IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v32y2015i4p1641-1675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Political Ties Versus Market Credibility: Evidence from Corporate Scandals in China

Author

Listed:
  • Mingyi Hung
  • T. J. Wong
  • Fang Zhang

Abstract

This paper compares the value of political ties and market credibility in China by examining the consequence of corporate scandals. We categorize Chinese corporate scandals by whether the scandal is primarily associated with the destruction of (i) the firm's political networks (political scandals), (ii) the firm's market credibility (market scandals), or (iii) both (mixed scandals). Consistent with our hypothesis that scandals signaling the destruction of political ties are associated with greater losses in firm value than scandals signaling the destruction of market credibility, we find that the stock market reacts more negatively to political and mixed scandals than to market scandals. In addition, the greater negative market reactions associated with political and mixed scandals are primarily driven by firms that rely more on political networks. We also find that, compared to market scandals, political and mixed scandals lead to larger decreases in operating performance, greater reduction in loans from state†owned banks, and higher departure of political directors.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingyi Hung & T. J. Wong & Fang Zhang, 2015. "The Value of Political Ties Versus Market Credibility: Evidence from Corporate Scandals in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1641-1675, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:1641-1675
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12134
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:wly:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:1641-1675. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.