Business Task 1 on individual report Essay

essay B
  • Words: 6447
  • Category: Arab

  • Pages: 24

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Despite its future economic chances. the United Arab Emirates continues to endure from corporate administration issues. The development of corporate administration in the part has mostly been influenced by faith ( Gellis et al. . 2002 ) . The regulations regulating the pattern of corporate administration have been significantly influenced by Islamic Sharia. This reflects the cultural and spiritual feature of the part ( Islam and Hussain. 2003 ) . Islamic Sharia specifies a figure of nucleus values such as trust. unity. honestness and justness which are similar to the nucleus values of corporate administration codifications in the West. However. a study of corporate administration in a figure of Gulf states such as United Arab Emirates suggests that the part continues to endure from corporate administration failings.

2. 0 Reasons for the construction including usage of suited grounds and informations

The construction of the above sectors and grounds for the construction and effects on the public presentation of houses has been critical topic of argument in the finance literature. Empirical grounds suggests that in private held houses tend to be more efficient and more profitable than publically held houses. This shows that ownership construction affairs. The inquiry now is how does it impact steadfast public presentation and why this sort of construction? This inquiry is important since it is based on a research docket that has been strongly promoted by La Porta et Al.

Harmonizing to these surveies. failure of the legislative model to supply sufficient protection for external investors. enterprisers and establishing investors of a company tend will keep big places in their houses therefore ensuing in a concentrated ownership construction. This determination is interesting because it implies that ownership construction can impact the public presentation of the house in one manner or the other. It is incontestable ; the deficiency of ordinances in corporate administration gives directors who intend to botch the flow of hard currency for their ain personal involvement a low control degree. The empirical consequences from the past surveies of impacts of ownership construction on public presentation of corporate have been inconclusive and assorted up.

In response to corporate administration issues and their impact on corporate public presentation. Shleifer and Vishny ( 1997 ) ; and Jensen ( 2000 ) have suggested the demand for improved corporate administration constructions so as to heighten transparence. answerability and duty.

Corporate administration reform and the debut of advanced methods to restrict maltreatment of power by top direction have been justified by recent big graduated table accounting and corporate failures such as Enron. HealthSouth. Tyco International. Adelphia. Global Crossing. WorldCom. Cendant and the recent planetary fiscal crisis.

Harmonizing to Monks and Minow ( 1996 ) legion corporate failures suggest that bing corporate administration constructions are non working efficaciously. Corporate failures and accounting dirts ab initio appear to a U. S phenomenon. ensuing from inordinate greed by investors. overheated equity markets. and a winner-take-all mentality of the U. S society. However. the last decennary has shown that abnormalities in accounting. managerial greed. maltreatment of power. are planetary phenomenon that can non be limited to the U. S. Many non-U. S houses such as Parallax. Adecco. Television Azteca. Hollinger. Royal Dutch Shell. Vivendi. China Aviation. Barings Bank. etc. have witnessed failures in corporate administration and other signifiers of corporate bad lucks.

In add-on to corporate administration failures. planetary criterions have declined significantly and unethical and questionable patterns have become widely accepted. The net impact has been a decrease in the sum of religion that investors and stockholders have in the efficiency of capital markets. There is no universally accepted corporate administration theoretical account that the involvement of stockholders and investors are adequately protected every bit good as guaranting that adequate stockholder wealth is being created ( Donaldson and Davis. 2001 ; Huse. 1995 ; Frentrop. 2003 ) .

Much of the argument on corporate administration has focused on understanding whether the Board of Directors has adequate power to guarantee that top direction is doing the right determination. The traditional corporate administration model frequently ignores the alone consequence that the proprietors of the house can hold on the board and therefore the firm’s top direction. The traditional model therefore ignores that fact that the proprietors of the house can act upon the board and therefore top direction to move of make peculiar determinations. Corporate administration surveies are hence yet to place and cover with the complexnesss that are built-in in corporate administration processes.

Investing picks and proprietor penchants are affected among other things by the extent their grade of hazard antipathy. Owners who have economic dealingss with the house will be interested in protecting their involvements even if it is moderately apparent that such protection will ensue in hapless public presentation. Harmonizing to Thomsen and Pedersen ( 1997 ) Bankss that play a double function as proprietors and loaners would deter high hazard undertakings with great net income potency because such undertakings may impede the house from run intoing its fiscal duties if the undertaking fails to recognize its expected hard currency flows. The authorities besides plays a double function in that it serves as both an proprietor and a regulator. Therefore proprietors who play a double function in the house frequently face a tradeoff between advancing the creative activity of stockholder value and run intoing their other specific aims ( Hill and Jones. 1992 ) .

Existing corporate administration models have frequently ignored these issues in UAE. Rather. much of the accent has been on the effectivity of the board in guaranting that top direction is working towards run intoing the ends of stockholders. Present corporate administration frameworks lack the ability to proctor proprietors and their influence on top direction. The model lacks the ability to aline the function played by house proprietors. board of managers and managers’ involvements and actions with the creative activity of stockholder value and public assistance motive of stakeholders.

Discussion of the possible hereafter construction of the industry

The United Arabs Emirates. and chiefly Abu Dhabi. is digesting to increase its economic system by cut downing the entire proportion impact of hydrocarbons to Gross Domestic Product. This is presently being done by turning investing in sector countries like: services in telecommunication. instruction. media. health care. touristry. air power. metals. petrochemicals. pharmaceuticals. biotechnology. transit and trade.

Significant investings have been made by United Arab Emirates to set up itself as a regional trade hub. United Arab Emirates is besides member of the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) . In add-on. there are ongoing dialogues to set up free trade understandings with other parts and states such as the EU. These factors will lend positively to the region’s integrating into the planetary economic system. United Arab Emirates is presently working towards diversifying their economic systems from the oil sector into other sectors. This variegation is expected non merely to increase trade among member states but besides to increase the region’s trade with other states and parts ( Sturm et al. . 2008 ) .

How the construction affects scheme determinations

Ownership construction has an impact on house public presentation in United Arab Emirates energy production owned sector. This part has witnessed important economic growing over the last few decennaries. The part is besides confronting disruptive times with regard to corporate administration patterns. ensuing in hapless steadfast public presentation. Corporate administration issues are non limited to the United Arabs Emirates as portion of GCC Countries. From a planetary point of position. corporate administration has witnessed important transmutations over the last decennary ( Gomez and Korine. 2005 ) . As a consequence. there has been an involvement in the research attending accorded to corporate administration. The credibleness of current corporate administration structures has come under examination owing to recent corporate failures and low corporate public presentation across the universe.

The hazard antipathy of the house can be straight affected by the ownership construction in topographic point. Agency jobs occur as a consequence of divergency in involvements between principals ( proprietors ) and agents ( directors ) ( Leech and Leahy. 1991 ) . The board of managers is thereby regarded as an intermediary between directors and proprietors. The board of managers plays four of import functions in the house. These include monitoring. stewardship. monitoring and coverage. The board of managers proctors and controls the discretion of top direction. The board of managers influences managerial discretion in two ways: internal influences which are imposed by the board and external influences which relate to the function played by the market in monitoring and sanctioning directors.

Bacillus: Contribution of the sector to the economic system of your chosen state

Analysis of part of sector

United Arab Emirates remain major planetary economic participant because it has the highest oil militias. UAE together with the other Gulf Cooperation Council histories for over 40 % of planetary oil militias and remains of import in providing the planetary economic system with oil in hereafter. As a consequence. investing disbursement on oil geographic expedition and development of new oil Fieldss is on the rise.

Global oil demand is presently on the rise. This growing is driven chiefly by emerging market economic systems. every bit good as the oil bring forthing UAE as portion of GCC states. In add-on. Europe and the U. S are witnessing depletions in their oil militias. This means that these parts will go progressively dependent on the Gulf part which includes UAE for the supply of oil ( Sturm et al. . 2008 ) . The importance of the United Arabs Emirates as a planetary economic participant is hence expected to increase dramatically in the close hereafter

Use of appropriate informations and other grounds

By the twelvemonth 2011. the GDP of United Arab Emirates totaled to 360. 2 billion dollars. Subsequently in 2001. annual growing of GNP varied from about 7. 4 % to 30. 7 % . As portion of the main petroleum oil providers. the United Arab Emirates was at first cut off from the cosmopolitan recession by high monetary values on oil that rose to a record 147 US dollars per barrel in the month of July in 2008. Nevertheless. the state was finally influenced by the unearthing worldwide recession which resulted to a diminution in oil demand. cut downing the oil monetary values to a decreased sum non transcending a 3rd of the extremum of July 2008. In the last 2008 months. the milk sicknesss rumbling through planetary economic systems were in conclusion experienced in this subdivision.

Oil ( million barrels )

Proved militias. 2013 Entire oil supply ( thousand bbl/d ) . 2012 Total crude oil ingestion. 2012 Reserves-to-production ratio

97. 800 3. 213 618 95

Natural Gas ( billion three-dimensional pess )

Proved militias. 2013 Dry natural gas production. 2012 Dry natural gas ingestion. 2012 Reserves-to-production ratio

215. 025 1. 854 2. 235 116

UAE drumhead energy statistics

Degree centigrades: Critical assessment of sustainability marks on concern program of your chosen administration

Oil houses in United Arab Emirates is still quite immature. Most concerns are controlled by a few stockholders and household ownership is prevailing. Most big and little concerns are household concerns ( Saidi. 2004 ) . The province is besides significantly involved in the direction of companies ( Union of Arab Banks. 2003 ) .

This is contrary to the position quo in Western democracies where houses are owned by a diverse group of stockholders which makes ownership to be wholly separated from control. The ownership construction in United Arab Emirates suggests that stewardship and monitoring facets of non-executive managers ( NEDs ) is absent in houses based in United Arab Emirates. Ownership concentration has remained high in the part because of patterns such as rights issues which enable bing affluent stockholders. and influential households to subscribe to new portions in Initial Public Offerings ( IPOs ) ( Musa. 2002 ) .

Harmonizing to a survey of the corporate administration patterns of five states by the Union of Arab Banks ( 2003 ) . ownership of corporations is concentrated in the custodies of households. In add-on. corporate boards are dominated by commanding stockholders. their relations and friends ( Union of Arab Banks. 2003 ) . There is a no clear separation between control and ownership. Decision devising is dominated by stockholders. The figure of independent managers in the board is really little and the maps of the CEO and Chairman are carried out by the same individual. The high concentration in steadfast ownership hence undermines the rules of good corporate administration that are prevailing in western scenes ( Yasin and Shehab. 2004 ) . This grounds is consistent with findings by the World Bank ( 2003 ) in an probe of corporate administration patterns in the Middle East North Africa ( MENA ) part which besides includes the Gulf part.

1. 0 Objective of empirical grounds

The empirical grounds on the impact of ownership construction on steadfast public presentation is assorted. Different surveies have made usage of different samples to get at different. contradictory and sometimes hard to compare decisions. The literature suggests that there are two chief ownership constructions in house including dispersed ownership and concentrated ownership. With regard to concentrated ownership. most of the empirical grounds suggests that concentrated ownership negatively affects public presentation ( e. g. . Johnson et Al. . 2000 ; Gugler and Weigand. 2003 ; Grosfeld. 2006 ; Holmstrom and Tirole. 1993 ) . Different surveies have besides focused on how specifically concentrated ownership constructions affect steadfast public presentation. For illustration. with regard to authorities ownership. Jefferson ( 1998 ) . Stiglitz ( 1996 ) . and Sun et Al. ( 2002 ) supply theoretical statements that authorities ownership is likely to positively affect house public presentation because authorities ownership can ease the declaration of issues sing the equivocal belongings rights.

However. Xu and Wang ( 1999 ) and Sun and Tong ( 2003 ) supply empirical grounds that authorities ownership has a negative impact on house public presentation. On the contrary. Sun et Al. ( 2002 ) supply empirical grounds that authorities ownership has a positive impact on house public presentation. It has besides been argued that the relationship between authorities ownership and steadfast public presentation is non-linear. Another normally investigated ownership type and its impact on house public presentation is household ownership. Anderson and Reeb ( 2003 ) . Villanonga and Amit ( 2006 ) . Maury ( 2006 ) . Barontini and Caprio ( 2006 ) . and Pindado et Al. ( 2008 ) suggest that there is a positive nexus between household ownership and steadfast public presentation. Despite the positive impact some surveies argue that the impact of household ownership is negative ( e. g. DeAngelo and DeAngelo. 2000 ; Fan and Wong. 2002 ; Schulze et Al. . 2001 ; Demsetz. 1983 ; Fama and Jensen. 1983 ; Shleifer and Vishny. 1997 ) .

The impact of foreign ownership has besides been investigated. Most of the grounds suggests that foreign ownership has a positive impact on house public presentation ( e. g. . Arnold and Javorcik. 2005 ; Petkova. 2008 ; Girma. 2005 ; Girma and Georg. 2006 ; Girma et Al. . 2007 ; Chari et Al. . 2011 ; Mattes. 2008 ) . With regard to managerial ownership. it has been argued that the relationship is likely to be positive. Despite this suggestion Demsetz and Lehn ( 1985 ) observe a negative relationship between dispersed ownership and steadfast public presentation. Institutional ownership has besides been found to hold a positive impact on house public presentation ( e. g. McConnell and Servaes. 1990 ; Han and Suk. 1998 ; Tsai and Gu. 2007 ) . Furthermore. some surveies suggest that there is no nexus between insider ownership and public presentation.

Very limited surveies have been conducted on the impact of ownership construction on steadfast public presentation in GCC states like UAE. For illustration. Arouri et Al. ( 2013 ) supply grounds that bank public presentation is affected by household ownership. foreign ownership and institutional ownership and that there is no important impact of authorities ownership on bank public presentation. Zeitun and Al-Kawari ( 2012 ) observe a important positive impact of authorities ownership on steadfast public presentation in the Gulf part.

The permeant endogeneity of ownership has been cited as a possible ground why it is hard to extricate the relationship between ownership construction and steadfast public presentation. In add-on. the relation may be a map of the type of house every bit good as the period of observation in the life of the house. This survey is motivated by the assorted consequences obtained in old surveies and the limited figure of surveies that have focused on UAE as portion of GCC states. The aim of the survey is to research in more inside informations the factors that motivate peculiar types of ownership construction and the possible impact of ownership construction and steadfast public presentation in the Gulf part

2. 0 Empirical Evidence

The empirical grounds will concentrate on how different ownership constructions affect steadfast public presentation. Firms are frequently characterized by concentrated and spread ownership. Concentrated ownership is expected to hold a positive impact on house public presentation having to the increased monitoring that it provides.

Dispersed ownership has been found to be less frequent than expected. Empirical grounds suggests that most houses are characterized by assorted signifiers of ownership concentration. Given this high degree of ownership concentration. there has been an increasing concern over the protection of the rights of non-controlling stockholders ( Johnson et al. . 2000 ; Gugler and Weigand. 2003 ) . Empirical grounds shows that ownership concentration at best consequences in hapless public presentation. Concentrated ownership is dearly-won and has the potency of advancing the development of non-controlling stockholders by commanding stockholders ( Grosfeld. 2006 ) . Holmstrom and Tirole ( 1993 ) argue that concentrated ownership can lend to hapless liquidness. which can in turn negatively affect public presentation. In add-on. high ownership concentration limits the ability of the house to diversify ( Demsetz and Lehn. 1985 ; Admati et Al. . 1994 ) . There are assorted signifiers of concentrated ownership such as authorities ownership. household ownership. managerial ownership. institutional ownership and foreign ownership. In the following subdivision. the literature reappraisal will concentrate on how these separate ownership constructions affect steadfast public presentation.

2. 1. 1 Government Ownership

The impact of authorities ownership on house public presentation has attracted the attending of many research workers because the authorities histories for the largest proportion of portions of listed companies in some states and besides because authorities ownership can be used as an instrument of intercession by the authorities ( Kang and Kim. 2012 ) . Shleifer and Vishny ( 1997 ) suggest that authorities ownership can lend to hapless steadfast public presentation because Government Owned endeavors frequently face political force per unit area for inordinate employment. In add-on. it is frequently hard to supervise directors of authorities owned endeavors and there is frequently a deficiency of involvement in transporting out concern procedure reengineering ( Shleifer and Vishny. 1996 ; Kang and Kim. 2012 ) . Contrary to Shleifer and Vishny ( 1997 ) some economic experts have argued that authorities ownership can better steadfast public presentation in less developed and emerging economic systems in peculiar. This is because authorities ownership can ease the declaration of issues with regard to equivocal belongings rights.

The empirical grounds on the impact of province ownership on steadfast public presentation is assorted. For illustration. Xu and Wang ( 1999 ) provide grounds of a negative relationship between province ownership and house public presentation based on informations for Chinese listed houses over the period 1993-1995. The survey. nevertheless. fails to happen any nexus between the market-to-book ratio and province ownership ( Xu and Wang. 1999 ) . Sun and Tong ( 2003 ) employ ownership informations from 1994 to 2000 and compares legal individual ownership with authorities ownership. The survey provides grounds that authorities ownership negatively affects steadfast public presentation while legal individual ownership positively affects steadfast public presentation. This decision is based on the market-to-book ratio as the step of house public presentation.

However. utilizing return on gross revenues or gross net incomes as the step of house public presentation. the survey provides grounds that authorities ownership has no consequence on house public presentation. Sun et Al. ( 2002 ) provide contrary grounds from above. Using informations over the period 1994-1997. Sun et Al. ( 2002 ) supply grounds that both legal individual ownership and authorities ownership had a positive consequence on house public presentation. They explain their consequences by proposing that legal individual ownership is another signifier of authorities ownership. The above surveies treat the relationship between authorities ownership and steadfast public presentation as linear. However it has been argued that the relationship is non additive.

Huang and Xiao ( 2012 ) supply grounds that authorities ownership has a negative net consequence on public presentation in passage economic systems. La Porta et Al. ( 2002 ) provide grounds across 92 states that authorities ownership of Bankss contributes negatively to bank public presentation. The grounds is consistent with Dinc ( 2005 ) and Brown and Dinc ( 2005 ) who investigate authorities ownership Bankss in the U. S.

2. 1. 2 Family Ownership

Family ownership is really common in oil houses in UAE. There is a difference between household ownership and other types of stockholders in that household proprietors tend to be more interested in the long-run endurance of the house than other types of stockholders ( Arosa et al. . 2010 ) . . Furthermore. household proprietors tend to be more concerned about the firm’s repute of the house than other stockholders ( Arosa et al. . 2010 ) . This is because harm to the firm’s repute can besides ensue in harm the family’s repute. Many surveies have investigated the relationship between household ownership and steadfast public presentation. They provide grounds of a positive relationship between household ownership and steadfast public presentation ( e. g. Anderson and Reeb. 2003 ; Villalonga and Amit. 2006 ; Maury. 2006 ; Barontini and Caprio. 2006 ; Pindado et Al. . 2008 ) .

The positive relationship between household ownership and steadfast public presentation can be attributed to a figure of factors. For illustration. Arosa et Al. ( 2010 ) suggests that household firms’ long-run ends indicate that this class of houses desire puting over long skylines than other stockholders. In add-on. because there is a important relationship between the wealth of the household and the value of the household house. household proprietors tend to hold greater inducements to supervise directors ( agents ) than other stockholders ( Anderson and Reeb. 2003 ) . Furthermore. household proprietors would be more interested in offering inducements to directors that will do them loyal to the house.

In add-on. there is a significant long-run presence of households in household houses with strong purposes to continue the name of the household. These household members are hence more likely to predate short-run fiscal wagess so as to enable future coevalss take over the concern and protect the family’s repute ( Wang. 2006 ) . In add-on. household ownership has positive economic effects on the concern. There are strong control structures that can actuate household members to pass on efficaciously with other stockholders and creditors utilizing higher quality fiscal coverage with the ensuing consequence being a decrease in the cost of financing the concern.

Furthermore. households are interested in the long-run endurance of the house and household. which reduces the timeserving behaviour of household members with respect to the distribution of net incomes and allotment of direction. .

Despite the positive impact of household ownership on steadfast public presentation. it has been argued that household ownership promotes high ownership concentration. which in bend creates corporate administration jobs. In add-on. high ownership concentration consequences in other types of costs. As before mentioned. La Porta et Al. ( 1999 ) and Vollalonga and Amit ( 2006 ) argue that commanding stockholders are likely to set about activities that will give them derive unjust advantage over non-controlling stockholders. For illustration. household houses may be unwilling to pay dividends.

Another ground why household ownership can hold a negative impact on house public presentation is that commanding household stockholders can easy favor their ain involvements at the disbursal of non-controlling stockholders by running the company as a household employment service. Under such fortunes. direction places will be limited to household members and extraordinary dividends will be paid to household stockholders. Agency costs may originate because of dividend payments and direction intrenchment. Families may besides hold their ain involvements and concerns that may non be in line with the concerns and involvements of other investor groups.

Schulze et Al. ( 2001 ) supply a treatment. which suggests that the impact of household ownership on steadfast public presentation can be a map of the coevals. For illustration. observing that bureau costs frequently arise as a consequence of the separation of ownership from control. they argue that first coevals household houses tend to hold limited bureau jobs because the direction and supervising determinations are made by the same person. As such bureau costs are reduced because the separation of ownership and control has been wholly eliminated. Given that there is no separation of ownership and control in the first coevals household house. the house relationship between household ownership and public presentation is likely to be positive ( Miller and Le-Breton-Miller. 2006 ) . As the house enters 2nd and 3rd coevalss. the household belongings becomes shared by an progressively big figure of household members with diverse involvements. The minute struggle of involvements sets in the relationship between household ownership and public presentation bends negative in conformity to. Furthermore. bureau jobs arise from household dealingss because household members with control over the firm’s resources are more likely to be generous to their kids and other relations.

To sum up. the relationship between household ownership and steadfast public presentation may be non-linear. This means that the relationship is likely to be positive and negative at the same clip. To back up this contention. a figure of surveies have observed a non-linear relationship between household ownership and steadfast public presentation ( e. g. Anderson and Reeb. 2003 ; Maury. 2006 ) . This means that when ownership is less concentrated. household ownership is likely to hold a positive impact on house public presentation. As the household ownership concentration additions. minority stockholders tend to be exploited by household proprietors and therefore the impact of household ownership on steadfast public presentation tends negative.

Small states have a comparatively weak diamond of competitory advantages.

D. Analysis

1. 0 Potter’s Diamond Model

The competitory forces advantages or analysis ought to be fixed on the chief competition factors and its impact analysis on the concern ( Porter 1998. p. 142 ) . The province. and place wealth can non be inherited -3554730607695Faktorski uvjeti

00Faktorski uvjeti

-27546301293495Vezane I podrzavajuce industrije

00Vezane one podrzavajuce industrije

-332041536195Sansa

00Sansa

– it ought to be produced ( Porter 1998. p. 155 ) . This wealth is influenced by the ability of industry to continually upgrade and introduce itself. and this is accomplishable entirely by addition agencies in production – in all parts of financial action. The theoretical account of Porter concerns aspect which circuitously or openly affects advantage of competition. The aspect construction a topographic point where given fabrication sector like in this instance. oil sector. province or part a learn and act on the manner of viing in that environment.

Left0

-3686175215392000Each diamond ( oil ) and the field of diamond ( oil ) as the whole construction consists of chief influences that makes the oil sector competition to be consecutive. These influences entail: every ability and resource vital for competitory advantage of the sector ; informations organizing the chance and supplying the response to how accessible abilities and resources ought to be ruled ; each involvement group purpose ; and the is most important. oil sector force per unit area to innovating and investment.

Swot analysis

Strengths

The oil sector has many old ages bring forthing oil and so is good established.

Relatively tonss of sub-sectors for industrialist stableness and support.

Failings

Relatively out of day of the month scientific foundation.

Inadequate good educated professionals and occupants in comparing to the new industry demands.

Lesser costs of work cost in oil sector due to low wage from regular wages in UAE.

Opportunities

The likeliness for resources application of EU understanding financess. as is the province resources

Reasonably good quality of 11 % alumnus pupils portion that are likely to be absorbed into this oil sector.

Contribution in motivational and investing undertakings that help in developing the economic system of UAE every clip.

Menaces

Expansion of oil production capacity of economic systems of South-Eastern that have competed with low monetary values of merchandises and small costs of production.

Loan occupations and production globalization.

Reinforcement of local competition of next economic systems. and therefore reenforcing actions that attract direct abroad development of the oil sector in UAE through investings.

Mentions

Admati. A. . Pfleiderer. P. . and Zechner. J. ( 1994 ) . Large stockholder activism. hazard sharing and fiscal market equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy. 102: 1097-1130.

AL ARUSI. A. S. et Al. ( 2009 ) Determinants of Financial and Environmental Disclosures through the Internet by Malayan Companies. Asiatic Review of Accounting. 17 ( 1 ) . pp. 59-76.

Anderson. C. R. . Mansi. A. S. . & A ; Reeb. M. D. ( 2003 ) . Establishing household ownership and the bureau cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics. 68. 263–285.

Anderson. C. R. & A ; Reeb. M. D. ( 2003 ) . Founding-family ownership and steadfast public presentation: grounds from the S & A ; P500. The Journal of Finance. LVIII ( 3 ) . 1301–1328.

Arnold. J. . Javorcik. B. S. ( 2005 ) . Gifted Kids or Pushy Parents? Foreign Acquisitions and Firm Performance in Indonesia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3597.

Arosa. B. . Iturralde. T. . & A ; Maseda. A. ( 2010 ) Ownership construction and steadfast public presentation in non-listed houses: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 1. 88–96

Arouri. H. . Hossain. M. . & A ; Muttakin. M. B. ( 2013 ) The consequence of Board and Ownership construction on Corporate Performance: Evidence from GCC Countries.

Badrinath. S. G. . Gay. G. D. & A ; Kale. J. R. ( 1989 ) . “Patterns of Institutional Investment. Prudence. and the Managerial “Safety-Net” Hypothesis” . The Journal of hazard and insurance. vol. 56. no. 4. pp. 605.

Barnea. A. . Haugen. R. A. & A ; Senbet. L. W. ( 1981 ) . “Market Imperfections. Agency Problems. and Capital Structure: A Review” . Financial Management ( pre-1986 ) – LA English. vol. 10. no. 3. pp. 7.

Barontini. R. & A ; Caprio. L. ( 2006 ) . The consequence of household control on house value and public presentation: Evidence from Continental Europe. European Financial Management. 12 ( 5 ) . 689–723.

Black. J. . Hashimzade. N. . and Myles. G. ( 2013 ) “Adverse Selection” in A Dictionary of Economics ( 4 ed. ) Oxford Reference Online: Oxford University Press.

Brown. C. . Dinc . S. . 2005. The political relations of bank failures: grounds from emerging markets. Quart. J. Econ. 120. 1413–1444

CHAPRA. M. U. and Ahmed. H. ( 2002 ) . Corporate administration in Islamic fiscal establishments. Islamic Research and Training Institute. Jeddah. Saudi Arabia.

Chari. A. . Chen. W. . Dominguez. K. M. E. ( 2011 ) . Foreign Ownership and Firm Performance: Emerging Market Acquisitions in the United States. University of North Carolina.

Chen. C. R. . Guo. W. . Mande. V. ( 2003 ) Managerial Ownership and steadfast rating: Evidence from Nipponese houses. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 11 ( 3 ) : 267-283.

Chrisman. J. . Chua. J. . & A ; Sharma. P. ( 2005 ) . Tendencies and waies in the development of a strategic direction theory of the household house. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29. 555–575.

Davies J. R. . Hiller. D. . McColgan. P. ( 2005 ) . Ownership construction. managerial behavior and corporate valley. Journal of Corporate Finance 11 ( 4 ) . 645-660.

DeAngelo. H. & A ; DeAngelo. L. ( 2000 ) . Controling shareholders and the disciplinary function of corporate payout policy: A survey of the Times Mirror Company. Journal of Financial Economics. 56 ( 2 ) . 153–207.

Delios. A. & A ; Wu. Z. J. ( 2005 ) . Legal individual ownership. variegation scheme and house profitableness in China. Journal of Management and Governance. 9 ( 2 ) . 151–169.

Demsetz. H. ( 1983 ) . The construction of ownership and the theory of the house. Journal of Law and Economics. 26 ( 2 ) . 375–390.

Demsetz. H. & A ; Lehn. K. ( 1985 ) . “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences” . The Journal of Political Economy. vol. 93. no. 6. pp. 1155-1177

Dinc . S. . 2005. Politicians and Bankss: political in?uences on government-owned Bankss in emerging Markets. J. Finan. Econ. 77. 453–479.

Donaldson. L. . & A ; Davis. J. H. ( 2001 ) . Board Structure. Board Processes and Board Performance: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Comparative International Management.

Drobetz. W. . A. Schillhofer. and H. Zimmermann ( 2005 ) . Corporate administration and expected stock returns: Evidence from Germany. European Financial Management 10. 267–293.

Eckbo. B. E. & A ; Smith. D. C. ( 1998 ) . “The Conditional Performance of Insider Trades” . The Journal of Finance. vol. 53. no. 2. pp. 467.

EISENHARDT. K. M. ( 1989 ) Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review. 14. pp. 57–74.

Fama. E. F. & A ; Jensen. M. C. ( 1983 ) . Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics. 26 ( 2 ) . 301–325.

Fan. J. P. H. & A ; Wong. T. J. ( 2002 ) . Corporate ownership construction and the informativeness of accounting net incomes in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 33. 401–425.

FORKER. J. J. ( 1992 ) Corporate Governance and Disclosure Quality. Accounting and Business Research. 22 ( 86 ) . pp. 111-124.

Francis. J. . Schipper. K. . & A ; Vincent. L. ( 2005 ) . Net incomes and dividend informativeness when hard currency flow rights are separated from voting rights. Journal of accounting and economic sciences. 39. 329–360.

Frentrop. P ( 2003 ) . On the discretional power of top executives. Journal of Asset Management. 5:2. 91-104.

Gartrell. C. D. and Gartrell. J. W. ( 1996 ) . ‘Positivism in sociological pattern: 1967-1990’ . Canadian Review of Sociology. Vol. 33 No. 2.

Girma. S. ( 2005 ) . Technology transportation from acquisition FDI and the absortive capacity of domestic houses: An empirical probe. Open Economics Review 16. 175-187. Girma. S. Georg. H. ( 2006 ) Measuring Foreign Ownership Wage Premium Using a Difference-in-Difference Matching attack. Journal of International Economics. 72. 97-112

Girma. S. . Kneller. R. . Osiu. M. ( 2007 ) Do exporters hold anything to larn from foreign multinationals? European Economics Review. 51. 981-998.

Gomez. P. Y. & A ; Korine. H. ( 2005 ) . Democracy and the Evolution of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance. 13. 739-752.

Grosfeld. I. ( 2006 ) Ownership concentration and steadfast public presentation: Evidence from an emerging market. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Working Paper No. : 2006 – 18.

Gross. K. ( 2007 ) Equity Ownership and Performance: An Empirical Study of German Traded Companies. Springer: Physica-Verlag.

Gugler. K. and Weigand. J. ( 2003 ) . Is ownership truly endogenous? Applied Economics Letters 10: 483-486.

Han. K. C. & A ; Suk. D. Y. ( 1998 ) . “The Effect of Ownership Structure on Firm Performance: Extra Evidence” . Review of Financial Economics. vol. 7. no. 2. pp. 143.

Hand. J. R. M. ( 1990 ) . “A Test of the Extended Functional Fixation Hypothesis” . The Accounting Review. vol. 65. no. 4. pp. 740.

Hartzell. J. C. & A ; Starks. L. T. ( 2003 ) . “Institutional Investors and Executive Compensation” . The Journal of Finance. vol. 58. no. 6. pp. 2351.

Hill. C. W. L. and T. M. Jones. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29: 131-154.

Himmelberg. C. P. . Hubbard. R. G. & A ; Palia. D. ( 1999 ) . “Understanding the determiners of managerial ownership and the nexus between ownership and performance” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 53. no. 3. pp. 353-384

Holmstrom. B. . and Tirole. J. ( 1993 ) . Market liquidness and public presentation monitoring. Journal of Political Economy 51. pp. 678-709. HO. S. S. M. and WONG. K. S. ( 2001 ) A Survey of the Relationship between Corporate Governance Structures and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosure. Journal of InternationalAccounting. Auditing and Taxation. 10. pp 139-156.

Hubbard. R. G. & A ; Palia. D. ( 1996 ) . “Benefits of control. managerial ownership. and the stock returns of geting firms” . The Rand Journal of Economics. vol. 26. no. 4. pp. 782.

Huang. L. . . Xiao. S. ( 2012 ) . How does authorities ownership affect house public presentation? A simple theoretical account of denationalization in passage economic systems. 116 ( 3 ) : 480–482.

Huse. M ( 1995 ) . Stakeholder direction and the turning away of corporate control. Journal of Management Studies. 29: 131-154.

Jefferson. G. H. ( 1998 ) . China’s province endeavors: public goods. outwardnesss. and Coase. American Economic Review. 88 ( 2 ) . 428–432.

Jensen. M. C. ( 2000 ) . A theory of the house. Governance. residuary claims and organisational signifiers. Cambridge. Mass: Harvard University Press.

Jensen. M. C. & A ; Meckling. W. ( 1976 ) . Theory of the house: Managerial behavior. bureau costs and ownership construction. Journal of Financial Economics. 3 ( 4 ) . 305–360.

Johnson. S. . La Porta. R. . Lopez-de-Silanes. F. . and Shleife. R. A. ( 2000 ) . Burrowing. American Economic Review 90 ( 2 ) : 22-27 ( May ) .

Kang. Y. & A ; Kim. B. ( 2012 ) Ownership construction and steadfast public presentation: Evidence from the Chinese corporate reform. China Economic Review. 23. 471–481

La Porta. R. . Lopez-de-Silanes. F. . & A ; Shleifer. A. ( 1999 ) . Corporate ownership around the universe. The Journal of Finance. 54 ( 2 ) . 471–517.

La Porta. R. . Lopez-de-Silanes. F. . Shleifer. A. . & A ; Vishny. R. ( 1998 ) Law and finance. The Journal of Political Economy vol. 106no. 6. pp. 1113-1155.

La Porta. R. . Lopez-de-Silanes. F. . Shleifer. A. . & A ; Vishny. R. ( 2000 ) Agency jobs and dividend policies around the universe. Journal of Finance. vol. 55 no. 1. pp. 1-33.

La Porta. R. . Lopez-de-Silanes. F. . Shleifer. A. A. . 2002. Government ownership of Bankss. Journal of Finance 57. 265–302

Law. J. ( 2009 ) “Moral Hazard” in A Dictionary of Business and Management ( 5ed. ) . Oxford Reference Online: Oxford University Press.

Leech. D. & A ; Leahy. J. ( 1991 ) Ownership construction. control type categorizations and the public presentation of big British companies. Economic Journal. no. 101pp. 1418-1437.

Maher. M. . Andersson. T. ( 1999 ) Corporate Administration: Effectss On Firm Performance And Economic Growth. Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development ( OECD ) .

Mattes. A. ( 2008 ) . The Impact of Foreign Ownership on the Performance of German Multinational Firms. MicroDyn Summer School.

Maury. B. ( 2006 ) . Family ownership and steadfast public presentation: Empirical grounds from Western European corporations. Journal of Corporate Finance. 12 ( 2 ) . 321–341.

McConnell. J. J. & A ; Servaes. H. ( 1990 ) . “Additional grounds on equity ownership and corporate value” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 27. no. 2. pp. 595.

Miller. D. & A ; Le-Breton-Miller. I. ( 2006 ) . Family administration and steadfast public presentation: Agency. stewardship. and capablenesss. Family Business Review. 19 ( 1 ) . 73–87.

Miller. D. . Le Breton-Miller. I. . Lester. R. H. . & A ; Cannella. A. A. ( 2007 ) . Are household firm’s truly superior performing artists? Journal of Corporate Finance. 13 ( 5 ) . 829–858.

Gram molecules. P. . Terry. N. ( 2012 ) “Adverse Selection” in The Handbook of International Financial Footings. Oxford Reference Online: Oxford University Press.

Monks. R. A. G. & A ; Minow. N. ( 1996 ) . Watching the Watchers. Blackwell. Cambridge. MA.

Morck. R. . Shleifer. A. & A ; Vishny. R. W. ( 1988 ) . “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An empirical analysis” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 20. no. 1. pp. 293.

Myers. S. C. ( 1977 ) . “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 5. no. 2. pp. 147.

Pedersen. T. and Thomsen. S. ( 1997 ) Industry and Ownership Structure. European Journal of Law and Economics.

Petkova. N. ( 2008 ) . Does Foreign Ownership Lead to Higher Firm Productivity? Roneo. Pindado. J. . Requejo. I. . & A ; de la Torre. C. ( 2008 ) . Ownership concentration and steadfast value: Evidence from Western European household houses. 8th one-year IFERA conference.

Porter. M. E. ( 1992 ) . “Capital Choices: Changing The Way America Invests In Industry” . Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. vol. 5. no. 2. pp. 4.

Pound. J. ( 1988 ) . “The Information Effects Of Takeover Bids and Resistance” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 22. no. 2. pp. 207.

Saravia J. A. & A ; Chen. J. J. ( 2008 ) . The Theory of Corporate Governance: A Transaction Cost Economics – Firm Lifecycle Approach. School of Management. University of Surrey.

Schulze. W. S. . Lubatkin. M. H. . Dino. R. N. . & A ; Buchholtz. A. K. ( 2001 ) . Agency relation- ship in household houses: Theory and grounds. Organization Science. 12 ( 9 ) . 99–116.

Sharma. P. . Hoy. F. . Astrachan. J. H. . & A ; Koiranen. M. ( 2007 ) . The practice-driven development of household concern instruction. Journal of Business Research. 60. 1012–1021.

Shleifer. A. & A ; Vishny. R. W. ( 1997 ) . A study of corporate administration. The Journal of Finance. 52 ( 1 ) . 737–783.

Short. H. . Keasey. K. . & A ; Duxbury. D. ( 2002 ) . “Capital Structure. Management Ownership and Large External Stockholders: A UK Analysis” . International Journal of the Economics of Business. vol. 9. no. 3. pp. 375.

Sorenson. S. ( 2002 ) How to Write Research Papers. New york: Peterson’s.

Stiglitz. J. ( 1996 ) . Whither Socialism? Cambridge. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Stulz. R. M. ( 1988 ) . “Managerial Control of Voting Rights: Financing Policies and the Market for Corporate Control” . Journal of Financial Economics. vol. 20. no. 1. 2. pp. 25.

Sturm. M. . Strasky. J. . Adolf. P. . & A ; Peschel. D. ( 2008 ) The Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Economic constructions. Recent Development and Role in the Global. Economy. European Central Bank. Occasional Series Papers. No. 92.

Sun. Q. & A ; Tong. W. H. S. ( 2003 ) . China portion issue denationalization: the extent of its success. Journal of Financial Economics. 70. 183–222.

Sun. Q. . Tong. J. . & A ; Tong. W. H. S. ( 2002 ) . How does authorities ownership affect house public presentation? Evidence from China’s denationalization experience. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 29 ( 1 ) .

Taylor. W. ( 1990 ) . “Can Big Owners Make a Big Difference? ” . Harvard concern reappraisal. vol. 68. no. 5. pp. 70.

Tian. L. & A ; Estrin. S. ( 2005 ) . Retained province shareholding in Chinese PLCs: does authorities ownership cut down corporate value? IZA treatment paper.

Tsai. H. & A ; Gu. Z. ( 2007 ) . “Institutional Ownership and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from U. S. -Based Publicly traded restaurant firms” . Journal of Hospitality & A ; Tourism Research. vol. 31. no. 1. pp. 19.

Villalonga. B. & A ; Amit. R. ( 2006 ) . How do household ownership. control and direction affect house value? Journal of Financial Economics. 80 ( 2 ) . 385–418.

Wahal. S. ( 1996 ) . “Pension Fund Activism and Firm Performance” . Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. vol. 31. no. 1. pp. 1.

Wang. D. ( 2006 ) . Establishing household ownership and net incomes quality. Journal of Accounting Research. 44 ( 3 ) . 619–656.

Weber. J. . Lavelle. L. . Lowry. T. . Zellner. W. . & A ; Barrett. A. ( 2003 ) . Family Inc. . Business Week. 3857. 100–110.

Williamson. O. ( 1988 ) . Corporate Finance and Corporate Governance. Journal of Finance 43 ( 3 ) : 567-591.

Williamson. O. ( 1996 ) . The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Williamson. O. E. ( 1963 ) . “Managerial Discretion and Business Behavior” . The American Economic Review. vol. 53. no. 5. pp. 1032.

Williamson. O. E. ( 1991 ) . “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives” . Administrative Science Quarterly – LA English. vol. 36. no. 2. pp. 219.

Xu. X. & A ; Wang. Y. ( 1999 ) . Ownership construction and corporate administration in Chinese stock companies. China Economic Review. 10. 75–98.

YEH. Y. H. et Al. ( 2001 ) Family Control and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of Finance. 2 ( 1/2 ) . pp. 21-48.

Zeitun. R. & A ; Al-Kawari. D. ( 2012 ) Government Ownership. Business Risk. Financial Leverage and Corporate Performance: Evidence from GCC Countries. Corporate Ownership and Control. vol. 9 ( 3 ) .

Beginning papers

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member
unlock