IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vuw/vuwcsr/19189.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can continuous disclosure improve the performance of State-Owned Enterprises?

Author

Listed:
  • Talosaga, Talosaga
  • Heatley, David
  • Howell, Bronwyn

Abstract

In January 2010 the New Zealand Government introduced a continuous disclosure regime for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) modelled on the regime applying to publicly-listed companies (PLCs). The government sees continuous disclosure increasing the transparency of SOEs and that this will lead to improved financial performance by SOEs. We analyse the traditional rationales for continuous disclosure in PLCs and find that it is not axiomatic that a continuous disclosure regime designed for PLCs overlaid onto an SOE will offer the same incentives for performance improvement. The differences in owner identity and governance relationships in SOEs and the absence of a market for the trading of shares substantially weaken the performance improvement effect of the disclosure instrument in SOEs. In the absence of share trading it is not clear how a failure to disclose by SOE managers could be detected. Furthermore under the New Zealand arrangements the sanctions for SOE failure to disclose are very weak. This suggests that it is both easier for and more likely that SOE managers will withhold material information relative to their PLC counterparts. The hypothesis appears confirmed by a matched-pair comparison of disclosures by SOEs and private sector firms in the first year of the SOE continuous disclosure regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Talosaga, Talosaga & Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2011. "Can continuous disclosure improve the performance of State-Owned Enterprises?," Working Paper Series 19189, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
  • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:19189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/19189
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Utpal Bhattacharya & Hazem Daouk, 2002. "The World Price of Insider Trading," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(1), pages 75-108, February.
    2. Canice Prendergast, 2003. "The Limits of Bureaucratic Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 929-958, October.
    3. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58, January.
    4. Pastena, V & Ronen, J, 1979. "Some Hypotheses On The Pattern Of Managements Informal Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 550-564.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. Ausubel, Lawrence M, 1990. "Insider Trading in a Rational Expectations Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1022-1041, December.
    8. Etebari, Ahmad & Tourani-Rad, Alireza & Gilbert, Aaron, 2004. "Disclosure regulation and the profitability of insider trading: Evidence from New Zealand," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 479-502, November.
    9. Kalu Ojah & Stella Muhanji & Andrew Myburg, 2008. "Market Reaction and Equity Market Efficiency: A Survey of the Insider Trading Law in South Africa," The African Finance Journal, Africagrowth Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 1-28.
    10. Michael Manove, 1989. "The Harm from Insider Trading and Informed Speculation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(4), pages 823-845.
    11. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19189 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Talosaga, Talosaga & Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2011. "Can continuous disclosure improve the performance of State-Owned Enterprises?," Working Paper Series 4083, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    3. Ojah, Kalu & Muhanji, Stella & Kodongo, Odongo, 2020. "Insider trading laws and price informativeness in emerging stock markets: The South African case," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    4. Laura Beny, "undated". "A Comparative Empirical Investigation of Agency and Market Theories of Insider Trading," University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics Working Paper Series umichlwps-1003, University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics.
    5. Maung, Min & Shedden, Myles & Wang, Yuan & Wilson, Craig, 2019. "The investment environment and cross-border merger and acquisition premiums," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 19-35.
    6. Laura Nyantung Beny, 2005. "Do Insider Trading Laws Matter? Some Preliminary Comparative Evidence," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp741, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    7. Wielhouwer, Jacco L., 2013. "When is public enforcement of insider trading regulations effective?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 52-60.
    8. Aaron Gilbert & Alireza Tourani-Rad & Tomasz Piotr Wisniewski, 2007. "Insiders and the law: The impact of regulatory change on insider trading," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 745-766, September.
    9. Jie Hu & Thomas H. Noe, 1997. "The insider trading debate," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, vol. 82(Q 4), pages 34-45.
    10. Mico APOSTOLOV, 2016. "Ownership And Control Structures A Case Study," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(2), pages 23-37, June.
    11. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 0. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    13. Art Durnev & Amrita Nain, "undated". "The Unanticipated Effects of Insider Trading Regulation," American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings 1023, American Law & Economics Association.
    14. Wu, Zhenyu & Chua, Jess H. & Chrisman, James J., 2007. "Effects of family ownership and management on small business equity financing," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 875-895, November.
    15. Ng, Desmond W. & Salin, Victoria, 2012. "An Institutional Approach to the Examination of Food Safety," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-26, May.
    16. An, Suwei, 2023. "Essays on incentive contracts, M&As, and firm risk," Other publications TiSEM dd97d2f5-1c9d-47c5-ba62-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Jankovic Ivan & Block Walter, 2019. "Private Property Rights, Government Interventionism and Welfare Economics," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 19(4), pages 365-397, December.
    18. Diamandescu Andrei & Grigore Maria Zenovia, 2009. "From Contractual Approach Of Firm To Theories Of Knowledge," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 295-301, May.
    19. James J. Chrisman & Kristen Madison & Taewoo Kim, 2021. "A Dynamic Framework of Noneconomic Goals and Inter-Family Agency Complexities in Multi-Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(4), pages 906-930, July.
    20. Edmans, Alex & Jayaraman, Sudarshan & Schneemeier, Jan, 2017. "The source of information in prices and investment-price sensitivity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 74-96.
    21. Santiago Kopoboru & Gloria Cuevas-Rodríguez & Leticia Pérez-Calero, 2020. "Boards that Make a Difference in Firm’s Acquisitions: The Role of Interlocks and Former Politicians in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:19189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Library Technology Services (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcvuwnz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.