Dual-listed company

Last updated

A dual-listed company or DLC is a corporate structure in which two corporations function as a single operating business through a legal equalization agreement, but retain separate legal identities and stock exchange listings. Virtually all DLCs are cross-border, and have tax and other advantages for the corporations and their stockholders.

Contents

In a conventional merger or acquisition, the merging companies become a single legal entity, with one business buying the outstanding shares of the other. However, when a DLC is created, the two companies continue to exist, and to have separate bodies of shareholders, but they agree to share all the risks and rewards of the ownership of all their operating businesses in a fixed proportion, laid out in a contract called an "equalization agreement". The equalization agreements are set up to ensure equal treatment of both companies’ shareholders in voting and cash flow rights. The contracts cover issues that determine the distribution of these legal and economic rights between the twin parents, including issues related to dividends, liquidation, and corporate governance. Usually, the two companies will share a single board of directors and have an integrated management structure. A DLC is somewhat like a joint venture, but the two parties share everything they own, not just a single project; in that sense, a DLC is similar to a general partnership between publicly held corporations. This differs to a cross-listed company, which is (the same company) listed on multiple share markets. Samsung is an example of a cross-listed company (listed both on the Korean and the US stock market).

Examples

Some major dual-listed companies include: [1]

Major dual-listed companies undergoing reorganization into a different form includes:

Other companies that were previously dual-listed include:

Motivations for adopting a DLC structure

A dual-listed company structure is effectively a merger between two companies, in which they agree to combine their operations and cash flows, and make similar dividend payments to shareholders in both companies, while retaining separate shareholder registries and identities. In virtually all cases, the two companies are listed in different countries.

There are often tax reasons for companies from different jurisdictions to adopt a DLC structure instead of a regular merger where a single share is created. A capital gains tax could be owed if an outright merger took place, but no such tax consequence would arise with a DLC deal. Differences in tax regimes may also favour a DLC structure, because cross-border dividend payments are minimized. In addition, there may be favourable tax consequences for the companies themselves. Once companies have chosen a DLC structure, there can be major tax obstacles to cancelling the arrangement.

Issues of national pride may sometimes also be involved; where both parties to a proposed merger or takeover are in a strong position and do not need to merge or accept a takeover, it can be easier to push it through if the country with the smaller business is not "losing" its corporation.

A third motive is the reduction of investor flow-back, which would depress the price of the stock of one of the firms in their own market if the merger route were used instead. That is, some institutional investors cannot own the shares of firms domiciled outside the home country or can only own such shares in limited quantity. In addition, in a merger, the non-surviving firm would be removed from all the indices. Index tracking funds would then have to sell the shares of the surviving company. With the DLC structure, all of this would be avoided.

A fourth motive is that DLCs do not necessarily require regulatory (anti-trust) consent and may not be constrained by the requirement of foreign investment approval. Finally, the access to local capital markets may be reduced when a quotation disappears in a regular merger. This is based on the idea that local investors are already familiar with the company from the pre-DLC period. However, the DLC structure also has disadvantages. The structure may hamper transparency for investors and reduce managerial efficiency. In addition, issuing shares in a merger and capital market transactions (such as SEOs, share repurchases, and stock splits) are more complex under the DLC structure.

Mispricing in DLCs

The shares of the DLC parents represent claims on exactly the same underlying cash flows. In integrated and efficient financial markets, stock prices of the DLC parents should therefore move in lockstep. In practice, however, large differences from theoretical price parity can arise. For example, in the early 1980s Royal Dutch NV was trading at a discount of approximately 30% relative to Shell Transport and Trading PLC. In the academic finance literature, Rosenthal and Young (1990) and Froot and Dabora (1999) show that significant mispricing in three DLCs (Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, and Smithkline Beecham) has existed over a long period of time. [7] [8] Both studies conclude that fundamental factors (such as currency risk, governance structures, legal contracts, liquidity, and taxation) are not sufficient to explain the magnitude of the price deviations. Froot and Dabora (1999) show that the relative prices of the twin stocks are correlated with the stock indices of the markets on which each of the twins has its main listing. [8] For example, if the FTSE 100 rises relative to the AEX index (the Dutch stock market index) the stock price of Reed International PLC generally tends to rise relative to the stock price of Elsevier NV. De Jong, Rosenthal, and van Dijk (2008) report similar effects for nine other DLCs. A potential explanation is that local market sentiment affects the relative prices of the shares of the DLC parent companies. [9]

Because of the absence of "fundamental reasons" for the mispricing, DLCs have become known as a textbook example of arbitrage opportunities, see for example Brealey, Myers, and Allen (2006, chapter 13). [10]

Arbitrage in DLCs

Price differences between the two markets in which dual-listed companies are listed (also called mispricing) has led to a number of financial institutions trying to exploit the mispricing by setting up arbitrage positions in such circumstances. These arbitrage strategies involve a long position in the relatively underpriced part of the DLC and a short position in the relatively overpriced part. For example, in the early 1980s an arbitrageur might have built up a long position in Royal Dutch NV and a short position in Shell Transport and Trading plc. This position would have yielded profits when the relative prices of Royal Dutch and Shell converged to theoretical parity. An internal document of Merrill Lynch [11] investigates arbitrage opportunities in six DLCs. Lowenstein (2000) describes arbitrage positions of the hedge-fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) in Royal Dutch/Shell. LTCM established an arbitrage position in this DLC in the summer of 1997, when Royal Dutch traded at an eight to ten percent premium. In total $2.3 billion was invested, half long in Shell and the other half short in Royal Dutch. [12] In the autumn of 1998 large defaults on Russian debt created significant losses for the hedge fund and LTCM had to unwind several positions. Lowenstein reports that the premium of Royal Dutch had increased to about 22 percent and LTCM had to close the position and incur a loss. According to Lowenstein, LTCM lost $286 million in equity pairs trading and more than half of this loss is accounted for by the Royal Dutch/Shell trade. [13]

The example of LTCM is a good illustration of why arbitrage by financial institutions has not succeeded in eliminating the mispricing in DLCs. An important characteristic of DLC arbitrage is that the underlying shares are not convertible into each other. Hence, risky arbitrage positions must be kept open until prices converge. Since there is no identifiable date at which DLC prices will converge, arbitrageurs with limited horizons who are unable to close the price gap on their own face considerable uncertainty. De Jong, Rosenthal, and van Dijk (2008) simulate arbitrage strategies in twelve DLCs over the period 1980-2002. They show that in some cases, arbitrageurs would have to wait for almost nine years before prices have converged and the position can be closed. [9] In the short run, the mispricing might deepen. In these situations, arbitrageurs receive margin calls, after which they would most likely be forced to liquidate part of the position at a highly unfavorable moment and suffer a loss. As a result, arbitrage strategies in DLCs are very risky, which is likely to impede arbitrage.

Notes

  1. Bedi, Jaideep; Richards, Anthony J.; Tennant, Paul (June 2003). "The Characteristics and Trading Behavior of Dual-Listed Companies". Reserve Bank of Australia. doi:10.2139/ssrn.418500. S2CID   10800574. Research Discussion Paper No. 2003-06.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. "London Stock Exchange Prices". Londonstockexchange.com. 29 July 2002. Retrieved 18 April 2011.[ permanent dead link ]
  3. "Johannesburg Stock Exchange". Jse.co.za. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  4. "Investec Asset Management (becoming Ninety One)" (PDF). Ninety One. 3 December 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  5. Ambrose, Jillian (17 August 2021). "FTSE 100 to lose mining heavyweight as BHP calls time on dual listing in London". The Guardian .
  6. "Simplification of corporate structure becomes effective" (PDF). Mondi.
  7. Rosenthal, Leonard; Young, Colin (July 1990). "The seemingly anomalous price behavior of Royal Dutch/Shell and Unilever N.V./PLC". Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 26, no. 1. pp. 123–141. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(90)90015-R. ISSN   0304-405X.
  8. 1 2 Froot, Kenneth A.; Dabora, Emil M. (August 1999). "How are stock prices affected by the location of trade?". Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 53, no. 2. pp. 189–216. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00020-3. ISSN   0304-405X.
  9. 1 2 de Jong, Abe; Rosenthal, Leonard; van Dijk, Mathijs A. (2009). "The Risk and Return of Arbitrage in Dual-Listed Companies". Review of Finance. Vol. 13. pp. 495–520.
  10. Brealey, Richard A.; Myers, Stewart C.; Allen, Franklin (2006). Principles of Corporate Finance (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.[ page needed ]
  11. "The Dual Listings" (DOC). Merrill Lynch. July 2002 via New York University.
  12. Lowenstein, R. (2000). When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management. New York: Random House. p. 99. ISBN   9780375503177.
  13. Lowenstein (2000) , p. 234.

Related Research Articles

In economics and finance, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a difference in prices in two or more markets; striking a combination of matching deals to capitalise on the difference, the profit being the difference between the market prices at which the unit is traded. When used by academics, an arbitrage is a transaction that involves no negative cash flow at any probabilistic or temporal state and a positive cash flow in at least one state; in simple terms, it is the possibility of a risk-free profit after transaction costs. For example, an arbitrage opportunity is present when there is the possibility to instantaneously buy something for a low price and sell it for a higher price.

Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) was a highly leveraged hedge fund. In 1998, it received a $3.6 billion bailout from a group of 14 banks, in a deal brokered and put together by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

A shareholder rights plan, colloquially known as a "poison pill", is a type of defensive tactic used by a corporation's board of directors against a takeover.

A closed-end fund is an investment vehicle fund that raises capital by issuing a fixed number of shares at its inception, and then invests that capital in financial assets such as stocks and bonds. After inception it is closed to new capital, although fund managers sometimes employ leverage. Investors can buy and sell the existing shares in secondary markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">London Stock Exchange</span> Stock exchange in the City of London

London Stock Exchange (LSE) is a stock exchange in the City of London, England, United Kingdom. As of August 2023, the total market value of all companies trading on the LSE stood at $3.18 trillion. Its current premises are situated in Paternoster Square close to St Paul's Cathedral in the City of London. Since 2007, it has been part of the London Stock Exchange Group. The LSE was the most-valued stock exchange in Europe from 2003 when records began until Autumn 2022, when the Paris exchange overtook it. According to the 2020 Office for National Statistics report, approximately 12% of UK-resident individuals reported having investments in stocks and shares. According to the 2020 Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) report, approximately 15% of UK adults reported having investments in stocks and shares.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FTSE 100 Index</span> Share index of the London Stock Exchange

The Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index, also called the FTSE 100 Index, FTSE 100, FTSE, or, informally, the "Footsie", is a share index of the 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalisation. The index is maintained by the FTSE Group, a subsidiary of the London Stock Exchange Group.

Rational pricing is the assumption in financial economics that asset prices – and hence asset pricing models – will reflect the arbitrage-free price of the asset as any deviation from this price will be "arbitraged away". This assumption is useful in pricing fixed income securities, particularly bonds, and is fundamental to the pricing of derivative instruments.

Naamloze Vennootschap Margarine Unie was a Dutch company formed in 1927 in Oss by the merger of four margarine companies, Antoon Jurgens United, Van den Bergh's, Centra, and Schicht's. Margarine Unie was the dominant producer of margarine in the UK.

In finance, arbitrage pricing theory (APT) is a multi-factor model for asset pricing which relates various macro-economic (systematic) risk variables to the pricing of financial assets. Proposed by economist Stephen Ross in 1976, it is widely believed to be an improved alternative to its predecessor, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). APT is founded upon the law of one price, which suggests that within an equilibrium market, rational investors will implement arbitrage such that the equilibrium price is eventually realised. As such, APT argues that when opportunities for arbitrage are exhausted in a given period, then the expected return of an asset is a linear function of various factors or theoretical market indices, where sensitivities of each factor is represented by a factor-specific beta coefficient or factor loading. Consequently, it provides traders with an indication of ‘true’ asset value and enables exploitation of market discrepancies via arbitrage. The linear factor model structure of the APT is used as the basis for evaluating asset allocation, the performance of managed funds as well as the calculation of cost of capital. Furthermore, the newer APT model is more dynamic being utilised in more theoretical application than the preceding CAPM model. A 1986 article written by Gregory Connor and Robert Korajczyk, utilised the APT framework and applied it to portfolio performance measurement suggesting that the Jensen coefficient is an acceptable measurement of portfolio performance.

Risk arbitrage, also known as merger arbitrage, is an investment strategy that speculates on the successful completion of mergers and acquisitions. An investor that employs this strategy is known as an arbitrageur. Risk arbitrage is a type of event-driven investing in that it attempts to exploit pricing inefficiencies caused by a corporate event.

Fixed-income arbitrage is a group of market-neutral-investment strategies that are designed to take advantage of differences in interest rates between varying fixed-income securities or contracts. Arbitrage in terms of investment strategy, involves buying securities on one market for immediate resale on another market in order to profit from a price discrepancy.

A market anomaly in a financial market is predictability that seems to be inconsistent with theories of asset prices. Standard theories include the capital asset pricing model and the Fama-French Three Factor Model, but a lack of agreement among academics about the proper theory leads many to refer to anomalies without a reference to a benchmark theory. Indeed, many academics simply refer to anomalies as "return predictors", avoiding the problem of defining a benchmark theory.

Limits to arbitrage is a theory in financial economics that, due to restrictions that are placed on funds that would ordinarily be used by rational traders to arbitrage away pricing inefficiencies, prices may remain in a non-equilibrium state for protracted periods of time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capricorn Energy</span> Extractive oil and gas company

Capricorn Energy plc is a British oil and gas exploration and development company based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Maarten Albert van den Bergh is a Dutch businessman.

Investec is an Anglo-South African international banking and wealth management group. It provides a range of financial products and services to a client base in Europe, Southern Africa, and Asia-Pacific.

Cross-listing of shares is when a firm lists its equity shares on one or more foreign stock exchange in addition to its domestic exchange. To be cross-listed, a company must thus comply with the requirements of all the stock exchanges in which it is listed, such as filing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shell plc</span> British multinational oil and gas company

Shell plc is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England. Shell is a public limited company with a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and secondary listings on Euronext Amsterdam and the New York Stock Exchange. A core component of Big Oil, Shell is the second largest investor-owned oil and gas company in the world by revenue, and among the world's largest companies out of any industry.

In finance, a dividend future is an exchange-traded derivative contract that allows investors to take positions on future dividend payments. Dividend futures can be on a single company, a basket of companies, or on an Equity index. They settle on the amount of dividend paid by the company, the basket of companies, or the index during the period of the contract.

Trading of shareholder votes is the practice of exchanging one's shareholder votes in corporate elections for cash or other forms of payment. Trades may involve multiple shareholders with varying interests in corporate matters, but may be of particular value to activist investors or a company's board of directors.