본 연구는 1997년 11월부터 2002년 12월까지 국내 상장제조기업들이 수행한 사업구조조정 가운데 386건의 축소형 구조조정과 283건의 확장형 구조조정을 대상으로 구조조정 가능성, 공시효과 및 장기성과, 그리고 장·단기성과에 미치는 요인 등을 외환위기기간과 이후 정상기간으로 나누어 비교분석하였다. 이러한 연구결과는 우선 외환위기 이후 활발하게 진행되고 있는 국내기업들의 사업구조조정 가운데 어떠한 형태의 구조조정이 기업가치 제고에 바람직한지를 시사하고 있다. 즉, 축소형 구조조정은 장·단기 기업가치에 매우 긍정적인 영향을 미치고 있는 반면에, 확장형 구조조정은 단기성과에 아무런 도움이 되지 못하고 장기성과 면에서는 정상기간 동안은 긍정적이나 경제위기기간에는 오히려 부정적인 것으로 나타났다. 한편, 로짓회귀분석의 결과를 보면, 기업규모가 크고 체계적 위험이 높을수록 축소 또는 확장 모두에서 활발한 구조조정을 하는 것으로 나타났고, 유동성이 풍부한 기업은 확장형 구조조정에 적극적이고 반대로 부족한 기업은 축소형 구조조정을 선호하는 것으로 나타났다. 축소형 구조조정에만 영향을 미치는 요인으로서 부채비율은 모든 기간에, 은행차입금비율은 위기기간에 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 보여주며, 확장형 구조조정에만 영향을 미치는 요인으로서는 대주주지분율이 정상기간에 유의한 양(+)의 관계를, 외국인지분율이 위기기간에 유의한 음(-)의 관계를 나타내고 있다. 토빈의 Q로 측정한 과거 경영성과는 정상기간을 중심으로 축소형 구조조정과 유의한 음(-)의 값, 확장형 구조조정과는 유의한 양(+)의 값을 보이고, 재벌기업은 위기기간에는 축소형 구조조정을 활발하게 수행하고 정상기간에는 확장형 구조조정에 적극적인 것으로 나타나고 있다. 구조조정의 공시효과 및 장기성과에 미치는 요인에 관한 횡단면회귀분석의 결과를 보면, 기업규모, 유동성 지표, 체계적위험, 재벌소속여부 등의 요인들은 축소형 또는 확장형 구조조정에 상관없이 공시효과와 장기성과 모두 유의적인 양(+)의 관계를 갖고 있고, 반면에 부채비율, 대주주지분율, 외국인지분율 등은 축소형 구조조정의 공시효과 및 장기성과와는 대체로 양(+)의 관계를, 확장형 구조조정의 공시효과 및 장기성과와는 대체로 음(-)의 관계를 보임으로써 대조를 이루고 있다. 은행차입금비율과 토빈의 Q는 일관된 패턴없이 공시효과와 장기성과간에 상반된 결과를 보여주거나 분석기간에 따라 다른 결과를 나타내고 있고, 국내기관지분율은 구조조정의 장·단기성과의 중요한 요인이 되지 못하고 있다.
Numerous studies have examined the effect of corporate restructuring on firm value. We find that, in general, successful restructuring brings a positive effect on the firm value. The Asian currency crisis in 1997 provides an opportunity to study the valuation effects of corporate restructuring activities on firm value. By focusing on how the post-crisis firm value has changed comparing contraction and expansion, we can effectively examine the effect of corporate restructuring activities on firm value. In this paper we have examined (i) the effect of restructuring activities on the firm value comparing contraction and expansion, and (ii) the likelihood (the determinants) of the contraction and expansion activities during a crisis and post-crisis (recovery) period. The study also shows that the major form of restructuring of firms that face an external economic crisis are rather different from that of firms that experience performance decline. The former tends to resort to downsizing activities to secure liquidity and long-term competitiveness, while the latter tends to expand their business or resort to management changes blaming the management for their poor performance. The announcements for corporate contraction activities generally bring about an improvement in firm value while expansion activities have not positive effects. That is, in the case of short-term announcement effect measured by the market model, asset downsizing activities result in positive changes in stock prices while expansion policies result in negative changes. Similar result is also confirmed in the analysis of long-term effect of restructuring. However, expansion policies have positive long-term effect during post-crisis period. This study also examines the role of the group structure in an external crisis and recovery period. Chaebol firms are more likely to do restructuring activites and cumulative abnormal returns for chaebols after announcement of restructuring are higher than that of non-chaebol firms. This result shows that chaebol firms are better positioned to overcome an external economic situation. To test our goal, we collected a wide range of samples of data for corporate restructuring activities executed by Korean firms listed on the Korea Stock Exchange (KSE) between 1997 and 2002. Our paper is distinguished from previous studies on this subject in a way that we analyzed the effect of corporate restructuring activities during both crisis and recovery period comparing contraction and expansion policies. Initially, we set up a hypothesis that these two restructuring activities are major driving forces behind cross-firm differences in performance following economic crisis and recovery. Using a standard event study methodology, we find that during both crisis and post-crisis recovery period, short-term stock returns go up following the announcement of corporate downsizing activities while expansion policies have no significant abnormal returns as mentioned above. These findings suggest that contraction activities not expansion are effective tool for firms to increase their firm values. Further, our results reveal that firms` long-term performances following restructuring activities through contraction also have positive effects on firm value. The result suggests that restructuring by contraction is an important factor behind firm-level differences between crisis and recovery period. In addition, we find that the likelihood of restructuring by both contraction and expansion is positively related with (i) the firm size, (ii) the risk (beta), and (iii) chaebol dummy. Firms with higher liquidity, larger ownership by controlling shareholders tend to do expansion policies, but firms with higher leverage, larger ownership by foreigners tend to do contraction activities. Our studies have also revealed that any change in firm value following restructuring activities both contraction and expansions is positively related with the firm size (total asset), chaebol dummy, liquidity (cashflow), and the risk (beta). Restructuring effects by contraction are positively related with the magnitude of the leverage, the ownership proportions of controlling shareholders and foreigners. On the other hand, these financial characteristics are negatively related with the restructuring effects by expansion. The results about long-run performances following restructuring activities are consistent with the results as mentioned above except that expansion policies have positive long-term effect on firm value during post-crisis period. Overall, our results support the view that corporate restructuring activities play an important role in determining firm value and financial strategies following economic situation.