CHAPTER III - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32650/7/07... · 2018-07-02 ·...
Transcript of CHAPTER III - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32650/7/07... · 2018-07-02 ·...
77
CHAPTER III
3. Research Methodology
This chapter deals with the need and objectives of the present study, the scope of the
study, the selection of sample, data collection, statistical tools used in the analysis of data,
organisation of the study and the limitations of the study.
Background of the Research
The subjective evidence of the 1997 Asian crisis showed that poor corporate governance
contributed to the collapse of many banks and corporate firms in Thailand, Malaysia,
South Korea and Indonesia. Since then, there has been a sincere effort to improve
corporate governance in the crisis ridden countries (Gan et al, 2001). The financial crisis
in some Asian countries in late 1990s prompted most of the countries to give improved
corporate governance a priority. “The losses due to weak corporate governance practices
and corruption are estimated at nearly 15 percent of China’s GDP, though the figure may
be much higher”(www.csis.org). An annual collaborative study of the corporate
governance landscape of Asian markets titled "Spreading the World: CG Watch 2004-05"
was undertaken by independent stockbrokers. From this forum the awareness and
importance of corporate governance in Asian countries was realized. Asian countries do
realize that CG practices would not change overnight; hence patience is the key to
success in this field (Bhasin, 2006).
Considering the importance of this subject, Asian Corporate Governance Association
78
(ACGA), made a report during 2004-05, on the state of affairs of corporate governance in
Asian markets, emphasizing on some key determinants behind assessing corporate
governance standards such as rules and regulations, enforcement, political and regulatory
environment, the adoption of international accounting standards, and corporate
governance culture.
Corporate governance has been on the top priority of Asian countries with most markets
introducing comprehensive regulations. Although it cannot be called a fully satisfied
accomplishment from the evidence of its achievements, but the ethos of corporate
governance is yet to come out fully. During the same period, the need for corporate
governance was also felt in line with the international trend. The first initiative for
ensuring corporate governance among Indian companies came from the corporate sector
itself. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) came up with the Code of Desirable
Corporate Governance in 1998. Then the Securities Exchange Commission of India
(SEBI) which is the regulator of Indian financial market, appointed 'Kumar Mangalam
Birla Corporate Governance Committee'. Most of the recommendations made by the
Committee were accepted and implemented by SEBI in the year 2000.
3.1. Need of the study
The Indian Industries will grow not only in size but also in complexity of financial
engineering as the forces of competition gain further momentum and financial markets
acquire greater depth. The Indian baking sector can no longer afford to ignore better
corporate governance practices. As India gets integrated in the world markets, Indian as
79
well as international investors will demand greater disclosure, more transparent
explanations for major decisions and better corporate value. Moreover, in view of the
different scams taking place in the post-liberalization period since 1991, the investors
have become cautious in making investment decisions and better corporate value.
Therefore, there is a need of strengthening corporate governance practices in India to
restore their confidence and to bring down agency costs.
In this context, the study will attempt to evaluate the whole mechanism of the corporate
governance adopted by leading Public, Private and Foreign banks in India. We propose to
unearth the strengths and weaknesses of the present practices, and to make suggestions
for new threats and opportunities.
The term Corporate Governance has become a buzzword these days because of two
factors. The concept of government controlling, the commanding heights of the economy,
has been given up. This in turn has made the market the most decisive factor in setting
economic issues. Another factor is the thrust given to globalization because of the setting
up of the WTO and every member of the WTO trying to bring down the tariff barriers.
Globalization involves the movement of the core parameters namely physical capital in
terms of plant and machinery, financial capital in terms of money invested in capital
markets or in FDI, technology and labor moving across national borders. The pace of the
movement of financial capital has become greater because of the pervasive impact of
information technology and the world having become a global village.
Corporate governance represents the value framework, the ethical framework and the
moral framework under which business decisions are taken. In other words where
investment takes place across the national borders, the investors want to be sure that not
80
only is their capital handled effectively and adds to the creation of wealth but the business
decisions are also taken in a manner which is not illegal or involving moral hazard.
It will certainly not be out of place here to recount how issues relating to corporate
governance and corporate control have come to the fore the world over in the recent past.
The seeds of modern corporate governance were probably sown by the Watergate
scandal in the USA. Subsequent investigations by US regulatory and legislative bodies
highlighted control failures that had allowed several major corporations to make illegal
political contributions and bribe government officials. While these developments in the
US stimulated debate in the UK, a spate of scandals and collapses in that country in the
late 1980s and early 1990s led shareholders and banks to worry about their investments.
Several companies in UK which saw explosive growth in earnings in the ’80s ended the
decade in a memorably disastrous manner. Importantly, such spectacular corporate
failures arose primarily out of poorly managed business practices.
This debate was driven partly by the subsequent enquiries into corporate governance
(most notably the Cadbury Report) and partly by extensive changes in corporate
structure. In May 1991, the London Stock Exchange set up a Committee under the
chairmanship of Sir Arian Cadbury to help raise the standards of corporate governance
and the level of confidence in financial reporting and auditing by setting out clearly what
it sees as the respective responsibilities of those involved and what it believes is expected
of them. The Committee investigated accountability of the Board of Directors to
shareholders and to the society. It submitted its report and the associated ‘code of best
practices’ in December 1992 wherein it spelt out the methods of governance needed to
achieve a balance between the essential powers of the Board of Directors and their
81
proper accountability. Being a pioneering report on corporate governance, it would
perhaps be in order to make a brief reference to its recommendations which are in the
nature of guidelines relating to, among other things, the Board of Directors and
Reporting & Control.
The Cadbury Report stipulated that the Board of Directors should meet regularly, retain
full and effective control over the company and monitor the executive management.
There should be a clearly accepted division of responsibilities at the head of the
company which will ensure balance of power and authority so that no individual has
unfettered powers of decision. The Board should have a formal schedule of matters
specifically reserved to it for decisions to ensure that the direction and control of the
company is firmly in its hands. There should also be an agreed procedure for Directors
in the furtherance of their duties to take independent professional advice.
The Cadbury Report generated a lot of interest in India. The issue of corporate
governance was studied in depth and dealt with by the Confederation of Indian Industries
(CII), Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM) and Securities
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). These studies reinforced the Cadbury Report’s
focus on the crucial role of the Board and the need for it to observe a Code of Best
Practices.
The banking sector is not necessarily totally corporate. Some part of it is, of course, but
a segment of banks is mostly government owned as statutory corporations or run as
cooperatives – just like your bank. Banking as a sector has been unique and the interests
of other stake holders appear more important to it than in the case of non-banking and
non-finance organizations. In the case of traditional manufacturing corporations, the
82
issue has been that of safeguarding and maximizing the shareholders’ value. In the case
of banking, the risk involved for depositors and the possibility of contagion assumes
greater importance than that of consumers of manufactured products. Further, the
involvement of government is discernibly higher in banks due to importance of stability
of financial system and the larger interests of the public. Since the market control is not
sufficient to ensure proper governance in banks, the government does see reason in
regulating and controlling the nature of activities, the structure of bonds, the ownership
pattern, capital adequacy norms, liquidity ratios, etc.
Reasons for high degree of oversight:
There are three reasons for degree of government oversight in this sector.
• Firstly, it is believed that the depositors, particularly retail depositors, cannot
effectively protect themselves as they do not have adequate information, nor are they
in a position to coordinate with each other.
• Secondly, bank assets are unusually opaque, and lack transparency as well as
liquidity. This condition arises due to the fact that most bank loans, unlike other
products and services, are usually customized and privately negotiated.
• Thirdly, it is believed that that there could be a contagion effect resulting from the
instability of one bank, which would affect a class of banks or even the entire
financial system and the economy. As one bank becomes unstable, there may be a
heightened perception of risk among depositors for the entire class of such banks,
resulting in a run on the deposits and putting the entire financial system in jeopardy.
83
Implementation of corporate governance depends upon laying down explicit codes,
which enterprises and the organizations are supposed to observe. The Cadbury's code in
the United Kingdom was the starting point which led to a number of other codes. In India
itself we have the Kumar Mangalam Birla code as a result of the committee handled by
him at the behest of the SEBI. Earlier we had the CII coming up with the code of
Corporate Governance recommended by the committee headed by Mr. Rahul Bajaj. A
code, however, can only be a guideline. Ultimately, effective Corporate Governance
depends upon commitment of the people in the organization.
3.2. Objectives of the study
The present study has been undertaken with the main objective of making a comparative
analysis of the Corporate governance disclosure practices of the public and the private
sector banking companies and foreign banks in India for the year 2006-07 to 2010-11.
More specifically, the following are the objectives of the study:
1.To study and analyse the contents of the Corporate governance report in the annual
reports of the public and the private sector banking companies of India during the
period under study.
2.To evaluate the adoption of disclosure norms by the Public and Private banks under
study.
3.To make an analytical study of different codes for corporate governance recommended
by different committees in India and their implementation.
4.To examine the disclosure practices, board structure, procedures adopted and board
84
committees of the sample organizations to assess the adherence to good corporate
governance by them.
5.To study and compare the extent to which corporate governance codes are being
implemented by the public and the private sector banking companies of India during the
period under study.
6.To examine the impact on the overall value of the bank (Private banks, public banks or
foreign banks) from the view point of corporate governance with respect to the
perception of its investors.
7.To critically evaluate the key elements of corporate governance to unearth their
strengths and weaknesses
8.To provide suggestions to increase the pace of growth in the area under study.
Research Questions
The proposed research will ask some fundamental questions on corporate governance in
banking sector and will try to identify how it helps banks to ensure transparency and
growth.
The questions are:
• How the attributes of corporate governance help banking sector to create a
situation, which can minimize fraud/malpractices in financial matter in banking
sector?
• Whether ownership pattern influences the effective governance and functioning
of a bank?
• Does the declaration of corporate governance in annual report bring more
transparency in their business and how it pays in terms of business?
85
• Does the proper implementation of corporate governance principles create more
public trust and acceptability of a bank as a result give boost to share price?
• Is there any difference in corporate governance practices between Private sector
and Public sector banks?
• To what extent Indian Banking sector has accepted/implemented corporate
governance principles compared to international norms?
• What are the suggestions to banking industry with respect to corporate
governance?
3.3. Scope of the study
As the aim is to examine the major corporate governance practices adopted by all the
Public, Private and Foreign Banks in India, at present only 40 banks are listed in the
Indian stock markets, out of which I have taken total 35 banks, where 19 banks belong to
public sector and remaining 16 banks in the private sector category. In India, the
implementation of corporate governance practices is directly linked with Security
Exchange Board India (SEBI) under clause 49 listing agreement. According to SEBI, the
corporate governance practices are applicable only to banks that are listed in the Indian
stock exchanges hence the foreign banks lay outside the purview of study. I have ignored
the SBI associate banks in my research since I have taken SBI, the parent organization. At
the end of March 2011, the following banks were listed in BSE or NSE:
86
Table 3.1: List of banks considered in Research Study
S.no Private Banks Public Banks
1. Dhanalakshmi Bank UCO Bank
2. Axis Bank Union Bank
3. South Indian Bank Vijaya Bank
4. KarurVysya Bank Dena Bank
5. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Central Bank
6. ING Vysya Bank Bank of Maharashtra
7. Yes Bank Corporation Bank
8. HDFC Bank Syndicate Bank
9. Indus Ind Bank Indian Overseas Bank
10. ICICI Bank Indian Bank
11. Federal Bank State Bank Of India
12. City Union Bank Oriental Bank
13. Laxmi Vilas Bank IDBI Bank
14. Kotak Bank Allahabad Bank
15. Development Credit Bank Canara Bank
16. Karnataka Bank Bank Of India
17. Andhra Bank
18. Punjab National Bank
19. Bank Of Baroda
In order to make the inter period analysis of the corporate governance disclosure
practices in both the public and the private sector banking companies, a period of five
years i.e. from 2006-07 to 2010-11 has been selected because it became mandatory for all
the listed firms through revised clause 49 to implement corporate governance disclosure
in the annual reports w.e.f. 31st December 2005, before that since it was not mandatory,
many banks therefore never disclosed the corporate governance in their annual reports.
Hence the research is meaningful only after 31st Dec 05’.
87
3.4. Data Collection
The research study is based on both the primary as well as secondary data. A sample of
500 investors was taken from National Capital Region, Delhi on the basis of simple
random sampling in order to know their perception about implementation of Corporate
Governance practices.
For the secondary research, the annual reports of the selected banking companies from
both the public and the private sector were the major source of data collection. All the
annual reports were downloaded from www.reportjunction.com, almost all the reports
were obtained from there except a few which are mentioned below:
Table 2.2: The annual reports cannot be found for the mentioned years
Name of Bank Year in which annual report not found
Laxmi Vilas Bank 2006-07
Central Bank 2006-07
Development Credit Bank 2007-08
Dhanalakshmi Bank 2006-07,2007-08
City union Bank 2006-07,2009-10
However, I have tried to take into account all the possible leading public and private
sector banks but a few were not taken into consideration due to the following reasons:
88
Table 3.3: Reasons for not considering a few banks:
Name of the bank
Name of stock exchange, if
listed
Reason for non-consideration
Global trust bank NSE Is Uganda based and OBC took over
Nainital Bank BSE Annual report not found
Nedungadi bank ltd - PNB took over
Bank of madura - ICICI took over
Bank of punjab ltd NSE Based in Lahore
United western bank ltd NSE Merged with IDBI
Saraswat Bank - Since not listed
Tanilnadmerchantile bank
- IDBI took over
Ratnakar Bank - Since notlisted
Times Bank - HDFC took over
Bharat overseas Bank - IOB took over
Catholic Syrian Bank - Since not listed
Sangli Bank - ICICI took over
3.5. Analysis of Data
For the purpose of analyzing the corporate governance disclosure practices of the public
and the private sector banking companies, primary research was undertaken wherein a
simple random sampling was done, a simple random sample is meant to be an unbiased
representation of a group. The questionnaire was filled (Anexure3) by 500 respondents
who happen to be the general investors.
As the aim is to examine the major corporate governance practices adopted by all the
Public, new Private sector and Foreign Banks (at present only 40 banks are listed in the
89
Indian stock markets, out of which I have taken total 35 banks, where 19 banks belong to
public sector and remaining 16 banks in the private sector category), I have tried to direct
my research towards discovering firstly, how well the corporate disclosure norms are
being followed by the respective public, private banks and after the analysis have
depicted the same, then secondly if there is any impact/relation between corporate
governance disclosure and performance (through return on capital employed ROCE and
Tobin Q method). Certain items of information were identified after scanning the annual
reports of the banking companies of both the sectors as well as the review of literature. I
have divided the corporate governance codes into four major heads namely, procedure,
disclosure, audit committee and board structure. These major heads have several
corporate governance disclosure variables as discussed throughout in this paper which are
drawn out of the codes described in Clause 49 of SEBI Act. For this purpose corporate
governance index was prepared (as shown in Table 1.1).
Hypotheses
With reference to review of literature of corporate governance, and different types of
banks, this paper develops the following hypotheses for study to test the relationships
between corporate governance practices and performance:
H0 Firms’ performance is not positively related to the quality of its corporate
governance practices
H1Firms’ performance is positively related to the quality of its corporate governance
practices
90
Independent variables
The various corporate governance indicators suggested by “Clause 49 of the listing
agreement by sebi” are the independent variables which have bee explained later,
wherein TDL is total disclosure, TBS is total board structure, TAC is total audit
committee, TPRO is total procedures, NBM is no. of board meetings, BS is board size,
NAM is no. of audit meetings, ACS is audit committee size, NOC is no. of committees
and Tobin’s Q is market value of equity over book value of total asset. ROCE is
calculated by dividing earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) by capital employed,
where capital employed is equity plus reserves and surplus, the latter two happen to be
the dependent variables.
Development of a Corporate Governance Index
A corporate governance index based on annual report disclosures was developed to rate
each bank’s corporate governance quality. Derivation of this index was centered on
corporate governance indicators suggested by “Clause 49 of the listing agreement by
Sebi”. The corporate governance index framework is shown below. The maximum
possible score was 20 (10 disclosure, 3 board structure, 3audit committee, 4 procedures).
Each bank’s corporate governance score (CGSCORE) was calculated by dividing their
total score by this maximum possible score, to express it as a proportion for ease of
comparability.
91
DISCLOSURE Maximum
Annual statements contain a statement addressing
corporate governance
If YES, 1 point. If no, 0. 1
Basis of related party transactions disclosed
if Yes,1 point.If NO,0 1
Appointment of a new director or re-appointment
of a director is disclosed
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Members attendance at meetings disclosed
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Bank puts annual financial statements on web
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Bank puts Directors report on web
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Bank puts Annual report on web
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Compensation of Directors (including non-
executives) disclosed
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
The disclosures of the compliance with mandatory
requirements and adoption (and compliance)/non
adoption of the non-mandatory requirements shall
be made
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
A director is not a member in more than 10
committees or act as Chairman of more than five
committees across all companies in which he is a
director
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0 1
TOTAL DISCLOSURE 10
BOARD STRUCTURE
CEO not the same person as Board Chairman
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
50% independent directors if Chairman is Executive
Director or 33% independent directors if Chairman
is a Non-Executive Director
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0,Not disclosed 0. 1
92
3) Number of meetings
Atleast 4 - 1 point
No meetings - 0 point
Not disclosed - 0 point 1
TOTAL BOARD STRUCTURE 3
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Atleast three directors
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
2/3 must be independent
If YES, 1 point. If NO 0, Not disclosed 0 1
Number of meetings during the year
4 or more - 1 point
Less than 4 - 0 point
Not disclosed - 0 point 1
TOTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE 3
PROCEDURES
The Bank has laid down procedures to inform board
members about the risk assessment and
minimization procedures
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Company has Code of Conduct (Ethics)
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Auditor or company secretary compliance with
corporate governance
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
Does CEO / CFO certify financial statements
If YES, 1 point. If NO, 0. 1
TOTAL PROCEDURES 4
TOTAL SCORE 20
In addition to this, the following statistical tools have been used to sharpen the inferences
drawn and to test the hypotheses formulated, on the basis of simple description of facts
and to analyze the data:
93
1. Mean of Individual Series
It is used to get the average of items disclosed by the banking companies in the
five years of study. The means disclosure value has been calculated by applying the
following formula
Where ∑ X = Sum of all the values of the variable x and
N = Number of observations
2. Standard Deviation
It is used to study the variation in the items disclosed by banking companies in
different years of study. The following formula is used to get the values of standard
deviation of the continuous series:
Where d = Deviation taken from assumed mean
f = frequency
N = Sum of the frequency
As far as the standard deviation of the various items of disclosure is concerned it has
calculated by using MS-EXCEL software on the Computer.
∑X
N X =
S.D. = ∑fd2
N
∑fd
N
2
94
3. Correlation
A measure of the strength of linear association between two variables. Correlation will
always between -1.0 and +1.0. If the correlation is positive, we have a positive
relationship. If it is negative, the relationship is negative.
The correlation matrix computes the correlation coefficients of the columns of a matrix.
That is, row i and column j of the correlation matrix is the correlation between column i
and column j of the original matrix. The diagonal elements of the correlation matrix will
be1 since they are the correlation of a column with itself. The correlation matrix is also
symmetric since the correlation of column i with column j is the same as the correlation
of column j with column i.
Correlation(r) =[ NΣXY - (ΣX)(ΣY) / Sqrt([NΣX2 - (ΣX)2][NΣY2 - (ΣY)2])]
where
N = Number of values or elements
X = First Score
Y = Second Score
ΣXY = Sum of the product of first and Second Scores
ΣX = Sum of First Scores
ΣY = Sum of Second Scores
ΣX2 = Sum of square First Scores
ΣY2 = Sum of square Second Scores
95
4. Multiple regression analysis
Multiple regression is a flexible method of data analysis that may be appropriate
whenever a quantitative variable (the dependent or criterion variable) is to be examined
in relationship to any other factors (expressed as independent or predictor variables).
Many practical questions involve the relationship between a dependent or criterion
variable of interest (call it Y) and a set of k independent variables or potential predictor
variables (call them X1, X2, X3,..., Xk), where the scores on all variables are measured for
N cases.
Y A B X B X B X' = + + +1 1 2 2 3 3
5. Students t-test
This test is used to study the difference between the mean disclosure values of the public
and the private sector banking companies at 5 percent level of significance. The
following formula is used to calculate the value of (t):
n1σ12 + n2σ2
2
n1 + n2 - 2 =
Where S Σ(X1 –X1)
2 + Σ (X2 – X2)2
n1 + n2 - 2 =
Here X1 = Mean Disclosure of the first sample
X2 = Mean Disclosure of the second sample
n1 = Number of years of study of the first sample
n2 = Number of years of study of the second sample
σ12 = Square of standard deviation of the first sample
σ22 = Square of standard deviation of the second sample
Degree of Freedom (d.o.f.) = n1 + n2 -2
(X1 – X2) S t = %
n1n2 n1+n2
96
6. Variance Ratio Test or F-Test
This test is used to study the difference between the variation of items of
disclosure between the public and the private sectors’ banking companies. The following
formula is used to calculate F-Test:
Where : S22> S1
2 then formula becomes
Where:S12 = Square of the standard deviation of the first sample.
S22 = Square of the standard deviationof the second
sample.
7. Tobins Q
Tobin’s Q is a very widely used measure of corporate performance.It is defined as the
ratio of market value of the firm to replacement value of the assets. Interestingly, original
definition of Q has few practical limitations such as availability of timely and accurate Q
date. It is understood that even computational procedure also is difficult to employ.In my
case, since there was no preference share and debentures, Tobin’s Q is market value of
equity over book value of total asset.
= Market value of equity/book value of total assets
S12
S22
F = S12> S2
2
Here : S12 and
Σ (X-X1 )2 n1 - 1
Σ (X2-X2 )2
N2 - 1 S2
2
F = S2
2 S1
2
97
8. Return on capital employed (ROCE)
The profitability of an organization is measured through ROCE. It indicates the
effectiveness and efficiency of an organization in generating earnings. It is calculated by
dividing earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) by capital employed.
= EBIT/capital employed
Where, capital employed = equity + reserves and surplus
3.6 Organization of the Study
The organization of the present research follows conventional chapter plan.The study is
divided into following six chapters:
1. Corporate Governance – An Introduction, Chapter one highlights introduction
of corporate governance, conceptual discussion, objectives, need, benefits and limitation
of corporate governance.
2. Review of Literature, Chapter two narrates the academic literature on
corporate governance and especially corporate governances in banking sector.
3. Research Methodology, Chapter three describes the research problems,
methodology of the research and limitation of the research.
4. Corporate Governance disclosure practices of Banking Companies in India,
Chapter four deals with the current scenario of governance of banks, the principles and
committee recommendations for the implementation of CG practices in Indian banking
sector.
98
5. Entrance of Foreign Banks in India and Corporate Governance, chapter five
discusses the framework for presence of foreign banks in India, the Corporate
Governance Guidelines for Foreign Banks to Protect Domestic Interest and the current
status with regard to CG implementation by foreign banks in India.
6. Analysis and interpretation, Chapter five presents the outcome of primary and
secondary research analysis.
7. Conclusion and Suggestions, Chapter six gives concluding remarks on the
research analysis and recommendation to improve corporate governance practices in
Indian Banking sector.
99
REFERENCES
Aguilera, Ruth V. and Desender, Kurt A., Challenges in the Measuring of Comparative
Corporate Governance: A Review of the Main Indices (January 27, 2012
Bae, K. H., J. K. Kang, and J. M. Kim. 2002. “Tunneling or Value Addition?
Evidencefrom Mergers by Korean Business Groups.” Journal of Finance 57 (6): 2695–
740.
Balasubramanian, Bala N., Black, Bernard S. and Khanna, Vikramaditya S. ‘Firm-
Level Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets: A Case Study of India (July 2, 2008)’
ECGI - Law Working Paper 119/2009; 2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal
Studies Paper; U of Michigan Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper 08-011; U of
Texas Law, Law and Econ Research Paper No. 87; Northwestern Law & Econ Research
Paper No. 09-14.
Christina James-Overheu,Julie Cotter ‘Corporate Governance, Sustainability and the
Assessment of Default Risk’, Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting ISSN 1946-052X
200X, Vol. 1, No. 1: E1
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J.R., Nath, L. & Wood, D. (2009) “ A Survey of Governance
Disclosures among US Firms”forthcoming in Journal of Business Ethics, available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105220
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1988), Management Ownership and Market
Valuation: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.
Murugesan Selvam, John Raja, Arumugan Suresh Kumar, CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE AND PERFORMANCE – INDIAN BANKING SYSTEM
Pohl, G.andClaessens, S. 1994. .Banks Capital Markets and Corporate Governance..
Policy ResearchWorking Paper No. 1326, Washington, D.C: World Bank Publications