2013
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2280479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Corporate Governance and Its Impact on Firm Risk

Abstract: The aim of this research is to explore the relationship of corporate governance with firm risk. This study establishes a link between corporate governance variables and firm risk for a sample of 106 Pakistani firms over a time of six years (2005-2010). Based on the estimation results, family control and bank control have negative impact on the firm risk whereas ownership structure and chairman/CEO duality posit positive relationship with risk. This provides a direction for firms to introduce more non-family co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
14
1
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
(8 reference statements)
4
14
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Based JIABR 11,9 on this result, H1 and H3 are rejected. This result is consistent with the findings of Akbar et al (2017), Alam and Ali Shah (2013) and McNulty et al (2013). Tables 4-6 also reports the coefficients of board independence, which are found to be statistically significant at 1% and 5% in case of Malaysian and Pakistani Islamic funds, respectively.…”
Section: Dynamic Panel Generalized Methods Of Moment Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Based JIABR 11,9 on this result, H1 and H3 are rejected. This result is consistent with the findings of Akbar et al (2017), Alam and Ali Shah (2013) and McNulty et al (2013). Tables 4-6 also reports the coefficients of board independence, which are found to be statistically significant at 1% and 5% in case of Malaysian and Pakistani Islamic funds, respectively.…”
Section: Dynamic Panel Generalized Methods Of Moment Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Where, R Square, the coefficient of determination equal to (0.456), which means that about (45.6%) of the variation in liquidity risks. This result is consistent with those found in prior research (Alam & Ali Shah, 2013;Eling & Marek, 2014)While different with (Adams & Mehran, 2003;Laeven & Levine, 2009). The hypothesis 3 also reveals that the presence of the effect of independent variables aggregated is significant.…”
Section: Regression Analysis and Hypothesis Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…First, following (Abdullah et al, 2016; Martín‐Ugedo & Minguez‐Vera, 2014) a family firm is defined as if firm having 20% or more equity ownership lies with the family. Second, if firm has two or more than two board members from the same family thereby influencing the board decisions (Alam & Shah, 2013), although they may not have the 20% equity ownership according to shareholding pattern planted in the annual reports is also considered as family firm. We can identify family members by using their last name as criteria to identify by following (Chu, 2009).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%