Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, businesses in the U.S. had a narrower range of forms from which to choose than their counterparts in most other countries and also much less ability to modify the basic forms contractually. In the recent NBER Working Paper, Revisiting American Exceptionalism: Democracy and the Regulation of Corporate Governance in Nineteenth-Century Pennsylvania, I explore the exceptional character of the U.S. legal rules by focusing on the different structure of U.S. and British general incorporation laws.
A fundamental issue in business and economics is the sustainability—and not merely the growth—of economic development, which crucially hinges on the socially responsible operational and investment behavior of modern corporations (Porter, 1991). There is a widespread recognition, as well as growing empirical evidence, that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can substantially contribute to social progress and stakeholder wealth, including the wealth of shareholders (e.g., Dimson, Karakas, and Li, 2012; Deng, Kang, and Low, 2013). In our paper, The Foundations of Corporate Social Responsibility, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine the forces that fundamentally steer companies to behave as good citizens in society.
“Leximetrics,” which involves quantitative measurement of law, has become a prominent feature in empirical work done on comparative corporate governance, with particular emphasis being placed on the contribution that robust shareholder protection can make to a nation’s financial and economic development. Using this literature as our departure point, we are currently engaging in a leximetric analysis of the historical development of U.S. corporate law. Our paper, Law and History by Numbers: Use, But With Care, prepared for a University of Illinois College of Law symposium honoring Prof. Larry Ribstein, is part of this project. We identify in this paper various reasons for undertaking a quantitative, historically-oriented analysis of U.S. corporate law. The paper focuses primarily, however, on the logistical challenges associated with such an inquiry.
Over recent decades, corporate governance has become an increasingly high profile aspect of legal scholarship and practice. But despite this widespread interest, there remains considerable uncertainty about how exactly corporate governance should be defined or understood. Of particular concern is whether corporate governance is most appropriately understood as an aspect of ‘private’ (facilitative) law, or else as a part of ‘public’ (regulatory) law. In my recent book, Corporate Governance in the Shadow of the State (2013, Hart Publishing), I demonstrate that this question is not just an academic one in the pejorative sense. On the contrary, it is arguably the most important issue confronting those who study or teach the subject of corporate governance in any level of depth or analytical rigour.
Diversification is the best protection investors have from the risks of capital investment. Modern portfolio theory requires that investors diversify their holdings by investing in firms whose financial returns are influenced by different factors. That has traditionally meant investing in firms in different industries. The object is to identify the factors that could cause a firm’s return to vary from what is expected and to invest in firms that differ with regard to those elements of risk. By employing this investment strategy, investors can “diversify away” firm-specific risks.
In my forthcoming Essay, Legal Diversification, I introduce a new dimension along which investors can diversify. “Legal diversification” is an investment strategy whereby investors purchase securities governed by different legal rules in order to diversify away the risk that any one set of legal rules will fail to adequately limit the agency costs of business management. An investor may hold a diversified portfolio of stocks in different kinds of public corporations, but that portfolio would not necessarily be legally diversified. A portfolio would be legally diversified if it contained various kinds of securities issued by privately held limited liability companies, public corporations, emerging growth companies, and various derivatives. By holding a diversified portfolio of investments in firms and securities governed by different legal rules, investors can enjoy some protection from the failures of a particular legal regime while also sampling the benefits more successful regimes offer.