Profitability and Ownership

Similar documents
Profitability and Ownership Structure of US Foreign Ventures: Are Majority-Owned Ventures More Profitable Than Other Ventures?

Missouri Economic Indicator Brief: Manufacturing Industries


Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development Office of Workforce, Community Development, and Research

Montana Manufacturing & Forest Products: 2014 Outlook. Todd A. Morgan, CF

Florida Department Of Revenue Tax Information Publication. TIP 99A01-22 DATE ISSUED: Jun 30, 1999

Data Appendix Understanding European Real Exchange Rates, by Mario J. Crucini, Christopher I. Telmer and Marios Zachariadis

Revised October 17, 2016

Supplemental Table I. WTO impact by industry

World Industry Outlook: Which Industries Gain and Which Lose in a Slowing Global Economy? Mark Killion, CFA Managing Director World Industry Service

Montana Manufacturing & Forest Products: 2013 Outlook. Todd A. Morgan, CF

MANUFACTURING IN IOWA

Preliminary draft, please do not quote

Macroeconomic Impact Estimates of Governor Riley s 2003 Accountability and Tax Reform Package

Montana Manufacturing & Forest Products:

Montana Manufacturing & Forest Products: 2010 Outlook. Todd A. Morgan, CF

GOAL 6 FIRMS PARTICIPATING IN FOREIGN EXPORT TRADE

Kansas Department of Revenue Office of Policy and Research State Sales Tax Collections by NAICS

Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Region 2015 Economy Profile Update

An Examination of the Low Rates of Return of Foreign-Owned U.S. Companies

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES US MULTINATIONALS IN PUERTO RICO AND THE REPEAL OF SECTION 936 TAX EXEMPTION FOR U.S. CORPORATIONS

Employment and Investment Trends in Indiana Manufacturing

Impact of FDI on Industrial Development of India

Online appendix to Understanding Weak Capital Investment: the Role of Market Concentration and Intangibles

Financial Statements Statistics of Corporations by Industry, Annually

PRESS RELEASE. The Overall Turnover Index in Industry in July 2017, compared with June 2017, recorded an increase of 2.1% (Table 6).

PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS Third Quarter 2011, Revised

Economic Outlook. William Strauss Senior Economist and Economic Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS

Note on the effect of FDI on export diversification in Central and Eastern Europe

National Minimum Wage in South Africa: Quantification of Impact

Finally, A Global Tailwind for U.S. Manufacturing Growth

Effect of tariff increase on residential sector preliminary results. Dr Johannes C Jordaan

3.1 Scheduled Banks' Liabilities and Assets

Internet address: USDL

MANUFACTURING PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT CREDIT

Is the Weekend Effect Really a Weekend Effect?

U.S. Macro Economic Outlook

Impact of the global economic crisis on the South African economy

MANUFACTURING PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT CREDIT

AN ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Supplementary Materials for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2018

Online Appendix. Manisha Goel. April 2016

Economic Outlook. William Strauss Senior Economist and Economic Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Montana Manufacturing: Issues & Outlook Todd A. Morgan, CF

Kansas Department of Revenue Office of Policy and Research State Sales Tax Collections by NAICS Calendar Year 2007 January-07.

AN ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Declining Rate of Return on Capital and the Role of Intangibles in Japan and Korea

Appendix F K F M M Y L Y Y F

Investing in Mexico: Challenges and opportunities

Wholesale trade Retail trade. 10 Value of goods in stock. Annual sales of goods

THE REAL ECONOMY BULLETIN

This PDF is a selection from a published volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research

MANUFACTURERS. Montana. Survey

A Comparison of Official and EUKLEMS estimates of MFP Growth for Canada. Wulong Gu Economic Analysis Division Statistics Canada.

Competition Policy Review Panel Research Paper Summary. Author: Walid Hejazi, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

By Hafiz A. Pasha. Presented at LSE Annual Conference 2015

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

INTENTIONAL JOB DISCRIMINATION IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA PART II THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT OF VISIBLE INTENTIONAL JOB DISCRIMINATION

Preliminary Annual. National Accounts. Preliminary Annual National Accounts 2016

Chapter URL:

EMPLOYEE TENURE IN 2014

Economic and Residential Outlook 1. William Strauss, Senior Economist and Economic Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Capital Expenditure Trends: When and Where Will Firms Start Investing Again? Peter Loveridge European Manager, World Industry Service 24 th June 2009

Animal Production, Dairy, Beef, Sheep, Chickens, Etc $ Forestry Management and Sales Standing Timber Only $350.

Priorities for Industry Accounts at BEA

U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis NEWS U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230

MASS LAYOFFS DECEMBER 2012 ANNUAL TOTALS 2012

Item

APPENDIX to Pyramidal Ownership and the Creation of New Firms

Online Appendix: Tariffs and Firm Performance in Ethiopia

Sole Proprietorship Returns, 2004

Interdependency in East Asia and the Post-Crisis Macroeconomic Adjustment in Korea. Hak K. Pyo Seoul National University

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION Office of Workforce Information and Performance 1100 North Eutaw Street Baltimore, MD 21201

What s Ahead for the Economy: Choppy Waters or Smooth Sailing?

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: OCTOBER The overall employment situation was little changed in October, it was reported

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Economic Outlook. William Strauss Senior Economist and Economic Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis NEWS U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230

Economic Outlook 1. William Strauss, Senior Economist and Economic Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Economic Outlook

lease payments account for 14 percent, and pipeline infrastructure accounts for 28 percent.

SHORT TERM DISABILITY. benefits for employees that benefit employers

JORDAN SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE INDUSTRIES : PERIODICAL EVALUATION

LETTER. economic. China and Mexico eat away at Canada s share of the American market NOVEMBER bdc.ca. Canada

MAKING IT IN AMERICA: REVITALIZING US MANUFACTURING TECHNICAL APPENDIX

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

U.S. Census Bureau: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Employment Situation: Ohio and U.S. (Seasonally Adjusted) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 -5,000. In This Issue

FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM FORM

BULGARIAN TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY - NOVEMBER 2010 (PRELIMINARY DATA)

Employment Situation: Ohio and U.S. (Seasonally Adjusted) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000. In This Issue

SHORT TERM DISABILITY. benefits for employees that benefit employers

Trade Flows and Trade Policy Analysis. October 2013 Dhaka, Bangladesh

Source: StatsSA GDP quarterly figures. Excel spreadsheet downloaded in December 2017.

Property Tax Reduction Programs DUSTIN POWERS JANUARY 8, 2019

2017 West Virginia County Data Profile. Wyoming County. Bureau of Business and Economic Research

Montana Occupational Health & Safety Surveillance

Global Insight s Sector Risk Analysis Which are the Winners and Losers?

Transcription:

Profitability and Ownership Structure of US Foreign Ventures Why US Joint Ventures Abroad Are Less Profitable Than Wholly Owned Ventures Ben Gomes-Casseres Mauricio Jenkins Peter Zámborský

Low profitability of US JVs abroad! US manufacturing joint ventures abroad earned an average 3% return on assets in 1977-2003! Wholly-owned manufacturing affiliates earned 6.4% ROA

Profitability Gap, 1977-2003 12.0% 10.0% Manufacturing Majority Minority Gap 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Possible explanations for gap We tested for:! Size! Age! Tax rates! Non-dividend payments! MNC s ownership-specific capabilities

Stylized facts emerging from data 1. There is a positive gap on average 2. It is largest in sectors where US MNCs are most competitive abroad 3. The gap shrinks over time on average

Related academic literature! Desai, Foley and Hines (2004) found sharply declining propensity of US MNEs to form JVs abroad! They focus on the determinants of ownership structure to explain this

Declining use of JVs by US MNEs Share of JVs on Total No. of US Foreign Ventures 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1982 1989 1994 1997 Other JV Share

Does globalization reduce rationale for international alliances and JVs?! Globalization reduces trade barriers and communications costs, making international alliances more attractive! On the other hand, it also increases the return to coordinating operations within multinational firms

Profitability Determinants Neglected! Desai finds return on assets (ROA) is decreasing function of foreign tax rates! Controls: affiliate leverage, sales, country GDP and GDP per capita! They don t perform any further analysis of ROA determinants

Profitability Gap Not Explored Yet! Desai et al did not uncover the profitability gap between wholly and partially owned ventures! Neither did other researchers

Profitability Gap Defined! Profitability Net Income/Net Assets! Wholly-owned majority-owned ventures, 90% of them are 100% owned! Joint Ventures All affiliates minus majority-owned Includes 50-50 JVs, which account for about 54% of JV affiliates

Preview of data! Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis! 1977 and 1982-2003! Non-bank affiliates of non-bank parents! Industry level, 25 three-digit sectors! 2 & 1 digit sectors, countries, regions! Avg. no. of wholly owned foreign ventures in manufacturing: 6,349! No. of foreign manufacturing JVs: 856

Profitability Gap, 1977-2003 12.0% 10.0% Manufacturing Majority Minority Gap 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Questions about ROA Gap! Where and when is it positive?! In which sectors, countries, regions?! Where and when is it negative?! Why is it positive/negative?! Is it shrinking? Growing? Where?

Top and Bottom 3 Sectors by Gap Sector (3-digit classification) ROA Gap Office machines, computers 8.7 Electronic components etc 5.8 Beverages 5.4 Paper and allied products -2.1 Lumber, wood and furniture -3.0 Soap, cleaners and toilet goods -4.9

SECTOR (3-DIGIT) Office and computing machines Electronic components & accessories Beverages Instruments and related products Radio, TV and telecom equipment Agricultural chemicals Motor vehicles and equipment Drugs Rubber products Fabricated metal products Grain mill and bakery products Construction and mining machinery Stone, clay, nonmetallic mineral goods Industrial chemicals and synthetics Printing and publishing Nonferrous Ferrous Household appliances Miscellaneous plastics products Textile products and apparel Glass products Tobacco products Paper and allied products Lumber, wood, furniture and fixtures Soap, cleaners and toilet goods ROA MAJ. OWNED 9.7% 7.4% 11.0% 7.5% 6.3% 6.1% 4.1% 11.4% 5.4% 5.0% 7.2% 2.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.9% 3.0% 4.4% 4.1% 6.3% 4.2% 5.3% 11.3% 4.7% 3.3% 7.2% ROA MIN. OWNED 1.0% 1.6% 5.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% 1.1% 8.9% 3.2% 3.1% 5.3% 0.8% 4.3% 4.9% 5.9% 3.0% 4.6% 4.4% 6.9% 5.2% 6.5% 12.9% 6.8% 6.3% 12.1% %-POINT ROA GAP 8.7% 5.8% 5.4% 4.7% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.5% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.6% -1.0% -1.2% -1.7% -2.1% -3.0% -4.9% GAP AS % OF MAJ ROA 90.0% 78.3% 48.8% 63.1% 55.7% 56.9% 74.4% 22.2% 40.2% 37.4% 26.4% 68.8% 24.3% 9.3% 1.0% -0.4% -5.1% -6.3% -9.5% -23.4% -21.6% -14.7% -44.6% -91.7% -68.4%

35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% -10.00% -15.00% -20.00% Gap positive, falling in most sectors Office and Computing Machines Majority Minority % Pt Gap 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

But in some stays stable, negative Soaps and Toiletries Majority Minority 30.00% 25.00% % Pt Gap 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-10.00% -15.00% -20.00% -25.00%

Gap close to zero in some countries United Kingdom 15.0% Gap Maj Min 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-5.0% -10.0% -15.0%

Some regions are closing the gap Asia and Pacific Gap 15.0% Maj Min 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Theoretical Explanation: Ownership-specific capabilities! Ownership-specific capabilities of MNE! Reflect competitive advantage of MNE compared to local rivals abroad

Determinants of ownership and profitability! If the ownership-specific capabilities are strong, MNE likely to choose whole ownership, profits high! If they are weak, MNE likely to seek additional capabilities from local firm, profits likely to be lower

Return to the firm Cost of capital Projects done Projects not done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Investment projects or Capital invested Marginal return to capital (MRC)

MRC Extent of competitive advantage of MNC Capital Invested MRC MNC MRC Local

Cost of capital for MNC MRC MNC MRC Local A WO B WO C WO DF JV D E EG JV F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ix viii vii vi v iv iii ii i MNC projects Local firm projects

Measures of ownership-specific capabilities! Should reflect international competitive advantage of MNE/industry! Sales of US corporations abroad/ Sales of US corporations in the US! Sales of US firms abroad/ Sales of all firms in the US! Sales data from BEA and Census of US Manufacturers

Foreign Sales of US Firms/US Sales in their Sector Average Ferrous Textile products and apparel Paper and allied products Electronic components and accessories Beverages Office and computing machines 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1991-00 1983-90

Sectors with largest gap have largest ratio of foreign/us sales 1983-2000 Industry 3-digit Office machines, computers Avg ROA Gap 8.6% US FSales/ US Sales 89% Beverages 6.3% 31% Electronic components 4.6% 34% Instruments 4.4% 20% Radio, TV, communications 4.2% 23% Motor vehicles, equipment 3.9% 57%

Sectors with lowest gap have lowest ratio of foreign/us sales 1983-2000 Industry 3-digit Paper and allied products Avg ROA Gap -1.6% US FSales/ US Sales 16% Textiles and apparel -0.5% 10% Ferrous -0.3% 3% Nonferrous 0.2% 9% Rubber and plastics 0.7% 17% Stone, clay and glass 1.1% 12%

Correlation between the Gap and the sales ratios is 0.30! Sales of US firms abroad/ Sales of all firms in the US Correlation Coefficient=0.30! Sales of US corporations abroad/ Sales of US corporations in the US Correlation Coefficient=0.30

Limitations of sales ratios as measures of intl. comp. advantage! Foreign/domestic asset ratios would be perhaps more appropriate! Foreign/domestic sales ratio has been rising in all sectors, while the gap has been shrinking in most sectors

Limitations of data! Small number of observations for JVs, particularly for 3-digit sectors! Small number of industry-level data points, no access to firm level data

Tests for stat significance of gap! T-test for stat significance of gap estimates confirms results for most 1 & 2 digit sectors! Only mining, fabricated metals insignificant! Many 3-digit sectors have < than 20 JVs

1-digit industries, 1977-2003 # JVs # Other Gap All industries 1,911 23,201 1.0%** Petroleum 320 1,726 42.4%** Manufacturing 856 6,349 3.4%** Services 76 937 2.0%** Mining 15 76-0.1 Finance 327 7,192 3.4%**

3-digit industries, 2003 # JVs Drugs 12 Soaps, toiletries 16 Office machines, comps 3 Motor vehicles 51 Electronic components 10 Textiles 13 # Other 423 337 117 596 353 127

Future econometric tests: Dependent variable: ROA Explanatory variables:! Sales ratio! Partial ownership (JV) dummy! JV dummy interacted with sales ratio! Full ownership (FO) dummy! FO dummy interacted with sales ratio! Country/industry, year fixed effects! Controls

Other possible explanations for gap We tested for:! Size! Age! Tax rates! Non-dividend payments Other ideas?! Policy changes

Postscript: JVs in India and China! Wall Street Journal reported on the troubles of international JVs in India! China Business Online reports on the declining numbers of JVs in China

Causes of falling JV numbers in India! Less government restrictions! Differences between partners! Clashes over expansion plans! Competing interests of firms

Declining use of JVs in China Share of JVs on FDI flows to China 120.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Other JVs