Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance

Info: 5173 words (21 pages) Dissertation
Published: 11th Dec 2019

Reference this

Tags: Corporate Governance

CHAPTER IV

As noted earlier, the need for corporate governance arises from the potential conflicts of interest among participants (stakeholders) in corporate structure. These are often referred as agency problems arise from two main sources. First, different participants have different goals and preferences. Second, the participants have imperfect information as to each other’s actions, knowledge and preferences. Berle and Means (1932) addressed these conflicts by examining the separation of ownership and control. They noted that this separation, in the absence of other corporate governance mechanisms, provide executives with the ability to act in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of shareholders. However, executives’ activities are potentially constrained by numerous factors that constitute and influence the governance of the corporations that they manage. These factors can be thought of as either internal control mechanisms (such as the board) or external control mechanisms (such as the market for corporate control). An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners.

Although institutional investors are the predominant players in some countries’ financial markets and are therefore important in corporate governance, yet the ownership¬†structures and other governance characteristics differ across markets. These differences are attributable in part to legal and regulatory systems and in part to the manner in which the markets have evolved. These characteristics will continue to vary across countries, leading to differences in the role and influences of institutional investors in corporate governance. Previous researchers have shown that because of the costs involved, only large shareholders have the incentive to provide extensive monitoring of management.

Whether institutions as large shareholders should, or will, provide such monitoring depends in part on the constraints to which they are subjected, their objectives, and their preferences for liquidity.

Keeping the above into consideration, it is pertinent to examine the intricacies of institutional holdings in the governance matters of Indian corporates. Many a time, institutional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The ongoing debate as to the institutional holdings and the corporate governance is very live or interactive in the academics these days too. The results of earlier studies are inconclusive as to the deterministic value of the one or the other. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score index has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poor’s Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark to rate sampled firms in terms of corporate governance. The institutional holdings in terms of equity investment has been expressed in percentages to total investment and comparatively, in terms of the relative composition of the institutional equity investment. This chapter makes a detailed analysis of the dynamics of corporate governance and the institutional holdings in the following three perspectives:

4.1) Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition

4.2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance (dependent variable)

4.3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable)

The results obtained for the sampled in this regard are reported, in an analytical frame, here as under:

4.1.1) Status of Institutional Holdings:

The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in table no. 4.1 given below:

Table 4.1

Institutional Holdings in the Sampled Companies

Institutional

Holdings

(%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

Below 5

61

30.5

53

26.5

46

23.0

46

23.0

47

23.5

5-10

34

17.0

31

15.5

30

15.0

26

13.0

27

13.5

10-15

30

15.0

34

17.0

22

11.0

25

12.5

22

11.0

15-26

37

18.5

40

20.0

43

21.5

43

21.5

42

21.0

26-50

36

18.0

38

19.0

54

27.0

55

27.5

55

27.5

Above 50

02

1.0

04

2.0

05

2.5

05

2.5

07

3.5

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

The information inputs reported in the present table reveals that the proportions of institutional holdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with larger proportions of institutional holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions of holdings have been declining over the study period. As institutions have above 50 percent holdings in only 1 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 3.5 percent. Similarly, institutions have holdings from 26 to 50 percent in 18 percent companies in 2004 that rises to 27.5 percent companies in 2008. The same trend

follows for the companies in which institutions have holdings from 15 to 26 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower institutional holdings also validates it. As institutions have less than 5 percent stake in 30.5 percent companies in 2004, which reduced to only 23.5 percent companies in 2008. Similarly, institutions have holdings up to 10 percent in 17 percent companies that reduced to 13.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that institutional investors have been increasing their stake in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period.

4.1.2 Constituents of Institutional Holdings:

As noted earlier, Institutional holdings have been further classified into three categories i.e., Mutual Fund, (Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies) and Foreign Institutional Investors.

The results obtained for the sampled companies as regard to the status of Mutual Funds holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.2 given below:

Table 4.2 (a)

MF Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings

Mutual Fund

Holdings (%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

Below 5

140

70.0

143

71.5

117

58.5

113

56.5

119

59.5

5-10

42

21.0

34

17.0

52

26.0

54

27.0

41

20.5

10-15

14

7.0

14

7.0

22

11.0

23

11.5

29

14.5

15-20

03

1.5

07

3.5

07

3.5

07

3.5

07

3.5

Above 20

01

0.5

02

1.0

02

1.0

03

1.5

04

2.0

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

Table 4.2 (b)

MF Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings

Mutual Funds

Holdings (%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

0-20

96

48.0

104

52.0

100

50.0

103

51.5

101

50.5

20-40

55

27.5

38

19.0

41

20.5

50

25.0

47

23.5

40-60

22

11.0

21

10.5

24

12.0

14

7.0

23

11.5

60-80

09

4.5

18

9.0

19

9.5

16

8.0

17

8.5

Above 80

18

9.0

19

9.5

16

8.0

17

8.5

12

6.0

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depict that mutual funds have increased their proportions of shareholdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of sampled companies with higher proportions of mutual funds holdings has been increasing over the study period. Similarly, the number of sampled companies with lower proportions of mutual funds holdings has been decreasing over the same period. As mutual funds have more than 20 percent holdings in 0.5 percent companies in 2004, which increased to 2 percent companies at the end of the study period. Similarly, Mutual Funds have holdings to the extent of 20 percent only in 1.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 3.5 percent companies in 2008. It is also observed that there were only 14 companies in 2004 in which mutual funds holdings were from 10 to 15 percent, which increased to more than double at the end of the study period. It is also validated by the observations of the companies in which mutual funds have lower stake. There were 70 percent companies in which mutual funds had less than 5 percent holdings and the proportion of companies with such holdings reduced to 59.5 percent in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that mutual fund companies have become more interested in the sampled companies over the study period.

The information inputs reported in part (b) of the present table reveal out that there is no consistency in the investment pattern of mutual funds in the sampled companies over the study period. Mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings have remained more or less between zero and 20 percent in about 50 percent companies. On an average in 23 percent companies, mutual funds hold 20 to 40 percent shares. Mutual Funds reduced their holdings in 20 to 40 percent category in sampled companies over the study period. Where as there has not been major change in the number of companies with 40 to 60 percent mutual fund holdings. On the other hand, mutual funds have increased their stake from 60 to 80 percent in sampled companies over the study period. There are 9 companies with such holdings, which increased to 17 companies in 2008. But the number of sampled companies with mutual funds holdings more than 80 percent has gone down over the study period. As in 2004, there are 9 percent companies that reduced to 6 percent at the end of the study period. Hence, no inference can be drawn about the investment behaviour of mutual funds in relation to the total institutional holdings in sampled companies over the study period.

The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and total institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.3 given below:

Table 4.3 (a)

Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings

Bank, FI and IC Holdings (%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

Below 5

127

63.5

135

67.5

142

71.0

139

69.5

141

70.5

5-10

36

18.0

28

14.0

27

13.5

34

17.0

29

14.5

10-15

19

9.5

24

12.0

19

9.5

18

9.0

18

9.0

15-20

09

4.5

08

4.0

07

3.5

04

2.0

08

4.0

Above 20

09

4.5

05

2.5

05

2.5

05

2.5

04

2.0

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

Table 4.3 (b)

Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings

Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

0-20

70

35.0

90

45.0

103

51.5

99

49.5

99

49.5

20-40

34

17.0

34

17.0

41

20.5

41

20.5

34

17.0

40-60

29

14.5

30

15.0

16

8.0

23

11.5

37

18.5

60-80

21

10.5

13

6.5

17

8.5

15

7.5

08

4.0

Above 80

46

23.0

33

16.5

23

11.5

22

11.0

22

11.0

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table depicts that the proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies in the sampled companies have decreased over the years. The numbers of companies with lower proportions of these holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with higher proportions of holdings have been decreasing over the study period. As in 63.5 percent companies, Banks and others hold less than 5 percent shares in 2004 while in 2008, 70.5 percent companies have the same holdings reflecting that over the study period, the above category of institutional investors have shown less interest in the sampled companies. Similarly, Banks and others hold up to 10 percent of total shareholdings in 36 companies which reduced to 27 in the year 2006 and finally to 29 companies in the year 2008. Likewise, the number of companies with more than 20 percent holdings has reduced from 4.5 percent in 2004 to 2 percent in 2008. Thus, it is observed that Banks, FIs and ICs have withdrawn their substantial holdings in some companies while number of companies with marginal holdings has increased. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs are getting less interested in the sampled companies over the study period.

The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table depict the results coherent with the results shown in part (a) as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their holdings in relation to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period as well. They have more than 80 percent holdings in 23 percent companies in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it was just in 11 percent companies. Similarly, these investors had 60 to 80 percent holdings in 21 companies in 2004, but in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings reduced to only 8 companies. The same is validated by the proportional increase in the number of companies with relatively lower holdings. Banks and others held to the limit of 20 percent shares in 70 companies in 2004 and in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings rose to 99. These investors have shown more interest in increasing their holdings from 40 percent to 60 percent in the sampled companies over the study period as they had such holdings in 14.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 18.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that the above-mentioned investors are gradually reducing their stakes to the lower levels in proportion to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs have been loosing interest in the sampled companies.

The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of FII holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.4 given below:

Table 4.4 (a)

FII Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings

FII Holdings

(%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

Below 5

133

66.5

114

57.0

103

51.5

100

50.0

92

46.0

5-10

29

14.5

30

15.0

24

12.0

24

12.0

36

18.0

10-15

17

8.5

22

11.0

23

11.5

23

11.5

26

13.0

15-20

09

4.5

13

6.5

15

7.5

25

12.5

18

9.0

20-26

12

6.0

21

10.5

35

17.5

28

14.0

28

14.0

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

Table 4.4 (b)

FII Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings

FII Holdings

(%)

Number of Companies

2004

N (%)

2005

N (%)

2006

N (%)

2007

N (%)

2008

N (%)

0-20

115

57.5

83

41.5

74

37.0

69

34.5

62

31.0

20-40

20

10.0

35

17.5

33

16.5

28

14.0

39

19.5

40-60

29

14.5

36

18.0

33

16.5

34

17.0

43

21.5

60-80

23

11.5

25

12.5

35

17.5

40

20.0

33

16.5

Above 80

13

6.5

21

10.5

25

12.5

29

14.5

23

11.5

Total

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table reveals that the proportions of FII holdings in relation to total shareholdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with higher proportions of FII holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions have been decreasing over the study period. As FIIs have 20 to 26 percent holdings in only 6 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 14 percent. Similarly, FIIs have holdings from 15 to 20 percent in 9 companies in 2004 that got doubled to 18 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 10 to 15 percent. FIIs had such holdings in 17 companies only in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it increased to 26 companies. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. In nutshell, the FIIs have been consistently increasing their stake in relation to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period.

The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table also depict results consistent with the results shown for part (a). The proportion of FII holdings in relation to the institutional holdings in the sampled companies has also increased over the years. As institutions had above 80 percent holdings in only 6.5 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 11.5 percent companies. Similarly, FIIs had holdings from 60 to 80 percent in 23 companies in 2004 that increased to 33 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 40 to 60 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. As FIIs have less than 20 percent stake in 57.5 percent companies in 2004 which reduced to only 31 percent companies in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that FIIs have shown more interest in the sampled companies over the study period.

Resume

It can be observed from the result outputs of the first section that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies is consistently increasing with higher institutional holdings where as the number of companies are decreasing with lower proportions of institutional holdings. The mutual fund investors have also increased their holdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of companies with higher mutual fund holdings has been increasing over the years. Similarly, the number of companies with lower mutual fund holdings has been decreasing over the study period. But the results of observations of mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings state otherwise. Mutual funds have increased their proportions of holdings to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period but it is not so in relation to the total institutional holdings. Therefore, the investment pattern of mutual funds is not clear. Where as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. There has been decline in the number of sampled companies with higher proportion of the Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Validating the same, the numbers of companies with lower proportion of above holdings have been increasing over the study period. The results are consistent for the proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs in relation to total institutional holdings as well. To the contrary, foreign institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the years. The number of companies is increasing with higher FII holdings and the number of companies is decreasing with lower proportion of FII holdings. The results are similar in relation to the total institutional holdings as well. Hence, at the end of the section it is inferred on the basis of result outputs that institutional investors in total and foreign institutional investors are getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies are getting less interested in the same companies over the study period. And the results are inconclusive for the mutual funds.

4.2.1 Status of Corporate Governance Score in Sampled Companies:

The Corporate Governance status of sampled companies is depicted in table 4.5. Total sampled of 200 companies has been divided into four quartiles of 50 companies each. The first quartile shows the company codes with highest corporate governance scores with in the range of 58 to 76 with the average score of 62.5. The second quartile shows the company codes with higher corporate governance scores with in the range of 52 to 58 with the average score of 54.3. The third quartile shows the company codes with lower corporate governance scores with in the range of 46 to 52 with the average score of 48.7.

The fourth quartile shows the company codes with lowest corporate governance scores with in the range of 26 to 46 with the average score of 40.04.

Table 4.5

Status of Corporate Governance in Sampled Companies

Sampled Companies

Number of Companies

Sampled Company (Code)

Range

Average

Governance

Score

Q1

50

2,5,6,11,13,15,21,26,27,28,29,37,39,

41,42,47,48,53,56,68,69,71,72,75,76,7778,79,84,86,88,91,93,96,97,98,102,

104,106,119,124,132,135,147,171,173180,189,194,198

58-76

62.5

Q2

50

10,17,18,30,31,33,34,36,38,45,46,52,

54,55,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,80,85,

100,101,103,108,117,118,121,125,

134,142,149,150,156,160,167,170,

175,177,179,183,184,185,186,187,

190,197

52-58

54.3

Q3

50

1,3,4,9,14,16,19,20,23,40,43,44,50,

59,66,70,73,74,82,83,92,94,99,105,

107,109,110,113,115,120,123,123,

127,129,130,137,139,151,152,154,

155,162,163,165,169,182,188,192,

196,200

46-52

48.7

Q4

50

7,8,12,22,24,25,32,35,49,51,81,87,

89,90,95,111,112,114,116,122,126,

128,131,133,136,138,140,141,143,

144,145,146,148,153,157,158,159,

161,164,166,168,172,174,176,178,

181,191,193,195,199

26-46

40.04

4.2.2 Relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance:

The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.6 as under:

Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) institutional holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to institutional holdings and corporate governance score

Table 4.6 (a)

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance

Institutional Holdings

(%)

Corporate Governance Score

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

0-10

95

47.84

84

47.44

76

46.74

72

47.06

74

47.42

10-25

64

53.50

70

52.79

62

52.21

63

51.44

60

51.53

25-50

39

56.51

42

56.43

57

56.32

60

56.37

59

55.80

Above50

02

50.50

04

56.00

05

55.00

05

52.60

07

54.43

200

200

200

200

200

Table 4.6 (b)

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance

Institutional

Holdings

(%)

Corporate Governance Score

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Constant

47.18

46.98

46.64

46.64

47.05

b Value

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.40

SE

0.84

0.86

0.91

0.91

0.91

R2

0.19

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.16

t-value

6.75*

6.73*

6.63*

6.63*

6.21*

D/W

1.825

.825

1.868

1.84

1.78

Predictor: Institutional Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score

*Significant at 5 percent level

The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportions of institutional holdings (to the level of 50 percent) have higher corporate governance score in sampled companies over the study period. Similarly, the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies in which institutional holdings are from 25 to 50 percent have the average corporate governance score of 56.51 points in 2004, 56.32 points in 2006 and 55.80 points in 2008. These score points are highest in all the years. Where as lower governance scores are observed for lower proportions of institutional holdings. As the sampled companies in which institutional holdings are to the level of 10 percent have poor average governance scores. They are 47.84 score points in 2004, 46.74 score points in 2006 and 47.42 score points in 2008. Similarly, the sampled companies with 10 to 25 percent institutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores than the companies with lower holdings and lower governance scores than the companies with higher institutional holdings over the study period. It can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between institutional holdings and Corporate Governance.

The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters also validate the above inference, as the degree of dependence between two variables is higher over the study period. All the values are also considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable.

4.2.3 Relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance:

The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.7 as under:

Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) mutual funds holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score

Table 4.7 (a)

MF Holdings and Corporate Governance

Mutual Fund Holdings

Corporate Governance Score

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

(%)

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

N

Average

0-5

140

50.5

143

51.0

117

50.9

113

50.6

119

50.3

5-10

42

51.8

34

50.9

52

52.0

54

52.5

41

53.6

10-15

14

55.2

14

54.2

22

51.4

23

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: