Corporate PDF

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, attention has once again turned to
corporate governance, with policy reviews of UK corporate governance being

undertaken by the FRC and the Walker Review.
One key question may relate to the purpose of corporate governance - is it about
the control of risks, the improvement of performance, or both? If this could
be clarified, criteria could be developed to measure the success of corporate
governance procedures or codes.
This research investigates whether companies with particular corporate
governance characteristics outperform other companies and have lower
levels of risk. The governance characteristics investigated in the report are:
board independence; board size; directors ownership of equity; and extent of
ownership by large block holders.
The effects of these characteristics were measured over two three year periods
between 1999 and 2004. The findings reveal no clear systematic relationship
between governance factors and improved performance and no strong evidence
that governance reduces either total or systematic risk. The authors interpret
the results as suggesting that, so far, increased board independence has not
resulted in lower risk or incidence of strategic mistakes. However, there is little
support for the view that additional governance requirements would result in
performance improvements for large commercial and industrial companies
in the UK.
ISBN 978-1 904574-53-8

EAN 9781904574538
Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance: UK FTSE 350 Companies
Corporate Governance and Corporate

Performance: UK FTSE 350 Companies
Corporate Governance and

Corporate Performance:
UK FTSE 350 Companies
Researchers: Azizah Abdullah

Michael Page

CA HOUSE 21 HAYMARKET YARDS EDINBURGH EH12 5BH

TEL: 0131 347 0237 FAX: 0131 347 0114
EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.icas.org.uk/research
Page Covers - 31.7.09.indd 1
14/09/2009 12:10
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

PERFORMANCE: UK FTSE 350 COMPANIES
by
Azizah Abdullah
University Teknologi Mara
Michael Page
University of Portsmouth
Published by
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
CA House, 21 Haymarket Yards
Edinburgh EH12 5BH
First Published 2009

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
2009
ISBN 978-1-904574-53-8
EAN 9781904574538
This book is published for the Research Committee of

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of
the Council of the Institute or the Research Committee.
No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting
or refraining from action as a result of any material
in this publication can be accepted by the authors or publisher.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy,
recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
Printed and bound in Great Britain

by T J. International Ltd.
ontents
Foreword ........................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements .......................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................ v
1. Introduction ............................................................................
Introduction ..................................................................................
Objectives of the research ..............................................................
Research approach .........................................................................
Outline of the report .....................................................................
1
1
2
2
2. Literature Review ....................................................................
Introduction .................................................................................. 3
The nature of corporate governance and its regulation ................... 4
Research questions ......................................................................... 33
3. Trends in Governance and Ownership .................................. 37

Introduction ..................................................................................
The companies ...............................................................................
Survivorship ...................................................................................
Board structure and committee membership ..................................
Summary .......................................................................................
37
37
40
40
55
Contents
4. Corporate Governance and Performance ............................
57
Introduction ..................................................................................
Corporate governance and performance variables ...........................
Average performance variables .......................................................
Discussion of results ......................................................................
Further analysis .............................................................................
Summary ......................................................................................
57
57
63
72
74
78
5. Risk and Corporate Governance ...........................................
81
Introduction ..................................................................................
Risk and governance ......................................................................
Does poor performance cause governance changes? ........................
Summary .......................................................................................
81
82
88
92
6. Conclusions ..............................................................................
95
Introduction .................................................................................. 95
Prior research ................................................................................. 95
Results ........................................................................................... 96
Policy implications ......................................................................... 100
Limitations and future research ...................................................... 102
References ........................................................................................
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................
Appendix 2 ........................................................................................
Appendix 3 ........................................................................................
About the Authors .........................................................................
103
119
125
127
133
oreword
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, attention has once again turned
to corporate governance, with policy reviews of UK corporate governance
being undertaken by the FRC and the Walker Review.
One key question may relate to the purpose of corporate governance
is it about the control of risks, the improvement of performance, or
both? If this could be clarified, criteria could be developed to measure
the success of corporate governance procedures or codes.
This research investigates whether companies with particular
corporate governance characteristics outperform other companies and
have lower levels of risk. The governance characteristics investigated in
the report are: board independence; board size; directors ownership of
equity; and extent of ownership by large block holders.
The effects of these characteristics were measured over two three
year periods between 1999 and 2004. Three measures of performance
were used: one stock market measure (market to book ratio); and two
accounting based measures (return on assets and ratio of sales to total
assets). Risk was measured in three ways: total risk; systematic risk; and
a measure of sudden share price falls.
The findings reveal no clear systematic relationship between
governance factors and improved performance, and no strong evidence
that governance reduces either total or systematic risk.
This project was funded by the Scottish Accountancy Trust for
Education and Research (SATER). The Research Committee of The
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) has also been
happy to support this project. The Committee recognises that the views
ii
Foreword
expressed do not necessarily represent those of ICAS itself, but hopes

that the project will add to the knowledge about the interaction between
corporate governance factors, company performance and risk.
David Spence
Convener, Research Committee
September 2009
cknowledgements
We are grateful to Christine Helliar, Tony Hines , Ken Peasnell, and Laura
Spira for constructive comment and support and to Michelle Crickett
and Angie Wilkie at ICAS for cheerful and efficient administration of
the grant and preparation of the published document. We should also
like to thank our spouses, Associate Professor Dr Mohd Razif Idris
and Deborah Page, together with our children, for their forbearance,
inspiration and support while we worked on the project.
Finally, the Research Committee and the researchers are grateful
for the financial support of the Trustees of the Scottish Accountancy
Trust for Education and Research, without which the research would
not have been possible.
xecutive
Summary
Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

In the period from 1998 to date the UK stock market has gone through
two cycles of boom and bust. The credit crunch, in which troubles in
the financial sector were rapidly transmitted to the non-financial sector,
illustrates the need to understand how corporate governance interacts
with financial performance in all stages of the economic cycle. The
research presented in this report investigates corporate governance and
corporate performance through most of the first cycle and the beginning
of the second and so has relevance to the continuing development of
companies as Britain enters a further phase of the economy. Corporate
performance is measured by: market value to book value; return on assets;
and sales to total assets ratios. The results of the investigation show, for
the most part, a picture of robust governance fitted to the circumstances
of individual companies. However, the report recommends further
scrutiny of the appointment of independent directors by companies with
a large proportion of shares held by directors, and further investigation
of the role of boards in evaluating and challenging executive directors
strategic plans.
Reasons for undertaking the research

There has been a considerable amount of research on the relationship
between governance and performance but most of it was undertaken
before companies had assimilated the provisions of the Combined Code
and covers a period during which there was a long bull market. The
current research examines a period when companies had largely adjusted
their internal structures to comply with the Code guidance and when
Executive Summary
vi
very different market conditions prevailed. The period also straddles the
collapse of Enron and Worldcom and the ensuing crisis in the United
States leading up to the Sarbanes Oxley Act. The work not only extends
the knowledge of governance and performance but also examines the
relationship between governance and risk.
Corporate Governance
Until the publication of the Cadbury Report in 1992, the governance
of companies was regulated by custom and practice together with stock
exchange requirements and some basic rules laid down by company law
concerning boards of directors, financial reporting and audit.
In the post-Cadbury era, listed UK companies have gradually
converged towards a set of internal arrangements covering the structure
of the board and its sub-committees, together with systems of internal
control and risk management that conform to a model embodied in
the Combined Code.
Prior research
Governance and performance
The results of previous research on governance and measures of
performance have been mixed. Few studies have found a positive
relationship between corporate governance and measures of performance.
In information rich, competitive stock markets, such as those of the UK
or the USA, it would be surprising to find that companies with particular
governance arrangements consistently provided a higher return to their
shareholders. Markets can observe governance arrangements and predict
outcomes so that any predictable good or bad performance is likely to be
reflected in the price of a companys shares. Shares will be priced such
that a normal return will be earned upon them, relative to the level of
risk involved. If well-governed companies perform better, their shares
will stand at a premium in the market. Accordingly, much prior research
Executive Summary
has concentrated on measures of valuation or accounting performance

rather than market returns. In particular, attention has focussed on
measures of companies market value to book value (called Tobins Q
or Q, for short) because Q measures the extent to which the company
is expected to earn an above average return on its invested capital.
When the effects of other influences on performance are taken into
account, most prior studies have found either a negative influence or no
influence of measures of good governance (such as the independence
of the board) on corporate performance. Some studies, however, have
found that a period of poor performance may precede governance
improvements and it has been suggested that investors do not concern
themselves much with governance when companies are performing
well, but that boards come under pressure to change their governance
in periods of underperformance.
Governance and risk
The nature of the mechanisms that have been recommended for
improving governance raises the question Why should performance
improve after the adoption of recommended governance measures?
For example, appointing independent directors and separating the roles
of Chair and CEO are designed not so much for the improvement of
performance, but for the avoidance of costly disasters. A substantial
reduction in downside risk would, other things being equal, raise the
average level of performance. However, if there were also a reduction in
upside potential, then average performance might remain unchanged,
or, if risk reduction is costly, decline slightly.
In the mid-1990s there was considerable resistance to the growing
regulation of governance on the grounds that it was inhibiting
entrepreneurial activity by companies, that is to say that governance was
causing boards to be excessively cautious. If boards were rejecting risky,
but potentially profitable projects, then a negative relationship between
governance and performance might be expected. These concerns led to
the Hampel review of governance recommendations and its consolidation
in the Combined Code.
vii
Executive Summary
viii
Surprisingly, few prior studies have examined the relationship

between governance and risk, and none have focussed specifically on
unexpectedly large negative performance by companies.
Companies in the study and timescale investigated

The research investigates non-financial companies that were
members of the FTSE 350 in 1999 and/or in 2004. The reason for
choosing two different dates was to mitigate statistical bias while
maintaining a relatively constant population. The results of companies
in the six periods ending 30th June 1999 to 30th June 2004 formed
the basis of the analysis.
Findings
Trends in governance and ownership
Despite the maturity of guidance on governance, board structures
are still evolving. Average board size decreased over the period 1999-2004
and the fraction of independent directors increased so that by the end of
the period, on average, nearly half of FTSE 350 non-financial companies
boards were made up of independent directors and the average board
size had decreased to nine directors from more than ten in 1999.
By 2004, 93% of FTSE 350 non-financial companies had separated
the roles of Chair and CEO; in 76% of cases the Chair was not a previous
CEO of the company. The companies that survived in the FTSE 350
index over the period were more likely, probably on account of their larger
size, to separate the roles of chair and chief executive than companies
that were promoted to the index between 1999 and 2004.
Also by 2004, the typical board was made up of four executive
directors and five non-executives of whom four were independent, but
it was only in 2004 that the number of independent non-executives on
the board achieved equality with the number of executives.
Executive Summary
The average number of members (percentage independent

directors) of the main board committees at the end of the period were:
audit committee 3.5 (81%); remuneration committee 3.6 (82%) and
nominations committee 4.2 (62%). The percentage of independent
members increased significantly over the period.
Total directors remuneration increased well above inflation
throughout the period with double digit increases in the first three years
and 8% increases in the last two years.
On average, directors and connected parties controlled 5.7% of
the shares of the companies while the top ten holders of large blocks
(>3%) controlled 27% of the shares. The holders of large blocks were
mainly institutions but also included a number of individuals and
foreign investors. A few companies had more than 50% of their shares
controlled by blockholders and, for a small percentage of companies,
directors appeared to have voting control (>50% ownership).
Governance and survival
As might be expected, larger companies were more likely to
survive in the FTSE350 index than smaller ones. In the period under
review, property companies were more likely to survive, and technology
companies less so. Survival was not related to corporate governance
characteristics.
Governance and shareholder activism
Shareholder activism, as measured by opposition to directors
recommendations at AGMs and the advice of a leading proxy adviser,
was greater during the period of market decline. There were indications
that companies that had high market to book values at the beginning
of the period, or which had large boards, were more likely to be subject
to shareholder opposition.
ix
Executive Summary

Initially, three measures of corporate performance were investigated
- the market to book ratio (Q), accounting return on assets (ROA),
and the ratio of sales to total assets (SASET). These variables are interrelated both with previous values of themselves, and with each other.
For example, the level of Q is strongly positively related to both the level
of Q in the previous period and the change in SASET over the period.
Corporate governance is a slowly changing phenomenon and any
relationship between it and performance needs to measure longer-run
effects, rather than transient ones. Accordingly, and again following
previous research, the relationship was investigated over two three-year
sub-periods 1999-2001 which correspond to the relatively stable period
at the peak of the long bull market in technology stocks and 2002-2004
which is the subsequent period of declining prices and the beginning
of the recovery.
The results show that the relationship between governance and
performance varies with the time period investigated, so that, while
in the earlier period there is some evidence that board independence
is related to Q, suggesting that the market valued independence, the
relationship does not persist into the later period. Companies with
high independence have low SASET ratios in both periods. There is no
relationship between independence and ROA in the first period, but a
negative one in the second period.
Although larger board sizes are positively related to Q in the first
period, there is no relationship in the second period. Companies with
large boards had low ROA and Sales to Assets ratios in both periods.
In both periods large companies tended to have low Q values but high
ROA. There is a strong positive relationship between the performance of
individual companies and industry average performance at all times. The
possibility that the industry control variable was masking an underlying
relationship was explored by adopting an alternative formulation of the
industry control; there was no substantial change to the results.
Executive Summary
xi
Summarised results of relationship between independence, board size and

performance measures
Q
SASET
ROA
Independence
none
Board size
Company size
Independence
none
Board size
none
1999 - 2001
2002 - 2004
Company size
Q
ROA
SASET
+
-
(Market value of equity + minority interests + total liabilities)/total assets

Operating income/total assets
Sales/total assets
Positive relationship with performance
Negative relationship with performance
Substantial shareholdings and governance

While there is no apparent relationship between independence or
board size with the presence of outside block holdings there is a very
strong and consistent negative relationship between the proportion of
shares held by directors and the independence of boards, even when
controlling for size and industry membership.
Prior performance
The influences that prompt companies to change their governance
practices are not well-researched although it is clear that the Cadbury
report and the Combined Code were followed by relatively rapid
changes leading to compliance. It is quite possible that non-compliant
companies are able to maintain their governance arrangements while
Executive Summary
xii
their performance is perceived as good by their shareholders, but that

when there is a period of poor performance, they come under pressure to
comply with the Code. In this respect there is the possibility of reverse
causation in which poor performance causes changes in governance
arrangements. The research examines whether there is a tendency for
companies with poor performance in one year to improve governance
in later years, as some prior research has found.
In this analysis, independence of the board was found to be
negatively related to board size and directors ownership and positively
related to company size. The tendency of companies with a large fraction
of shares held by directors to have less independent boards may indicate
a reluctance of directors, who are already in a powerful position, to be
subject to monitoring. There was some evidence that companies react
to large price declines by increasing the fraction of independent directors
on the board.
Risk
The concern for corporate governance that gave rise to the Cadbury
Committee and subsequent developments arose because of a number
of high profile corporate scandals and collapses. Concern was not so
much that companies were performing inadequately but that there
were unacceptable risks if boards controlled by executive directors or
dominant CEOs were not balanced by the presence of non-executive
directors. Corporate governance is as much about the control of risk as
it is about corporate performance.
If outside directors bring experience and strategic expertise, together
with vigilance in monitoring management decisions, it is plausible that
they are effective in preventing strategic mistakes and/or opportunistic
behaviour by management. However, the results of the analysis do not
provide much evidence that governance reduces risks. The corporate
governance variables do not explain either total or systematic risk. So
far as the risk of large negative returns (downside risk) is concerned,
greater board size is related to downside risk in two out of the three
Executive Summary
years in the earlier period (smaller boards were associated with smaller
downside risk), and independence was associated with larger risk in two
out of the three years in the later period. Possible explanations include
a lack of effectiveness of independent directors in assessing the riskiness
of proposed strategies and challenging management proposals. Another
explanation is that companies, that are more risky than others of a
similar size and in the same industry, attempt to reassure stakeholders
by improving governance. A third explanation is that better governed
companies feel more able to take risks. Although further research is
needed to differentiate these explanations, any expectation that more
independent boards would reduce the risks faced by investors seems not
to have been realised.
Conclusions, policy implications and further research

In what is now a mature system of governance regulation, companies
make choices about such characteristics as appointment of independent
directors and board size in conjunction with strategic decisions, and
take into account the industry and ownership of the company. This
research aids in the interpretation of previous research. In particular,
both positive or negative prior findings about the relationship between
governance and performance are likely to be time specific. As well as
providing evidence on trends in independence of boards and board size,
the work has discovered some interesting regularities. One of these is the
apparent negative relationship between board independence and Sales to
Total Assets and between board size and Sales to Total Assets. Another
is the negative relationship between independence and the proportion
of shares controlled by directors (even allowing for the effects of size
and industry membership).
xiii
xiv
Executive Summary
Policy implications and further research

The main results of the research lend confidence to the robustness
of large companies governance through the various stages of the
economic cycle. That is, governance does not appear excessively costly,
nor are companies missing opportunities to increase shareholder value
by improving governance. There are, however, two areas where there
may be cause for concern:
Companies that have a relatively large proportion of shares controlled
by directors have a lower proportion of independent directors.
The consequent concentration of power in the hands of executive
directors deserves further scrutiny by regulators to ensure that the
companies are applying the spirit of the Combined Code as well as
complying with its letter.
There is little evidence that governance arrangements are effective
in reducing the risks for investors. Companies with larger boards
or a higher proportion of independent directors have no lower risk
of large adverse share price movements than others. As one of the
aims of appointing independent board members is to reduce the
incidence of strategic mistakes, more investigation of the role of
independent directors in strategy-making is warranted, together with
a review of the training needs of independent directors in evaluating
and challenging managements plans.
Further research is indicated to extend the research to smaller listed
companies and to differentiate competing explanations of the
relationship between governance, performance and risk. In particular the
importance of the presence of active shareholders in promoting changes
in performance levels and governance arrangements, the influence of
private equity and whether there is an optimal proportion of independent
directors or board size could be worthwhile extensions of this work.
Introduction
Introduction
Corporate governance issues have been vigorously debated by academics,
practitioners and policy makers for the last two decades. Corporate
governance - the system by which companies are directed and controlled
- is the process of managing and controlling the activity, direction and
performance of companies and, by extension, other institutions. The
scope of governance is a contested area, some commentators interpret it
narrowly as referring to the maximisation of shareholder wealth, whereas,
for others, governance has evolved to include corporate accountability,
corporate social responsibility, risk management and the protection
of interests of other stakeholders apart from shareholders. The 1992
Cadbury Report on governance and the Combined Code are now well
established and an evaluation of aspects of their impact on company
performance seems timely.
Objectives of the research

This study investigates the performance of non-financial FTSE 350
companies in the UK market, in relation to their governance structures.
The main objectives are to investigate whether:
(1) good governance or other characteristics are associated with
improved corporate performance;
(2) governance variables are interdependent with other firm
characteristics;
(3) companies react to poor performance by appointing additional

independent directors; and
(4) companies with good corporate governance or other characteristics
have lower risk than other companies.
Research approach
The research uses financial information, corporate governance data
and ownership data, derived from Thomson Financial Datastream and
Pensions Industry Research Consultancy, for non-financial companies
in the FTSE 350 as at 31 December 1999 and/or 30 June 2004. The
data were collected for each year as at 30 June for the period of 1998 to
2004. The research employs multiple regression analysis controlling for
the effects of industry membership and company size.
Outline of the report

Chapter two describes the evolution of corporate governance in the
United Kingdom (UK). The chapter goes on to review prior research
on corporate governance and corporate performance. Chapter three
discusses the research approach and trends in governance. Chapter
four reports findings on corporate governance and firm performance
using three performance measures: market to book ratio, (Q), return
on assets, and ratio of sales to assets, and goes on to test the robustness
of the results. Chapter five investigates governance and risk. Chapter
six provides a summary and conclusion of the research.
Literature Review
Introduction
Corporate governance has been under scrutiny since the 1930s, and has
been the subject of much regulatory effort and academic study since the
report of the Cadbury Committee was published in 1992. Following the
publication of the Cadbury Report, codes of governance have proliferated
around the world, many of them drawing heavily on the Cadbury Code
and its successors. One of the reasons for the enormous influence of the
Cadbury Code was the relative lack of competing guidance from the
United States, where governance is subject, in part, to federal securities
laws, and, in part, to the jurisdiction of individual states (Bush, 2005).
The Cadbury Code of 1992 was augmented in 1996 by the
recommendations of the Greenbury Committee on directors
remuneration (Greenbury Report, 1995), and, after review by the
Hampel Committee (Hampel Committee, 1998), the first Combined
Code was published in 1998. Following further reports by committees
chaired by Turnbull (internal control and risk management) (Turnbull
Report, 1999), Myners (promoting active shareholders) (Myners Report,
2001), Higgs (role of non-executive directors) (Higgs, 2003) and Smith
(audit committees) (Smith Report, 2003) a further edition of Combined
Code was published in 2003 (Combined Code, 2003), with minor
revisions in subsequent years.
Corporate governance deals with the rights and responsibilities of a
companys board of directors, its shareholders and various stakeholders.
In the past two decades, corporate governance has become the focus of
attention of managers, academics and policy makers owing, among other
things, to an increasing concern over the incidence of corporate fraud

and fraudulent financial reporting arising from scandals and corporate
collapses. The attention given to the corporate governance structure of
firms seems to imply that it has a critical impact on the strategies and
policies and hence their performance. However, the evidence linking
quality of corporate governance and corporate performance is very
mixed, as shown by a review of previous research in this chapter and by
an analysis of UK experience in chapters four and five.
The nature of corporate governance and its regulation

While the Cadbury Reports (1992, p2) definition of corporate
governance as the system by which companies are directed and
controlled is frequently cited, other authors have also attempted to
characterise and define governance. The OECDs Principles of Corporate
Governance (OECD, 2004, p11) suggests:
Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between
companys management, its boards, its shareholders and other
stakeholders.
Banks (2004, p471) defines governance as:
The structure and function of a corporation in relation to its
stakeholders generally, and its shareholders specifically.
And Solomon & Solomon (2004, p14) suggest that:
Corporate governance is the system of checks and balances, both
internal and external to companies, which ensures that companies
discharge their accountability to all their stakeholders and act in
a socially responsible way in all areas of their business activity.
Literature Review
Tirole (2001, p4) defines corporate governance as:

The design of institutions that induce or force management to
internalise the welfare of stakeholders.
While the definitions above acknowledge a broad group of
stakeholders, others have focused governance more narrowly:
Corporate governance is the manner in which organisations,
particularly limited companies are managed and the nature of
accountability of the managers to the owners. Dictionary of
Accounting, Oxford University Press. (Hussey, 1999, p97)
With a similar view on corporate governance, Shleifer and Vishny
(1997, p737) relate it to the return on investment. That is:
Corporate governance deals with the ways in which suppliers of
finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on
their investment.
Mitton (2002, p212), in his study on five East Asian countries,
defines corporate governance as:
The means by which minority shareholders are protected from
expropriation by managers and controlling shareholders.
In a survey of institutional investors, Solomon et al. (2000)
presented a range of definitions and found, perhaps unsurprisingly,
that respondents preferred a definition focusing on the interests
of shareholders to more broadly-based ones. The Cadbury Report
definition was least liked by respondents to the survey.
Development of Corporate Governance

The financial collapse of major corporations such as Enron, Barings
Bank, Daiwa Bank and Sumitomo Corporation of Japan and the Asian
Financial Crisis are frequently cited as reasons for addressing the issue
of corporate governance. It is received wisdom that good governance
is of value in improving firms accountability and shareholder value.
This growing sense of the importance of good governance is reflected
in the proliferation of Codes of Best Practice (at the time of writing
the European Corporate Governance website (www.ecgi.org) lists 212
versions of codes and other guidance issued at various times by bodies
around the world). In the UK, the first concerted approach to the
issue was the establishment of a committee on the Financial Aspects of
Corporate Governance in 1991, under the chairmanship of Sir Adrian
Cadbury (the Cadbury Committee). The committee was established
because of continuing concerns about standards of financial reporting
and accountability caused by an earlier generation of corporate scandals
including Maxwell, BCCI, Polly Peck, Coloroll and others. There was,
at the time, concern about the widespread use of creative accounting, the
lack of authority of Accounting Standards, and the weakness of auditors.
Corporate behaviour was seen as threatening to the Citys system of selfregulation and the Cadbury Committee was one contribution towards
reinforcing it. The semi-statutory support for the work of the Financial
Reporting Council and its Review Panel was another important reform.
The subsequent development of UK governance is summarised in Table
2.1
Literature Review
Table 2.1
Development of UK Governance
Report
Recommendations
Cadbury
(1992)
Deals with the issue of quality of companys financial reporting. Outlines

provisions relating to board composition, the appointment and independence
of non-executive directors, executive directors contracts and remuneration, and
companies financial reporting and controls. The Report requires a company to
have a minimum of three non-executive directors.
Greenbury
(1995)
Focuses on board remuneration, particularly the issues on the role of the

remuneration committee in setting the remuneration packages for the CEO
and other directors, disclosure of directors remuneration, service contracts and
remuneration policy.
Hampel
(1998)
Reviews the implementation of the Cadbury and Greenbury Reports,

particularly to avoid box-ticking by companies. The emphasis is on the
positive contribution that good governance can offer and the need not to stifle
entrepreneurship.
Combined
Code
(1998)
Consolidates all principles and recommendations outlined in the Cadbury,

Greenbury, and Hampel Reports. The Code was then updated in 2003
incorporating recommendations from Higgs Review (2003) and Smith (2003).
The Code requires at least one-third of the board to be non-executive directors.
Turnbull
(1999)
Deals with the issue of internal control and risk management. Where the board
is responsible for ensuring that an internal control system is in place and requires
companies to report on their systems of internal control and risk management,
but not to give an opinion of the systems effectiveness.
Myners
(2001)
Deals with the role and responsibilities of institutional shareholders.
Higgs
(2003)
Examines the role of non-executive directors and suggests companies should

state, in the annual report, the number of meetings of the board and its main
committees and attendance records. An evaluation of board performance should
be carried out at least once a year.
Smith
(2003)
Looks at the role of audit committee, particularly the issue of how to ensure that
financial reporting and the internal control are in the best interest of shareholders.
Combined
Code
(2003)
Emphasises that there should be no concentration of power in one or two

individuals; at least half of the board should be independent non-executive
directors. The code provision A.3.2 states that except for smaller companies, at
least half of the board, excluding the chairman, should comprise non-executive
directors determined by the board to be independent. A smaller company should
have at least two independent non-executive directors (p.11). Minor revisions
were made to the Code in 2006 and 2008.
The UK corporate governance framework is now well developed and

covers all the main corporate governance mechanisms: board structure;
leadership structure; ownership structure; internal control systems; and
institutional investors. Recent reviews have revealed no widespread
appetite for radical reform on corporate governance (Fraser and Henry,
2003; Financial Reporting Council, 2006). Research by Mallin and
Ow-Yong (2008) concludes that governance is also well established in
the UKs junior Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
Various studies have analysed codes of governance and identified
the issues covered by codes (Gregory, 2001; Gregory and Simmelkjaer,
2002; Mallin, 2007). These can be summarised as:
Separation of the roles of board chair and CEO;
Independent non-executive directors;
Appointment, re-election and training of directors;
Availability of information for directors;
Service contracts and remuneration of directors;
Financial reporting;
Internal control;
Audit committees and auditors; and
Relationships and dialogue with significant shareholders.
The FTSE and Institutional Shareholder Services (2005) reviewed
a wide range of accepted standards and codes globally. The review
enumerated more than 60 corporate governance criteria which were
grouped into five broad themes: structure and independence of the
board (44% of the criteria); equity structure (21%); compensation
systems for executive and non-executive directors (17%); executive and
non-executive stock ownership (9%); and independence and integrity
of the audit process (9%).
Literature Review
Ownership structure, financial and stakeholder relations, financial

transparency and information disclosure, and board structure and process
are the main dimensions of governance focused on by ratings agencies
such as Standard and Poors and GMI Ratings (mainly US) and PIRC
(UK). The American agencies, where shareholder protection is not so
strongly entrenched in law and regulation as it is in the UK, also focus
on shareholder rights and anti-takeover provisions. In this research three
of these themes are examined: structure and independence of board;
directors holdings; and equity structure.
Governance mechanisms
Previous studies have ascribed four main functions to the board
of directors: the agency/control function of supervising management;
the strategic decision and policy support role; the resource acquirer
role (Lasfer, 2006); and maintenance of firm legitimacy and reputation
(Filatochev et al., 2006).
The most widely used framework for analysing the relationship
between the firm and its shareholders is agency theory. The theory
refers to the relationship between one party (principal/shareholder) that
entrusts resources for management to another party (agent/manager).
Under business settings with incomplete information and uncertainty,
the principals/shareholders cannot ascertain whether the agent/manager
has put maximum effort into increasing their wealth. There are three
categories of mechanisms that have been identified and can be used to
align the interests and objectives of managers with shareholders: use
of executive compensation plans that align managers interests with
shareholders; legal and regulatory protection; and bonding agreements
under which management contract to behave in certain ways and achieve
certain goals together with the monitoring of management actions and
their outcomes. Monitoring arrangements include the use of financial
reporting, auditing and non-executive directors. Sometimes, it is
10
assumed that it is costless to write a contract between the principal and

the agent. However, in practice, it is not possible to write contracts to
cover all eventualities, because contracting costs may be large. Costs that
have been associated with the costs of contracting include: cost of time
taken to consider all the different options that might occur; negotiating
costs; and enforcement costs. Hart (1995) suggests that governance
mechanisms can be regarded as potential solutions to the problems of
incomplete contracts and agency costs.
Agrawal and Knoeber (1996) examine the use of seven mechanisms
to control agency problems between managers and shareholders.
They identified the following mechanisms: shareholdings of insiders;
institutional shareholdings; large block holders; use of outside directors;
debt policy; the managerial labour market; and, the market for takeover
or corporate control. They note that the use of each mechanism
depends upon the choices of other mechanisms as well as other factors
such as technology of production, markets in which the firm operates,
and characteristics of the CEOs. Concern with raising standards of
corporate governance (Hermalin and Weisbach, 1988; Bhagat and
Black, 1999) has centred on top management (board of directors) and
how executives are appointed and controlled, together with the role of
non-executive directors.
Theory does not tell us in what circumstances mechanisms are
substitutes and when they reinforce each other. For example, if a
company has large outside shareholdings, is the oversight of large
shareholders a substitute for monitoring management activity by
independent directors, or does the presence of large shareholders
mean that they use their influence to encourage the appointment of
additional independent directors? Bathala and Rao (1995) find that
board composition is systematically related to a number of other
variables including institutional holdings, growth, volatility, and CEO
tenure. They document an inverse relationship between the proportion
of external members on the board and managerial stock ownership,
Literature Review
dividend payout, and debt leverage. They argue that individual

firms choose an optimal board composition scheme depending upon
alternative mechanisms employed by the firm to control agency conflicts.
Dedman (2000) investigates whether compliance with certain
recommendations of the code contained in the Cadbury Report (1992)
is related to firm size, ownership structure, performance and the level
of entrenchment of top executives. She finds firms are likely to comply
with the Code requirement for at least three non-executive directors
following poor performance. Larger firms are more likely to comply
with the Code. One dimension of governance is the ability of external
stakeholders to replace management, if it is not performing in accordance
with their wishes. Management that is hard to replace is described as
entrenched. Dedman found CEO entrenchment was negatively
associated with the number of non-executives, but the influence of
CEO ownership reduced significantly following the introduction of
the Cadbury Code. Dedman found no evidence of an active role of
the institutional investors in intervening with their investee companies
governance structure. Dedman (2002) finds that while there is evidence
of widespread compliance with the Code, existing research fails to find
any direct relationship between the number of non-executives on UK
boards and firm value. Nevertheless, she suggests there is evidence that
compliance with the 1992 Report led to a reduction in accounting
manipulation and that top executives were more likely to be disciplined
for poor performance.
Agency theory also provides insights into how governance can
affect firms interactions with other stakeholders. In the US, Bhojraj
and Sengupta (2003) attempt to link firm governance structure with
bond ratings and yields. They propose that governance mechanisms can
reduce default risk by mitigating agency costs and monitoring managerial
performance through the reduction of information asymmetry between
the firm and lenders. They use institutional investors and outside
directors to proxy for the governance mechanisms employed in the firms.
11
12
The findings indicate that greater institutional ownership and stronger

outside control on the board leads to lower borrowing costs and higher
ratings of a firms new bond issues.
In a review of mainly US studies, Hermalin and Weisbach (2003)
conclude that empirical studies of boards have produced a number of
consistent findings:
board composition, as measured by the insider-outsider ratio, is not
correlated with firm performance;
the number of directors on a firms board is negatively related to a
firms financial performance;
board actions appear to be related to board characteristics;
boards appear to evolve over time depending on the bargaining
position of the CEO relative to that of the existing directors; and
firm performance, CEO turnover, and changes in ownership
structure appear to be important factors affecting changes to boards.
They suggest two important issues that may complicate empirical
work on governance, the interdependence of different factors and the
extent to which governance arrangements and other factors can be
regarded as being in equilibrium.
Board structure
According to the Cadbury Report, the effectiveness of a board is
buttressed by its structure and procedures (Cadbury Report, 4.21; 1992).
Following Cadbury, firms are required to appoint audit, nomination
and remuneration committees. The board is required to meet regularly
and disclose the number of board meetings with details of attendance
of each individual director. Previous research on board structure focuses
Literature Review
on board size, board composition, board committees and leadership

structure. Anderson et al. (2003) examine the information content
of earnings and board structure. They report that the market attaches
more credibility to earnings announcements when boards and audit
committees are both independent and active.
A survey by Russell Reynolds Associates (2002) highlights the views
of FTSE Chairmen, that is Chairmen of the largest British companies
quoted on the London Stock Exchange, including 68% of the FTSE 100.
The survey concludes that the key to a successful board is its capability,
not its structure. The majority of Chairmen confirm that board structure,
diversity, ratio of executive to non-executive directors (NEDs) and
independence are of secondary importance to the effectiveness of the
board. Another issue that is highlighted is experience which should
include international experience and foreign nationals on the board
for international businesses. However, a majority of the Chairmen are
supportive of the British unitary board system. In addition, 61% of the
respondents think that the ratio of NEDs to executive directors is an
important issue. Many of them consider that if NEDs representation
is less than half of the board, their influence is muted and that the
Chairmans role is critical to board effectiveness and the quality of the
contribution from the NEDs. In addition, it is important to have
executive directors on the board as they provide direct communication
about the company to the NEDs. But some respondents suggested that
executive directors have a minor role to play on the board as they are
always likely to support the CEO, who has a strong influence on their
compensation and continued tenure.
Empirical studies in several disciplines have investigated whether
changes in board structure can influence outcomes that have significant
implications for shareholders interests. In the United Kingdom, research
has focused on the change in board composition since the introduction
of the Cadbury Report. Youngs (2000) and Dahya et al.s (2002)
findings indicate that there have been changes in board composition
13
14
during the period immediately pre and post-Cadbury. In particular

Young found that increased demand for NEDs was more pronounced
in firms classified as having excessively manager-dominated boards in
the pre-Cadbury period. His examination includes the changes in board
composition, compliance decisions, and knock-on effects of NEDs
on other governance elements. The analysis of the knock-on effects is
restricted to three variables (number of executive directors, managerial
share ownership and dividend policy) that appeared to be jointly
determined with the number of NEDs. There is little evidence that
an increase in NEDs causes firms to adjust other governance elements
to restore the optimum level of monitoring. In addition his findings
show that the proportion of NEDs is significantly lower for firms with
a combined Chairman and CEO, for firms with smaller boards and less
diversified firms. Dahya et al. (2002) document a general increase in
board size among UK companies for the period between 1988 to 1996,
an increase in the fraction of outside directors, and an increase in the
number of firms with two different individuals holding the position
of CEO and Chairman. The results are consistent with companies
appointing additional NEDs to comply with Cadbury.
In the USA, Berry et al. (2006) find, for newly listed companies, that
board independence and the proportion of board seats held by venture
capitalists increase as CEO ownership declines. Overall, these studies
provide little evidence that governance mechanisms are substitutes,
rather, as governance increases in one area, it is also likely to increase
in others.
Laing and Weir (1999) investigate the extent of Cadbury compliance
and its impact on performance of UK quoted companies. They randomly
selected 115 companies which appeared in the Times 1,000 for the
years 1992 and 1995. The governance mechanisms in this study are
non-executive director representation, leadership structure and board
committees (presence of both remuneration and audit committees).
Their findings indicate: strong evidence of compliance amongst UK
Literature Review
quoted companies, especially larger firms; combined leadership structure

is more common in the largest companies; strong evidence in favour
of committee-based monitoring rather than monitoring based on the
strength of non-executive director representation; little evidence that the
mechanisms have had a positive impact on performance.
In an Australian study, Clifford and Evans (1997) investigate the
level of board independence among 100 Australian companies and
found that large companies have slightly larger board sizes and a greater
representation of non-executives. However, 35% of the non-executives in
their sample were not independent because they: were advisers, directors/
employees of interrelated companies; had loans from the company; or
were suppliers or customers of the company.
Weir and Laing (2001) examine the extent of Cadbury compliance
in 320 non-financial UK-based listed companies for the years 1995
and 1996. They collected the governance data from the 1995 annual
reports and the performance measures were taken from the 1996 annual
report. They report widespread compliance (separating the role of Chair
and CEO, sufficient number of non-executive directors on the board
and adoption of a remuneration committee) with the Cadbury Code.
In addition, they evaluate the link between governance structure and
corporate performance as measured by return on assets. They found:
combined leadership structure was common in the two highest quartile
groups; the highest performing quartiles had the lowest proportions of
non-executive directors on their boards; and the best performing quartiles
had the lowest representation of unaffiliated non-executive directors.
In their interpretation, the benefits of combining the role of Chair and
CEO outweigh those of separation and, merely adopting a specified set
of governance structures will not automatically mean that a company
will improve its performance.
Fama and Jensen (1983) suggest that boards that are structurally
more independent from management are better able to control
management decision-making on behalf of shareholders. For instance,
15
16
boards composed largely of inside directors are considered less likely, than
those with many outside directors, to override management decisions that
threaten shareholders interests, because inside directors are subordinate
to, and therefore dependent on, the CEO. Abrahamson and Park (1994)
provide some evidence that independent boards limit the concealment
of negative outcomes in letters to shareholders. In addition, Westphal
and Zajac (1994) found that board independence reduced the adoption
of symbolic incentive plans that appeared to align managements and
shareholders interests without putting CEO pay at additional risk.
Recent empirical studies focus on the evolution of board structure
over time, and changes in board structure post-Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX).
Chhaochharia and Grinstein (2004) found that between 2000 and 2003
boards became smaller and more independent. In addition there was
a reduction in multiple directorships and fewer cases of interlocking
directorships. Other research focusing on board characteristics includes
Ferris et al. (2002) and Fich and Shivdasani (2006). Ferris et al. (2002)
find that busy boards, where directors hold multiple directorships in
other companies, do not harm shareholder wealth whereas Fich and
Shivdasani (2006) suggest that the extent to which outside directors are
busy determines the effectiveness of monitoring by the board.
Doble (1997) found little impact of the Cadbury Code on board
composition in UK newly-quoted companies. Weir (1997) investigates
the relationship between internal monitoring mechanisms and
acquisitions occurring during the period 1990 to 1993 in the UK. The
sample consists of 94 acquired and 94 non-acquired firms. He finds that
acquired firms are less profitable than non-acquired firms. The findings
evidence a lower proportion of non-executive directors on the boards of
the acquired firms and these firms are more likely to have dual CEO and
chairman. Later, Weir and Laing (2003) investigate 104 UK firms that
were the target of friendly acquisitions during 1998. They hypothesised
that targets of uncontested bids are more likely to have a board structure
consistent with the Codes of Best Practice than non-target companies.
Literature Review
However, the results indicate that there was no difference in the extent
of adoption of the Cadbury Code of Best Practice between acquired
and non-acquired firms. In addition, the results illustrate a relatively
low degree of compliance with the governance structures set out in the
Cadbury Code by the both sample and match-pairs. The results also
suggest acquiring firms do not seek out firms with poor governance
structures.
Using 1997 survey data, Dulewicz and Herbert (2004) evaluate
the link between a set of independent governance variables (board size,
number and proportion of independent directors, board tenure, pay,
leadership structure, board committee) and firm performance (cash
flow return on total sales, and sales turnover). Generally they find no
significant relationship between the governance variables except for the
proportion of inside directors. The authors suggest that:
There may be some critical threshold for the appropriate number of
executive directors; one that enables those who are not over-stretched
with executive responsibilities better to fulfil their boardroom roles
and, thereby, enhance the firm performance. (p270)
Dulewicz and Herbert also investigate the link between board
practices and firm performance. The findings indicate that boards that
can improve monitoring of performance, supervision of management,
and communication are likely to achieve higher firm performance.
Griffith (1999) examines the impact of board composition (ratio of
inside to outside directors) on firm value. The study analyses a sample of
969 firms obtained from Standard and Poors 1996 ExecuComp database.
The findings indicate a strong evidence of a non-linear relationship
between insiders on the board and the market to book ratio (Q). The
value of the firm first increases then decreases as the percentage of insiders
on the board increases. The maximum Q-value is reached when 50%
of the board is comprised of insiders. The rise and then fall in firm
17
18
value as board composition increases is consistent with improvements

in governance as monitoring of management increases, but that boards
become unwieldy as the number of outsiders increase.
Board size
A number of studies find board size is positively related to
measures of the private benefits available to insiders - including industry
concentration and, in the USA, the presence of takeover defences.
However, it is negatively related to proxies for the cost of monitoring
insiders, including the market to book ratio, the firms R&D expenditure,
the variance of returns, and CEO ownership. These findings are
consistent with arguments put forward by Raheja (2005) that board
size reflects a trade-off between the firm-specific benefits of increased
monitoring and the costs of such monitoring. Accordingly optimal
board size and composition may vary across firms, and change over
time, to accommodate the specific growth, monitoring, and managerial
characteristics of a firm.
A large body of research has also centred on the relationships
between the size of firms boards of directors and a number of
organisational outcomes (Cascio, 2004). Boards of directors may vary
significantly in size, from small (five to seven members) to very large
(30 or more) members. However, there is no consensus as to whether
larger or smaller boards are better with respect to their impact on firm
performance. As with board composition and leadership structure,
there is conflicting evidence about the relationship between board size
and firm performance. Cascio finds both some evidence that smaller
boards are more beneficial but that there is also evidence that larger
boards are more effective.
Conyon and Peck (1998) investigate the relationship between board
size and firm performance (measured as return on equity and market to
book ratio, Q) for United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Denmark and
Literature Review
Italy from 1992 to 1995 and found that board size is inversely related
to firm performance. They suggest that, for their UK sample of firms,
an increase in board size from 10 to 11 members would be associated
with a decrease in performance of 1.36%.
Larger boards are sometimes thought to be better than smaller ones
because they enable the firm to form critical commercial connections
and secure scarce resources (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003). However,
some writers (e.g. Jensen, 1993) argue that larger boards may function
ineffectively and may be easier for a CEO to control. Larger boards
are confronted by such problems as social loafing and decreased group
cohesiveness.
Zahra and Pearce (1989) argue that larger boards may not be as
susceptible to CEO domination as smaller boards. By combining the
results of other studies, Dalton et al. (1999) find larger boards to have
a small positive association with firm financial performance, especially
among smaller firms. In terms of firm oversight, there is no consensus
as to whether larger or smaller boards are better able to monitor the
firm. Compared to small boards, large boards are likely to be more
diverse and less cohesive which may lead to conflict and debate (Dalton
et al., 1999). A large board also possesses more specialised skills and
opinions among its members compared to a small board; larger boards
are better equipped to obtain and process a large amount of information
about the firm and its environment (Agrawal and Knoeber, 2001). A
larger board may also be better equipped to monitor the firms top
management team through the establishment of specialised oversight
committees (Pearce and Zahra, 1992). Rival political coalitions can
emerge in larger boards, and serve to challenge the top management
team, and the political factions it has created (Ocasio, 1994). Coles et
al. (2004) argue that certain classes of firms benefit from larger boards.
Their findings indicate a positive association between firm performance
(measured by Q) and board size for diversified firms, larger firms, and
high leverage firms. Other earlier studies (Yermack, 1996; Eisenberg et
al., 1998) find a significant negative association between board size and
19
20
firm performance. Brown and Caylor (2004) find that firms with board
size between six and fifteen members have higher returns and higher net
profit than firms with board sizes outside this range.
Board independence
There is a large body of empirical work on the relationship between
board composition and firm performance. Results of previous empirical
studies do not indicate any statistically significant positive relationship
between the degree of board independence and better financial
performance. Bhagat and Black (2002) found no positive correlation
between the degree of board independence (measured as the fraction of
independent directors minus the fraction of inside directors) and four
measures of firm performance (Q, return on assets, sales to assets ratio
and market adjusted stock price returns), controlling for a variety of other
governance variables, including ownership characteristics, firm and board
size, and industry. However, they found that poorly performing firms
were more likely to increase the independence of their boards, but there
was no evidence that this strategy resulted in improved performance.
A particular problem of research has been inferring the directions of
causality of relationships. For example, it is possible that companies with
poor previous performance are more likely to adopt corporate governance
recommendations rather than the adoption of recommendations leading
to changes in performance; a company that has passed through turbulent
times may chose to appoint independent non-executive directors as a
means of deflecting criticism from the executive directors. But, according
to Bhagat and Black (2002), firms with more independent boards do not
perform better than other firms; there is no evidence that greater board
independence leads to improved firm performance. If anything, there
are hints that greater board independence may impair firm performance.
The results in Bhagat and Black (2002) and similar results from other
research do not support the conventional wisdom favouring a high
Literature Review
degree of board independence. MacNeil and Li (2006) examine FTSE

100 serial non-compliers over a period of 2000 to 2004. Their findings
suggest that there is a link between share price performance and investors
tolerance of non-compliance with the Combined Code; companies are
likely to increase their compliance with governance recommendations
after a period of poor performance.
Baysinger and Butler (1985) also found no significant sameyear correlation between board composition and various measures of
corporate performance. A few studies provide evidence that firms
with a high percentage of independent directors may perform worse.
Yermack (1996) reported a significant negative correlation between the
proportion of independent directors and Q but no significant correlation
for several other performance variables such as sales/assets, operating
income/assets, and operating income/sales. However Lawrence and
Stapledon (1999) found that, for 1995, the proportion of independent
directors is positively related to a companys assets, net profit and EBIT.
They point out that this is probably an indication that large firms have
more independent directors rather than the independent directors
contributing to the firms growth (larger assets, net profits and EBIT).
Agrawal and Knoeber (1996) suggest that fraction of outsiders on the
board of directors is an internal decision; therefore it is expected to
have a positive effect on the firm value. However, their results indicate
otherwise. They have no ready explanation for this finding. They suggest
the findings of Hermalin and Weisbach (1989) as a possible explanation;
outsiders are added to the boards of poorly performing firms, although
this explanation is not entirely consistent with their results.
Klein (1998), in a study of US firms performance and board
committee structure, found no significant relationship between firm
performance and the percentage of insiders (executive directors).
However, her findings indicate a positive linkage between the percentages
of inside directors on finance and investment board committees with
accounting and stock performance measures. Her interpretation is
21
22
that insiders are better informed and knowledgeable about the firms
operations. There was a weak but positive relationship between firm
performance and the presence of outside directors. Vafeas and Theodorou
(1998) investigate the link between corporate board characteristics
(board composition, managerial ownership, leadership structure and
board committee) and corporate performance (measured as market to
book ratio) in 250 UK plcs. They find no clear link between board
structure and firm performance. Fosberg (1989) reported that boards
with a majority of outside members have significantly lower sales/assets
ratios; however, he found insignificant results for a number of other
performance measures.
Overall the majority of research finds either no relationship or a
negative relationship between independence and performance. There
are many explanations as to why increasing the independence of a board
does not translate into improved firm performance. One major reason
is that having a reasonable number of inside directors could add value.
According to Baysinger and Butler (1985), an optimal board has a
combination of independent, inside, and perhaps also affiliated directors,
who bring different knowledge and skills to the board.
Inside directors may be better at strategic planning decisions; this
is consistent with Kleins (1998) finding that insider representation on
the investment committee of a board has a correlation with improved
corporate performance. Finally, having inside directors on the board
may make it easier for other directors to evaluate them as potential future
CEOs (Weisbach, 1988). For example the mixed board justification
supports Kleins (1999) evidence that affiliated directors are more likely
to be found on the boards of firms that need the affiliated directors
expertise.
MacAvoy and Millstein (1999) consider a different measure of
board independence in linking it to corporate performance. They
hypothesise that companies with professional boards exhibit better
economic performance, on average, than other companies. They use
Literature Review
three criteria as the measure of board independence: independent board

leadership; scheduled meetings of outside/independent directors without
management present; or substantial adherence to the General Motors
guidelines. Using Economic Value Added (EVA) as the measure of
corporate performance, they find a positive relationship between an
active and independent board and EVA, where the added returns to
investors associated with the presence of professional boards are positive
and significant.
A study of UK non-financial companies by Beekes, Pope and Young
(2004) indicates that board composition is an important factor for
financial reporting. Their findings show that there is greater timeliness
in earnings with respect to bad news in firms with more than the median
proportion of outside board members.
ICAEW (2007) discusses the independence criteria for directors
in the US and the UK. The Institute argues that the criteria set out in
Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US, and the Combined Code in the UK deal
primarily with independence in appearance. It is suggested that board
effectiveness is better achieved by independent leadership, objective
decision-making processes and improved boardroom dynamics, rather
than by appointing independent directors for the sake of the appearance
of independence.
Research by Byrd and Hickman (1992) indicates that independent
directors of a company are more beneficial to shareholders than nonindependent affiliated or grey directors. Clifford and Evans (1997)
investigated the independence level of Australian companies boards.
They classified the directors into insider, grey, and independent
outsider. The results reveal that one-third of the NEDs fall within the
grey category. They suggest that there is a possibility that the objectivity
and effectiveness of the board may be compromised when grey directors
are on the board.
23
24
Ownership structure
Dispersed shareholding in public companies creates the need for
firms to have mechanisms in place to monitor management because
shareholders may have little incentive to monitor management on their
own. Holders of a small proportion of shares have little prospect of
changing company policies and consequently are unlikely to incur the
costs of monitoring management. However, holders of a substantial
fraction of shares may be able to change policies, if necessary, in
concert with other large shareholders. Consequently a company with
a large proportion of its shares in relatively few hands may be governed
differently from a company with dispersed shareholdings. Evidence on
whether ownership structure affects firm behaviour is mixed.
Ang et al. (2000) find that management owned firms have lower
expenses than ones with external shareholders. Mehran (1995) finds that
firms where ownership is concentrated in a few hands use less equitybased compensation for executives. In a series of international studies
Pedersen and Thomsen (1998, 2000) and Thomsen and Pedersen (1999)
find systematic differences in ownership patterns across industries and
countries, but no association between ownership concentration and
profitability.
Managerial ownership
Various studies, for example, Hermalin and Weisbach (1991), Short
and Keasey (1999) and Lau (2004) look at the relationship between
managerial ownership and firm performance. Hermalin and Weisbach
find that the relationship changes as management ownership increases;
at low levels of ownership, performance (as measured by Q) increases
with ownership. However, at levels of ownership greater than 20%, Q
decreases with management ownership. The results suggest that with
increases in ownership above 20%, the management becomes more
Literature Review
entrenched and can extract value from the company by means other than
shareholder return. In a three country study, Lau (2004) finds support
for a model in which corporate value depends on the square and cube
of managerial ownership, as suggested by Short and Keasey (1999).
Morck et al. (1988) examine the relationship between insider ownership
and firm performance for 371 Fortune 500 firms for the year 1980.
They found a positive relationship between Tobins Q and managerial
ownership for the 0-5% board ownership range, a negative relationship
in the 5-25% board ownership range as boards become entrenched,
and a positive relationship again for board ownership exceeding 25%.
Similarly, McConnell and Servaes (1990) find a significant curvilinear
relation between Q and corporate insiders ownership. They find that
the curve slopes upward until insider ownership reaches approximately
40% to 50% and then slopes slightly downward.
Davies et al. (2005) suggest a complex relationship between
managerial ownership and performance (measured as Q). Their analysis
on 802 UK industrial companies provides evidence that corporate value,
firm level of investment and managerial ownership are all interdependent.
Chung and Pruitt (1996) studied 404 large US companies and found
CEO equity ownership to be positively related to Q. Core and
Larcker (2002) show that the adoption of share incentive plans for top
executives is associated with increases in managerial ownership and firm
performance.
Loderer and Martin (1997) find a weak positive relationship
between executive ownership and acquisition performance. Their
findings indicate that performance appears to affect how much stock
executives want to hold in their firm where a higher Q induces executives
to reduce their holdings while more profitable acquisitions encourage
larger stockholdings by executives.
Griffith (1999) examines the influence of CEO ownership of a firms
common stock on the value of a firm. He hypothesised that the amount
of CEO ownership has a dominating effect on the value of a firm. The
25
26
findings indicate that Q increases when the CEO owns between 0 and
15% of the firm, then declines as CEO ownership increases to 50% and
rises again thereafter.
In contrast, other studies propose that insider ownership and
firm performance are unrelated or that the direction of causation runs
from performance to ownership. For example, in examining 511 US
corporations in 1980, Demsetz and Lehn (1985) found no significant
relationship between ownership concentration and accounting profit
rates. Himmelberg et al. (1999) could not conclude that changes in
managerial ownership affected firm performance. Rather their findings
indicate that managerial ownership and firm performance are determined
by common factors. Cho (1998) finds that investment determines
corporate value, and that corporate value has an effect on ownership
structure. Demsetz and Villalonga (2001) find no statistical significant
relation between ownership structure and firm performance.
Peasnell et al. (2003) investigate the links between the use of outside
directors and managerial ownership using UK data. They find that
outside board members help to reduce agency costs associated with the
separation of ownership and control only at low levels of managerial
ownership. This suggests that, at the higher level of managerial
ownership, the managers become entrenched. Faccio and Lasfer (1999)
report a weak relationship between firm value and managerial ownership.
Hutchinson et al. (2005) examine director entrenchment and governance
problems in US companies. They use the free cash flow (FCF) problem
identified by Jensen (1986) as a measure of corporate governance
problems. They find boards are motivated and incentivised to monitor
the firms earnings effectively whenever they have a stake in the firms
residual profit. However, they also find that as the stock ownership
increases, the board becomes entrenched and the agency costs increase.
Studies have also investigated the relationship of managerial
ownership to other aspects of firm performance. Cosh et al. (2006)
find that while takeovers in the UK generally have an adverse effect
Literature Review
on long run shareholder returns of the bidding company, this is not

the case where the CEO of the bidder has a substantial shareholding.
In a US study, McWilliam (1990) finds that as managerial ownership
increases, stock market reaction to the announcement of anti-takeover
amendments becomes increasingly negative. Rosenstein and Wyatt
(1997) find a positive market reaction to the announcement of insider
board appointments where there is a moderate (5-25%) level of insider
ownership, and a high proportion of external directors and good prior
performance.
In a recent UK study, Mura (2007) finds a relationship between
executive stock ownership and performance that is not a simple straight
line. Such non-linear relationships suggest that performance increases
as directors ownership increases up to a certain point, but that further
increases in ownership are associated with declines in performance.
Mura also finds a positive relationship between the proportion of nonexecutives ownership and stock performance and a negative relationship
between external blockholdings and performance. Kurshed et al. (2007)
find a negative association between institutional ownership and directors
ownership, whereby the more institutional investors hold, the less is held
by board members.
Large external shareholdings
In addition to the above findings on managerial ownership, Mura
(2007) suggests a negative association between firm performance and
the proportion of shares held by large shareholders. He concludes that
owners of large positions do not appear to monitor the management
effectively. However, Dalton et al. (2003) carry out an analysis combining
the results of 229 empirical studies and find no substantive relationship
between block holder equity and financial performance. Similarly,
Loderer and Martin (1997) find no evidence that larger stockholdings
lead to better performance. McConnell and Servaes (1990) find a
27
28
significant positive relationship between Q and the fraction of shares

owned by the institutional investors.
A number of studies have examined the relationship between the
presence of large external shareholdings and factors other than measures
of performance. Positive relationships include:
the proportion of external directors (Kurshed et al., 2007)
productivity (Hull and Snell, 1998)
executive turnover (Denis et al.,1997)
Cosh and Hughes (1997) find no relationship between the presence
of large external shareholders and either executive compensation or
the likelihood of dismissal. In an international study of performance,
Thomsen et al. (2006) find relationships which suggest, in some
jurisdictions, blockholders may be able to extract value in ways other
than dividends or value increases. Donnelly and Lynch (2002) find
the earnings announcements of firms with concentrated ownership are
more informative and Borokhovich et al. (2006) find, in a US study, that
external blockholders are regarded by the market as better monitors of
managerial activity in the context of anti-takeover charter amendments.
Table 2.2 illustrates the mixed nature of findings relating governance
to performance.
Literature Review
Table 2.2
Summary of previous findings
Governance
variable
Board size
Relationship
+
+
nl
Board
independence
+
+
+
Managerial
ownership
+
0
0
0
nl
External block
holdings
+
+
0
+
-
0
nl
29
Result (association with firm value)

Dalton et al. (1999) small positive, but moderated by firm size.
Coles et al. (2004) positive association with Q (diversified, large and
high leverage firms)
Conyon & Peck (1998), Eisenberg et al.(1998) and Yermack (1996)
negative association
Brown and Caylor (1994) board sizes between six and fifteen have better
returns and net profit margin.
Lawrence and Stapledon (1999) positive correlation
Baysinger et al. (1991) positive association with R & D investment.
Dahya and McConnell (2005) positive correlation with the
appointment of outside CEO
Bhagat and Black (2002), Brown and Caylor (2004), MacNeil and Li
(2006), Yermack (1996) and Agrawal and Knoeber (1996) negative
correlation
Baysinger and Butler (1985), Vafeas and Theodorou (1998), Fosberg
(1989) and Cotter and Silvester (2003) no clear link
Chung and Pruitt (1996) CEO equity ownership positively influences
Tobins Q
Davies et al. (2002) interdependent with each other
Himmelberg et al. (1999) could not conclude the effect
Demsetz and Villalonga (2001) find no statistical significant relationship
Hermalin and Weisbach (1991), Short and Keasey (1999), Lau (2004),
Morck et al. (1988) and McConnell and Servaes (1990) non-linear
relationship
McConnell and Servaes (1990) find a significant positive relationship
Hill and Snell (1988) positive relationship between ownership structure
and the firm productivity
Dalton et al. (2003), Loderer and Martin (1997) and Thomsen et
al.(2006) no evidence
Mura (2007) negative association
positive relationship
negative relationship
no significant relationship
non-linear relationship - increasing then decreasing relationship (or vice versa)
30
Other issues
The large volume of research in corporate governance has also
investigated whether governance arrangements affect other firm
characteristics that may be related to performance. Examples include:
Outside directors
- Peasnell et al. (2005) find outsider directors play an important
role in maintaining the reliability and credibility of financial
reporting.
- Rosenstein and Wyatt (1999) and Defond et al. (2005) note that
the appointment of outside directors with expert knowledge is
treated as good news by the markets.
- Page and Spira (2000) find UK firms appoint NEDs with UK
honours (knighthoods etc) to signal governance quality.
- Agrawal and Chadha (2005) find the probability of earnings
restatements is unrelated to board independence or the existence
of audit committees, but the probability is lower if there is an
independent director with financial expertise.
Separation of the roles of chair and CEO
- Daily and Dalton (1997) find no difference in independence
characteristics of the board between companies with dual roles
and others.
- Brickley et al. (1997) find no evidence that companies with
separate chairs outperform others. Palmon and Wald (2002) find
that, for small US listed firms, the market regards splitting the
roles of chair and CEO as bad news, but for larger companies,
good news.
Literature Review
Other directorships
- Perry and Peyer (2005) find external appointments of a
companys own executives are treated as good news for the
company.
Board meetings
- Vafeas (1999) finds boards meet more frequently following poor
performance (and performance then tends to improve).
Governance index studies
Several attempts have been made to combine governance indicators
to create indices of governance quality and some research has found
relationships between these indices and measures of performance.
Gompers et al. (2003) construct a US governance index to proxy
for the level of shareholder rights for about 1,500 large firms during
the 1990s. They divide the firms into a Dictatorship Portfolio (firms
with weak shareholder rights) and a Democracy Portfolio (firms with
strong shareholder rights). They find a strong correlation between
corporate governance and stock returns during the 1990s and that the
Democracy portfolio outperformed the Dictatorship Portfolio; an
investment strategy that purchased the democracy portfolio and sold the
dictatorship portfolio would have earned an abnormal return of 8.5%
per annum. In addition they find that firms with stronger shareholder
rights have higher firm value (measured by Q), higher profits, higher
sales growth, lower capital expenditures, and make fewer corporate
acquisitions. The authors suggest two explanations for their results; poor
governance causes agency costs, and/or the governance index is associated
with risk or other factors that affected the stock returns during the 1990s.
Subsequent studies by Cremers and Nair (2005) and Bebchuk
and Cohen (2005) suggest that the results may be driven by takeover
31
32
vulnerability and that the institutional ownership by public pension

funds and rotation of directors are also important factors. Core et al.
(2006) find that firms with weak shareholder rights have lower operating
performance, but that the takeover rate is similar for firms with weak
governance and strong governance. Brown and Caylor (2004) also find
that firms with weak governance perform relatively poorly.
GovernanceMetrics International (GMI, 2006), in a study based
on their proprietary international database, find a correlation between
their rating and accounting measures of performance. In a study of the
same database Ashbaugh-Skaife and Lafond (2006) find that highly-rated
companies have lower costs of capital and conclude this is because of
lower agency risk.
These findings are in a US or international environment where there
is considerable variation in shareholder rights. In the UK, shareholder
rights are generally at a high level because of the legal and stock market
requirements.
Index studies provide some evidence that good corporate
governance is associated with good firm performance. However, the
results need interpreting with care. There is some ambiguity about what
the index is proxying for - governance or, for example, probability of
takeover. Another problem is potential survivorship or self-selection
biases. In addition, the construction of the index may be influenced
by known firm performance introducing bias into the results. Time
specificity may also be a problem.
Governance and risk
It has been claimed that shareholders and companies are leveraging
corporate governance both as a means of mitigating risk and as a route
to enhancing value; poor governance becomes pervasive throughout
the firm and leads ultimately to poor share price performance (FTSE
and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), 2005). However, there is
Literature Review
little research which has explicitly investigated the connection between

governance and risk.
In addition to their findings on performance variables, Brown
and Caylor (2004) found firms with weak corporate governance to be
riskier than firms with stronger corporate governance. They used six
risk-related measures in their study: beta; volatility; z-score; price to
book; price to earnings; and market value of equity. They conjecture
that, if firms with weaker corporate governance are riskier, Corporate
Governance Quotient (CGQ) scores should be negatively related to
industry-adjusted Betas and volatility, and positively related to z-score,
price to book, price to earnings, and market value of equity. The results
for five measures were as expected but the coefficient of Beta had the
opposite sign from that expected.
Using the corporate governance index, as used in Gompers et al.
(2003), Ferreira and Laux (2007) study the relationship of corporate
governance policy and idiosyncratic risk and find that a strong
negative relationship exists between an index of a firms anti takeover
provisions, namely the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC)
governance index used by Gompers et al. (2003), and volatility. Brick
and Chidambaran (2005), in a US study, find that measures of board
monitoring are negatively related to measures of total risk and firm
specific risk. Both these studies suggest governance may have an impact
on firms risk profiles (see chapter five).
Research questions
There is a large volume of research on corporate governance.
According to Michaud and Margaram (2006), during 2004 there were
about 200 draft and pre-published articles examining aspects of corporate
governance posted on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
website. The majority of the research was carried out in the USA during
the long bull market that ended in early 2000. The current research
aims to add to the body of evidence concerning corporate governance
33
34
in the UK, where shareholder rights are more firmly established than
in the USA and many other jurisdictions, during a time period which
covers different phases of the stock market. In particular, this report
investigates the research question:
Do companies with particular governance characteristics
outperform other companies?
For the purposes of this research governance is measured by four
factors: independence of boards; board size; directors ownership of
equity; and the extent of ownership in the hands of large blockholders.
If governance is related to performance in relatively straightforward ways
the following relationships might be expected:
Independence - performance improves with independence because
of improved monitoring of management activity.
Board size - within limits, performance improves with board size
because of improved monitoring and the ability of bigger boards to
communicate externally and gain resources. Beyond a certain limit
boards may become unwieldy - costs of decision taking increase
and the board may divide into factions that management can play
off against each other.
Directors ownership - performance is expected to increase with
ownership as managerial objectives are aligned with those of
shareholders, but, beyond a certain point, management may become
entrenched so that performance may deteriorate if management
pursues non-value maximising strategies, such as over-priced
acquisitions.
Literature Review
Blockholders ownership - performance is expected to improve in

the presence of large external blockholdings owing to improved
monitoring and reduction in entrenchment.
However, the relationship between governance and performance
may not be straightforward. There are two possibilities that need to
be considered. Firstly, poorly performing companies may come under
more pressure to adopt approved governance practices than others so it
is possible that the appointment of independent directors is more likely
after a period of underperformance. Secondly, governance arrangements
and performance may be interdependent, partly because they are jointly
determined by other factors (Agrawal and Knoeber, 1996; McWilliams
and Sen, 1997; Russell Reynolds Associates, 2002; Berry et al., 2006).
Finally, corporate governance recommendations, such as the
appointment of independent directors, appear to be directed at the
reduction of strategic errors as much as day-to-day performance
improvement, so there is a possibility that governance may be related
to the risk characteristics of companies as much as to average levels of
performance.
In the next chapter governance characteristics and trends for the
sample period are described. Chapter four analyses corporate governance
and corporate performance. Chapter five explores the relationship of
governance with risk. Chapter six concludes the report.
35
Trends in Governance and Ownership
Introduction
Public policy is largely concerned with large companies, so in common
with previous research (e.g Dedman, 2003; Lasfer, 2006; Peasnell et
al., 2000; Young, 2000), this research focuses on large, non-financial
companies. Econometric analysis is required to handle large sample
quantitative data of this kind. This chapter describes the companies
chosen for analysis and how their characteristics changed over the period
1999-2004.
The companies
The sample chosen was the membership of FTSE index at two
points in time, namely, 31 December 1999 and 30 June 2004. The
companies studied comprise the non-financial members of the FTSE
350 as at 31 December 1999 and also the members of FTSE 350 as at
30 June 2004. Companies were chosen from the FTSE 350 because it
is widely used and covers the economically most important companies.
The analysis period is between 30th June 1999 and 30th June 2004.
Accounting data is for the financial year ending in the year ended 30th
June for each year.
An important statistical problem is survivorship bias. If only a
sample of companies existing at the end of an analysis period is analysed,
then nothing is learned about members of the population that ceased to
exist during the period and results can be misleading about companies
as a whole. Consequently an identifiable part of the sample needs to be
selected as at the beginning of the analysis period. As shown in Table 3.1,
38
a substantial fraction of companies in the FTSE 350 in 1999 disappear

over the analysis period and, in order to provide a representative view
of the evolution of corporate governance over the period, it is necessary
to replenish the sample with some of those entering in the period 19992004. One approach would have been to include all companies that
were members of the index at any time during the period. However,
this would have increased data cost and analysis demands greatly. An
alternative approach was adopted in which the companies that were
members of the FTSE 350 at the end of the period were also included.
The changes in the FTSE 350 composition as referred to in Notes on The
Changes in the FTSE Actuaries Share Indices: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
and 2004 were used in deciding whether a company had been deleted,
taken-over or relegated. The results for the different years suggest that
this was a reasonable approach. There are two types of data employed
in the research; corporate governance data and financial data. Corporate
governance data was obtained from Pension Investment Research
Consultants Ltd (PIRC). Financial data was collected from Thomson
Datastream.
The PIRC database provides information on the 444 companies
that were members of FTSE 350 at the appropriate dates in 1999 or
2004. In the final sample, financial and insurance companies and the
companies that did not have information on corporate governance
variables were excluded, leaving 365 companies. The sample is made up
of non-financial companies that were members of the FTSE companies
in 1999 (74.8%) (categories 1, 2 and 4, Table 3.1) and companies that
were members in 2004 but not in 1999 (25.20%) (category 3, Table
3.1). Of the companies that were members in 1999, 13.97% were taken
over or de-listed for some other reason (category 1) and 9.04% were
demoted but continued in existence (category 2), thus, slightly over half
the final sample (51.78%) were companies that were members of the
FTSE 350 in both 1999 and 2004. Table 3.1 summaries the company
survival categories.
39
Table 3.1
Companies based on survival category
Company survival category
Frequency
Percent
51
14.0
33
9.0
92
25.2
189
51.8
Total
365
100.0
Category: (1) Appears in 1999 list, then taken-over or de-listed

(2) Appears in 1999 and subsequently demoted
(3) Appears in 2004 list but not in 1999 list
(4) Survives throughout the sample period
For the companies in the 1999 list which do not survive throughout
the sample period, the movement of these companies is tracked by
referring to the Notes on The FTSE Actuaries Share Indices: United
Kingdom. Forty three companies in the 1999 list changed name, 51 were
taken over, and seven companies merged. The data for the companies
which were acquired by other companies is collected for as long as it is
available. For example, data for Burmah Castrol, which was taken over
in 2000 are collected only up to year 2000.
Data for companies that appear only in the 1999 list and are
demoted is collected for the whole sample period. However, some of
the companies undergo management buy-outs (McKechnie plc, 2000),
or administration (Rail Track Group plc, Atlantic Telecom Group plc,
2001), in which case data is collected until they are deleted. Where data
was incomplete efforts were made to hand collect it from, for example,
company annual reports.
40
Survivorship
The companies that maintained their place in the FTSE 350
throughout the period are different from those that were demoted
or which were taken over or de-listed for some other reason. Larger
companies tended to survive in the index, as might be expected, whereas
companies with large blocks of shares held by a few investors were more
likely to be demoted or de-listed than companies with more widely
dispersed share holdings. Companies in the property sector were more
likely to hold their place whereas companies in the technology sector
were less likely to survive in the index than other companies. Corporate
governance arrangements (proportion of independent directors and
board size) were not associated with survival in the index, nor was the
level of borrowing, after controlling for industry membership (appendix
one, Table one). The findings indicate the importance of controlling for
survivorship bias as otherwise, for example, property companies would
be over-represented and technology companies under-represented.
Board structure and committee membership

The majority of companies comply with the Combined Code
guidelines relating to the separation of the roles of Chair of the board
and CEO. Over the period, there are consistent trends of increasing
separation of roles, decreasing board size and decreasing number of
independent non-executive directors. Table 3.2 shows these trends.
41
Table 3.2 Board structure of sample companies

Year
SEPCHAIR
%
CNCEO
%
BSIZE
%
XDIRS
%
INED
%
1999
87.9
76.3
10.1
5.1
3.0
2000
87.7
74.7
9.3
4.4
3.2
2001
90.2
73.0
9.3
4.3
3.2
2002
92.5
71.8
9.2
4.3
3.3
2003
92.0
74.2
9.0
4.0
3.5
2004
92.7
75.6
9.1
3.8
3.8
SEPCHAIR
CNCEO
BSIZE
XDIRS
INED
Average percentage of companies with separate Chair and CEO.

Average percentage of companies where the present Chair is not the previous CEO.
Average board size.
Average number of executive directors on board.
Average number of independent non-executive directors on board (an independent
director is as defined by PIRC as described in chapter four).
The change in separation of roles is not so dramatic as that found in

previous research conducted in the post-Cadbury period (Conyon, 1994;
Dedman, 2003). Given a high level of separation at the beginning of the
analysis period, there was not much scope for a further increase and most
companies had already moved towards compliance with the Combined
Code. Companies that survived throughout the period had a higher level
of separation of roles (95.7%) than new arrivals in the index (85.2%)
because of their larger size.
Previous research has already shown that the proportion of nonexecutive directors also increased post-Cadbury (Peasnell et al., 2000).
Over the period, the percentage of independent non-executives increased
from 31% (1999) to 42% (2004). Mura (2007) found that companies had
increased the proportion of independent directors on their board between
1991 and 2001; this trend is continuing.
42
Board size
The trend of decreasing board sizes, shown in Table 3.2 is not an
obvious result of the Combined Code or other corporate governance
recommendations. As shown in chapter two, the results of prior research
about the impact of board size on governance are mixed. Larger boards
bring more resources to the company and, because they are less likely to
be captured, may be more effective monitors of the executive directors.
Conversely, smaller boards have lower information costs and costs of
collective decision-making. The trend to smaller boards, which is at
the expense of seats for executive directors, may be the result of an
extended adjustment process following Cadbury and the Combined
Code; firms may have increased board sizes, by appointment of NEDs,
and later reduced board sizes if the board subsequently seemed too big
or unwieldy.
Committee membership
The Combined Code emphasises the importance of key board
committees on corporate governance. As shown in Table 3.3, the
audit, remuneration and nomination committees were stable in size
over the period. A typical company had three or four members on each
committee. In the case of the audit and remuneration committees there
was a majority of independent directors.
43
Table 3.3 Committee memberships - audit committee, remuneration

committee and nomination committee
Committee
Audit
Renumeration
Nomination
Year
No.
% NEDs
No.
% NEDs
No.
% NEDs
1999
3.6
67.9
3.7
69.6
3.8
49.1
2000
3.6
70.4
3.7
72.2
4.0
50.5
2001
3.7
71.3
3.7
72.5
3.9
50.0
2002
3.7
73.4
3.6
74.4
3.9
52.2
2003
3.7
76.5
3.7
78.0
3.9
56.0
2004
3.5
81.4
3.6
82.1
4.2
61.8
No.
Average number of Committee Members
% NEDs Average percentage of independent non-executive directors on the Committee
Both the audit and remuneration committees showed an increasing

and similar level of independence. In contrast, nomination committees
had more involvement by executive directors. It is apparent that executive
directors wish to maintain influence in the making of appointments to
the board.
Remuneration
Although board remuneration is not a particular focus of this
research, board compensation has been an issue of public concern. Figure
3.1 demonstrates that the average total compensation rewarded to the
boards is increasing over the sample period but that the rate of increase
has been declining. Figure 3.1 depicts the percentage change in board
compensation for each year of the sample period.
44
Figure 3.1 Changes in board compensation - 1999 to 2004

Percentage change in board remuneration
25
Percentage
20
15
percentage change in
board remuneration
10
5
0
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
Period of change
Ownership
Another dimension of governance of a company is ownership.
The PIRC database provides information on managerial ownership and
block holdings. Managerial ownership is measured as the percentage
shareholdings owned by the directors. Total block holdings represent
the percentage of shareholdings owned by the ten highest shareholders
that own more than 3% of the total shares in the company. It includes
director, and related parties holdings and the external block holdings
exceeding 3%. The threshold of 3% is chosen as this is the level which
triggers disclosure. Table 3.4 shows the trend of block holdings among
the sample companies. Block holding increases over the sample period
and the external block holding shows the same trend. However, the
average directors ownership increases over the first three years of the
sample period, then decreases over the next three years.
45
Table 3.4 Descriptive statistics; ownership structure

BLOCK
Year
DIRW
BLOK
1999
307
25.3
309
4.4
307
23.9
2000
301
29.2
301
6.4
301
26.5
2001
295
29.1
294
7.0
297
25.5
2002
295
28.5
294
6.9
296
24.5
2003
294
31.6
293
5.8
296
27.0
2004
306
31.5
306
5.7
308
27.0
BLOCK
DIRW
BLOK
N
total percentage block holdings, including directors (up to ten highest

shareholdings of more than 3%)
Percentage shareholdings by directors
Total percentage external shareholdings (up to ten highest shareholdings of more
than 3%)
Number of observations
Considerable effort was necessary to verify the information on

ownership and to separate blocks controlled by directors from other
blockholders. Figure 3.2 shows the average total block holdings,
directors holdings and external block holdings over the sample period.
46
Figure 3.2 Ownership averages 1999 to 2004
Ownership Average
35
Percentage
30
25
Total Block Holdings
20
Directors' Holdings
15
External Block Holdings
10
5
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Years
The mean of directors holdings over the sample period is 6%,

while for the external block holders the figure is 25.7%. This confirms
that the block holders, rather than the directors, dominate the sample
companies. However, Figure 3.3 of total block holdings shows that the
bulk of the holdings fall below 40%.
Figure 3.3 External block holdings categorised into quintiles
Total External Block Holding Quintiles
60
50
1999
2000
40
Frequency 30
2001
20
10
1999
>80
60-80
Quintiles
40-60
0-20
20-40
2002
Year
2002
2003
2004
47
When categorising the external block holdings and managerial

ownership into quintiles, no directors own shares more than 80% of
the companys shares (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). However, there are some
companies where external block holders own more than 80% of the
shares.
Figure 3.4 Directors holdings quintiles
Directors' Holdings
100
80
Frequency
1999
60
2000
40
2001
20
2002
1999
Year
2003
2004
>80
60-80
Quintiles
40-60
20-40
0-20
2002
Block holdings are of importance since block holders can form

coalitions at relatively low cost to influence company behaviour by
exercising the power of their combined holdings. However, where
directors also hold a substantial fraction of the shares in a company,
they may be able to mitigate or extinguish the power of block holders
(Hutchinson et al. 2005). Companies have been classified as internally
or externally dominated depending on whether directors shareholdings
exceed block holdings or otherwise. Figure 3.5 shows changes in
domination over the period. The mean for externally dominated
companies is 69%.
48
Figure 3.5 Domination categories
Analysis of the data provided by PIRC showed that external

blockholders are mainly insurance companies, pension funds, other
financial institutions and overseas investors. This is consistent with the
statistics on shareholdings from the National Statistics Share Ownership
(2004) (Table 3.5). According to the national statistics on share
ownerships, as at 31 December 2004, over the period of 40 years the
pattern of shareholdings in the UK has changed; the proportion of shares
owned by individuals has reduced by 40%, while the shares owned by
the insurance companies, pension funds and trusts has increased by 19%.
49
Table 3.5 Beneficial ownership of FTSE 100 and other companies 31 December 2004
Per cent of total equity owned:
FTSE100
Other
All
Per cent invested in:

FTSE100
Other
All
Rest of the world
35.0
23.5
32.6
86.3
12.7
100.0
Insurance companies
17.1
17.6
17.2
79.2
20.8
100.0
Pension funds
15.8
15.5
15.7
80.8
19.2
100.0
Individuals
12.9
18.9
14.1
64.9
35.1
100.0
Unit trusts
1.7
2.6
1.9
68.5
31.5
100.0
Investment trusts
2.9
4.8
3.3
68.8
31.2
100.0
10.4
11.9
10.7
77.6
22.4
100.0
Charities, churches etc.
1.0
1.3
1.1
76.5
23.5
100.0
Private non-financial
companies
0.7
0.6
0.6
81.3
18.7
100.0
0.5
0.1
100.0
100.0
Banks
2.6
2.9
2.7
78.3
21.7
100.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
79.8
20.2
100.0
Other financial
institutions
Public sector
Source: National Statistics Share Ownership - A report on ownership of shares as at

31 December 2004 (page 16).
Shareholder activism
Institutional shareholders in the UK have traditionally taken
a passive role in the management of the affairs of the companies in
which they invest. If they have qualms about the effectiveness of the
board or disagree with particular actions of management, institutional
investors have tended to sell their shares rather than use their rights as
shareholders to vote at AGMs to replace management or to vote against
particular resolutions. This passivity has been the cause of concern. The
Myners Committee Report (2001) inter alia recommended imposition
50
of a clear duty on pension fund managers and trustees to intervene

in companies in the interests of shareholders and beneficiaries. A
subsequent review by the government in 2006 recommended adoption
of the Institutional Shareholders Committees (ISC, 2007) Statement of
Principles on Responsibilities of Shareholders. The Statement places a duty
on institutional shareholders and trustees to intervene for the financial
benefit of their ultimate clients such as pension scheme members and
holders of insurance policies.
Intervention by institutional shareholders can take a number of
forms including: meetings with management; communication through
advisers; meetings with the Chair; as well as formally proposing
resolutions. Becht et al. (2008) provides a clinical study of one activist
funds operations and shows that the majority of interventions are not
publicly observable.
The duty of institutional shareholders to exercise their rights in
general meeting has provided a demand for advice on voting and a
number of proxy voting agencies now provide that advice. One of
the longest established is the Pensions Industry Research Consultancy
(PIRC) which provided the governance data for this study. As part
of the data, PIRC provided tables of the largest oppose and abstain
votes relating to members of the sample companies in each year. PIRC
provided data on the following numbers of companies where there were
large abstain or oppose votes: 1999 - 11; 2000 - 30; 2001 - 40; 2002 42; 2003 - 81; 2004 - 37. It is apparent that the number of large votes
evidencing dissatisfaction with boards advice increased substantially
over the period and was higher in the period of declining share prices,
especially 2003.
There is little evidence that measures of shareholder dissatisfaction
(multiple resolutions against the directors advice or PIRC advice to
abstain or vote against the directors) were systematically correlated with
governance or measures of performance, although in three years out of
six there was a positive correlation between shareholder dissatisfaction
and board size and companies with high levels of Q in 1999 were more
likely to be the subject of dissatisfaction in later years.
Independence of directors
For board composition, data on board size, number of non-executive
directors, and number of executive directors were collected from the
PIRC database. The database categorises members of the board as
executive directors, connected non-executive directors, independent nonexecutive directors and other directors. The Cadbury Report initially
concentrated on the need for non-executive directors (NEDS or outside
directors), but over time emphasis has been placed on differentiating
the outside directors into affiliated and independent directors (Byrd
and Hickman, 1992). Accordingly, the number of independent nonexecutive directors available from PIRC database has been used to
represent the independence of directors.
PIRCs definition of independent directors (as described in chapter
four) is very similar to The Combined Code (provision A.3.1). The Code
requires the board to identify in the annual report each non-executive
director it considers to be independent. The board is also required to
state the reasons if it determines that a director is independent despite
the existence of relationships or circumstances which may appear relevant
to its determination, including if the director:
has been an employee of the company or group within the last five
years;
has, or has had within the last three years, a material business
relationship with the company either directly, or as a partner,
shareholder, director or senior employee of a body that has such a
relationship with the company;
has received or receives additional remuneration from the company
apart from the a directors fee, participates in the companys share
option or performance-related pay scheme, or as a member of the
companys pension scheme;
51
52
has close family ties with any of the companys advisers, directors
or senior employees;
holds cross-directorships or has significant links with other directors
through involvement in other companies or bodies;
represents a significant shareholder; or
has served on the board for more than nine years from the date of
first election.
For the purposes of this study, board independence is measured as
the proportion of independent directors (as defined by PIRC) on the
board minus the proportion of executive directors on the board. This
definition is adopted from Bhagat and Black (2002). Board size refers
to the total number of directors on the board.
Size and industry
In addition to the governance variables (independence, board size,
directors ownership and external block holders ownership), a number
of other variables that have previously been important in determining
firm performance are included in the analysis. For this study, two other
variables are used; firm size and industry. Firm size has been frequently
used as a control variable (Booth and Deli, 1996; Yermack, 1996; Short
and Keasey, 1999; Bhagat and Black, 2002; Cotter and Silvester, 2003;
Hutchinson and Gul, 2003; Hayes et al. 2004). Other variables that have
been used in the previous research include firm age, growth and leverage.
Size of the firms may affect corporate governance structure in several
ways. For example, the cost of complying with the Codes requirement is
likely to be a smaller proportion of profits for larger firms, but following
non-compliance with the Code, larger firms are exposed to higher levels
of media enquiry than smaller firms.
The other variable used in this study is an industry control. Coles

et al. (2001) find that industry is a strong and significant driver of
performance for their sample firms. Schmalensee (1985) finds that
industry accounts for about 19% of the differences in accounting rates of
return. Extending the Schmalensee study, Wernerfelt and Montgomery
(1988) did not use the accounting rate of return, because accounting rates
of return are distorted by the failure to consider differences in risk and tax
laws, instead they used a market to book ratio. Their findings support
Schmalensees findings that industry effects are major determinants of
firm success. In addition, factors like environmental dynamism (Li and
Simerly, 1998) may also vary by industry, together with the intensity of
competition and industry maturity.
Measuring firm performance
Governance changes slowly whereas measures of firm performance
are volatile. Shareholders are mainly concerned with returns on their
investments. However, shareholders returns are not a complete measure
of performance for a number of reasons:
returns are generated by price changes in an efficient stock market
that anticipates future performance - if good governance results in
better performance the additional value should be reflected in share
prices when the market becomes aware of changes in governance
quality, not over the period when better performance is realised;
returns are highly variable, a generally well-performing company
can have a bad year, and vice versa;
market wide factors can overwhelm individual company factors
so that returns need to be measured relative to overall market
performance; and
53
54
companies that have a large systematic risk (Beta) are expected to

earn higher returns than companies with lower systematic risk.
Tobins Q
While the last two factors can be taken into account by accounting
for industry membership, the first two factors are company specific
and need a measure of performance that covers a period of years. One
way of doing this to look at the value created by the directors over the
lifetime of a business which can be measured by the ratio of the total
market value of the business to the value of the net assets. This ratio
is known as Tobins Q; it has some useful features as it is a more stable
indicator of performance than a single years returns to shareholders
and, it is arguably, a measure of the success of the management of the
business. However, there is generally no available, up-to-date measure
of the value of the net assets of the business; in practice it is necessary
to substitute book values for most assets. Q is highly dependent on the
future prospects of the business, as reflected in the share price, and thus
varies quite widely from industry to industry.
The excess of the value of the business over its component net assets
is the value of the excess returns (in relation to a normal return on net
capital) that the market expects the business to generate in future years.
This includes the value of investments that the business is yet to make,
and depends on decisions the directors have not yet taken. This is
sometimes referred to as the investment opportunity set. Although Q
depends on events that have yet to take place, it captures the perceived
success, or otherwise, of the management in the strategic positioning
of the company. Q has been widely used in research on corporate
performance and it is useful to include it for comparison with other
work. Studies using Q as a measure of firm performance include: Cotter
& Silvester (2003); Bhagat & Black (2002); Yermack (1996); Booth &
Deli (1996).
In the next chapter, two other performance measures are used in

addition to Q: the return on assets (ROA) and the ratio of Sales to Total
Assets (SASET).
In most samples there are a few extreme observations known
as outliers which can have a disproportionate effect on statistical
measurements. In view of the large effect that they could have on the
results in this research outliers were dealt with by replacing the outlying
observations with the mean plus (or minus) three standard deviations
(a process known as Winsorising).
Summary
This chapter has identified trends in corporate governance among
large companies. Companies have been adding independent directors
to their boards and reducing the representation of executive directors.
Overall board sizes have been falling. As might be expected, large block
holders own a large fraction of many companies and directors collectively
own influential shareholdings in a substantial number of companies. The
companies that survive in the FTSE 350 index tend to be the larger ones
and, during the period of the research, property companies were more
likely to persist in the index and technology companies less likely to do
so. There was no systematic relationship between corporate governance
characteristics and measure of shareholder activism. The chapter has also
discussed alternative measures of company performance, including Q, the
market to book ratio, which has been extensively used in other studies.
55
Corporate Governance and Performance
Introduction
This chapter presents the main results of the analysis of the relationship
between governance and performance, together with various tests of
the robustness of the results. The chapter first addresses the question
posed at the end of chapter two: Do companies with particular
governance characteristics outperform other companies? For this
purpose performance is measured in three ways: market to book ratio
(Q); return on assets (ROA); and Sales to Total Assets (SASET). The
period covered by the research is 1st July 1998 to 30th June 2004 and
the sample comprises non financial companies that were members of
the FTSE 350 at the beginning or the end of that period.
Corporate governance and performance variables

The first step in the analysis is to document to what extent the
various measures are associated with each other in pairs (univariate
analysis). The next step is to measure the association using several
variables at a time (multivariate analysis) so that the importance of
individual measures can be assessed when other factors are taken into
account. Finally the robustness of the results is checked by looking at
other possible explanations of the results and by undertaking important
statistical checks. The variables used in the analysis are set out in Table
4.1.
58
Table 4.1
Variables and definitions
Variable
Variable
code
Definition
Board
Independence
INDEP
The proportion of independent directors (as defined by

PIRC) minus the proportion of executive directors.
Board Size
BSIZE
The total number of directors on the board.
Managerial
Ownership
DIRW
The total percentage shareholdings of directors and

related parties.
Block Holding
BLOK
The total percentage of large external shareholdings (up

to ten highest shareholdings of more than 3%).
Tobins Q
The market value of equity plus the book value of

minority interest plus book value of total liabilities
divided by book value of total assets.
Mean average Q
QAV
QAV is the mean of average Tobins Q for the period for

the industry to which the company belongs.
Return on assets
ROA
The ratio of operating income to total assets.
Mean return on
assets
ROAV
The mean of average ratio of operating income to total

assets for the period for the industry to which the
company belongs.
Ratio of Sales to
Total Assets
SASET
The ratio of total sales to total assets.
Mean ratio of
Sales to Assets
SASV
The mean of average ratio of total sales to total assets

for the period for the industry to which the company
belongs.
Size
LFSIZE
The natural logarithm of annual revenue.
Industry Control
IC
The mean of the independent variables i.e. industry

mean of period average.
PIRC classifies directors as non-independent if they:

have been on the board longer than 9 years;
are disclosed as not independent by company;
are former executives of the company;
hold a notifiable shareholding (3%+);

hold incentive awards/options;
are in receipt of significant fees;
are designated as a director in the companys Articles;
are connected to the companys professional advisers;
own a notifiable stake in the company;
are a director of a customer or supplier;
have other forms of commercial relationship;
share a common directorship with another director on board; or
have a family relationship with another director.

The measure of independence (INDEP) is one that has been used
by other researchers (eg. Bhagat and Black, 2002). Its average value is
negative for the first five years because, in total, the number of executive
directors exceeds the number of independent non-executives. Over the
period, the proportion of independent directors on boards increased
so that by 2004 the mean value of INDEP had risen to zero, reflecting
approximately equal numbers of executive and independent directors
on company boards.
Description of the sample data
The Cadbury Report (1992) requires that at least three members
of the board should be non-executive directors and recommends that
they be independent. The Combined Code (1998) states that the board
should include at least one-third independent members. The Combined
Code (2003) provides guidance that at least one-half of the board should
be comprised of independent directors. The requirement of the Code for
50% independent directors came into effect after 30th June 2004 and
did not apply to the period covered by the research, except to the extent
that companies may have anticipated the requirement for an increased
proportion of independent directors.
59
60
Table 4.2 provides an overview of the independent variables (board

independence, board size, directors ownership, block holdings and firm
size) and dependent variables (Tobins Q, return on assets, and ratio of
sales to assets). Independence is initially negative but increases to zero
over the period and mean board size decreases. Company size is stable.
Both return on assets and SASET show an initial decline followed by
relative stability. Directors ownership (DIRW) and block holdings
(BLOK) have a large dispersion; a few firms had large directors holdings
or block holdings compared to the rest.
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics for the (unwinsorised) variables under
study
Variable
code
1999
Mean
2000
SD
Mean
2001
SD
Mean
SD
INDEP
-0.19
0.24
-0.14
0.23
-0.12
0.23
BSIZE
10.11
3.10
9.33
2.57
9.30
2.60
DIRW (%)
4.4%
10.1%
6.4%
11.7%
7.0%
13.4%
BLOK (%)
20.1%
21.8%
21.8%
18.9%
20.7%
18.4%
LFSIZE
13.14
1.72
13.24
1.74
13.43
1.66
2.94
3.34
3.35
6.82
1.99
1.87
ROA
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.12
SASET
0.98
0.83
0.90
0.91
0.84
0.76
61
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics for the (unwinsorised) variables under

study (Cont.)
2002
2003
2004
Variable
code
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
INDEP
-0.10
0.24
-0.05
0.24
-0.00
0.23
BSIZE
9.15
2.47
9.04
2.37
9.08
2.32
DIRW (%)
6.9%
13.4%
5.8%
11.5%
5.7%
11.3%
BLOK (%)
19.8%
18.2%
21.9%
18.9%
22.7%
17.9%
LFSIZE
13.50
1.62
13.57
1.59
13.66
1.58
1.58
1.03
1.49
0.87
1.78
1.35
ROA
0.06
0.16
0.06
0.16
0.07
0.19
SASET
0.86
0.77
0.89
0.78
0.88
0.83
Variable code - see Table 4.1 for definitions
As shown in Figure 4.1, year 2000 is the high point of the UK stock
market and, as Q is measured as the market value of the firm divided by
the book value, its value is strongly influenced by the level of the market;
Table 4.2 shows the peak average value is 3.35 in 2000 and the minimum
is 1.49 in 2003. The dispersion of the (unwinsorised) values of Q is
high, particularly in the earlier years because a number of companies,
typically in technology and media, had small total assets relative to
their stock market values. Overall, performance generally declined for
all these companies until 2003, reflecting the stock market downturn
and the poor operating performance of companies. The pattern of the
market from 2004 to autumn 2008 is markedly similar to the period
1988-2004 covered by the research.
62
Figure 4.1 FTSE 100 index over 1985-2007 (log scale)
The inter-relationships between the three performance variables are

set out in Appendix 1. As might be expected, each of the performance
variables is strongly related to the previous values of itself, with the
strength of the relationship diminishing over time. Some variables are
also related with each other especially ROA and SASET. At the market
peak in 2000 there is little relationship between the market-based
variable, Q, and the solely accounting-based measures of performance
ROA and SASET. However, during the market decline (2001 - 2003)
the relationship with SASET is stronger. A possible explanation for the
relationship between performance variables is the effect of the dot-com
bubble. During the period of 1997 to 2000, the stock market in the
UK experienced a rapid increase in its value, specifically from growth
in the technology sector. Brunnermeier (2008) states:
Bubbles refer to asset prices that exceed an assets fundamental
value because current owners believe they can resell the asset at
an even higher price.
The definition implies that, during a bubble, growth in share prices

is not related to earnings capacity. ROA and SASET are related to
earnings while Q reflects the companys value.
Further, the market to book ratio, Q, has a mixed relationship with
return on assets (ROA). In some years there is positive relationship
between Q and ROA, in other years there is no relationship, or even a
negative one. However the relationship with SASET is more consistent.
Table 3 in appendix 1 shows that Q is partly driven by the change in
SASET; companies with high market to book ratios tend to be ones with
high sales growth. This is consistent with an economic interpretation
of Q as representing investment opportunities to exploit sales growth
potential. Table 3 in appendix 1 shows that the positive relationship of
Q with change in sales to assets is strong and consistent.
Average performance variables

For this study the companies were split into 10 industry groups.
Industry membership was based on the FTSE Global Classification
system. There are 102 sub sectors, classified into 36 sectors, which are
grouped into ten economic groups. The number of companies in the
sample in each economic group is set out in Table 4.3. All financial
companies except real estate are excluded from the sample.
63
64
Table 4.3 Number of sample companies in each sector

Economic
group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Industry
Resources
Basic Industries
General Industries
Cyclical Consumer Goods
Non-Cyclical Consumer Goods
Cyclical Services
Non-Cyclical Services
Utilities
Real Estate
Information Technology
Total
Number of
companies
25
47
32
6
36
133
18
16
22
30
365
In this research average performance variables are used to recognise

that governance is a long-term phenomenon whose effects may be spread
over different periods. The sample period is, therefore, split into two
and performance is measured as the average for each sub-period.
Figure 4.2 shows the average Q for different economic groups within
the sample period (1999 to 2004). Q9901 and Q0204 represent the
average Q for each economic group over the three-year period 1999 to
2001, and 2002 to 2004 respectively. With the exception of the resources
sector, Q is lower in the second period. The very high level of Q for the
IT sector in the first period reflects the internet bubble.
Figure 4.2 Tobins Q industry average
Q 1999-2001 (Q9901) = average of Q for 30 June 1999, 2000, 2001.

Q 2002-2004 (Q0204) = average of Q for 30 June 2002, 2003, 2004.
Figure 4.3 demonstrates the performance of the companies in

terms of return on assets (ROA). Profitability is lower in the second
period for all groups except for the resources (Group 1) and non-cyclical
consumer goods (Group 5) groups. The worst hit is the information
technology sector (Group 10) which has, on average, negative ROA in
the second period.
Figure 4.3 Return on assets industry average
ROA9901 = average return on assets 1999-2001

ROA0204 = average return on assets 2002-2004
65
66
Figure 4.4 shows that the ratio of sales to assets for all sectors is
relatively stable over the sample period. The cyclical consumer goods
sector (Group 4) has the highest ratio and the real estate (Group 9) the
lowest.
Figure 4.4 Industry average for sales to assets ratio (SASET)
SASET9901 = average sales to assets 1999-2001

SASET0204 = average sales to assets 2002-2004
Corporate governance and other variables

The corporate governance and control variables are generally highly
correlated with previous values of themselves. There are also correlations
between the different variables. Large companies tend to have bigger
boards and a higher proportion of independent directors. Conversely
large companies tend to have a lower proportion of shares in the hands
of directors.
Performance measured by Q
Table 4.4 shows the extent to which the average level of Q is
explained by corporate governance variables for the individual years, as
derived from a multiple regression model. The table shows the corporate
governance factors such as independence and board size as measured
in 1999 and subsequent years. For each corporate governance factor
the sign, either + or -, shows whether there is a positive or negative
relationship for that factor explaining Q, and the asterisks show the
statistical significance of each factor. For example, the plus sign on
independence for the year 1999 means that the greater the independence,
the greater the value of Q. The statistic Adjusted R2 measures how
much of Q is explained by these factors. Thus, taken on its own, the
first line of the table shows that 35.6% of the variation in average Q
has been explained and that the proportion of independent directors in
1999 is an important factor in explaining the average performance as
measured by Q over the 1999-2001 period. However, the next two lines
of the regression suggest that the proportion of independent directors
in 2000 or 2001 is not important, but that board size and holdings by
block holders are important. In each year the size of the firm and its
industry membership are important. In the later period 2002-2004 (the
last three lines of the table) the relationship between Q and corporate
governance factors is much weaker - the Adjusted R2 is smaller and the
corporate governance variables are at best weakly significant; nearly all
of the explanatory power of the equations is due to size and industry.
Moreover, although weakly significant in only one year, the sign on
independence has changed so the influence of independence, if any,
appears to have changed direction from one period to the next.
67
68
Table 4.4 Average Q against board and ownership

CG
Const
Expected
sign
indep
bsize
dirw
blok
lfsize
ic
Adj.
R2
+
Q9901
1999
8.499
***
+1.696
***
-0.037
-0.009
-0.009
-0.516
***
+0.847
***
0.356
Q9901
2000
7.886
***
+0.532
+0.151
***
+0.001
-0.016
**
-0.612
***
+0.882
***
0.338
Q9901
2001
7.924
***
+0.243
+0.185
***
+0.008
-0.021
***
-0.627
***
+0.887
***
0.331
Q0204
2002
1.789
***
-0.284
+0.003
-0.002
-0.004
*
-0.118
***
+1.103
***
0.185
Q0204
2003
1.405
***
-0.328
*
+0.009
-0.001
-0.003
-0.094
***
+1.103
***
0.173
Q0204
2004
1.361
***
-0.310
+0.016
-0.005
-0.001
-0.096
***
+1.095
***
0.168
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors ownership
log firm size
BSIZE
BLOK
IC
board size
percentage of external block holdings
industry control
Q9901/0204 average Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority
interest plus Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets for three year period 1999
to 2001/2002 to 2004.
***/ ** / *
denotes significant at 1% / 5% / 10% level respectively
CG
year the corporate governance factors are measured
It is clear that the relationship of governance arrangements with Q

are time specific at best. Independence, which is predicted to be positively
related to performance, has a negative sign in the second period. The
signs of board size are consistently positive but significant in only two
periods. The sign of the block holding variable is consistently negative
which is counter to expectation, thus, the larger the blockholding the
lower Q. The size of directors holdings (DIRW) is not significant and
it changes sign.
There is, however, a strong positive industry effect and, since Q

incorporates expectations of future growth, a negative relationship with
company size because large firms are less likely to have exceptional percentage
increases in sales and profits than smaller ones.
Further analysis of the association between Q and corporate governance
variables was carried out using three sub-periods and a two-year average for
Q instead of three years. The results provided the same patterns.
Performance measured by return on assets
When performance is measured using return on assets (Table 4.5),
the association with corporate governance and control variables is weaker.
Nevertheless, board independence and board size consistently have negative
coefficients for both periods: less independent and smaller boards have
better returns on assets. Although Adjusted R2 is not large, both appear
as significant in the second period. In comparison with the results for Q,
independence has a consistent sign throughout but the sign of board size
becomes negative, with some level of significance, in four out of six periods.
Size and industry continue to be significant but the sign of company size
changes from negative to positive suggesting large companies had higher
return on assets than smaller ones.
69
70
Table 4.5 Return on assets against board and ownership

CG
CONSTANT
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
IC
ADJ.
R2
Expected
sign
ROA9901
1999
-0.097
**
-0.034
-0.002
+0.000
+0.000
+0.011
**
+1.019
***
0.105
ROA9901
2000
-0.145
***
-0.005
-0.005
**
+0.001
*
+0.000
+0.016
***
+1.031
***
0.123
ROA9901
2001
-0.174
***
-0.027
-0.002
+0.001
*
+0.000
+0.014
***
+1.133
***
0.106
ROA0204
2002
-0.201
***
-0.049
*
-0.005
*
+0.000
+0.000
+0.018
***
+1.053
***
0.153
ROA0204
2003
-0.174
***
-0.061
***
-0.004
*
-0.000
+0.000
+0.017
***
+0.774
***
0.136
ROA0204
2004
-0.172
***
-0.055
**
-0.005
**
+0.000
+0.000
+0.017
***
+0.794
***
0.129
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors ownership
log firm size
BSIZE board size

BLOK percentage of external block holdings
IC
industry control
ROA9901/0204 average (operating income/total assets for three year period 1999 to 2001/2002 to
2004
***/ ** / *
CG

Performance measured by sales to assets ratio

When performance is measured by sales to assets ratio the results are
stronger (Table 4.6). Board independence and board size again are negative
and are significant in all but one case (board size in 1999). Directors
ownership and block holdings are positive and are significant half the time:
large shareholdings by directors or external shareholders are associated
with greater sales to assets ratios.
71
Table 4.6 Average sales to assets ratio against board and ownership
CG
CONST
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
IC
Expected
sign
ADJ.
R2
SASET9901
1999
-1.669
***
-0.416
**
-0.009
+0.011
***
+0.001
+0.137
***
+0.849
***
0.313
SASET9901
2000
-1.702
***
-0.326
**
-0.071
***
+0.009
***
+0.003
+0.181
***
+0.846
***
0.354
SASET9901
2001
-1.657
***
-0.559
***
-0.042
***
+0.003
+0.002
+0.161
***
+0.824
***
0.299
SASET0204
2002
-1.707
***
-0.370
**
-0.058
***
+0.005
*
+0.004
*
+0.171
***
+0.850
***
0.329
SASET0204
2003
-1.861
***
-0.339
**
-0.077
***
+0.006
*
+0.003
+0.203
***
+0.761
***
0.311
SASET0204
2004
-1.856
***
-0.464
***
-0.075
***
+0.003
+0.006
**
+0.193
***
+0.844
***
0.324
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors ownership
log firm size
BSIZE
BLOK
IC
board size
industry control
SASET9901/0204 average ratio sales to assets for three year period 1999 to 2001/2002 to 2004
*** / ** / *
CG

The strength and consistency of these results is intriguing. On an

industry by industry basis, it might be expected that sales to total assets
is a reasonable measure of efficiency and it has been suggested (Ang, Cole
and Lin, 2000) that it might be an indication of success in controlling
agency costs. If that is the case, it appears that smaller boards are to be
preferred to more independent ones.
72
Discussion of results
There is little evidence that companies with more independent
boards perform better in terms of the market to book ratio (Q) or
profitability (ROA). If anything, independence appears to be negatively
associated with performance. Sales to assets ratio (SASET) and board
independence have a negative and significant relationship throughout the
sample period. All performance measures have a strong and significant
relationship with firm size and industry. Large firms have better return on
assets and sales to assets than small ones, but worse growth opportunities
(Q). Over the period, the board size variable shows a significant (1%)
negative relationship with SASET1.
The relationship between board size and Q was explored further.
For illustrative purposes, Figure 4.5 shows the regression using the log
of Q and board size. The following chart plots the results and shows
that the relationship between board size and Q may not be uniformly
increasing or decreasing. The curve extrapolates for board sizes greater
and smaller than those observed in the sample.
Figure 4.5 Q to board size
Q to board size
3
2
Log Q
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Board size
11
12
13
15
16
The figure shows that for the fitted relationship and within the range
of board sizes observed in practice, there is an optimal size of seven or
eight members. An optimum may represent the balance between the
increase in expertise and other benefits, as numbers increase, against
the costs of coordination and delay in decision-making process, that
also increase with board size. Yermack (1996) studies a sample of US
industrial corporations (1984-1991) and finds evidence of the same
general shape of curve. Too few companies had board sizes greater than
13 to say whether the upturn beyond that size is true in practice.
A convergence of interests between managers and shareholders is
expected when managers own some of a companys shares. As managerial
ownership increases from zero, a firms performance improves, as managers
are less inclined to draw away resources from value enhancement but,
beyond a certain point, as boards become entrenched, performance may
decline. However, the results indicate that managerial ownership has
a mixed and insignificant relationship with Q, a generally positive but
significant relationship with ROA and a positive and generally significant
relationship with SASET. This is similar to the findings by Faccio and
Lasfer (1999) that show a weak relationship between the firm value and
managerial ownership. Their sample is UK non-financial companies for
a one-year period only (June 1996 to June 1997). Directors ownership
seems to result in improved efficiency, but the market is not willing to
pay a premium for it.
Outside owners with significant stakes can influence the behaviour
of a firms board of directors. In this study, the total of the ten largest
holdings of more than 3% is used to measure the external block holdings
(BLOK). Block holdings is negatively associated with Q, and shows
a significant relationship for three years; 2000, 2001 and 2002. It
has a positive association with SASET (significant in two years), but a
mixed, insignificant relationship with ROA2. The results do not provide
support for the view that powerful external shareholders are effective in
improving performance.
73
74
Further analysis
Further possible kinds of relationship in the data were explored. It
is possible that performance may be affected by whether shareholdings
are dominated by insiders (the board) or outsiders and whether the
potential tension between the two groups is important. To this end, the
data on ownership was used to calculate which is the difference between
the INOUT (% external block holdings and % directors holdings and
TENS (% block holdings multiplied by % directors holdings). The
rationale for the definition of TENS is that tension could be relatively
high if both block holdings and directors holdings are relatively large,
but not otherwise. None of the results show any consistent relationships
and the findings show no evidence that external shareholdings and
directors holdings interact in either a beneficial way or a negative way.
It is possible that companies may alter their governance arrangements
in response to past or anticipated performance. In particular, it has been
suggested that companies governance arrangements are not a cause of
concern to external stakeholders while things are going well, but that
if performance is poor, companies may react by appointing additional
directors or increasing the independence of the board. Such an effect
would be a plausible explanation of a negative relationship between Q and
independence. To test for evidence of this, the change in independence
(CINDEP) and change in board size (CBSIZE) were used against prior
period performance as well as ownership and company size, board
size (in the CINDEP calculation) and independence (in the CBSIZE
calculation). Again, no clear pattern emerged so there is no evidence
that companies are changing their corporate governance arrangements
as a result of prior performance. It is possible that, in the evolution of
governance arising from the Cadbury Report and Combined Code, poor
performers were early adopters of the guidance. In the more mature
period investigated here, that effect, if it existed, may have disappeared.
The analysis reported thus far assumes that corporate governance

structure affects corporate performance. Another possibility is that the
corporate governance factors are interdependent. It is also possible that
the results, so far, are affected by the choice of sub periods or the choice
of industry. To test the extent of these effects, an approach using lagged
variables (adjusting time periods) was taken. The results were consistent
with the other results; interdependence does not seem to distort the
results. Appendix three sets out the technical detail of the approach.
Industry factors
The results so far show that size and industry are consistently
important in explaining the performance of companies. The size
variable (natural log of sales) is well-established, widely used and very
highly correlated with other plausible measures of firm size. However,
the variable for industry, IC, is not so widely used and contains some
contribution from each firms own results. To explore whether the results
are sensitive to choice of measurement of the industry factor, another
measure was also used.
As shown in Table 4.3, the sample is classified into ten industries;
resources, basic industries, general industries, cyclical consumer goods,
non-cyclical consumer goods, cyclical services, non-cyclical services,
utilities, real estate and information technology. There is little variation
in corporate governance characteristics among the different industries,
although utilities, non-cyclical consumers and resources companies have
the most independent boards. The same three industries, plus noncyclical services, have the largest boards. Information technology, real
estate and cyclical-services have the highest proportion of shares owned
by directors and real estate general industries and non-cyclical services
have the largest block holdings by outside shareholders. Qualitatively
similar findings were obtained by Lasfer (2006) although he excluded
real estate companies from consideration. For clarity of presentation and
75
76
to conserve statistical degrees of freedom, the number of industries was

reduced to six: DIC02 (resource, basic industries, and general industries);
DIC34 (Cyclical consumer goods, and Non-cyclical consumer goods);
DIC56 (Cyclical Services and Non-Cyclical Services), DIC7 (utilities);
DIC8 (real estates); and, DIC9 (information technology). Companies
were ascribed the value one if they belonged to that industry and
zero otherwise. No separate variable is included in the table for the
information technology sector since membership is implied if the other
industry variables have value zero.
Association with Q, ROA and SASET
The results of re-running the analysis against Q (see Table 4.7) show
the same pattern of results for the corporate governance factors. The
fact that all the statistically significant industry control variables have
negative coefficients indicates that the omitted industry (information
technology) had high levels of Q, which is known to be the case for the
period. The results show that industry membership is important for
performance as measured by Q.
77
Table 4.7 Regression estimates of Q against board and ownership structure

Const
INDEP
Q9901
CG
99
14.827
***
+1.739
***
BSIZE
-0.047
-0.009
-0.008
-0.638
***
Q9901
00
14.744
***
+0.525
+0.173
***
-0.001
-0.017
**
-0.771
***
Q9901
01
14.821
***
+0.372
+0.207
***
+0.006
-0.023
***
-0.786
***
Q0204
02
3.964
***
-0.133
+0.019
+0.000
-0.004
-0.168
***
Q0204
03
3.807
***
-0.188
+0.027
+0.000
-0.003
-0.155
***
Q0204
04
3.754
***
-0.203
+0.027
-0.004
-0.001
-0.149
***
DIC8
BLOK
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
Q9901
-3.121
***
-2.086
***
-2.503
***
-3.876
***
-5.453
***
0.366
Q9901
-3.354
***
-2.684
***
-2.618
***
-3.660
***
-5.942
**
0.352
Q9901
-3.402
***
-2.531
***
-2.584
***
-3.819
***
-5.948
***
0.341
Q0204
-0.343
*
+0.134
-0.063
-0.536
*
-1.261
***
0.167
Q0204
-0.442
**
+0.029
-0.156
-0.625
**
-1.379
***
0.156
Q0204
-0.482
**
-0.011
-0.184
-0.682
**
-1.366
***
0.152
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
Q
DIC7
DIRW
LFSIZE
ADJ R2
board independence
BSIZE board size
directors ownership
log firm size
Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority interest plus
Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets with industry control of dummy variables
DIC02
resources, basic and general industries equal to 1, others 0
DIC34
consumer goods equal to 1, others 0
DIC56
services equal to 1, others 0
DIC7
utilities equal to 1, others 0
DIC8
real estates equal to 1, others 0
*** / ** / * denotes significant at 1% / 5% / 10% level respectively
CG
78
Similarly when the analysis is performed with ROA and SASET a

similar pattern of significance as in the previous analysis is discovered.
Thus, the results do not change using a different definition of industry
membership.
Two year average
In view of the time specificity of the results, it is possible that
the choice of sub-periods is important. To explore this, the original
regressions were repeated using two-year sub-periods. This not only
explores the sensitivity of the results to choice of average periods but also
accords roughly with different market conditions; the market was at its
peak in 1999-2000, declining in 2001-2002, and recovering in 20032004. Qualitatively similar results were obtained as before, indicating
that the results were not sensitive to choice of sub-periods.
Summary
This chapter evaluates the relationship between some corporate
governance factors and corporate performance. Board independence,
board size, directors holdings and block holdings are chosen for the
companies corporate governance structures, while Tobins Q, return on
assets, and ratio of sales to assets are used as the performance measures.
The sample period is 1999 to 2004, divided into two sub-periods; 1999
to 2001, and 2002 to 2004. Previous research, (eg Agrawal & Knoeber,
1996)) indicates that corporate governance factors are interdependent
and that no one governance structure suits all firms. For example, the
structure of governance for a firm will depend on the firms economic
characteristics, including industry and size.
The key findings of the various analyses reported in the chapter are:
For Q (market to book ratio)
- Large companies tend to have smaller values of Q.
- Some evidence that more independent companies and companies
with bigger boards had higher values of Q for 1999-2001, but
a weaker relationship, if anything negative, in the later period.
For ROA (return on assets)
- Companies with more independent or larger boards tended
to have lower levels of return on assets. The relationship was
stronger in 2002-2004.
- Larger companies tended to have larger ROA in 1999-2001,
but not in 2002-2004.
For SASET (sales to total assets)
- A strong tendency for smaller companies and companies with
more independent or larger boards to have lower SASET ratios.
After controlling for size and industry the results show no clear
pattern of relationship between governance and performance that is
sustained in both sub periods, except in one respect. There is a consistent
and significant negative relationship between the ratio of sales to total
assets and both the proportion of independent directors and board size.
The lack of relationship between governance and either a stock
market based measure of performance (Q) or an accounting measure
(ROA) is not unexpected as it would be unlikely that companies would
consistently ignore an opportunity to increase shareholder value by
rearranging their corporate governance. The finding can be interpreted
as providing support for existing governance arrangements. If the
Combined Codes requirements for independent directors were imposing
79
80
significant net costs on companies, a stronger negative relationships

between independence and performance might be expected than has been
found. There is also little evidence that ownership patterns are important
in determining company performance or that large shareholders monitor
managers in a way that results in improved performance.
Endnotes
1 Qualitatively similar results were obtained by Bhagat and Black (BB) (2002).
Among other things, this study extends and replicates BB in UK market
conditions. Comparing the results reported by BB to the present studys results,
there are similarities but also some differences that may be due to different
economic and regulatory environments and to time specificity. For example,
BB find that board independence shows significant negative association with
all three performance measures. The board independence in this study shows
positive and insignificant relationship with Q for the first period (except for
1999), but negative associations in the second period and with the other two
measures (insignificant with ROA and significant with SASET). Otherwise the
results are qualitatively similar to BB.
2 Baghat and Black report a similar association between performance and large
external shareholdings (measured as number of outside shareholders with more
than 5%). Demsetz and Villalonga (2001) observe a similar relationship between
Q and block holdings.
Risk and Corporate Governance
Introduction
There has been little previous research on risk and corporate governance,
although there are grounds for expecting a relationship. Corporate
governance mechanisms are likely to affect the risks attached to corporate
performance as well as performance levels.
Effective monitoring of management decisions by independent
directors should result in the rejection of strategic proposals that are
high risk or which have been insufficiently thought through, even if
that means, at times, rejecting high risk projects that could turn out
to be successful. Moreover, insofar as shareholder value can be created
by reducing a companys systematic risk (Beta), effective independent
monitoring should tend to be associated with lower levels of beta, other
things being equal.
Similarly, if large boards are more effective as monitors than smaller
boards, the same effect might be expected. Where directors have a large
proportion of their personal wealth invested in a company they can be
expected to take less risky decisions, since they are unable to fully diversify
the risks that they face. Finally, large external shareholdings have both
the incentive to monitor managerial strategy and the power to discipline
managers who make poor decisions, leading to a greater level of caution
in management decision-making. That is to say, corporate governance
factors are expected to be negatively associated with risk. However, riskier
firms may require more effective governance mechanisms.
Few previous studies have examined the relationship between
corporate governance and risks of various kinds. Brown and Caylor
(2004) found that US companies with weaker governance had higher
82
volatility and lower profitability and liquidity than other companies.

Other studies have found similar results for US firms and it may be that
the results are driven by the probability of a takeover rather than other
factors (Ferreira and Laux, 2007).
Risk and governance

In this study risk was measured in three ways: total risk, systematic
risk and a measure of sudden share price falls.
Total risk and governance
Table 5.1 shows that, when the risk of a companys share price is
measured by the variance of returns (the total risk), none of the corporate
governance factors are consistently significant.
Table 5.1 Regression of variance against board and ownership structure,
firm size and industry control
Dependent
variable
CG
Const.
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
VAR9901
99
0.003
-0.002
+0.000
-0.000
+0.000
+0.000
VAR9901
00
0.004
-0.002
*
-0.000
-0.000
**
-0.000
+0.000
VAR9901
01
0.004
-0.001
-0.000
-0.000
*
-0.000
+0.000
VAR0204
02
0.001
-0.001
+0.000
**
-0.000
+0.000
+0.000
*
VAR0204
03
0.003
+0.000
+0.000
-0.000
-0.000
+0.000
VAR0204
04
0.003
+0.002
+0.000
+0.000
-0.000
+0.000
83
Table 5.1 Regression of variance against board and ownership structure,

firm size and industry control (Cont.)
Dependent
variable
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
ADJ
R2
VAR9901
-0.001
+0.000
+0.000
-0.002
+0.001
-0.014
VAR9901
+0.000
-0.000
+0.001
-0.001
+0.001
-0.004
VAR9901
+0.000
+0.000
+0.000
-0.002
+0.001
-0.017
VAR0204
-0.001
-0.002
+0.000
-0.003
-0.001
0.001
VAR0204
+0.000
-0.002
+0.000
-0.003
+0.000
-0.004
VAR0204
+0.000
-0.002
+0.000
-0.002
-0.001
-0.009
Industry:
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors holdings
log sales proxy firm size
BSIZE board size

BLOK percentage of external block holders
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
CG
Systematic risk and governance

The most widely accepted model of stock market valuation is the
Capital Asset Pricing Model which reflects the appropriate measure of
risk for the holder of a diversified portfolio of shares. The systematic
risk or Beta, is a measure of the undiversifiable risk of a company arising
from the link between the share price movements of the company and
the market generally. This risk is important to general investors who
hold a diversified portfolio of shares. A stock whose returns tend to move
more than the market as a whole will have a beta value greater than one,
indicating that the stock is more volatile than the market. Conversely,
84
if a stocks returns tend to move less than the market, its beta value is
less than one. A stock with a high beta value is riskier than one with
a low beta. The beta is calculated as the covariance of a firms weekly
returns with the market weekly return divided by the variance of the
market weekly return. The sample period, 1999 to 2004, is sub-divided
into five over-lapping two-year periods. Then beta is calculated for each
periods as: BETA9900, the beta for the period of 1999 to 2000 and so
on. Regressions using the values of the governance and control variables
are calculated for each year of the relevant period.
Table 5.2 shows that the coefficient of the independence variable
is consistently negative, as expected, but only on three occasions is it
significant and the results overall are not very good at explaining risk.
Further exploration using two-stage least squares and alternative subperiods confirmed this finding. There is only one significant value for
directors ownership and three for blockholdings. Taken together, there
is little evidence that companies with more independent boards, boards
of a particular size, or companies with different ownership structures
have a different systematic risk from other companies.
85
Table 5.2
Beta against board and ownership structure, firm size and

industry
CG
Const.
INDEP
BETA9900
99
0.322
-0.165
BETA9900
00
0.449
-0.293
**
BETA0001
00
0.579
BETA0001
01
BETA0102
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
-0.002
-0.003
+0.001
+0.025
-0.006
-0.006
**
-0.002
+0.018
-0.524
***
-0.019
-0.010
-0.003
+0.012
0.393
-0.204
-0.014
-0.004
-0.003
+0.033
01
0.669
-0.092
-0.009
-0.001
-0.006
*
+0.022
BETA0102
02
0.800
-0.158
-0.036
-0.005
-0.006
*
+0.039
BETA0203
02
1.173
***
-0.203
-0.014
-0.002
-0.006
***
-0.004
BETA0203
03
1.040
**
-0.156
-0.002
-0.001
-0.003
-0.003
BETA0304
03
0.737
*
-0.298
*
-0.002
-0.003
-0.001
+0.012
BETA0304
04
0.877
**
-0.104
-0.012
-0.002
-0.002
+0.015
86
Table 5.2
Beta against board and ownership structure, firm size and

industry (Cont.)
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
BETA9900
-0.022
+0.002
-0.008
-0.190
+0.063
ADJ R2
-0.015
BETA9900
+0.064
+0.116
+0.080
-0.091
+0.151
0.011
BETA0001
+0.066
+0.087
+0.156
+0.016
+0.214
0.007
BETA0001
+0.050
-0.046
+0.035
-0.031
+0.171
-0.017
BETA0102
+0.028
+0.051
+0.058
+0.030
+0.230
-0.019
BETA0102
-0.064
-0.046
-0.018
+0.001
-0.171
-0.009
BETA0203
-0.153
-0.012
-0.106
+0.000
-0.064
0.007
BETA0203
-0.182
-0.113
-0.166
-0.012
-0.183
-0.020
BETA0304
-0.252
*
-0.163
-0.237
*
-0.098
-0.181
-0.007
BETA0304
-0.320
**
-0.233
-0.282
*
-0.171
-0.195
-0.014
Industry:
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors holdings
BSIZE
BLOK
board size
percentage of external block holders
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
*** / ** / *
CG

One of the functions that corporate governance may serve is that

of reducing the probability of large adverse share price movements or
nasty surprises, such as occur when firms fail or major strategic errors
are revealed. The research seeks to identify large adverse share price
movements, if there were any. In order to do this, for each company the
lowest quarterly return in each year is calculated using a weekly return
index. This calculation provides six minimum return figures for the
87
sample period; minimum return for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2004. The effect of the calculation is to identify any quarterly period in
which companies had particularly large negative returns.
Table 5.3 shows that a reasonable amount of the lowest total return
is explained, but most of it is, as usual, due to industry and size. The
sign of independence is predominantly negative, with some significance
in only two out of six periods. If anything, therefore, there is a tendency
for companies with more independent boards to suffer greater adverse
returns than otherwise; this tends to refute the suggestion that companies
with more independent boards are less likely to suffer relatively large
negative returns.
Table 5.3 Annual lowest total return against board and ownership
structure, firm size and industry
Dependent
variable
CG
Constant
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
NTR99
99
-0.450
***
-0.047
+0.003
+0.000
-0.001
***
+0.002
NTR00
00
-0.616
***
+0.010
-0.007
**
+0.000
+0.000
+0.013
**
NTR01
01
-0.986
***
-0.026
-0.009
**
+0.000
+0.000
+0.037
***
NTR02
02
-0.657
***
-0.070
*
-0.005
-0.001
+0.000
+0.015
**
NTR03
03
-0.392
***
-0.086
**
+0.003
-0.002
**
-0.001
*
-0.003
NTR04
04
-0.621
***
-0.042
+0.001
+0.000
+0.001
*
+0.022
***
88
Table 5.3 Annual lowest total return against board and ownership
structure, firm size and industry (Cont.)
Dependent
variable
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
ADJ
R2
NTR99
+0.087
***
+0.128
***
+0.092
***
+0.238
***
+0.191
***
0.201
NTR00
+0.215
***
+0.204
***
+0.202
***
+0.232
***
+0.298
***
0.220
NTR01
+0.330
***
+0.335
***
+0.290
***
+0.380
***
+0.509
***
0.416
NTR02
+0.180
***
+0.224
***
+0.146
***
+0.294
***
+0.352
***
0.220
NTR03
+0.192
***
+0.184
***
+0.140
***
+0.287
***
+0.236
***
0.148
NTR04
+0.134
***
+0.157
***
+0.128
***
+0.206
***
+0.261
***
0.235
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors holdings
NTR
BSIZE
BLOK
lowest total return for the year

board size
Industry:
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
CG
Does poor performance cause governance changes?

It is possible that poor performance causes firms to adjust their
governance structure as a means of diverting criticism (MacNiel and Li,
2006). Although this study has not shown evidence of this occurring,
additional work on the relationship between annual lowest total return
89
and the governance arrangements were carried out using independence

and change in independence (Tables 5.4 and 5.5).
The results in Table 5.4 are interesting. Although relatively little
is explained overall (6.6% to 12.4%), larger companies have more
independent boards, companies where directors own a large proportion
of the shares have less independent boards and companies with larger
boards have a lower proportion of independent members.
Table 5.4 Board independence against lag annual lowest total return,
board size and ownership structure
Dependent
variable
CG
Constant
NTRn-1
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
INDEP00
00
-0.507
-0.343
-0.004
-0.005
-0.001
+0.020
***
***
-0.367
-0.072
INDEP01
01
***
INDEP02
02
-0.291
-0.102
-0.011
-0.004
***
-0.016
-0.005
**
***
-0.014
-0.004
INDEP03
03
-0.683
***
***
**
***
INDEP04
04
-0.505
-0.111
-0.015
-0.005
**
***
***
-0.391
***
**
+0.000
+0.028
**
+0.000
+0.023
-0.000
+0.042
+0.000
+0.047
**
***
***
90
Table 5.4 Board independence against lag annual lowest total return,
board size and ownership structure (Cont.)
Dependent
variable
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
ADJ R2
+0.097
*
+0.211
**
+0.146
**
0.116
INDEP00
+0.025
+0.102
*
INDEP01
-0.035
+0.030
-0.014
+0.057
+0.039
0.066
INDEP02
+0.007
+0.129
*
+0.061
+0.049
+0.076
0.084
INDEP03
+0.053
+0.129
*
+0.053
+0.229
**
+0.132
*
0.124
INDEP04
-0.030
+0.013
-0.033
+0.040
+0.037
0.120
NTRn-1
BSIZE
BLOK
lowest total return for the previous year

board size
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors holdings
Industry:
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
*** / ** / *
CG

It is no surprise that larger companies have boards that are more

independent, since large companies are generally more mature and
more subject to scrutiny from analysts. The strong negative relationship
between independence and directors ownership suggests that directors
who own a significant stake in a company are reluctant to be monitored
by outsiders, indicating a possible weakness in governance1. The negative
relationship with board size arises because of the effective requirement
for a minimum of three independent directors, who thus make up a
larger proportion of a small board than of a big one.
91
The lack of a relationship with block holdings suggests that large

external shareholders rely on their own influence, rather than on
independent directors, to monitor and control management.
The sign of the relationship with lowest returns in the previous
period is consistently negative and are highly significant in two of the
five periods. This might be thought to indicate that companies that
performed badly responded by appointing additional independent
directors. However, when changes in independence are analysed (Table
5.5) the explanatory power is low and, on the two occasions when return
variable is significant, the coefficients have opposite signs. Overall this
does not provide evidence that companies react to adverse results by
adding independent directors to the board.
Table 5.5 Change in board independence against lag annual lowest total
return, board size and ownership structure
Dependent
variable
CG
Constant
NTRn-1
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
CINDEP1
00
0.059
-0.069
-0.007
+0.000
+0.000
-0.003
CINDEP2
01
0.029
-0.113
-0.004
+0.000
+0.000
-0.002
CINDEP3
02
-0.044
-0.010
-0.010
-0.001
+0.000
+0.008
+0.001
+0.001
+0.021
**
CINDEP4
CINDEP5
03
04
-0.252
-0.149
**
**
0.108
+0.157
***
-0.001
**
-0.001
-0.001
-0.001
+0.007
92
Table 5.5 Change in board independence against lag annual lowest total
return, board size and ownership structure (Cont.)
Dependent
variable
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
ADJ R2
CINDEP1
+0.080
+0.139
+0.103
+0.005
+0.149
0.022
***
**
***
CINDEP2
+0.043
+0.047
-0.005
+0.005
+0.008
-0.009
CINDEP3
+0.043
+0.080
+0.056
-0.020
+0.028
0.001
CINDEP4
-0.040
-0.076
-0.076
+0.076
-0.033
0.038
-0.051
0.025
*
CINDEP5
NTRn-1
BSIZE
BLOK
-0.079
-0.128
-0.083
-0.192
***
**
***
lowest total return for the previous year

board size
CINDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
change in board independence

directors holdings
Industry:
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
*** / ** / *
CG

Summary
The Combined Codes main principle is that every company should
be headed by an effective board, which is collectively responsible for
the success of the company. In addition, the Code emphasises that
non-executive directors are responsible for monitoring the performance
of management and the reporting of performance. If the reasoning
behind the Code is well founded, it might be expected that the greater
the compliance by companies, the lower their risk will be. This chapter
examines the link between the board structure using board independence
and board size as the governance mechanisms with companies risk

profiles.
Risk is measured in three ways: variance of returns, beta and lowest
total return. The results show no evidence that companies that are
highly monitored with a large proportion of independent directors,
large boards or a large proportion of shares owned by block holder are
less risky than others. Larger companies have more independent boards,
companies where directors control a large proportion of the shares have
less independent boards, and large boards have a lower proportion of
independent members.
Endnote
1 A recent study by Lasfer (2006) tests whether high managerial ownership leads
to management entrenchment, which consequently gives power to the CEO
to create a board that is unlikely to monitor executives. His findings indicate a
strong negative relationship between the managerial ownership level and other
corporate governance factors, namely, the split of the roles of the CEO and the
Chair, the proportion of NEDs and the appointment of NED as a Chair.
93
Conclusions
Introduction
In the past two decades corporate governance has become a central
issue in financial regulation. This issue has again come to the fore
with the recent global financial crisis. This chapter summarises the
overall results of the empirical research on the link between corporate
governance structure, ownership structure and firm performance and
risk. In addition, the study also investigates the possibility that firm
performance may affect the corporate governance structure. FTSE 350
index companies listed on 31 December 1999 and/or 30 June 2004
form the population for the research. The measures of firm performance
and risk used in the research are market value to book value ratio (Q),
return on assets, ratio of sales to assets, lowest total returns, and firms
total and systematic risks (Beta).
Prior research
The review of the literature in chapter two shows that the results
of previous research on governance and measures of performance have
been mixed with either an inverse relationship or no relationship found
between board independence and performance by the majority of studies.
Most leading research has been based on US data or on the period of
rapid changes in governance following the Cadbury report. This report
investigates the relationship between corporate governance and corporate
performance in the UK in a later, more stable period. Four questions
are addressed:
96
Is there an association between particular governance arrangements

and firm performance?
Are governance arrangements interdependent with other factors?
Do poorly performing firms appoint additional independent
directors?
Do companies with particular governance arrangements have lower
levels of risk than others?
Results
There were discernible trends in corporate governance over the
period of the study with the independence of boards increasing and
board sizes decreasing. There were also relationships among corporate
governance factors. After controlling for industry it is found that
large companies have more independent boards and companies that
have a large proportion of shares owned by directors tend to have less
independent boards.
Initially, three measures of corporate performance were examined
- market to book ratio (Q), return on assets (ROA), ratio of sales to
total assets (SASET) . The three variables are interconnected with each
other and the previous values of themselves. Q and the other variables
are strongly positively related to their values in previous periods. That
is to say a high value last year is likely to be associated with a high value
in the current year. Q is also strongly related to the change in SASET
over the previous year.
Performance is volatile but governance changes slowly. Performance
is first investigated using two three-year sub-periods; 1999 to 2001, and
2002 to 2004, and then over three two-year sub-periods (1999-2000,
Conclusions
2001-2002, and 2003-2004). Much of the variation in performance is

explained by industry membership. For example, the highest Q level is
for the information technology sector for the period of 1999 to 2001,
whereas the highest ROA is for the general industries sector, and the
cyclical consumer goods sector has the highest SASET.
The results of the initial analysis are mixed and appear to be time
specific. There is little evidence that independence or board size is related
to either Q or ROA, but they both have a strong negative association
with SASET during both sub-periods. All performance measures have
a strong and significant relationship with firm size and industry. Large
firms have better return on assets and sales to assets than small ones, but
worse growth opportunities (Q).
Are governance arrangements interdependent with performance and
other factors?
The research also investigates whether corporate governance affects
corporate performance or vice versa. The results reported in chapter
four show no evidence that interdependence is a problem for any of
the variables; this tends to confirm the reliability of the initial analysis.
Governance and survival
As might be expected, larger companies were more likely to
survive in the FTSE350 index than smaller ones. In the period under
review property companies were more likely to survive, and technology
companies less so. Survival was not related to corporate governance
characteristics.
97
98
Governance and shareholder activism

Shareholder activism as measured by opposition to directors
recommendations at AGM was greater during the period of market
decline. There were indications that companies that had high market
to book values at the beginning of the period or which had large boards
were more likely to be subject to shareholder opposition.
Governance and risk
Recommended corporate governance practices are at least as likely
to affect companies risk profiles as their profitability or market to book
ratio. An effective board should be able to evaluate managements
strategies in order to reduce the number of risky decisions. Larger
boards, high managerial ownership and large external holdings also
increase monitoring of risks and the incentives to take risky decisions.
However, there was no consistent relationship between either total risk
or systematic risk (Beta) and corporate governance arrangements.
Governance and poor performance
The research uses a novel measure of risk that seeks to capture sudden
drops in share price (nasty surprises) occurring over relatively short
(12 week) periods. The results do not show any strong and significant
relationship with governance and, in particular, there is no evidence
that companies with more independent boards are less likely to suffer
price reversals.
Governance and other factors
Non-executives directors are not only expected to monitor
management, but they should also be involved in formulation and
Conclusions
management of corporate strategy. Previous studies have assigned four

other main functions to the board of directors; (a) the agency/control
function; (b) the strategic decision and policy support roles; (c) the
resource acquirer role; and (d) to provide a link to a firms reputation.
With their diverse experience, non-executive directors are in a position
to contribute valuable expertise and wise counsel to a company. Because
independent non-executive directors are not involved in the day-to-day
management, they should be better able to evaluate objectively strategy
and executive decisions.
However, board characteristics may be related to firm performance
or other firm attributes. For example, if firms are under pressure to
change governance arrangements, poorly performing firms may be early
adopters of new guidance.
Further, during the period covered by the research, different stock
market conditions were encountered at different times and thus a
consistent relationship between governance and performance may not
necessarily to be expected, partly because governance changes more
slowly than markets and partly because companies trade-off governance
arrangements according to their particular circumstances.
This research found no consistent relationship between governance
structure (board and ownership structure) and companies market book
value, accounting performance, stock return or risk. Laing and Weir
(1999) suggest that the general adoption of specific governance structures
may not be appropriate for all firms. Gordon (2007) calls this a process of
sorting or optimal differences. He argues that if there is no one size fits
all solution for board composition, board composition may reflect firms
finding their own optimal insider/independent mix. A higher fraction of
independent directors may produce value-increasing outcomes such as
improved monitoring, but there may well be costs. For example, there
may be difficulties involved in appointing a sufficient number of experts
to monitor a large diversified company and larger boards may make
worse decisions. There is some evidence that companies find it hard to
99
100
appoint suitably qualified non-executive directors (Fraser and Henry,

2003). Weir and Laing (2001) suggest that non-executive directors, who
are only employed on a part time basis, are likely to have other work
commitments. They may therefore be unable to devote sufficient time
to each company to be effective monitors. Non-executive directors may
lack the expertise to understand highly technical business issues and may
not possess sufficient information to make key decisions. Furthermore,
inside directors may contribute valuable advice and insights that are
lost in a thoroughly independent board. There was no evidence that
the presence of powerful external shareholders resulted in improved
performance.
The findings of this research confirm that companies with a high
level of directors ownership have fewer non-executives (Lasfer, 2006;
Dedman, 2000). However, there is little evidence to suggest that poorly
performing companies try to ward off criticism by appointing additional
independent directors, as suggested by MacNeil and Li (2006). There is a
possible reconciliation of these findings; it is likely that poorly performing
companies were early adopters of governance recommendations and
other companies came into line at a slower pace, but had done so by
1999. The finding that board sizes have been decreasing is possibly
due to companies appointing independent directors as a reaction to
the provisions of the Combined Code and then reducing board size to
a more manageable level as opportunity arises.
Policy implications
The FRC conducts regular reviews of the Combined Code. The last
completed review was in 2007 and there is another ongoing in 2009. Such
reviews have found relatively little concern among respondents about
the quality of governance in UK companies and respondents believed
that governance, and dialogue between companies and shareholders
had improved over a period of years. This research finds little to refute
Conclusions
that view. If there had been a clear positive relationship between, say,
independence or board size and performance, then the conjecture that
companies could increase their performance by appointing additional
independent directors might have been sustained. Alternatively, if
governance arrangements were imposing significant unnecessary costs
on companies, it is more likely that a negative relationship between
governance and performance would be observed, as some companies
might chose not to comply with guidance in order to report improved
performance and avoid the costs of compliance. The lack of a clear
relationship between independence and performance suggests that
companies are not too far from the optimum proportion of independent
directors on their boards.
The negative relationship between share ownership by directors and
independence of the board and (as other researchers have discovered)
other recommended governance arrangements suggests that there should
be more scrutiny of companies where the board may be entrenched by
virtue of their shareholdings.
Concern with corporate governance arose partly because of
corporate failures and gross strategic errors by companies. Accordingly,
a reasonable objective of good governance is to reduce the riskiness of
corporate performance and the probability of nasty surprises. The
research shows that there is little evidence that governance arrangements
are effective in reducing risks or large downside price movements.
More research is indicated in this area together with a review of the
training needs of independent directors in evaluating and challenging
managements plans.
101
102
Limitations and future research

No research can be comprehensive and this research addresses
only some elements of corporate governance and is restricted to large
UK companies. Because of the Combined Code, and other regulatory
factors, there is relatively little observable variation in the governance
of companies. Control for different biases in sample design, although
at least as good as many other studies, may have been imperfect and
alternative approaches might have produced different results.
Future research could extend to smaller companies, where it is
likely that there is more variation in governance and the possibility of
non-linear associations between governance and performance could be
explored further. As noted above, more research into the relationship
between corporate governance and the risk profile of companies is
needed. The recent increase in shareholder activism will provide the
opportunity to research its impact in conjunction with governance. The
rise of private equity as both a new disciplinary mechanism and a new
mode of ownership also opens up new directions for research.
eferences
Abrahamson, E., & Park, C. (1994), Concealment of negative

organizational outcomes: An agency theory perspective, Academy
of Management Journal, 37(5), 1302-1334.
Agrawal, A., & Chadha, S. (2005), Corporate Governance and
Accounting Scandals, Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 371-406.
Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996), Firm Performance and
Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and
Shareholders, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3),
377-397.
Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (2001), Do Some Outside Directors
Play a Political Role?, Journal of Law and Economics, XLIV, 179-198.
Anderson, K. L., Deli, D. N., & Gillian, S. L. (2003), Boards of Directors,
Audit Committees and the Information Content of Earnings, 19 July
2006, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=44241
Ang, J. S., Cole, R. A., & Lin, J. W. (2000), Agency Costs and
Ownership Structure, The Journal of Finance, 55(1), 81-106.
Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., & LaFond, R. (2006), GMI Governance and
Performance Studies. New York: GovernanceMetrics International.
Banks, E. (2004), Corporate governance: financial responsibility, controls
and ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barnhart, S. W., & Rosenstein, S. (1998), Board Composition,
Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: An Empirical
Analysis, The Financial Review, 33, 1-16.
Bathala, C. T., & Rao, R. P. (1995), The determinants of board
composition: An agency theory perspective, Managerial and decision
economics, 16(1), 59-69.
Baysinger, B. D., & Butler, H. (1985), Corporate governance and
the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board
composition, Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 1, 101124.
104
References
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. (1991), Effects of Board

and Ownership Structure on Corporate R & D Strategy, Academy
of Management Journal, 34(1), 205-214.
Bebchuk, L. A., & Cohen, A. (2005), The costs of entrenched boards,
Journal of Financial Economics, 78, 409-433.
Becht, M., Franks, J., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2008), Returns to
Shareholder Activism Evidence from a Clinical Study of the Hermes
UK Focus Fund. Unpublished manuscript, Oxford.
Beekes, W., Pope, P., & Young, S. (2004), The Link Between Earnings
Timeliness, Earnings Conservatism and Board Composition:
evidence from the UK, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 12(1), 47-59.
Berry, T. K., Fields, L. P., & Wilkins, M. S. (2006), The interaction
among multiple governance mechanisms in young newly public
firms, Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 449-446.
Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (1999). The Uncertain Relationship between
Board Composition and Firm Performance [Electronic Version].
Retrieved October, 11, 2003, from http://papers.ssrn.com/papers.
taf?abstract_id=11417
Bhagat, S., Black, B. (2002), The Non-Correlation Between Board
Independence and Long-Term Firm Performance, Journal of
Corporation Law, 27, 231-274.
Bhojraj, S., & Sengupta, P. (2003), Effect of Corporate Governance
on Bond Ratings and Yields: The Role of Institutional Investors and
Outside Directors, Journal of Business, 76(3), 455-475.
Block, S. (1999), The Role of Non-affiliated Outside Directors in
Monitoring the Firm and the Effect on Shareholder Wealth, Journal
of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 12(1), 1-8.
Booth, J. R., & Deli, D. N. (1996), Factors affecting the number of
outside directorships held by CEOs, Journal of Financial Economics,
40, 81-104.
Borokhovich, K. A., Brunarski, K., Harman, Y. S., & Parrino, R. (2006),
Variation in Monitoring Incentives of Outside Stockholders, Journal
of Law and Economics, 49(2), 651-680.
References
Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995), Problems with

Instrumental Variables Estimation when the Correlation between
the Instruments and the Endogeneous Explanatory Variable is Weak,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443-450.
Brick, I. E., & Chidambaran, N. K. (2005), Board Monitoring and Firm
Risk. Retrieved 19 March, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com
Brickley, J. A., Coles, J. L., & Jarrell, G. (1997), Leadership structure:
Separating the CEO and Chairman of the Board, Journal of
Corporate Finance, 3, 189-220.
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2004), The Correlation between Corporate
Governance and Company Performance, 23 September 2005, from
http://www.solvay.edu/EN/Programmes/Visiting%20professors/
docs/Brown_Firm_Performance.pdf
Brunnermeier, Markus K. (2008), Bubbles in Steven N. Durlauf
and Lawrence E. Blume (2008), The New Palgrave Dictionary
of Economics. Retrieved 24 June 2009, from http://www.
dictionaryofeconomics.com/
Byrd, J., & Hickman, K. A. (1992), Do Outside Directors Monitor
Managers?, Journal of Financial Economics, 32,(2), 195-221.
Cadbury Committee (1992), Report of the Committee on the Financial
Aspects of Corporate Governance. London: Gee Publishing Ltd.
Cascio, W. F. (2004), Board Governance: A Social Systems Perspective,
Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 97-100.
Chen, G., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., Rui, O. M. (2006), Ownership
structure, corporate governance, and fraud: evidence from China,
Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 424-448.
Chhaochharia, V., Grinstein, Y. (2004),The Transformation of US
Corporate Boards (1997-2003). Retrieved 19 July 2006, from http//
ssrn.com/abstract=556270
Cho, M. (1998), Ownership structure, investment, and the corporate
value: an empirical analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, 47,
103-121.
Chung, K. H., Pruitt, S.W. (1994), A Simple Approximation of Tobins
q., Financial Management, 23, 70-74.
105
106
References
Chung, K. H., Pruitt, S.W. (1996), Executive ownership, corporate

value, and executive compensation: a unifying framework, Journal
of Banking and Finance, 20(7), 1135-1159.
Clifford, P., & Evans, R. (1997), Non-executive directors: A Question
of Independence, Corporate Governance: An International Review,
5(4), 224-231.
Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2004), Boards: Does one size
fit all?, Paper presented at the Corporate Governance Conference,
London Business School.
Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V.B., Sen, N. (2001), An examination of
the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance, Journal
of Management, 27, 23-50.
Combined Code (1998), Combined Code, Principles of Corporate
Governance. London: Gee Publishing Ltd.
Conyon, M. J. (1994), Corporate Governance Changes in UK
Companies between 1988 and 1993, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 2(2), 87-100.
Conyon, M. J., Peck, S.I. (1998), Board size and corporate performance:
evidence from European countries, The European Journal of Finance,
4, 291-304.
Core, J., Holthausen, R., & Larcker, D. (1999), Corporate Governance,
Chief Executive Compensation, and Firm Performance, Journal of
Financial Economics, 51, 371-406.
Core, J. E., Guay, W.R., Rusticus, T.O. (2006), Does Weak Governance
Cause Weak Stock Returns? An Examination of Firm Operating
Performance and Investors Expectations, The Journal of Finance,
59(2), 655- 687.
Core, J. E., Larcker, D.F. (2002), Performance consequences of
mandatory increases in executive stock ownership, Journal of
Financial Economics, 64(3), 317-340.
Cosh, A., Guest, P. M., & Hughes, A. (2006), Board Share-Ownership
and Takeover Performance, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 33(3), 459-510.
Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (1997), Executive remuneration, executive
dismissal and institutional shareholdings, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 15, 469-492.
References
Cotter, J., & Silvester, M. (2003), Board and Monitoring Committee

Independence, Abacus, 39(2), 211-232.
Cremers, K. J., & Nair, V. B. (2005), Governance Mechanisms and
Equity Prices, The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2859-2894.
DaDalt, P. D., Donaldson, J.R., Garner, J. L. (2003), Will Any Q Do?,
The Journal of Financial Research, 26(4), 535-551.
Dahya, J., Lonie, A. A., Power, M.D. (1998), Ownership Structure,
Firm Performance, and Top Executive Change: An Analysis of UK
Firms, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 25((9) & (10),),
1089-1118.
Dahya, J., & McConnell, J. J. (2005), Outside directors and corporate
board decisions, Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1/2), 37-60.
Dahya, J., McConnell, J.J., Travlos, N.G. (2002), The Cadbury
committee, Corporate Performance and Top Management Turnover,
The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 461-483.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D.R. (1997), Separate, but not Independent:
board leadership structure in large corporations, Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 5(3), 126-136.
Dalton, D. R., Daily C. M., Certo, S.T., Roengpitya, R. (2003),
Meta-Analyses of Financial Performance and Equity: Fusion or
Confusion?, Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 13-26.
Dalton, D. R., Daily C. M., Johnson J. L., Ellstrand, A. E. (1999),
Number of Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis,
Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 678-686.
Davies, J. R., Hillier, D., McColgan, P. (2002), Ownership Structure,
Managerial Behaviour and Corporate Value. Retrieved December
01,04., from http://accfinweb.account.strath.ac.uk/wps/dhp.pdf
Dedman, E. (2000), An Investigation into the Determinants of UK
Board Structure Before and After Cadbury, Corporate Governance:
An International Review, 8(2), 133-153.
Dedman, E. (2002), The Cadbury Committee recommendations on
corporate governance - a review of compliance and performance
impacts, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(4), 335352.
107
108
References
Dedman, E. (2003), Executive turnover in UK firms: the impact of

Cadbury, Accounting and Business Research, 33(1), 33-50.
Defond, M. L., Hann, R.N., Hu, X. (2005), Does the market value
financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors?,
Journal of Accounting Research, 43(2), 153-193.
Demsetz, H., Lehn, K. (1985), The structure of corporate ownership:
causes and consequences, Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 11551177.
Demsetz, H., Villalonga, B. (2001), Ownership structure and corporate
performance, Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 209-233.
Denis, D. J., Denis, D.K., Sarin, A. (1997), Ownership structure and
top executive turnover, Journal of Financial Economics, 45, 193-221.
Dimson, E., Marsh, P., Staunton, M. (2000), Risk and Return in the
20th and 21st Centuries, Business Strategy Review, 11(2), 1-18.
Doble, M. (1997), The Impact of the Cadbury Code on Selection of
Directors and Board Composition in UK Newly-quoted Companies,
1990-1994, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(4),
214-223.
Donnelly, R., & Lynch, C. (2002), The ownership structure of UK
firms and the informativeness of accounting earnings Accounting
and Business Research, 32(4), 245-257.
Dulewicz, V., Herbert, P. (2004), Does the Composition and Practice
of Boards of Directors Bear Any Relationship to the Performance of
their Companies?, Corporate Governance: An International Review,
12(3), 263-280.
Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998), Larger board size
and decreasing firm value in the small firms, Journal of Financial
Economics, 48, 35-54.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,
The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
Faccio, M., Lasfer, M. Ameziane. (1999, September 1999), Managerial
Ownership, Board Structure and Firm Value: The UK Evidence.
Retrieved 14 November 2003, from http://papers.ssrn.com/
abstract=179008
References
Fama, E. F., Jensen., M. (1983), The separation of ownership and

control, Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325.
Ferreira, M. A., Laux, P.A. (2007), Corporate Governnace, Idiosyncratic
Risk, and Information Flow, The Journal of Finance, 62(2), 951- 989.
Ferris, S. P., Jagannathan, M., Pritchard, A. C. (2002). Too Busy to
Mind the Business? Monitoring by Directors with Multiple Board
Appointments. Retrieved 19 July, 2006, from http:/papers.ssm.com/
abstract=167288
Fich, E., Shivdasani, A. (2006), Are busy boards effective monitors?,
Journal of Finance., 61(2), 689-724.
Filatochev, I., Jackson, G., Gospel, H., & Allcock, D. (2006), Key Drivers
of Good Corporate Governance and the Appropriateness of UK Policy
Responses. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Financial Reporting Council (2003),The Combined Code on Corporate
Governance. Retrieved 9 November, 2004, from http://www.fsa.
gov.uk/pubs/ukla/ll.comcode2003.pdf
Financial Reporting Council (2006), Review of the 2003 Combined Code:
Findings of the Review. London: FRC.
Fosberg, R. H. (1989), Outside Directors and Managerial Monitoring,
Akron Business and Economic Review, 20(2), 24-32.
Fraser, I. & Henry, W. (2003), The Future of Corporate Governance:
Insights from the UK. Edinburgh: ICAS.
FTSE (various years), Notes on the changes in the FTSE Actuaries Share
Indices. Retrieved at various times, from http://www.ftse.com/
Research_and_Publications/
FTSE, & ISS. (2005), FTSE ISS Corporate Governance Index Series.
Retrieved 1 July, 2005, from http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE_
Corporate_Governance_Index_Series/Downloads/about_ftse_iss.
pdf
GMI (2006), GMI Governance and Performance Studies. New York:
Governance Metrics International.
Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003), Corporate Governance
and Equity Prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107-155.
109
110
References
Gordon, J. F. (2007), The Rise of Independent Directors in the United

States, 1950-2005: of Shareholder Value and Stock Market Prices.
Stanford Law Review, 59(6), 1465-1568.
Greenbury Report (1995), Directors Remuneration. London: Gee
Publishing Ltd.
Gregory, A. (1997), An Examination of the Long Run Performance of
UK Acquiring Firms, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting,
24(7 & 8), 971-1002.
Gregory, H. J. (2001), International Comparison of Corporate Governance
Guidelines and Codes of Best Practice Developed Markets. New York:
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP.
Gregory, H. J., & Simmelkjaer, R. T. I. (2002), Comparative Study of
Corporate Governance Codes Relevant to the European Union and its
Member States. New York: Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP.
Griffith, J. M. (1999), CEO Ownership and Firm Value, Managerial
and Decision Economics, 20(1), 1-8.
Hampel Report. (1998), Committee on Corporate Governance: Final
Report. London: Gee Publishing Ltd.
Hart, O. (1995), Corporate Governance: Some Theory and
Implications, The Economic Journal, 105(430), 678-689.
Hayes, R., Mehran, H., & Schaefer, S. (2004), Board Committee
Structures, Ownership and Firm Performance. Paper presented at
the Corporate Governance Conference, London Business School.
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1988), The Determinants of Board
Composition, The RAND Journal of Economics,, 19(4.), 589-606.
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1991), The Effects of Board
Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance, Financial
Management, 20, 101-112.
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998), Endogenously Chosen
Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring CEO, The American
Economic Review, 88(1), 96-118.
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003), Boards of Directors as an
Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic
Literature, Economic Policy Review, 46, 7-26.
References
Higgs, D. (2003), Review of the Role and Effectiveness of non-executive

directors. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Hill, C. W. L., Snell, S. A. (1988), External control, corporate strategy,
and firm performance in research-intensive industries, Strategic
Management Journal, 9(6), 577-590.
Hillman, A. J., Dalziel, T. (2003), Boards of Directors and Firm
Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence
Perspectives, Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383-396.
Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, R. G., & Palia, D. (1999), Understanding
the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between
ownership and performance, Journal of Financial Economics, 53,
353-384.
Huson, M. R., Malatesta, P. H., & Parrino, R. (2004), Managerial
succession and firm performance, Journal of Financial Economics,
74(2), 237-275.
Hussey, R. (1999). Dictionary of Accounting. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hutchinson, M., & Gul, F. A. (2004), Investment Opportunity Set,
Corporate Governance Practices and Firm Performance, Journal of
Corporate Finance, 10, 595-614.
Hutchinson, M., Gul, F. A., & Leung, S. (2005), Director Entrenchment
and Governance Problems: Evidence from the Market Reaction to
Earnings. Paper presented at the European Accounting Association,
28th Annual Congress, Goteberg.
ICAEW. (2007), Dialogue in corporate governance: Beyond the myth
of Anglo-American corporate governance. London: The Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Institutional Shareholders Committee (2007), The responsibilities of
institutional shareholders and agents - statement of principles. London:
Institutional Shareholders Committee.
Jensen, M. C. (1993), The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and
the Failure of Internal Control Systems, The Journal of Finance,
48(3), 831-880.
Khurshed, A., Lin, S., & Wang, M. (2007), Institutional Investment
in UK Firms: Do Corporate Internal Control Mechanisms Matter?
Retrieved 18 March, 2007, from http://ssrn.com
111
112
References
Klein, A. (1998), Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure,

Journal of Law and Economics, XLI, 275-303.
Klein, A. (1999), Affiliated Directors: Puppets of Management or
Effective Directors? Retrieved 19 August 2006, from http://papers.
ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=10569
Laing, D., & Weir, C., M. (1999), Governance structures, size and
corporate performance in UK firms, Management Decision, 37(5),
457-464.
Larcker, D. F., & Rusticus, T. O. (2005), On the Use of Instrumental
Variables in Accounting Research. Retrieved 28 August, 2006, from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=694824
Lasfer, M. A. (2006), The Interrelationship Between Managerial
Ownership and Board Structure, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 33(7 & 8), 1006-1033.
Lau, J. P. (2004), Ultimate Corporate Ownership and Firm Performance
in Britain, France and Germany. Paper presented at the BAA
Conference, York, England.
Lawrence, J., & Stapledon, G. P. (1999, September 1999), Is Board
Composition Important? A Study of Listed Australian Companies.
Retrieved 19 August 2004, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=193528
Lee, Y. S., Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. (1999), The Value of Financial
Directors on Corporate Boards, International Review of Economics
and Finance, 8, 421-431.
Li, J. (1994), Ownership structure and board composition: A multicountry test of agency theory predictions, Managerial and Decision
Economics, 15(4), 359-368.
Li, M., & Simerly, L. R. (1998), The Moderating effect of Environmental
Dynamism on the Ownership and Performance Relationship,
Strategic Management Journal, 19(2), 169-179.
Loderer, C., & Martin, K. (1997), Executive stock ownership and
performance Tracking faint traces, Journal of Financial Economics,
45, 223-255.
MacAvoy, P., & Millstein, I. M. (1999), The Active Board of Directors
and Its Effect on the Performance of the Large Publicly Traded
Corporation. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11(4), 8-20.
References
MacNeil, I., & Li, X. (2006), Comply or Explain: market discipline and
non-compliance with the Combined Code, Corporate Governance:
An International Review, 14(5), 486-496.
Mallin, C. A. (2007), Corporate Governance (Second ed.): Oxford
University Press Inc., New York.
Mallin, C. A., & Ow-Yong, K. (2008), Corporate Governance in
Alternative Investment Market (AIM) Companies. Edinburgh:
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
McConnell, J. J., & Servaes, H. (1990), Additional evidence on equity
ownership and corporate value, Journal of Financial Economics,
27(2), 595-612.
McWilliams, V. B. (1990), Managerial Share Ownership and the Stock
Price Effects of Antitakeover Amendment Proposals, The Journal of
Finance, 45(5), 1627-1640.
McWilliams, V. B., & Sen, N. (1997), Board Monitoring and
Antitakeover Amendments, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 32(4), 491-505.
Mehran, H. (1995), Executive compensation structure, ownership,
and firm performance, Journal of Financial Economics, 38, 163-184.
Michaud, D. W., & Magaram, K. A. (2006), Recent Technical Papers
on Corporate Governance. Retrieved 19 March, 2007, from http://
ssrn.com/abstract=895520
Mitton, T. (2002), A cross-firm analysis of the impact of corporate
governance on the East Asian financial crisis, Journal of Financial
Economics, 64(2), 215-241.
Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1988), Management ownership
and market valuation An empirical analysis, Journal of Financial
Economics, 20, 293-315.
Mura, R. (2007), Do non-executive directors and Institutional Investors
Have Minds of Their Own? Evidence on Performance of UK Firms, 19
March 2007, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=676971
Myners, P. (2001), Institutional Investment in the United Kingdom: A
Review. London: HM Treasury.
113
114
References
Ocasio, W. (1994), Political Dynamics and the Circulation of Power:

CEO Succession in U.S. Industrial Corporations, 1960-1990,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 285-312.
OECD (2004), Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Office of National Statistics (2005), Share Ownership, A Report on
Ownership Shares as at 31 December 2004. Norwich: HMSO.
Page, M., & Spira, L. F. (2000), Who steals my purse steals trash:
reputation as a factor in establishing the value of non-executive
directors and members of audit committees, International Journal
of Management and Decision Making, 1( (1).), 14-27.
Palia, D. (2001), The Endogeneity of Managerial Compensation in
Firm Valuation: A Solution, The Review of Financial Studies, 14(3),
735-764.
Palmon, O., & Wald, J. K. (2002), Are two heads better than one? The
Impact of Changes in Management Structure on Performance by
Firm Size, Journal of Corporate Finance, 8, 213-226.
Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992), Board Composition from a
Strategic Contingency Perspective, Journal of Management Studies,
29(4), 411-438.
Peasnell, K. V., Pope, P. F., & Young, S. (2000), Accrual Management to
Meet earnings Targets: UK Evidence Pre-and Post-Cadbury, British
Accounting Review, 32, 415-445.
Peasnell, K. V., Pope, P. F., & Young, S. (2003), Managerial Equity
Ownership and the Demand for Outside Directors, European
Financial Management, 9(2), 231-250.
Peasnell, K. V., Pope, P., & Young, S. (2005), Board Monitoring and
Influence Earnings Management: Do outside Directors Influence
Abnormal Accruals?, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(7
& 8), 1311-1346.
Pedersen, T., & Thomsen, S. (1998), Industry and Ownership
Structure, International Review of Law and Economics, 18, 385-402.
Pedersen, T., & Thomsen, S. (1999), Economic and Systemic
Explanations of Ownership Concentration among Europes Largest
Companies, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6(3),
367-381.
References
Perfect, S. B., & Wiles, K. W. (1994), Alternative constructions of

Tobins q: An Empirical Comparison, Journal of Empirical Finance,
1(3-4), 313-341.
Perry, T., & Peyer, U. (2005), Board Seat Accumulation by Executives: A
Shareholders Perspective, The Journal of Finance, 60(4), 2083-2123.
Raheja, C. (2005), Determinants of Board Size and Composition: A
Theory of Corporate Boards, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 40(2), 283-306.
Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. (1997), Inside directors, board
effectiveness, and shareholder wealth, Journal of Financial Economics,
44(2), 229-250.
Russell Reynolds Associates (2002), What makes an effective UK Board?
Views from FTSE Chairmen. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from
http://www.non-execs.com/associates/features/russellReynolds.asp
Schmalensee, R. (1985), Do Market Differ Much?, The American
Economic Review, 75(3), 341-351.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986), Large Shareholders and Corporate
Control, The Journal of Political economy, 94(3 (1)), 461-488.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997), A Survey of Corporate Governance,
The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783.
Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1999), Managerial ownership and the
performance of firms: Evidence from the UK, Journal of Corporate
Finance, 5, 79-101.
Smith Committee (2003), Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance.
London: Financial Reporting Council.
Solomon, J. F., & Solomon, A. (2004), Corporate Governance and
Accountability. Chichester: John Wiley.
Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Norton, S. D., & Joseph, N. L. (2000),
A Conceptual Framework for Corporate Risk Disclosure Emerging
From the Agenda For Corporate Governance Reform, British
Accounting Review, 32, 447-478.
Standard, and, Poors, Governance, & Services. (2002). Standard
and poors Corporate Governance Scores, Criteria and Methodology:
Standard and Poors.
115
116
References
Thomsen, S., & Pedersen, T. (2000), Ownership Structure and

Economic Performance in the Largest European Companies,
Strategic Management Journal, 21(6), 689-705.
Thomsen, S., Pedersen, T., & Kvist, H. K. (2006), Blockholder
ownership: Effects on firm value in market and control based
governance systems, Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(2), 246-269.
Tirole, J. (2001), Corporate Governance, Econometrica, 69(1), 1-35.
Turnbull Report (1999), Internal Control: Guidance for Directors on the
Combined Code. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in
England and Wales.
Vafeas, N. (1999), Board Meeting Frequency and Firm Performance,
Journal of Financial Economics, 53, 113-142.
Vafeas, N., & Theodorou, E. (1998), The Relationship between Board
Structure and Firm Performance in The UK, British Accounting
Review, 30., 383-407.
Vogt.W.Paul. (1999), Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A
nontechnical guide for the social sciences (Second ed.). London: SAGE
Publications. Inc.
Weir, C. (1997), Acquisitions and firm characteristics: the importance
of internal monitoring mechanisms, Management Decision, 35(2),
155-162.
Weir, C., & Laing, D. (2003), The selection of friendly take-over targets
in the UK: some empirical evidence, Management Decision, 41(6),
550-557.
Weir, C. M., & Laing, D. (2001), Governance structures, director
independence and corporate performance in the UK, European
Business Review, 13(2).
Weisbach, M. S. (1988), Outside directors and CEO turnover, Journal
of Financial Economics, 20, 431-460.
Wernerfelt, B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1988), Tobins q and the
Importance of Focus in Firm Performance, The American Economic
Review, 78(1), 246-250.
References
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994), Substance and symbolism in

CEOs long-term incentive plans, Administrative Science Quarterly,
39(3), 367-390.
Yermack, D. (1996), Higher market valuation of companies with a small
board of directors, Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-211.
Young, S. (2000), The Increasing Use of non-executive directors: Its
Impact on UK Board Structure and Governance Arrangement,
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 27((9) & (10)), 1311-1342.
Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989), Boards of Directors and Corporate
Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model, Journal of
Management, 15(2), 291-334.
117
ppendix
Statistics relating to governance, index membership, corporate

survival and inter-relationships of performance variables
Table 1 shows, for companies that were members of the FTSE 350 in 1999,
factors associated with continued membership in 2004 and with survival
as independent companies, whether still a member of the index or not in
2004. See chapter three for discussion of the results.
Table 1
Survive in
FTSE 350
Survive as
independent
Survival against governance and other characteristics

Const
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
Sep
Chair
ROA
SASET
-1.043
***
-.031
0.016
0.003
-0.004
***
-0.079
0.012
0.348
**
0.044
-0.75
0.126
0.014
0.002
-0.003
***
0.007
0.008
0.236
0.039
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
ADJ
R2
LFSIZE
Survive in
FTSE 350
Survive as
independent
Gear
.100
***
0.000
0.271
**
0.239
0.333
***
0.253
0.594
***
0.366
0.042
*
0.000
0.112
.104
0.206
**
0.067
0.288
*
0.078
INDEP
DIRW
Sec Chair
board independence
directors ownership
separation of chair & CEO
BSIZE board size

BLOK
LFSIZE log firm size
Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority interest
plus Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets
ROA
SASET
Gear
return on assets
sales to total assets ratio
gearing ratio
Industry:
DIC02
DIC34
DIC56
DIC7
DIC8
*** / ** / *

Appendix One
120
Table 2 Correlations between corporate performances; Tobins Q (Q), return

on assets (ROA), and ratio of sales to assets (SASET)
Person correlations
SASET99 SASET00 SASET01 SASET02 SASET03 SASET04
SASET99
1.00
SASET00
0.89
1.00
SASET01
0.70
0.78
1.00
Q99
Q00
Q01
SASET02
0.64
0.70
0.91
1.00
SASET03
0.61
0.66
0.86
0.95
SASET04
0.51
0.57
0.75
0.87
0.92
Q99
0.14
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0.01
0.00
1.00
Q00
0.03
0.01
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.02
0.69
1.00
Q01
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.11
0.13
0.10
0.61
0.66
1.00
Q02
0.13
0.13
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.40
0.44
0.75
Q03
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.39
0.39
0.55
Q04
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.15
0.22
0.41
0.39
0.52
ROA99
0.43
0.35
0.30
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.29
0.05
0.24
ROA00
0.34
0.38
0.29
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.11
-0.15
0.21
ROA01
0.22
0.26
0.30
0.26
0.21
0.17
0.04
-0.04
0.26
ROA02
0.15
0.21
0.26
0.26
0.21
0.18
-0.09
-0.18
0.19
ROA03
0.14
0.18
0.24
0.25
0.20
0.12
-0.12
-0.15
0.15
ROA04
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.16
0.08
-0.08
-0.11
0.07
1.00
1.00
Appendix One
121
Table 2 Correlations between corporate performances; Tobins Q (Q), return

on assets (ROA), and ratio of sales to assets (SASET) (Cont.)
Person correlations
Q02
Q03
Q04
ROA99
ROA00
ROA01
ROA02
ROA03
ROA04
SASET99
SASET00
SASET01
SASET02
SASET03
SASET04
Q99
Q00
Q01
Q02
1.00
Q03
0.78
Q04
0.62
0.79
1.00
ROA99
0.30
0.22
0.22
1.00
1.00
ROA00
0.26
0.06
0.09
0.80
1.00
ROA01
0.34
0.13
0.06
0.55
0.75
1.00
ROA02
0.32
0.11
0.03
0.43
0.60
0.73
1.00
ROA03
0.30
0.15
-0.06
0.41
0.51
0.73
0.82
1.00
ROA04
0.20
0.10
-0.12
0.38
0.43
0.72
0.62
0.91
Q
ROA
SASET
1.00
Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority interest plus
Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets
Return on assets
Ratio of Sales to Total Assets
Table two shows the correlation between the performance variables

used in this research. It shows substantial inter-temporal correlation
for all three variables (SASET correlation is between 0.78 to 0.95; Q
correlation is between 0.66 to 0.79; ROA correlation is between 0.73 to
0.91). These correlations decrease as time distance increases. For example,
Appendix One
122
correlation of SASET99 (Q99) and SASET00 (Q00) is 0.89 (0.69),

but SASET99 (Q99) to SASET04 (Q04) is 0.51 (0.41). Correlations
between different performance variables are, as expected, less. In general,
highest correlation between these performance measures is for the same
period. For example correlation between Q and SASET is highest for
2002 (0.25), SASET and ROA is for 1999 (0.43), except that the return
on assets for each year exhibits the highest correlations with Q in 2002
and ROA03 and ROA04 have their highest correlations with the SASET
variable in 2002. There is negative correlation between ROA and Q00
except for ROA99. The same negative sign is shown between ROA02
to ROA04 with Q99.
Table 3 Q regressed against change in SASET
Dependent
variable
Constant
Q00
-0.505
Qn-1
SASET
(SASETnSASETn-1)
Adj. R
Squared
F Statistics
+1.401***
+4.693***
0.513
168.288***
Q01
1.402***
+0.179***
+0.824***
0.442
121.324***
Q02
0.721***
+0.419***
+0.599***
0.571
203.211***
Q03
0.418***
+0.665***
+0.710***
0.637
269.768***
Q04
0.228***
+0.993***
+0.630***
0.645
271.742***
SASET
Ratio of Sales to Total Assets
Appendix One
123
Similar correlation is shown among the average performance

variables as the annual performance variables (Table 4).
Table 4 Pearson correlations for average performance variables
Q9901
Q9901
Q0204
ROA9901
ROA0204 SASET9901 SASET0204
1.000
Q0204
0.562***
1.000
ROA9901
0.124
0.306
1.000
ROA0204
-0.109
0.133
0.626***
1.000
0.056
0.150
0.389
0.204
1.000
SASET0204 -0.010
0.258
0.283
0.199
0.762***
SASET9901
Q9901
1.000
average Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority
interest plus Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets for three year period 1999
to 2001
Q0204
average Tobins Q calculated as Market Value (Market Value of Equity plus minority
interest plus Total Liabilities) divided by the Total Assets, for three year period 2002
to 2004
ROA9901 average (operating income/total assets for three year period 1999 to 2001
ROA0204 average (operating income/total assets) for three year period 2002 to 2004
SASET9901 average ratio sales to assets for three year period 1999 to 2001
SASET0204 average ratio sales to assets for three year period 2002 to 2004
PPENDIX 2
Industry classification
The following table shows the number of companies in the final sample
based on the FTSE Global Classification system.
Industry
Code
Number of
companies
Resources
00
25
Basic industries
10
47
General industries
20
32
Cyclical consumer goods
30
Non-cyclical consumer goods
40
36
Cyclical services
50
133
Non-cyclical services
60
18
Utilities
70
16
Real estate
80
22
Information technology
90
30
Total
365
ppendix
Checking for interdependence (endogeneity)

Previous studies
The following table provides a list of research in governance that has
taken into account the interdependence problem.
Table 1 List of author(s) using simultaneous equations
Instrumental
Variable(s) (IV)
Issue
Justification for
IV and extents of
interdependence
problem
Author(s)
Method
Agrawal &
Knoeber (1996)
3sls
Firm performance
(Q) and control
mechanisms
Governance and
performance
Not available
Cho (1998)
2sls & 3sls. But report

only 2sls because 2sls
& 3sls give the same
result qualitatively.
Three specifications on
simultaneous equations
Use lagged value of

leverage to control
for the possibility
that financial leverage
is endogenously
determined. Lagged
Q was also used.
(lagged values)
Ownership
structure &
corporate value
Not available.
Cho noted that
2SLS and 3SLS
regression provide
qualitatively similar
results. His primary
result suggests that
endogeneity affects
the results of OLS
regressions.
Hermalin &
Weisbach (1991)
OLS & 2sls
Lagged variables
Board
composition,
Ownership
Structure and
Performance
Use Hausman test
Appendix Three
128
Table 1 List of author(s) using simultaneous equations (Cont.)
Instrumental
Variable(s) (IV)
Issue
Justification for
IV and extents of
interdependence
problem
Author(s)
Method
Palia (2001)
2sls. Estimate three

different specifications
for the simultaneous
system; first
specification does not
include any control
variables, second
specification includes
the control variables,
third specification is
expanded to include
other variables that
have been found
statistically significant
(capital intensity, free
cash flow, board &
ownership structure,
CEO founder)
CEO experience,
CEO quality of
education, firm
volatility and
CEO age. These
variables are expected
to be related to
compensation. These
variables are chosen
as the instrumental
variables because other
studies indicate that
these variables to be
related to the structure
of managerial
compensation.
Managerial
compensation
and firm value
Hausman &Taylor
(1981) test. Check
for insignificant
correlation between
IVs and error
term. In addition,
Palia provides an
explanation
on why other
governance
variables were used
as control variables
instead of as IVs.
Himmelberg,
Hubbard, &
Palia (1999)
2sls
Use log sales, log

sales squared, std
deviation and std
deviation dummy as
instrumental variables.
Ownership
and firm
performance
Discuss the difficulty

in determining the
instrument variables
for managerial
ownership
Barnhart &
Rosenstein
(1998)
2sls
Four sets of
instruments are
developed for three
endogenous variables
(Q, OUT; board
composition, and
OWN)
Board
composition,
managerial
ownership
and firm
performance.
Logit transformation
is used when
ownership and board
independence is the
dependent variable.
Bhagat & Black

(2002)
3sls
Normalised earnings
per share, fraction of
independent directors
over the board size,
and share ownership
by all directors and
officers.
Board
independence
and long
term firm
performance
Not available
Appendix Three
129
Table 1 List of author(s) using simultaneous equations (Cont.)
Instrumental
Variable(s) (IV)
Issue
Justification for
IV and extents of
interdependence
problem
Author(s)
Method
Lasfer (2006)
2sls
Firm size (ln(ME)),

growth opportunities
(Q), R&D/Sales,
Capital intensity
(fixed assets over total
assets), and standard
deviation of stock
returns.
Managerial
ownership and
board structure
Not available.
However, he
noted that the
endogeneity issue
may not be directly
accounted for in his
research owing to
unavailability of data
that is specific to
managers and/or the
board.
Young (2000)
Consider three
endogenous variables;
the number of
executive board
members, the level
of managerial equity
ownership, and the
level of dividend
payments.
IV not used.
Univariate tests of
sensitivity to changes
in endogenous
variables.
UK Board
structure and
governance
arrangement
Not available
Vafeas (1999)
2sls
Use univariate and

multivariate tests
Board meeting
frequency and
firm performance
Not available
Demsetz &
Villalonga (2001)
OLS & 2sls
Ownership structure
is assumed to be
endogenous.
Ownership
structure and firm
performance
Not available
Some research (Bound et al. 1995, Larcker and Rusticus; 2005)

identifies problems in choosing instrumental variables, in particular the
potential problem of using an instrument that is only weakly correlated
with the endogenous explanatory variable. Larcker & Rusticus (2005)
suggest using the Hausman test for the existence of an endogeneity
problem and the appropriateness of using OLS.
Appendix Three
130
Instrumental variables
In order to determine the appropriateness of the two sets of
instrumental variables, the correlation between the instrumental
variables and error term from the second stage equation was measured.
The instrumental variables should have no correlation with the error
term. The correlation results indicate that the first set of IVs (lagged
endogenous variables and other predictor variables) are not correlated
with the error term from the second stage equation, but generally the
second set of IVs (lagged endogenous variables replaced by gearing
ratio, earnings per share and research and development costs scaled by
the sales value and other predictor variables) show a correlation of up
to 27% with the error term.
Based on the correlation between IVs and error term, the lagged
variables are considered as the better IVs than the other three new
variables (gearing ratio, research and development over sales, and
earnings per share) added to the regression. The instrumental variables
will be considered more exogenous than the explanatory variables that
are endogenous (in this study; INDEP and BSIZE) when its correlation
to the endogenous variables is moderate to high (Larcker & Rusticus;
2005). The correlation of the explanatory variables to their lagged values
between 73% to 81% for INDEP and between 52% and 86% for BSIZE.
The second possible set of instrumental variables was found to be
inappropriate because their correlations with the endogenous variables
(INDEP and BSIZE) were too weak and the residuals of the first stage
regressions were not well behaved?
Results of two stage least squares (2SLS) regression
The 2SLS regressions were performed in two ways, with mutually
consistent results. The results are uniformly similar to the direct estimates
using OLS that are reported in chapter four, as shown in the following
three tables.
Appendix Three
Table 2
131
2SLS - Q regressed against board and ownership structure,

board structure is assumed to be endogenous
CG
IV
INDEP
9901
00
99
+***
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
IC
-**
-***
+***
9901
01
00
+***
-**
-***
+***
0204
02
01
-*
-***
+***
0204
03
02
-**
+***
0204
04
03
-**
-**
+***
Instruments are the lagged values of board structure (INDEP and BSIZE) and the other exogenous
variables, ownership and control variables
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
board independence
directors ownership
log firm size
*** / ** / *
Table 3
ROA
BSIZE
BLOK
IC
board size
industry control
2SLS - ROA regressed against board and ownership structure,

CG
IV
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
IC
9901
00
99
+***
+***
9901
01
00
-**
+***
+***
0204
02
01
-**
-**
+***
+***
0204
03
02
-**
+***
+***
0204
04
03
-***
-*
+***
+***
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
ROA
*** / ** / *
board independence
BSIZE board size
directors ownership
log firm size
IC
industry control
return on assets
Appendix Three
132
Table 5.5 2SLS - SASET regressed against board and ownership structure,
SASET
CG
IV
INDEP
BSIZE
DIRW
BLOK
LFSIZE
IC
9901
00
99
-**
+**
+***
+***
9901
01
00
-**
-***
+***
+***
0204
02
01
-***
-***
+**
+***
+***
0204
03
02
-***
-***
+**
+***
+***
0204
04
03
-**
-***
+**
+***
+***
INDEP
DIRW
LFSIZE
SASET
*** / ** / *
board independence
BSIZE
board size
directors ownership
BLOK
log firm size
IC
industry control
ratio of sales to assets
bout the Authors
Azizah Abdullah has been a lecturer in Accounting in Universiti

Teknologi Mara (UiTM) since 1988. Her research interests include
Corporate Governance, Management Accounting and Public Sector
Accounting. She was the Faculty Quality Coordinator before pursuing
her Doctoral studies.
Mike Page has been Professor of Accounting at the University of
Portsmouth since 1990. He has published widely in the field of financial
reporting and corporate governance and has an interest in the use
of language in Accounting. He was Chair of the British Accounting
Association for 2005 and 2006.
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, attention has once again turned to
corporate governance, with policy reviews of UK corporate governance being
undertaken by the FRC and the Walker Review.
One key question may relate to the purpose of corporate governance - is it about
the control of risks, the improvement of performance, or both? If this could
be clarified, criteria could be developed to measure the success of corporate
governance procedures or codes.
This research investigates whether companies with particular corporate
governance characteristics outperform other companies and have lower
levels of risk. The governance characteristics investigated in the report are:
board independence; board size; directors ownership of equity; and extent of
ownership by large block holders.
The effects of these characteristics were measured over two three year periods
between 1999 and 2004. The findings reveal no clear systematic relationship
between governance factors and improved performance and no strong evidence
that governance reduces either total or systematic risk. The authors interpret
the results as suggesting that, so far, increased board independence has not
resulted in lower risk or incidence of strategic mistakes. However, there is little
support for the view that additional governance requirements would result in
performance improvements for large commercial and industrial companies
in the UK.
ISBN 978-1 904574-53-8

EAN 9781904574538
Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance: UK FTSE 350 Companies
Corporate Governance and Corporate

Performance: UK FTSE 350 Companies
Corporate Governance and

Corporate Performance:
UK FTSE 350 Companies
Researchers: Azizah Abdullah

Michael Page

CA HOUSE 21 HAYMARKET YARDS EDINBURGH EH12 5BH

TEL: 0131 347 0237 FAX: 0131 347 0114
EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.icas.org.uk/research
Page Covers - 31.7.09.indd 1
14/09/2009 12:10

Corporate PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, attention has once again turned to

corporate governance, with policy reviews of UK corporate governance being

ISBN 978-1 904574-53-8

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance: UK FTSE 350 Companies

Corporate Governance and Corporate

Corporate Governance and

CA HOUSE 21 HAYMARKET YARDS EDINBURGH EH12 5BH

Page Covers - 31.7.09.indd 1

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

First Published 2009

This book is published for the Research Committee of

Printed and bound in Great Britain

2. Literature Review ....................................................................

3. Trends in Governance and Ownership .................................. 37

4. Corporate Governance and Performance ............................

5. Risk and Corporate Governance ...........................................

expressed do not necessarily represent those of ICAS itself, but hopes

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

Reasons for undertaking the research

has concentrated on measures of valuation or accounting performance

Surprisingly, few prior studies have examined the relationship

Companies in the study and timescale investigated

The average number of members (percentage independent

Governance and performance

Summarised results of relationship between independence, board size and

(Market value of equity + minority interests + total liabilities)/total assets

Substantial shareholdings and governance

their performance is perceived as good by their shareholders, but that

Conclusions, policy implications and further research

Policy implications and further research

Objectives of the research

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

(3) companies react to poor performance by appointing additional

Outline of the report

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

things, to an increasing concern over the incidence of corporate fraud

The nature of corporate governance and its regulation

Tirole (2001, p4) defines corporate governance as:

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

Development of Corporate Governance

Deals with the issue of quality of companys financial reporting. Outlines

Focuses on board remuneration, particularly the issues on the role of the

Reviews the implementation of the Cadbury and Greenbury Reports,

Consolidates all principles and recommendations outlined in the Cadbury,

Deals with the role and responsibilities of institutional shareholders.

Examines the role of non-executive directors and suggests companies should

Emphasises that there should be no concentration of power in one or two

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

The UK corporate governance framework is now well developed and

Ownership structure, financial and stakeholder relations, financial

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

assumed that it is costless to write a contract between the principal and

dividend payout, and debt leverage. They argue that individual

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

The findings indicate that greater institutional ownership and stronger

on board size, board composition, board committees and leadership

Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance

during the period immediately pre and post-Cadbury. In particular