Onur Kemal Tosun , Arman Eshraghi , Samuel A. Vigne
{"title":"Firms Entangled in Geopolitical Conflicts: Evidence from the Russia-Ukraine War","authors":"Onur Kemal Tosun , Arman Eshraghi , Samuel A. Vigne","doi":"10.1016/j.jimonfin.2024.103137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We examine the reactions of US-based multinationals and subsequent financial market reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The multinationals’ firm-level decisions range from clean exits from the Russian market, all the way to ‘digging in’ as if the war never happened. Findings show that, in the short-term, markets favour ‘middle ground’ decisions which balance shareholder interests with regulatory and ethical concerns. This is manifest through those firms taking extreme decisions, on either end of the spectrum, experiencing more negative returns. In the longer term, however, investor ethical concerns and other considerations dominate such that firms announcing clean breaks incur lower losses compared to their peers. In other words, sitting on the fence and playing both sides does not pay off for long. We also show interesting differences in investor reactions between two major non-US markets: China − a Russia-leaning country − vs India − a neutral country. While Indian investors behave largely similar to US investors, Chinese investors do not significantly punish firms that stay put in Russia. We re-examine the situation one year into the war and show that markets reward a Russia-opposing corporate position in the longer term.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261560624001244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We examine the reactions of US-based multinationals and subsequent financial market reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The multinationals’ firm-level decisions range from clean exits from the Russian market, all the way to ‘digging in’ as if the war never happened. Findings show that, in the short-term, markets favour ‘middle ground’ decisions which balance shareholder interests with regulatory and ethical concerns. This is manifest through those firms taking extreme decisions, on either end of the spectrum, experiencing more negative returns. In the longer term, however, investor ethical concerns and other considerations dominate such that firms announcing clean breaks incur lower losses compared to their peers. In other words, sitting on the fence and playing both sides does not pay off for long. We also show interesting differences in investor reactions between two major non-US markets: China − a Russia-leaning country − vs India − a neutral country. While Indian investors behave largely similar to US investors, Chinese investors do not significantly punish firms that stay put in Russia. We re-examine the situation one year into the war and show that markets reward a Russia-opposing corporate position in the longer term.