Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
I. Friend, Larry Lang (1988)
An Empirical Test of the Impact of Managerial Self-interest on Corporate Capital StructureJournal of Finance, 43
P. Sheard (1989)
The main bank system and corporate monitoring and control in JapanJournal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 11
J. Cable (1985)
CAPITAL MARKET INFORMATION AND INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF WEST GERMAN BANKS*The Economic Journal, 95
D. Fischel (1989)
The Economics of Lender LiabilityYale Law Journal, 99
M. Roe (1991)
A Political Theory of American Corporate FinanceERN: Econometric Studies of Corporate Governance (Topic)
M. Roe (1993)
Some Differences in Corporate Structure in Germany, Japan, and the United StatesYale Law Journal, 102
J. Franks, C. Mayer (1996)
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN THE U.K., GERMANY, AND FRANCEJournal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9
J. Macey, Geoffery Miller (1993)
Corporate Stakeholders: A Contractual PerspectiveUniversity of Toronto Law Journal, 43
Clifford Smith, Jerold Warner (1979)
On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenantsJournal of Financial Economics, 7
This article objects to a recent tendency of legal and economic scholars to “romanticize” the corporate governance role of German universal banks and Japanese main banks. There are potential conflicts between banks' interests as lenders and as shareholders that are likely to make banks less‐than‐ideal monitors for outside shareholders. Citing evidence that Japanese corporate borrowers pay above‐market interest rates for their bank financing, Macey and Miller interpret the high interest rates as “rents” earned by Japanese banks on their loan portfolios in exchange for (1) insulating incumbent management of borrower firms from hostile takeover and (2) accepting suboptimal returns on their equity holdings. The main problems with the German and Japanese systems stem from their failure to produce well‐developed capital markets. Concentrated and stable shareholdings reduce the order flow in the market, thereby depriving the market of liquidity. And the lack of capital market liquidity– combined with the intense loyalty of the banks towards incumbent management–removes the ability of outside shareholders to make a credible threat of takeover if managerial performance is substandard. The problem with American corporate governance–if indeed there is one–is not that hostile takeovers are bad, but that there are not enough of them due to regulatory restrictions and misguided legal policies. While U.S. law should be amended to give banks and other debtholders more power over borrowers in the case of financial distress, encouraging U.S. banks to become large stockholders is not likely to improve corporate efficiency. Strengthening the “voice” of American equity holders by eliminating restrictions on the market for corporate control would be the most effective step in improving firm performance.
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.