FOREIGN ENTRY INTO U.S. SERVICE INDUSTRY BY TAKEOVERS AND THE CREATION OF NEW FIRMS

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION Even though foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets are predominantly in service sector industries, research on foreign takeovers of U.S. domestic firms has focused on manufacturing firms. As foreign takeovers and new establishments in service sector industries have grown in importance (see Figure 1), research on service sector foreign direct investment (FDI) has fallen behind in part because service FDI and trade in service sector industries are not measured as well as those in the goods producing sector (Jensen 2011). Our paper analyzes the comparative advantage characteristics of foreign takeovers and new establishments in the U.S. service sector providing an insight on service sector FDI in the United States. Economic policies on service sector industries sometimes include large restrictions on foreign investors, particularly in the areas of public utilities, transports, financial services, and wholesale/retail trade. These restrictions have been used in cases such as opposition to an acquisition of a U.S. port by investors in Dubai and refusal to ease restrictions requiring that U.S. airlines must be at least 75% owned by U.S. citizens (Golub 2009). These types of policies may be misguided especially if foreign ownership brings increases in efficiency to those firms and their industries. Moreover, foreign investments in service sector industries may boost the productivity of downstream users and upstream suppliers in manufacturing (Markusen, Rutherford, and Tarr 2005; Arnold, Javorcik, and Mattoo 2011; Javorcik and Li 2013). More research is needed to better understand FDI in U.S. service sector industries and help guide policy. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Previous research by Feliciano and Lipsey (2015), shows that both foreign acquisitions and new foreign establishments in manufacturing tend to be in industries of investing country's revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in exporting. Moreover, new foreign-owned establishments tend to be in industries of U.S. revealed comparative disadvantage. This suggests that foreign investors in the manufacturing sector bring intangible assets or skills that make them more competitive. The relationship between foreign takeovers and investments in new foreign establishments and RCA may be different in the service sector because the motivation for foreign investment in service sector firms is different from foreign investment in the manufacturing firms. Decisions on FDI in manufacturing are based on trade costs, coordination costs, and market size. Services are not storable, and thus the provision of some services requires geographic proximity. This feature makes direct investment in service sector necessary as opposed to cross-border trade. Bhattacharya, Patnaik, and Shah (2012) develop a model for the choice of trade and FDI in the service sector and find that, contrary to FDI in manufacturing, less productive firms may engage in FDI in the service sector. The relationship between foreign acquisitions and new foreign establishments in the service sector and the comparative advantage of the country of ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) may not be positive. We analyze data on foreign takeovers of existing U.S. firms and newly formed foreign-owned firms (greenfields) in service sector industries outside of finance, insurance, and real estate from 1998 to 2008 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Department of Commerce. BE A data are more complete and have more detailed information than the Thomson Financial Securities data, widely used in the study of foreign acquisitions. Unlike the Thomson Financial Securities data, BEA data include smaller not publicly traded firms, contain the value of assets acquired in all transactions, and have information on new foreign establishments. (1) To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate a relationship between foreign takeovers and new foreign firms, and the RCA of the country of UBO in the U. …