We try to analyze the factors that influence firm performance. In this context, we conducted an international comparison of four European countries. Using, alternatively, as a performance measure, return on assets ratio, return on equity ratio, returns on sales ratio and earnings per share, the empirical results show differences in determinants of firm performance between countries related to the age, cash ratio and size variables.

<p>This paper test the interdependence between managerial ownership, debt and firm value. To this end, we examined a sample of 246 French firms over a period of 11 years is built. In addition, we use two estimation methods: simultaneous equations and data panels methods. The empirical results support the interaction between these three variables. We concluded a nonlinear relationship between insider ownership and shareholder wealth. An inverse U-shaped relationship was found between debt and managerial ownership. However, an increase in debt leads to an increase in managerial ownership. Moreover, the share capital held by managers is a significant factor in explaining debt ratio of French firms. Finally, we conclude that the disciplinary role of debt is valid only for the data panels method.</p><p>al Jordanian firms listed at Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) for the period of 2005-2013, by applying panel data regression analysis. It depends on building three OLS models: Pooled, Fixed Effects Model and Random Effects Model. In addition, a test for Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier (LM), and Hausamn test to choose among the three models which model is most suitable for our data. A main finding of the panel data analysis is that; fixed effect regression is the most convenient model. As a result, there is no strong evidence that there is a relationship between both institutional ownership and firm performance for Jordanian listed firms. This conclusion can be due to the fact that institutional ownership has its own pros and cons, therefore, their existence and influence could affect materially the types and risk level of investment decisions taken by the management which in return will affect the firm’s performance as a whole. ociation with external reserve and net credit to the economy. Based on these results; it is recommended that, the Nigeria government should designed programmes and incentives to boost industrial capacity utilization in the country. Markets determine nominal exchange rate should prevail in the economy. The country should regulate its foreign reserve policy by setting a threshold, above which excess deposit should be plough back to the domestic economy inform of investments rather than support excessive importation.</p><p> </p>

<p>This paper test the factors explaining of cumulative abnormal returns. To this end, we examined a sample of 137 firms in 2007. We tested event study methodology to measure the cumulative abnormal returns. An event window spans from-10 days to 10 days. In our study, we considered an estimation period from -20 days to -10 days. For the dependent variable, and after the announcement date (date of the general meeting), we try to estimate the cumulative abnormal returns of 1 day, 2 days, 6 days and 8 days. The empirical results of the cross sectional model show that the market reacts negatively because of an increase in profitability, firm size and managerial ownership. The opposite effect is observed for leverage. However, the effect of spending on research and development is not statistically significant.<span style="font-size: 10px;"> </span></p>

This paper examines the determinants of firm investment decision. Our study analysed four countries: Moldova, Romania, Russia and Serbia. The sample contains 170 firms for each country for a period of 8 years from 2003 to 2010. Using the data panels method, the empirical results indicate that profitability positively and significantly influences the firm investments for the markets of Moldova and Romania under two alternatives, and for the other countries under one specification. However, the positive effect of cash holdings is only observed for the firms of Moldova and Serbia. Furthermore, the higher the size of the firms of all countries is, the more the managers are encouraged to invest more. Finally, the sensitivity analysis of our models on activity sectors, shows differences in the factors explaining the investment decision for the market of Moldova. Indeed, profitability significantly and positively explains firm investment for the service and real estate sectors. This result is found for other countries for two sectors. In contrast, for country Russia, an increase in the profitability for mining and agriculture firms, does not stimulate managers to invest more.

The aim of this paper is to identify factors that explain ownership structure. Our empirical study uses two sample firms of two countries: Germany, characterized by a concentrated ownership structure, and the United Kingdom, characterized by diffused ownership structure. Our results show differences in the determinants of ownership structure between the two countries. Differences relate to size and research and development variables. Furthermore, profitability has no effect on the ownership structure for the two countries.