The problem with related party transactions

The problem with related party transactions

Related party transactions (RPT) feature prominently in many corporate scandals around the world.

For example, the top management team of Enron used special purpose entities to manipulate profit. Cable TV company Adelphia Communications Corp guaranteed related party debts and provided extensive loans to its top executives.

RPT recently made headlines in Singapore, following an Auditor-General's Office audit of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).

There are plenty of empirical studies that show the value-destroying impact of RPT. This explains why corporate governance laws insist on regulating them tightly.

But first, some definitions

A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between a reporting entity and a related party.

Existing financial reporting standards (such as FRS 24) recognise that RPT is a normal feature of commerce and business. Many entities conduct their business activities through subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates, for sound business reasons. A subsidiary that sells goods to its parent at cost might not sell on those terms to another customer.

In a listed firm, the key concern in RPT is that the transactions may not be conducted in an arm's-length manner, resulting in substantial wealth loss to the shareholders.

Under FRS 24, a person is considered related to a reporting entity if he or she has control (typically for voting rights above 50 per cent) or significant influence (typically for voting rights between 20 and 50 per cent); or is a member of the key management personnel. A close family member of such a person is also considered a related party.

An entity is considered related to a reporting entity if both are in a parent company-subsidiary relationship; if it is an associate or joint venture; or if it provides key management personnel services to the reporting entity or to the parent of the reporting entity.

FRS 24 requires an entity to disclose the nature of the related party relationship, and to give information on the amount of the related party transaction, the amount of outstanding balances and commitments, and terms and conditions of the transactions. It also has to disclose bad debts, and details of guarantees given or received from related parties.

Empirical evidence on RPT

There is considerable evidence that RPT can be value-destroying if they are used for earnings manipulation and expropriation of wealth from shareholders.

In a study published in 2009 in the Journal of Banking and Finance, the authors (Yan-Leung Cheung , Yuehua Qi, P. Raghavendra Rau, Aris Stouraitis) found that Hong Kong firms enter deals with related parties at unfavourable prices compared to similar arm's-length deals. They pay higher prices for assets from related parties compared to similar arm's-length deals. When they sell assets to related parties, they receive a lower price.

Using a sample of listed firms in the United States, M. Ryngaert and S. Thomas (2012) find that RPT is associated with lower operating profitability, significant share price declines when RPT is first disclosed, and higher likelihood that a firm will enter into financial distress or securities deregistration.

Another study in 2002 by Kee-Hong Bae, Jun-Koo Kang and Jin-Mo Kim found that the stock price of Korean firms affiliated to industrial groups (chaebols) decreased when they bailed out other under-performing firms in the group through rescue merger.

More about

Purchase this article for republication.



Your daily good stuff - AsiaOne stories delivered straight to your inbox
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy policy and Terms and Conditions.