Home > Teoria > Uma Análise Empírica da Concentração Internacional do Capital Financeiro e do Controle Corporativo

Uma Análise Empírica da Concentração Internacional do Capital Financeiro e do Controle Corporativo

Em um inovador artigo dois físicos suiços inventaram um novo método de identificar a “coluna vertebral” de redes complexas com base no peso e direção das conexões e nas propriedades não-topológicas dos nós. O mais interessante foi que, além de elaborarem uma nova metodologia científica, os autores do estudo aplicaram o modelo para a economia mundial a fim de mostrar quem controla a riqueza financeira internacionalmente. O estudo foca em uma comparação internacional de redes de propriedade em 48 países e em seus respectivos mercados acionários. O principal resultado encontrado confirma que em países anglo-saxões o controle acionário tende a ser disperso entre inúmeros proprietários. Entretanto – e agora vem o mais interessante -, apesar disto nestes mesmos países o controle financeiro tende a ser muito concentrado globalmente nas mãos de uns poucos acionistas:

“The statement that the control of corporations is dispersed among many shareholders invokes the intuition [illusion?] that there exists a multitude of owners that only hold a small amount of shares in a few companies. However, in contrast to such intuition, our main finding is that a local dispersion of control is associated with a global concentration of control and value. This means that only a small elite of shareholders controls a large fraction of the stock market, without ever having been previously systematically reported on. Some authors have suggested such a result by observing that a few big US mutual funds managing personal pension plans have become the biggest owners of corporate America since the 1990s”

Confira aqui mais sobre este imperdível estudo.

.

.

Clique aqui para ler o artigo completo deste estudo em PDF.

.

.

(*) Agradeço ao colega Amit Basole por ter enviado os links.

.

.

Confira abaixo duas reportagens sobre este estudo.

.

.

World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few

By Lauren Schenkman, Inside Science News Service – http://www.livescience.com/culture/090826-stock-market.html

WASHINGTON — A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.

A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

“You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense,” Glattfelder said. “From that you’re able to … unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn’t at all important.”

The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

“If you would look at this locally, it’s always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it’s the same guys, [which] is not something you’d expect from the local view.”

Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston’s approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.

“It’s clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,” he said. “Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there’s some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there’s a big difference between having an impression and actually having … more explicit numbers to put behind it.”

Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership — owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company — in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market.

The results raise questions of where and when a company could choose to exert this influence, but Glattfelder and Battiston are reluctant to speculate.

“In this kind of science, complex systems, you’re not aiming at making predictions [like] … where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time,” Battiston said. “What you’re trying to estimate is … the potential influence that [an investor] has.”

Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. “[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it’s hard to see what they’re up to and what they’re doing,” he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. “In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network.”

.

.

.


Networks reveal concentrated ownership of corporations: Analysis of stock markets in 48 countries finds backbones of control

By Patrick Barry – http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40886/title/Networks_reveal_concentrated_ownership_of_corporations

.

Researchers have made the first maps of corporate stock ownership for the stock markets of a large number of countries, 48 in all. The new network analysis technique reveals “backbones” in these ownership networks: big players that together own a controlling stake in more than 80 percent of the companies in the markets.

In these network diagrams, nodes represent either a company with publicly owned stock or a shareholder. Links between the nodes show which shareholders hold stock in which companies. Because many publicly owned companies also hold shares in other companies, many nodes have both “owner” and “ownee” links. Plotting all these connections creates a map of the ownership structure of a stock market.

Unlike the approach used in the new study, simpler network analyses can’t reveal these backbones of ownership because the market values of companies being traded aren’t taken into account. The new study, published online February 5 at arXiv.org, adds these market values. It also includes a way to account for indirect ownership, such as when a company owns stock in a second company that, in turn, owns stock in a third company.

“If you do a network analysis, you can see things that you couldn’t see otherwise,” says Stefano Battiston, coauthor of the study and a physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who studies complex socioeconomic networks. “Although from an individual point of view corporations are widely held, from a global point of view ownership is more highly concentrated.”

The resulting networks, which are based on a snapshot of market data from early 2007, show that concentration of ownership in these markets varies from country to country. The United States and United Kingdom had the highest concentration of ownership, while ownership was less concentrated in European and Asian countries. Some companies held so much stock at the time that they constituted part of the backbones of many countries. The top ten such companies were:

1. The Capital Group Companies (U.S.)
2. Fidelity Management & Research (U.S.)
3. Barclays PLC (U.K.)
4. Franklin Resources (U.S.)
5. AXA (France)
6. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (U.S.)
7. Dimensional Fund Advisors (U.S.)
8. Merrill Lynch & Co. (U.S.)
9. Wellington Management Company (U.S.)
10. UBS (Switzerland)

“The results nicely show how structure emerges from an otherwise weak signal, revealing the ownership backbone within and across countries,” comments Bruce Kogut, an economist at the Columbia Business School in New York.

Most of these companies manage mutual funds, so they hold large portfolios of a wide variety of stocks on behalf of their clients. It’s not surprising then that they would top the list, but the new study confirms this intuition with hard data.

“It’s interesting that you can get these results that, if you asked an experienced economist they’d probably have a gut feeling about, but now you can show it in a quantitative way,” comments Jörg Reichardt, a physicist at the University of Wuerzburg in Germany. “They’ve done a great job of making it mathematically rigorous.”

The implications of these backbones of concentrated ownership for the current global economic crisis are unclear, Battiston says. He and his colleagues are now analyzing stock market data from after the economic downturn for comparison and working on theories for how the structure of ownership affects the overall stability of the market.

“In contrast to the mainstream economic view that a more interconnected market is always more stable, in many cases it can actually be more unstable because there are some mechanisms that have not been accounted for in the economic theory so far,” Battiston says. “If there are amplification systems and feedback, then a more connected world is more unstable.”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s