Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Upstreamr-Downstream
Hypothesis
ChuckC. Y. Kwok*
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
David M. Reeb**
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
M uch of the early literature on the porations (DCs) (e.g. Lee and Kwok,
multinational corporation (MNC) 1988). An implication of this body of
posits a diversification benefit for MNCs, research is that firm risk is increasing in
leading to lower levels of risk and to corporate internationalization.
subsequently higher levels of debt. Ini- Owing to data availability, the re-
tial research by scholars such as Hughes, search on the financial aspects of firm
Logue, and Sweeny (1975) finds evi- internationalization has focused primar-
dence consistent with the diversification ily on US based firms. We explore how
benefit. However, more recent research internationalization affects risk and le-
by Bartov, Bodnar and Kaul (1996) and verage for firms based in emerging mar-
Reeb, Kwok and Baek (1998) finds that kets and in other developed markets.1
firm risk is positively related to inter- Specifically, we argue that when firms
nationalization. Similarly, research on from more stable economies make inter-
leverage finds that US MNCs have sig- national investments, it tends to increase
nificantly lower levels of debt in their their risk and leads to a reduction in debt
capital structure relative to domestic cor- usage. By contrast, when firms from less
stable economies make international in- information, etc.) that offset the diversi-
vestments, it decreases their risk and al- fication benefit from imperfectly corre-
lows for greater debt utilization. In other lated returns. Using a portfolio approach
words, we predict that the relative busi- in an empirical analysis of 880 US based
ness risk among countries influences the MNCs, they report that systematic risk is
risk impacts of foreign direct invest- positively related to internationaliza-
ments. Thus, as firms invest economi- tion.
cally upstream they decrease their risk, Focusing on leverage, Agmon and Les-
while downstream investments lead to sard (1977) and Fatemi (1984) posit that
greater firm risk. the MNC diversification benefit reduces
Our focus is not on whether firm finan- the present value of bankruptcy costs
cial characteristics differ across coun- and allows increased debt usage in mul-
tries. Instead, our emphasis is on how tinationals. However, other researchers
internationalization may affect these have noted that internationalization may
characteristics differently in different lead to higher debtholder monitoring
countries. Underlying our analysis is the costs and, therefore, lower levels of le-
contention that differences in financial verage in the MNC (Burgman, 1996).
characteristics between US MNCs and Consistent with greater agency costs, Lee
DCs may not be representative of the dif- and Kwok (1988), Burgman (1996), and
ferences between MNCs and DCs in a Chen et al. (1997) report significantly
global context. To test our hypothesis higher debt ratios in DCs relative to
that the risk impacts of firm internation- MNCs.
alization are a function of the relative We seek to extend this literature by
risks in the home and target country, we focusing on an aspect of risk that is often
use firm data from 32 different countries neglected in this research. Specifically,
to examine the relationship between le- we focus on the relative business or en-
verage and internationalization. We also vironmental risk that a firm faces with
use the multi-country data set to explore foreign direct investments. We suggest
the relationship between risk (both total that owing to differences in the relative
and systematic) and internationaliza- business risks of foreign operations,
tion. MNCs from other parts of the world will
be observed to respond differently to FDI
LITERATURE REVIEW than US multinationals. Specifically, we
During the 1970s, researchers such as suggest in the next section that risk is
Hughes et al. (1975) and Rugman (1976) increasing in FDI for US firms, but de-
hypothesize that MNCs provide a diver- creasing in FDI for firms headquartered
sification benefit to shareholders because in emerging markets.
they possess cash flows in imperfectly
correlated markets. Yet, evidence in Bar- THE UPSTREAM-DOWNSTREAM
tov et al. (1996) suggests an increase in HYPOTHESIS
systematic risk with internationalization International business theory suggests
due to greater exchange rate risk. Simi- that foreign direct investment (FDI) is
larly, Reeb et al. (1998) posit that MNCs motivated by the desire to exploit firm-
may have increased risk from a variety of specific assets such as technological ad-
risk factors (such as exchange rate risk, vantages, management skills, and geo-
political risk, agency issues, asymmetric graphical advantages (Hymer (1976) and
return, o-iis the standard deviation of the host/target government degree of sophis-
return of firm i, and 0-m is the standard tication. Firms based in countries with
deviation of the market return. developed economies and with govern-
An operation's beta is influenced by ments that possess greater resources may
the operation's business nature as well have fewer opportunities to shift in-
as the economic system in which the come than firms based in emerging mar-
operation is located. For a project lo- kets (Plasschaert, 1985). Likewise, firms
cated in a more volatile emerging econ- based in developing economies may
omy, the total risk, oi, tends to be higher. have different opportunities to arbitrage
Unless the higher standard deviation is labor and capital markets relative to
offset by a lower correlation coefficient firms based in emerging market. Firms
Pim, the systematic risk, bi, tends to be moving upstream have the opportunity
higher.2 Conversely, for a project located to hire employees with different skill
in a more stable economy, o-itends to be sets and experiences than in their home
lower. Unless its correlation coefficient country, while firms based in developed
with the market return is substantially economies are typically portrayed as
higher, the project beta tends to be lower. gaining access to lower cost inputs. What
The overall systematic risk of a multi- is important is that the opportunities to
national corporation (bMNC) is simply
arbitrage international markets with firm
the weighted average of the betas of its
internationalization differ between firms
business operations located in different
based in less developed economies than
countries:
firms based in more developed econo-
mies. An implication is that firm behav-
N ior towards international activity differs
bMNC= Ewibi (2) depending upon whether a firm is mov-
i=1 ing upstream or downstream.
We suggest that for MNCs from the
United States where the economy is
where wi is the fraction of MNC's total
among the most stable in the world,
capital invested in the ith country's op-
eration. As a firm headquartered in a overseas expansion tends to increase
more stable economy expands its direct risk, and such an increase may not be
investments into a less stable market, the totally offset by the risk reduction due
overall beta of the firm may increase to international diversification. The net
since the beta of the new operation in the increase in corporate risk may there-
emerging market may be higher due to fore lead to a downward adjustment of
potentially greater environmental risk. leverage. Conversely, for corporations
In contrast, when a firm moves from an in emerging markets, international in-
emerging market economy to a devel- vestments into developed economies
oped economy, the overall beta of the lead to the reduction of firm risk; their
firm may decrease.' leverage may therefore be adjusted up-
The ability to arbitrage markets could wards. We label this our upstream-
also differ based upon home/target coun- downstream hypothesis.5 The risk as-
try economic differences. For example, pect of the upstream-downstream hy-
the ability to shift income among differ- pothesis can be stated formally and in
ent tax regimes could be related to the the alternative as:
Hi: The degree of firm international- and target market conditions. Using a
ization is positively (negatively) asso- sample of 1,921 firms from 32 countries,
ciated with firm risk for firms based in this research empirically examines these
more developed (less developed) predictions.7
economies which make investments in
less (more) developed markets. DATA DESCRIPTION
Research into the financial character-
Internationalization and istics of MNCs requires choosing an ap-
Leverage propriate proxy for internationalization
As alluded to above, the association (the degree of international involve-
between risk and firm internationaliza- ment). The most common variable cho-
tion suggests a leverage effect as well. As sen is the foreign sales ratio because the
firm risk increases (decreases), tradi- data is widely available. However, Lee
tional capital structure theory suggests a and Kwok (1988) and Burgman (1996)
decrease (increase) in debt utilization. note that this approach potentially mixes
The state of capital market development export sales with foreign subsidiary
could also impact the availability of ex- sales. Following Reeb et al. (1998), this
ternal financing in some markets. When analysis uses the foreign asset ratio
firms in less developed markets expand (FAR) to measure internationalization.8
internationally, they may gain access to This is computed as foreign assets di-
debt that was not available previously, vided by total assets. This may be a bet-
while the opposite is the case with firms ter measure of foreign subsidiary in-
from the US.6 Therefore, multinational volvement (i.e. international investment)
firms from emerging markets with weak and alleviates the problem of mixing in-
banks and undeveloped debt markets are ternational trade and investment.
more likely to increase their debt when Firm leverage (LEVER) or the debt ra-
they gain access to more debt than mul- tio is measured as long term debt (LTD)
tinationals from more developed mar- divided by the sum of long term debt and
kets whose domestic firms already have the market value of equity (MVE). This is
access to debt. This leads to our second consistent with the measures employed
formal hypothesis, which allows us to in Lee and Kwok (1988), Burgman
examine the leverage aspect of the up- (1996), and Chen et al. (1997).9 Total risk
stream-downstreamhypothesis: (TOTRISK) is defined or measured as the
standard deviation of monthly returns
H2: The degree of firm international-
using 60 months of return data.10
ization is negatively (positively) asso-
ciated with leverage for firms based in Data Sources
more developed (less developed)
The primary data source in this anal-
economies, which make investments
ysis is the Disclosure WorldScope Data-
in less (more) developed markets.
base. This database contains information
While we do not neglect the signifi- on approximately 17,000 public firms
cance of cross-border diversification from around the world. The WorldScope
benefits, our upstream-downstream hy- Database contains standardized data that
pothesis predicts that the overall effect is compiled (by taking into account
of internationalization on the leverage of the various accounting conventions
MNCs may vary, depending on home employed in different parts of the
TABLE2
STATISTICS
SUMMARY
PANELA: DESCRfPIVEINFORMATION
The datais comprised of 1921 firmswith assets greaterthan $100 million forthe period 1992
to 1996. Informationregardingmean and median leverage, foreign asset ratio, log of asset
size, non-debt tax shields (in 10,000,000s), price to book ratio, EBITvolatility, and profit-
ability is provided.
PANEL B: SUBSAMPLEDESCRIPTIVEINFORMATION
This panel gives summaryinformationregardingvarious subsamplesof the data used in this
study. Subsampleinformationis providedforUS firms,Japanesefirns, EmergingMarketfirms.
Among the Japanesefirms 29.8% of the firms have positive foreignassets, while in the US
56.6% of the firms have international operations. This accounts for the differences in the
foreign asset ratio between the two subsets. Repeating our multivariateanalysis using only
those firms with foreign assets provides similar results to those reported.
LEVERis the leverage proxy, and MTBis pected to have a positive correlation
the market-to-bookratio and is a proxy with total risk.
for growth opportunities. Firm size Equation (3) coefficient estimates us-
(LTA)is included to control for firm de- ing the 1,921 pooled sample are reported
fault risk as largerfirms are more stable in Table 3 Column 1. The B1 coefficient
and less apt to default (Harrisand Raviv, estimate is negative but is not signifi-
1991). Research and development (IN- cantly different from zero. This differs
TANG)is included to control for the tan- from recent research that reports an in-
gibility of assets because real assets are crease in risk with internationalization
easier to sell in the case of default. The for US based MNCs. The estimated coef-
leverage (LEVER)is included as a control ficients for the control variables for size
since higher leverage tends to lead to (LTA) and asset type (INTANG) are pos-
higher risk. The market-to-bookratio is itive and significant at the 1% signifi-
included to control for firm growth op- cance level. The estimated coefficients
portunities as firms with higher growth for the control variable for growth op-
tend to have higher risk. A positive and tions (MTB) and leverage (LEVER) are
significant coefficient estimate for B1 not significant at typical significance
would be consistent with an increase in levels.
total risk with internationalization. Firm The next step in this analysis is to
size is expected to be negatively corre- estimate Equation (3) using various sub-
lated with total risk. The asset type, le- sets of the sample. First, we exclude the
verage, and growth opportunities are ex- US firms and use only the 1150 non-US
TABLE 3
REGRESSIONANALYSIS FORTOTAL RISK CHANGESWITH
INTERNATIONALIZATION
*, **, *** Significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level. EGLS Consistent t-values are given in
parenthesis below each coefficient estimate.
firms. The results from this regression consistent with our upstream-down-
are reported in Column 2 in Table 3. The stream hypothesis.
B1 coefficient estimate is negative and
significantly different from zero at the Internationalization and
1% significance level, which is consis- Systematic Risk
tent with the idea that internationaliza- Primary Specification. A potential
tion leads to lower levels of risk in the concern in examining the relationship
MNC for non-US based firms.16 between systematic risk and firm inter-
In the next regression, the analysis is nationalization is the potential for mea-
repeated using only the 771 US firms and surement error in measuring beta.18 To
the results are reported in Column 3 in adjust for possible bias resulting from
Table 3. Consistent with Reeb et al. the measurement error in analyzing in-
(1998) and Bartov et al. (1996), we find dividual betas, we form portfolios con-
that the B1 coefficient estimate is posi- sisting of five securities according to the
tive and significantly different from zero firm's origin. Thus, emerging market
at the 1% significance level. This implies firms are grouped together in portfolios
that the results in the previous two re- as are developed economy firms. Firms
gressions are due to differences in behav- from the US are also put together in
ior towards foreign direct investment be- groups of five. Not all the firms in the
tween US and non-US firms. original sample have 36 months of com-
The next largest firm grouping in the plete return data. Only firms with three
risk subset is from Japan. Equation (3) is years' return data within the period of
estimated for the Japanese firms and re- 1994-96 are used in forming portfolios.
sults are reported in Column 4 in Table The number of firms from each country
3. The B1 coefficient estimate is not sig- included in the subsample are shown in
nificantly different from zero for the Jap- Column 2 of Table 1. This provides a
anese firms. The final regression, re- sample of 264 portfolios with 118 port-
ported in Column 5 in Table 3, gives the folios of US firms, 16 portfolios of emerg-
results of the regression analysis using ing market firms, and 130 other devel-
only emerging market firms. The coeffi- oped economy firm portfolios.
cient estimate for B1 is negative and sig- The beta for each portfolio is calcu-
nificantly different from zero at the 10% lated directly using monthly return data
significance level.17 For Japan, the re- for the period 1994-1996 (36 months of
gression results could be explained as return data).19 The monthly market re-
follows: Japanese foreign direct invest- turn used is MSCI-World Index.2" The
ment may go upstream to a country such calculated portfolio beta is then used in
as the U.S. where the economy is, argu- Equation (4).
ably, more stable than that of Japan. Or,
it may go downstream to more risky
Bp= kp + Ap1FARP + Ap2MTBp
emerging markets (e.g. China and South-
east Asia). Consequently, the effects may + Ap3LTAp + Ap4LEVERp + ep(4)
offset each other and result in little
change in the risk of the MNC with in- where Bp is the beta of the portfolio,
ternationalization. The total risk, there- FARp is the average degree of interna-
fore, does not vary much with interna- tionalization for portfolio p, and MTBp is
tionalization. Overall, our results are its market-to-book ratio, and LTA and
LEVER are the portfolio size and lever- zero at the 5% significance level. In con-
age proxies. The null hypothesis is that trast to the findings of Reeb et al. (1998),
the coefficient, Ap,, will equal zero if the LTA and LEVERcoefficient estimates
there is no change in systematic risk are both significant and the MTB coeffi-
with changes in internationalization. A cient estimate is not significant. The re-
significant and positive AP1 coefficient sults in this regression provide addi-
estimate would indicate that internation- tional evidence of the differences be-
alization increases the systematic risk of tween US and non-US firms in their
the firm. MTBp is included to control for experience with internationalization.
growth opportunities; previous research This evidence indicates that US firms
suggests that this variable may have a have an increase in systematic risk with
negative relationship with systematic internationalization, while non-US firms
risk. Size and leverage are also included generally have a decrease.21
as potential control variables and is con- Alternative Specifications. Any analy-
sistent with the specification in Reeb et sis based on betas is difficult due to the
al. (1998). measurement error problem. One alter-
Equation (4) coefficient estimates us- native to using a portfolio approach is to
ing the subsample of 1,320 firms (264 impose a filter on the stock returns to
portfolios) are reported in Column 1 of minimize the potential for measurement
Table 4. The AP1 coefficient estimate is error. This approach consists of setting
negative but it is not significantly differ- all of the returns greater than the 0.995
ent from zero at any standard signifi- fractile or less than the .005 fractal equal
cance level. This is in contrast to the to the 0.995 and .005 fractal values and
findings in Reeb et al. (1998) using only allows the use individual security re-
US data. The estimated coefficients for turns.22 We repeat the analysis using the
the control variables for size (LTA) and fractal betas and report results in Col-
leverage (LEVER) are significant at the umn 4 in Table 4. Consistent with the
1% significance level. The estimated co- portfolio evidence, there is no significant
efficient for the control variable of relationship between firm international-
growth options (MTB) is not significant ization and firm beta in the aggregate.
at the typical significance levels. However, for the non-US firms, there is a
The next step in this analysis is to negative relationship between firm inter-
estimate Equation (4) using two subsets nationalization and systematic risk. In
of the sample. The first subset excludes contrast, the US firms have a positive
the US firms and includes only the 146 association between the foreign asset ra-
non-US firm subset. The regression re- tio and beta. These results are consistent
sults using this subset of the data are with the portfolio regressions and with
reported in Column 2 of Table 4. The Ap1 the upstream-downstream hypothesis.
coefficient estimate is negative and sig- Also consistent with our hypothesis is
nificantly different from zero at the 5% the insignificant positive relationship
level. The regression is repeated using between systematic risk and internation-
only the 118 US firm portfolios and the alization for Japanese firms. We find a
results are reported in Column 3 of Table significant (at the 10% level) and nega-
4. Consistent with recent research we tive relationship between firm interna-
find that the AP1 coefficient estimate is tionalization and systematic risk in the
positive and significantly different from emerging market firms.
.C *c un
LO* c CDC5:V a)m
Co 'I LO CO N M 'W N N -o3
c> cc
ez : | ffi | >X -X
I S
Z Cu c -NC C)
- 0) L- CO CD C)) C C
'O ,
o OL
*e Bo * CY)~~~~~~~C
? CD to~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
CZ
co
X ta . CS N - n CS O O O cI I- -o (O 0
S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U
v: = tX4: N CD N m nm o N N N
0-
o Y ~~~~~~~~~~>
F~~~~L
._4 . n s co N CI
n n n N m
?_ LC -
z u c
V)~~~~~~~
e> ~ ~C) 80-0
z 00 t : Lr I n m OO U-1CD
Lr)~ 0
| a l _ - _ _ _DC'4 H , |6 _
~~ . U v J B N *
622
C- JOURNAL
cn OF INTERNATIONAL
co? D
BUSINESS STUDIES
<I I
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
CHUCKC.Y. KWOK,
DAVIDM. REEB
TABLE 5
REGRESSIONANALYSISFORCAPITALSTRUCrURECHANGESWITH
INTERNATIONALIZATION
*, **, *** Significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level. EGLSConsistent t-values are given in
parentiesis below each coefficient estimate.
els of debt in the capital structure. This As the aggregate regression may mask
evidence is in pointed contrast to the important differences among firms based
findings in Lee and Kwok (1988) and in different countries, the next step in
Burgman (1996) using only US data. this analysis is to estimate Equation (5)
Consistent with Titman and Wessels using various subsets of the sample. In
(1988), the estimated coefficients for the first subset regression, we exclude
the control variables for profitability the US firms and use only the 1150
(ROA), size (LTA), intangible assets (IN- non-US firms. The results from this re-
TANG) are negative and significant at the gression are reported in Column 2 in Ta-
1% significance level. Consistent with ble 5. As in the first regression, the A1
Kester (1986), the estimated coefficients coefficient estimate is positive and sig-
of the control variables for growth op- nificantly different from zero (at the 1%
tions (MTB) and non-debt tax shields are significance level in this regression). The
positive and significant at the 1% level coefficient estimate increases threefold
as well. However, the estimated coeffi- in size with the exclusion of the US
cients for the industry control variables firms. Given these strong differences
(INDUST1 and INDUST2 ) are not signif- with previous findings on US firms, the
icantly different from zero. regression is repeated using only the 771
US firms, and the results are reported in power of the testing. Regression results
Column 3 in Table 5. Consistent with obtained using their exact specification
previous research we find that the A1 for the growth measure are consistent
coefficient estimate is negative and sig- with the results in Table 5. We also ex-
nificantly different from zero at the 1% plore the issue of our simultaneous use
significance level. This suggests that the of industry and R &D, whose interaction
results detected in the first two regres- may mitigate the control for tangibility of
sions are not due to methodological dif- assets. The concern is that the differ-
ferences with previous research but, in- ences we find could stem from the ability
stead, stem from different behavior be- to put forward collateral security in ob-
tween US and non-US firms in response taining or issuing debt instruments. Con-
to internationalization. sequently, we repeat the analysis using
The next largest firm grouping in our only manufacturing firms, as this group
sample is from Japan. Equation (5) is es- is more homogeneous in terms of its abil-
timated for the Japanese firms and is re- ity to obtain securitized debt. Once
ported in Column 4 in Table 5. The A1 again, we find that US firms have lower
coefficient estimate is not significantly leverage with increasing firm interna-
different from zero for the Japanese tional activity and that non-US firms
firms. Column 5 in Table 5 reports the have a higher debt usage with greater
results of the regression analysis using firm internationalization.
only emerging market firms (i.e. the firm We also consider the extent of capital
home country is an emerging market). market development since companies
The coefficient estimate associated A1 is headquartered in countries with poorly
positive and significantly different from developed equity markets may use more
zero at the 10% significance level. debt simply due to limited equity avail-
Alternative Specifications. One poten- ability. As we are comparing MNCs and
tial concern is that the proxy for leverage DCs within the same countries, this
includes the market value of equity in should be of less concern. However, for
the denominator, which could impact robustness, we repeat the estimation of
the leverage proxy if changes in the mar- Equation (5) and include the ratio of the
ket value of equity are correlated with market value of all public equity to the
FAR. Therefore, as a robustness check, gross domestic product. Although inclu-
we use total assets to normalize the debt. sion of this variable slightly increases
We also consider measuring leverage as the explanatory power of the model, the
total liabilities (i.e. long-term debt plus coefficient estimate is insignificant at
current liabilities) scaled by total assets standard levels and the results are simi-
and as total liabilities scaled by the sum lar to those reported in Table 5.
of total liabilities and the market value of Finally, we consider using an alterna-
equity. Our results are also robust to tive measure of home country risk. Spe-
these alternative specifications. cifically, we measure home country risk
Another potential concern is our mea- using the previous 10 years of domestic
sure of growth opportunities. Baber, stock market volatility. Sorting by mar-
Janakiraman, and Kang (1996) suggest ket volatility (the coefficient of variation)
using a factor analysis based composite and repeating the analysis, we find that
measure of growth opportunities and in- for firms headquartered in the high vol-
dicate that their approach improves the atility markets there is a positive rela-
tionship between firm international ac- this study confirm the previous findings
tivity and leverage. In contrast, for firms that there is a debt reduction associated
headquartered in the lower volatility with internationalization for US based
markets there is a negative relationship firms. However, for emerging market-
between international activity and lever- based firms, internationalization is sig-
age. These findings are consistent with nificantly associated with a positive in-
our upstream-downstream hypothesis. crease in leverage.
Further empirical analysis confirms
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS that as U.S. firms get more involved with
The classic theories of the MNC sug- international investments, their total and
gest that MNCs should have higher lev- systematic risks tend to increase. In con-
els of debt than DCs owing to the risk trast, emerging market based firms have a
reduction resulting from having opera- decrease in total and systematic risks as
tions in less than perfectly correlated they get more involved internationally.
markets. However, research by Lee and In aggregate, the evidence suggests that
Kwok (1988) and Burgman (1996) con- the MNC home/target market conditions
cludes that internationalization for US play an important role in predicting how
firms actually leads to a reduction in the firm's risks and capital structure
debt ratios, which they suggest stems change with corporate internationaliza-
from MNCs' growth opportunities, in- tion. The findings of this study are sum-
creased agency costs, and exchange rate marized in Table 6. Consistent with ac-
risks. cepted financial theory, the aggregate ev-
While agreeing that cross-country di- idence indicates an inverse relationship
versification benefits may play a role in between risk and leverage and is consis-
reducing corporate investment risks, this tent with the proposed upstream-down-
research suggests that the dominant fac- stream hypothesis.
tor in explaining the overall impact of In this study, the tests of relationships
internationalization on firm risk and le- among internationalization, total and
verage is the different risk classes of dif- systematic risks, and MNCs' financial le-
ferent countries. The results reported in verage are mostly conducted at the aggre-
TABLE 6
OF THE MNC:
AND FINANCIALCHARACTERISTICS
INTERNATIONALIZATION
A SUMMARY
Emerging
Regression Entire World IJS Only Market
Leverage = AO + A1 FAR + controls + - +
Systematic Risk = A,, + Ap1FAR + controls Not Significant +
Total Risk = Bo + B1 FAR + controls Not Significant +
This table provides a summary of the financial characteristics found associated with firm
internationalization. Each row gives the sign of the coefficient estimate associated with a
particulardata set regression (i.e. for A1 or Ap1 or B.). The noted ? relationships are all
significantlv different from zero at various standardlevels as indicated in previous tables.
gate level. For future research, one may opment as a control in Equation (5) of
empirically identify exactly what under- Table 5. After controlling for the'capital
lying factors lead to higher (lower) total market development, the effect of inter-
or systematic risks when MNCs startop- nationalization on leverage is still con-
erations in foreign markets and how sistent with the prediction of our up-
these factors affect the MNCs' leverage. stream-downstreamhypothesis.
7. Since the data set we have does not
NOTES provide detail data of where individual
1. Our use of the term "emerging mar- operations of an MNC are located (exact
kets" follows that of the International matching of home and target markets),
Monetary Fund's 1999 Capital Market we can only draw our conclusions based
Report. Please see page 1 of their report on findings at the aggregatelevel.
for their criteria. These countries are de- 8. The testing is repeated using the
noted with an asterisk in our Table 1. foreign sales ratio for consistency with
2. There are of course other factors that previous research. The results lead to
influence the risk of a project. Further- similar inferences.
more, it is not necessarily the case that a 9. A potential concern with this ap-
project in an emerging market is riskier proach is that MNCs could change the
than a project in a developed economy types of debt they utilize in foreign mar-
and vice versa. However, we hypothe- kets. Therefore, the testing is repeated
size that beyond the diversification ef- using Total Liabilities/ (Total Liabili-
fect, the relative stability of the two mar- ties + MarketValue of Equity). The re-
kets also plays a role in the riskiness of a sults lead to similar inferences.
project and on the incremental impact 10. Many of the observationshad miss-
on firm systematic risk. ing returns.Repeatingthe analysis using
3. If the correlation coefficient is low, only firms with complete return data
it means that much of the increased lead to qualitatively similar results.
project risk in this volatile environment 11. Specifically, Worldscope employs
is diversifiable in a portfolio context. approximately 120 multilingual finan-
Then the systematic risk may not in- cial analysts who utilize "detailed"
crease or even decline. country-specific manuals that define
4. Again, whether the beta will in- each data item so that "items are inter-
crease or decrease depends on the preted consistently'throughout all coun-
tradeoff between the correlation coeffi- tries". Worldscope reports that they
cient, Pim' and the project's total risk, i . closely examine the nature and compo-
The net effect of these two factors should nents of financial statements, notes to
be determined empirically. accounts, and related disclosures, and
5. An implicit assumption of our anal- then rebuild the accounts on a compo-
ysis is that emerging market firms are nent basis. The standardized data is uti-
able and do diversify into more stable lized as it minimizes differences based
economies. Likewise our analysis also solely on financial reporting differences.
assumes that stable economy based firms 12. As one reviewer noted, the sample
diversify into less stable economies. may be the most complete available but
6. To ensure the effect of internation- it still has only a limited number of
alization on risk and leverage, we in- emerging market firms. The implication
clude the level of capital market devel- is that the sample may not be represen-
tative of all emerging market based 19. The portfolio beta is estimated us-
MNCs and therefore care must be taken ing the standard CAPM equation: rit =
in interpreting the results. rft + bi (rmt - rft) + et where rjt is the
13. While outliers were detected (us- random return on the ith portfolio at time
ing R-Student statistic), their exclusion t, rftis the risk-free rate, bi is the measure
did not lead to different inferences. of systematic risk of portfolio i, rmtis the
14. For a concise explanation of the world market return, and et is the mean
problems and remedies associated with zero error term at time t.
panel data, see Green (1997). 20. The mean portfolio beta is .88 and
15. Many of the observations had miss- is consistent with the fact that the sam-
ing returns. Repeating the analysis using ple excluded firms with assets below
only firms with complete return data US$100 million.
lead to qualitatively similar results. 21. Owing to the limited number of
16. The findings reported in Tables 3-5 portfolios from each region, running fur-
show significant associations between ther subset regressions is not practical.
internationalization and risks as well as 22. Another potential concern is the
leverage; they do not indicate causality. non-synchronous trading effect. How-
Our interpretation of the findings is ever, our stringent sample selection pro-
cess minimizes this concern. For com-
based on the theoretical argument in the
pleteness, we repeat the systematic risk
Third Section that internationalization
regressions using the approach sug-
leads to the change of firm risk and there-
gested in Dimson (1979) to adjust for
fore corporate leverage.
non-synchronous trading. The results
17. For consistency of table presenta-
are similar to those reported in Table V.
tion, we use two-tailed tests to report the
23. To control for the industry effect,
level of significance in Tables 3-5. How-
we use two dummy variables to repre-
ever, since we expect internationaliza-
sent the industries. We follow Harris and
tion is associated with lower risks and
Raviv (1991) to categorize industries into
higher leverage for MNCs from emerging
three groups: those with low, medium,
markets, one-tailed tests should be more and low debt. If the firm's industry falls
appropriate. In that case, the significance into the medium-debt group, the first in-
level should actually be 0.05. dustry dummy takes the value of 1. Al-
18. Fama and French (1992) suggest ternatively, if the firm's industry falls
two concerns in using firm betas. The into the high-debt group, the second in-
first concern is the beta is measured with dustry dummy takes the value of 1. To
error and the second is that this error test the robustness of our results, two
may be correlated with some other vari- other regressions are run: 1) using all 14
ables in the equation. With our specifi- dummy variables to represent the 15 in-
cation, the primary concern is the former dustries; and 2) leaving out the industry
and not the latter as we are using beta as control variables from the regression en-
the dependent variable instead of as an tirely. Both regressions lead to similar
independent variable. Thus, the main conclusions.
concern in our analysis is the increase in
the standard error associated with mea- REFERENCES
surement error in the dependent vari- Agmon, Tamir and Donald Lessard,
able. 1977. Investor recognition of corporate