|
Why German Firms Went to New York
"In the 1990s, there was a great euphoria for joining the American
capital market, especially for mergers and acquisitions" says Rüdiger
von Rosen, the managing director of the Deutsches Aktienenistitut, an
association that represents publicly traded German companies.
The 1990s and early 2000s was the era of the mega merger on Wall
Street, highlighted by the $81 billion merger of Exxon and Mobil in
1999, and the ill-fated $164 billion merger between AOL and Time Warner
in 2000.
Daimler's $36 billion marriage with Detroit automaker Chrysler,
commenced in 1998, underscored the thought that a listing on the
American capital market meant that German companies could compete with
American rivals to gobble up competition and expand their international
presence. Giant German firms like Siemens, Allianz and SAP could offer
simple stock swaps to acquire other firms listed on American exchanges.
Deutsche Telekom, for example, used its position on the NYSE to aquire a
handful of mobile telephone operators and turn its T-Mobile subsidiary
into the United States' fourth-largest mobile carrier today.
A listing on the American capital markets also brought with it a
certain prestige for foreign companies. In addition to offering German
firms greater access to institutional investors, it also meant the firms
would be closely monitored by Wall Street analysts, which in turn could
attract new investors and establish a higher profile for the companies
internationally.
All but three of 16 German companies that are or were at one time
listed on the NYSE began trading on the exchange before 2002, riding the
mergers and acquisitions wave of the 1990s - just before the U.S.
government stepped up compliance rules with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
which became law on July 30 of that year.
Sarbanes-Oxley
The attractiveness of the American capital market to German firms began
to erode with Sarbanes-Oxley. In the wake of accounting scandals at
large U.S. companies like Enron and WorldCom, the law tightened
regulations on public companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges.
Named for the law's co-sponsors, Paul Sarbanes, a Democratic Senator
from Maryland, and Michael Oxley, a Republican Congressman from Ohio,
the law tightened accounting practices to prevent companies from
cheating on investors. From the start, companies voiced their
displeasure with the high costs required to comply with the reforms. In
one provision, companies were obligated to hire an independent auditor
to monitor and report on the company's financial reporting. The
regulation was meant to protect investors from fraud, create greater
transparency of a firm's risks and to expose accounting firms that were
helping companies cook their own books.
Even so, "some companies have said that the American capital market
is more attractive than before," says Georg Stadtmann, a German
professor of business and economics at the University of Southern
Denmark who studies financial markets. "Accounting rules put a mechanism
in place that makes companies suddenly aware of risky parts of their
business."
'Cost-Consciousness Is as High as Ever'
However, in a post-financial crisis global business climate,
"cost-consciousness is as high as ever," says Washington, DC-based
corporate and securities lawyer Donald H. Miers. Complying with the SEC
can require a small army of people. Sarbanes-Oxley came around at the
right time for companies to delist." German firms cross-listed in the
United States spent between €10 and €15 million annually on SEC
compliance, a survey conducted by Stadtmann and his colleagues found.
Most companies would not disclose the exact amount of money they spent
on SEC compliance, but a Deutsche Telekom spokesperson told Spiegel
Online costs were in the "low double-digits" of millions of euros and
another at Daimler said they did not exceed €10 million.
When Telekom and Daimler announced their departures from the NYSE in
April and May respectively, the main reason the companies said publicly
was to reduce the complexity of financial reporting and administrative
costs.
On average, companies must add another five to 10 people to their
payroll for SEC compliance alone, and a company may need a dozen workers
for required executive compensation disclosures, says Miers.
In addition to the resources required for SEC disclosure, German
firms still needed staff for compliance in Germany. "Many firms just
want to get rid of dual internal reporting," says Stadtmann. Since 2005,
all German public companies have been required to adhere to
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), a system of
accounting rules followed by each public company in the European Union
and much of Asia.
In the United States, the SEC has also proposed replacing current U.S.
accounting rules with IFRS within the next decade. The SEC says the
likely switch allows greater comparability and transparency of company's
balance sheets worldwide.
A Regulation 'Nightmare'
The double-digit costs of SEC complaince, however, are paltry
compared the hundreds of millions of dollars in liability - either
through lawsuits or investigations and prosecutions - to which a U.S.
listing can expose foreign firms. Shareholders can take companies to
court far more easily under SEC regulations than those of Germany's
stock market regulator. And the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC have
been more assertive in investigating publicly traded companies following
a wave of investment fraud schemes like the one by former Nasdaq chief
Bernard Madoff, who swindled prominent investors out of billions.
"That's the real issue here," says Miers, who worked for the SEC's
division of corporation finance from 1994 to 1997. "What the SEC fully
doesn't grasp to today is that dealing with the U.S. regulation system is a
nightmare," he says. "It's another reason to run to the exit door."
Sarbanes-Oxley reforms also require a company executive to approve on
all financial reports. "The most important thing (about Sarbanes-Oxley)
is that the CEO and CFO sign for the financial statements," says
Stadtmann. "All it takes is one person in the company to make a mistake
and (an executive) can go to jail." Executives who sign off on incorrect
financial statements can face a sentence of up to 20 years.
Daimler has had its own recent run in with the U.S. Justice Department
and SEC. In April, the carmaker settled charges brought by the two
government agencies for $185 million that it and its subsidiaries bribed
foreign government officials with cash held in secret bank accounts.
None of the alleged bribes happened within the United States, but
Daimler's registration with the SEC made it prosecutable under U.S. law.
The whistleblower in the case, David Bazzetta, was a U.S.-based auditor
for what was then DaimlerChrysler. Daimler says that the settlement had
no influence on its decision to delist from the NYSE.
Meanwhile, U.S. and European authorities fined German electronics and
engineering firm Siemens a record $1.6 billion two years ago to settle
bribery allegations. The company says it has no intentions of delisting
from the NYSE, but Stadtmann believes Siemens will pull out at the first
opportunity.
Easier to Leave
In 2007, the SEC relaxed several key provisions in Sarbanes-Oxley in
an effort to reduce costs for companies and to make it easier to delist
from stock exchanges. The SEC billed the provision as "eliminating
conditions that had been considered a barrier to entry" that would
"encourage participation in the U.S. markets and increase investor
choice."
The overall effect has been the opposite for German companies. Since
the more lenient regulations went into effect, 10 German companies
listed on the NYSE have pulled out. DAX behemoths BASF, E.on and Bayer
each announced that they were leaving the American capital market within
three months of the new rules.
The SEC ruled that foreign companies could deregister if their daily
trading volume on a U.S. exchange was less than 5 percent of its total
global trading. This was the so-called "drop in the bucket," according
to officials at the NYSE, who declined to discuss the matter on record.
The new rules allowed foreign companies to reconsider their listing and
get out of New York.
Today, the trading volume at DAX companies like Siemens and SAP don't fall under the 5 percent threshold at the NYSE.
For their part, officials at Deutsche Telekom and Daimler say there
are fewer reasons to miss a listing in New York these days. Advances in
electronic and Internet trading allow foreign investors to buy and sell
shares directly in Frankfurt instead of going through foreign listings
in New York, London and Tokyo. Even for large investment firms, it no
longer matters if a company is traded in Bombay, Belgrade or New York.
"For investors, there's no stake in the game where they're listed, here (in the United States) or not," says Miers.
Intellpuke: Good article, but it sounds as though the European
firms leaving Wall Street, despite their critiques of the new U.S.
financial reform law, are actually more opposed to transparency and
accountability than anything else.
You can read this article by Spiegel Online journalist Eric Kelsey in
context here:
www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,706321,00.html
|