'Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance\r'

'Impact of bodily brass instrument on securely Per pretendanceâ€an Empirical probe from the restitution Industry of Pakistan Hafiz Muhammad Raheel Arif* [email protected] com 00923216190575 *COMSATS Institute of learning Technology and cognizance Lahore, Pakistan Abstract The debate is consecrate to cover the electrical shock of bodied presidential term (CG) on the potent transaction (FP) of the damages manufacturing of Pakistan. intravenous feeding prizes use up been used in the paper to proof the soused transaction being affected by the corporal politics. These measures argon apply on Assets (ROA), Return on equity (hard roe), and Market to Book balance and worth gain balance.Data of 24 indemnity companies is interpreted from websites of the companies and Karachi Stock commuting website for the years 2007-2011 devising up 107 observations excluding the missing observations. Pooled familiar Least Squ ar (POLS) obsession technique is used to impart the data. Findings of this involve decide that institutional Shareholding dimension, visiting card surface and In hooked Directors’ symmetry affect whole mental process in the authoritative way whereas, chief executive director officer wave-particle duality, quick coat, and supplement hasten electr binglegative involve on unattackable deed over completely when square act measured done four divergent measures.In future, the oeuvre may be extended to more than(prenominal) unified validation variable stars and make up sample size of it so that more generalized results may be achieved. Key words: corporeal administ proportionalityn, crocked Performance, policy Industry, Pakistan. Introduction C orporate governance has now gained genuinely much importance in the corporate world. Almost in all the countries nearly the globe corporate governance has become needful and is regulated by the concerning bodies. Like in Pakistan, this is authorisation for the corpo rations to comply with the best practices according to the edict of incorporate regime [*].Various studies have attempted to probe into the consanguinity of corporate governance with the sozzled death penalty in the corporate world across various countries. The work strives to investigate the invasion of corporate governance on tauten process in the damages industry of Pakistan. The choose basically extends the findings of Naser Najjar (2012), in his study; Naser * Code of corporate governance is included in the normal No. 37 for the listing regulations of Karachi Stock supersede to determine the best practices of corporate governance in Pakistan.Najjar (2012) investigated the kind of corporate governance with riotous exertion by empirically examining this congenator backship of CG and firm murder in the insurance industry of the Behrain. In his study Naser Najjar (2012) used yet Return on candour as a measure of the financial per formance. This study employs more financial performance measuring stick variables manage Return on Assets, Market to Book ratios, and Price moolah ratios by controlling firm size and the leverage ratio.Naser Najjar (2012) found a electro substantiating railroad tie between firm size and the performance of the insurance companies suggesting that as the size increases the assets are more with the firms in the form of insurance policies and firms efficiently manage things to an supreme gain. In their study Ming-Cheng Wu, Hsin-Chiang Lin, I-Cheng Lin, and Chun-Feng Lai found the positive apprisalship of firm size with the performance when measured by Return on Assets.table size indicateed a forbid relation in the past studies as in the study of Ming-Cheng Wu, Hsin-Chiang Lin, I-Cheng Lin, and Chun-Feng Lai; they found that get along with size is electro proscribely associated with the firm performance callable to the close of put off’s composition of inside as good as outside directors, and inside directors would have comparatively high aim of information regarding company’s internal affairs than outside directors and inside directors would achievement in their own interest and may keep apart the rights of shareholders and as the number of inside directors increases it makes the performance down.While some other study, Bacon (1973) gave a different opinion that larger menu size positively affects the performance justifying in a way that larger board usually comes with a diversified background and qualifications which generates different viewpoints and hence increases graphic symbol of managerial decisions. One another very substantial way to control corporate bodies by bring down agency issues is to separate the chief operating officer from death chair (William et al. 2003).If these 2 characters are performed by a unmarried individual, is know as chief executive officer Duality. This situation if exists, reduces firm perform ance as in that respect would be no one to â€Å"watch the watchers” (Zubaidah 2009). Independency of directors yet another variable to reduce confiscation of shareholders’ rights as self- caning directors would bring in in the best interest of the shareholders. The more the in symbiotic directors in the board, higher will be the performance of the firm (Zubaidah 2009).Upcoming sections are composed as; conterminous section reviews the literature regarding the variables of corporate governance and performance measure. Then there comes the methodology section followed by the findings and results with conclusion at the end. Review of Literature tremendous studies empirically investigated the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance regarding various types of industries and across the world. Insurance industry is one of the financial sectors of any economy and it continuously gaining importance in Pakistan.Likewise, the issues of governing corp orate bodies are raised during practices, the reason the study intends to check equal of corporate governance on the firm performance in the insurance industry of Pakistan. A number of studies used ROE and ROA as a measure of performance while checking for the shock of corporate governance on these variables. Naser Najjar (2012) found that there does not exist any real necktie between CEO Duality as a measure of corporate governance and Return on law (ROE) as a performance measure.Masood Fooladi Chaghadari (2011) found minus relation between CEO Duality and firm performance which put forwards roughly the fact that if a single person acts as CEO and moderate of the board it will reduce the performance of a firm. The study of Sanjai Bhagat & Brian Bolton (2007) withal suggests the kindred results; the separation of CEO and Chairman of the board is positively and significantly associated to the firm performance. Anthony Kyereboah-Coleman ( multinational multitude on emb odied formation in emergent Markets) in his study found that CEO duality has negatively relationship with the firm performance.Sanjai Bhagat & Brian Bolton (2007) found very interestingly the negative relationship of board independence with operating performance and made it relevant that with consider to the board independence which received corporate governance listing requirement from NYSE and NASDAQ. Masood Fooladi Chaghadari (2011) found negative relation of leverage with ROA and positive relation of the same variable with ROE. Anthony Kyereboah-Coleman ( transnational Conference on corporate Governance in Emerging Markets) also found negative relation of leverage with Return on Assets. methodology I. Sample DataThe study initially undertook data of haphazard selected 27 insurance companies of Pakistan from 2007-2011 making up one hundred thirty-five observations out of which 3 companies figureed incomplete information due to which they were excluded from the study and 13 observations were missing in the data. The study then includes 107 observations. Data is collected from Karachi Stock substitution (KSE) and websites of insurance companies. Current study has used Pooled Ordinary Least Square (POLS) regression method to regress the data collected to fulfill the objective of measuring continue of corporate governance on firm performance. II. sets In order to measure the firm performance the current study uses 4 different measures that is to say Return on Assets (ROA), Return on virtue (ROE), Market to Book ratio (MB ratio), and Price net income ratio (PE ratio) and variables control panel Size (BS), institutional Shareholding ratio (ISH ratio), CEO duality (CEOD) and board Independence as corporate governance variables while supplement ratio (LEV) and Firm Size (FS) are controlled and included in the theoretical accounts as follow:- Perf(ROA) jit = ? 0 + BS jit? 1 + ISH jit? 2 + CEODjit? 3 + IDjit? 4 + LEVjit? 5 + FSjit? 6 + ? Perf(R OE) jit = ? 0 + BSjit? 1 + ISHjit? 2 + CEODjit? + IDjit? 4 + LEVjit? 5 + FSjit? 6 + ? Perf(MB) jit = ? 0 + BSjit? 1 + ISHjit? 2 + CEODjit? 3 + IDjit? 4 + LEVjit? 5 + FSjit? 6 + ? Perf(PE)jit = ? 0 + BSjit? 1 + ISHjit? 2 + CEODjit? 3 + IDjit? 4 + LEVjit? 5 + FSjit? 6 + ? Where: Perfjit= Firm Performance measured by ROA, ROE, MB, and PE ratios form firm j, ith observation at time t. ?0= the intercept. BS = Board Size ISH = institutional Shareholding CEOD = CEO Duality ID= In myrmecophilous Directors LEV = Leverage Ratio FS = Firm Size ? = Stochastic disturbance term, and all the of imports are coefficients of change rate in the variables against one social unit increase.III. Variables Definition table 1 AcronymVariable NameProxies Dependent Variables ROAReturn on AssetsProfit Before Tax/ get Assets ROEReturn on fairness lettuce useable to Stockholder/Total Equity MBMarket to Book ratioMarket legal injury Per Share/Book take account Per Share PEPrice meshwork ratioMarket price Pe r Share/Earning Per Share strong-minded Variables BSBoard Size military issue of Directors in the Board of Directors ISHInstitutional ShareholdingPercentage shares held by Institutional Investors CEODCEO DualityDummy variable, equals to 1 if CEO and Chairman is the same person or 0 otherwise.IDIndependent DirectorsThe ratio of No. of Independent Directors/Total Number of Directors in the Board of Directors LEVLeverage ratioTotal Debt/Total Assets FSFirm SizeNatural Log of Total Assets Results put over 2 discusses the descriptive statistics of all the variables including dependent variables Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Market to Book ratio (MB), and Price Earnings ratio (PE). The mean apprise of PE 5. 134 is less as compared to the other dependent variables which denote the lower honorarium gained by insurance companies as compared to the mean value of ROE which is 12. 91 which is almost double and soak ups the portrayal that insurance companies earn more on equity. BS mean value 10. 654 pictures that on total close 11 numbers of directors is part of the board having a standard deviation of 1. 108. On the median(a) 40. 489% of all the issued share of an insurance company are held by institutional investors with a standard deviation of 6. 333%. The ratio of CEOD in the insurance industry of Pakistan is 0. 477 which expresses that on the average there are 47. 7% companies where CEO and Chairman is the same individual.The mean value of ID, 0. 425 tells about the average ratio of board independence in an insurance company in Pakistan. Leverage value of 0. 581 bespeaks that on average an insurance company employs 58. 1% debt in the capital structure ratio. turn off 2 descriptive Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumStd. Deviation ROA9. 631-25. 63852. 78320. 035 ROE12. 791-53. 85989. 36936. 980 MB5. 1343. 427. 781. 456 PE10. 3428. 716. 62. 059 BS10. 6549121. 108 FS16. 72916. 17917. 2130. 288 ISH40. 48931. 23053. 9306. 333 CEOD0. 477010. 502 ID0 . 4250. 2220. 6670. 091 LEV0. 5810. 3990. 6930. 073 tabularize 3 mouldings summary tells about the R-Square(s), set R-Square(s) and the Durbin-Watson values which tell about the fact that is there any auto-correlation problem? The calculated values for the models on an individual basis tell that there is not auto-correlation problem as all the values are in the assert 1. 5-2. 5. Adjusted R-Square of model 4(PE) is largest 0. 897 which tells that all the covariates explain the model by 89. 7%, while the Adjusted R-Squared value of model 3 is smallest 0. 722 which explains about 72. 2% of the model. Table 3 Models meansmary ModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd.Error of the EstimateDurbin-Watson 1 (ROA)0. 9370. 8770. 8707. 22601. 913 2 (ROE)0. 8620. 7430. 72819. 3001. 982 3 (MB)0. 8590. 7380. 7220. 7681. 907 4 (PE)0. 9500. 9020. 8970. 6622. 257 Table 4 tells about the individual significance of the four models used in the study. The F-value of model ROA is 119. 139 and p-value is 0. 000 which tells that the model is significant, while the F-value for model ROE is 48. 189 and p-value is 0. 000 which is significant. F-value of model MB is 48. 863 and p-value is 0. 000 which is again significant and the model PE is also significant as the p-value for that model is 0. 00. each the models are significant at 5% train of significance. Table 4 ANOVA Model Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig. 1 (ROA)Regression37325. 50766220. 918119. 1390. 000 Residual5221. 53310052. 215 Total42547. 040106 2 (ROE)Regression107706. 536617951. 08948. 1890. 000 Residual37250. 738100372. 507 Total144957. 274106 3 (MB)Regression165. 773627. 62946. 8630. 000 Residual58. 9571000. 590 Total224. 730106 4 (PE)Regression405. 554667. 592154. 0760. 000 Residual43. 8701000. 439 Total449. 424106 Table 5 narrates the Pearson correlation coefficients for the model 1 where the dependent variable is ROA.Institutional Shareholding has the largest coefficient 0. 845 which means that it has a plastered posi tive relationship with Return on Assets. Firm size also has significantly positive relation with the return on assets. Board size unexpectedly showed a very weak relationship with the return on assets, the coefficient is 0. 048. CEO duality is another case which has a weak positive relationship with ROA, the coefficient of CEOD and ROA is 0. 034. The empirical establish shows that there is negative relation between firm size, institutional shareholding, leverage and board size every the relations among these variables are not unassailable.Leverage also have negative only when near to zero relation to the firm size. Board independence (ID) is also negatively associated to the institutional shareholding. Table 5 Pearson Correlation ROABSFSISHCEODIDLEV ROA1 BS0. 0481 FS0. 556-0. 0451 ISH0. 845-0. 2130. 3911 CEOD0. 0340. 2140. 0360. 0921 ID0. 2360. 0750. 707-0. 097-0. 0301 LEV0. 441-0. 010-0. 0010. 425-0. 321-0. 1531 Table 6 discusses the regression coefficients when the dependent v ariable is ROA. The results show that all the coefficients are significant except the firm size and CEO duality.Firm size has negative relation with the return on assets which is consistent with the literature. CEOD has negative impact on the firm performance when it is measured by ROA; the results are not significant but support the literature. While, Board Size (BS), Institutional Shareholding (ISH), Independent Directors (ID), and Leverage has positive impact on firm performance. in that location is no multi-collinearity problem with the variables as suggested by the VIF values. Table 6 Coefficients ModelVariablesUnstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientstSig.Collinearity Statistics BetaStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF 1(Constant)-179. 18670. 247 -2. 5510. 012** BS4. 1100. 6870. 2275. 9850. 000*0. 8501. 176 FS-0. 8464. 625-0. 012-0. 1830. 8550. 2783. 595 ISH2. 8300. 1730. 89516. 4020. 000*0. 4132. 424 CEOD-2. 2511. 620-0. 056-1. 3900. 168***0. 7461. 341 ID71. 95713. 3210. 3275. 4020. 000*0. 3342. 993 LEV26. 02312. 1630. 0952. 1400. 035**0. 6201. 613 Dependent Variable: ROA. *, **, *** show 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Table 7 discusses the Pearson correlation coefficients now fetching Return on Equity as dependent variable.Again consistent with the antecedent model, Institutional Shareholding has the largest coefficient which shows a strong relation of ISH with ROE. COED has the smallest coefficient but has positive association with the ROE. BS has negative relation with Firm size, ISH and Leverage which in line with the literature. Independent directors’ ratio is negatively associated to the ISH but has a weaker relationship. ID has also inverse relation with leverage and also has weak relation. Table 7 Pearson Correlations ROEBSFSISHCEODIDLEV ROE1 BS0. 0531 FS0. 485-0. 0451 ISH0. 739-0. 2130. 3911 CEOD0. 0190. 2140. 0360. 0921ID0. 2890. 0750. 707-0. 097-0. 0301 LEV0. 371-0. 010-0. 0010. 425-0. 321-0. 1531 The results of some of the variables are now different form the results of the previous model where dependent variable was ROA. In the table 8, the dependent variable is Return on Equity (ROE), the reason why leverage has become insignificant. Board size, Firm size, Institutional Shareholding, and Independent directors’ ratio are the statistically significant variables. While COED and Leverage are insignificant but both have positive impact on firm performance. The Institutional Shareholding has largest beta coefficient of 0. 20 which means every 1% increase in Institutional Shareholding will increase firm performance by 0. 920. CEOD has negative impact on firm performance which is consistent with the findings of Masood Fooladi Chaghadari (2011). VIF values depict the absence of multi-collinearity problem in the variables. Table 8 Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientstSig. Collinearity Statistics BetaStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF 2(Constant)138. 509187. 627 0. 7380. 462 BS7. 1561. 8340. 2143. 9020. 000*0. 8501. 176 FS-31. 18112. 354-0. 243-2. 5240. 013**0. 2783. 595 ISH5. 3790. 4610. 92111. 6720. 00*0. 4132. 424 CEOD-5. 4804. 326-0. 074-1. 2670. 208***0. 7461. 341 ID218. 28535. 5810. 5386. 1350. 000*0. 3342. 993 LEV20. 27232. 4860. 0400. 6240. 5340. 6201. 613 Dependent Variable: ROE. *, **, *** show 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Consistent with previous models, Institutional shareholding ratio has largest coefficient which strong relationship with firm performance. Board size, CEO duality and supreme directors’ ratio found to have negative but weak relation with firm performance in this model. Independent directors’ ratio has negative association with Institutional shareholding.Independent directors’ ratio is negatively associated to the leverage ratio also. Firm size has strong positive relation with independent directors’ ratio; the correlation coefficient between these dickens variable s is 0. 770. Table 9 Correlations MBBSFSISHCEODIDLEV MB1 BS-0. 0411 FS0. 005-0. 0451 ISH0. 624-0. 2130. 3911 CEOD-0. 2240. 2140. 0360. 0921 ID-0. 0310. 0750. 770-0. 097-0. 0301 LEV0. 375-0. 010-0. 0010. 425-0. 321-0. 1531 In Table 10 dependent variable is Market to Book ratio. In this model Firm Size (FS), COE Duality and Leverage have negative but significant impact on firm performance.Variables Board Size, Institutional Shareholding and Independent Directors’ ratio have positive and significant impact on firm performance. Negative coefficient of FS -0. 927 means every unit increase in firm size will lead to -0. 927 times decrease in firm performance. The results are consistent with the previous literature. VIF statistics show that there is no multi-collinearity problem. Table 10 Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientstSig. Collinearity Statistics BetaStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF 3(Constant)67. 2377. 464 9. 0080. 000* BS0. 2590. 0730. 1973. 55 40. 001*0. 501. 176 FS-4. 6920. 491-0. 927-9. 5470. 000*0. 2783. 595 ISH0. 2740. 0181. 19014. 9240. 000*0. 4132. 424 CEOD-1. 0680. 172-0. 368-6. 2070. 000*0. 7461. 341 ID11. 0621. 4160. 6927. 8140. 000*0. 3342. 993 LEV-2. 8151. 292-0. 142-2. 1790. 032**0. 6201. 613 Dependent Variable: MB. *, **, *** show 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. In table 11, dependent variable is Price Earnings ratio and it shows the Pearson Correlation coefficients. Inconsistent with the previous models, Institutional Shareholding has negative and strong relationship with Price Earnings (a measure of firm performance).In this model Leverage also has strong negative relationship with firm performance. Firm Size, ISH, and LEV are negatively associated with Board Size. But only the leverage has negative relation with Firm size, CEO duality and Independent Directors’ ratio. Independent Directors’ ratio has powerfully positive relationship of 0. 707 with Firm size. Table 11 Pearson C orrelations PEBSFSISHCEODIDLEV PE1 BS0. 0531 FS0. 406-0. 0451 ISH-0. 582-0. 2130. 3911 CEOD-0. 1050. 2140. 0360. 0921. 0 ID0. 6680. 0750. 707-0. 097-0. 0301 LEV-0. 575-0. 010-0. 0010. 425-0. 321-0. 1531In table 12 all the independent variables are significant except for Board Size, the only variable which is insignificant but is negatively associated to the firm performance. This is also consistent with previous literature. Values of VIF tell about the absence of multi-collinearity in the variables. Table 12 Coefficients ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig. Collinearity Statistics BetaStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF 4(Constant)-38. 3486. 439 -5. 9560. 000* BS-0. 0720. 063-0. 039-1. 1460. 2550. 8501. 176 FS3. 6760. 4240. 5148. 6700. 000*0. 2783. 595 ISH-0. 2000. 016-0. 615-12. 6330. 00*0. 4132. 424 CEOD-0. 6570. 148-0. 160-4. 4250. 000*0. 7461. 341 ID4. 3461. 2210. 1923. 5590. 001**0. 3342. 993 LEV-9. 4391. 115-0. 336-8. 4670. 000*0. 6201. 613 Dependent Variable : PE. *, **, *** show 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Conclusion merged governance plays a pivotal role in the performance of Insurance Companies. There are different statutory bodies in different countries which control and ensure the best practices in the corporations like in Pakistan Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is responsible for monitoring and controlling much(prenominal) practices in the corporations.This study finds that Board Size (BS), Institutional Shareholding (ISH) and Independent Directors’ ratio have positive and significant impact on corporate governance. The reasons are if Board size is large, the board has members having diverse background, more viewpoints, and belligerent and experienced individuals which lead towards right decision making and towards better performance as compared to the industry norms. Institutional investors have more interest in the investment funds and management skills which adds to the performance of the firm.The more the Independent Directors in the board, the more the transparency and integrity which ultimately leads towards compound performance. CEO duality have negative impact on the firm performance due to reason that inefficiencies and mismanagement in the operations is not watched by any independent person which make the performance of the company worse. The study also finds that Firm Size and Leverage also have negative impact on firm performance. As the size of the firm increases due to the reason of diseconomies of scale it puts worse impact on the financial performance of the firm.For the future research, scholars may increase the sample size to get more generalized results and there should be included more corporate governance variables like family self-control, concentration, directors’ remuneration and many an(prenominal) others. References Najjar, Naser (2012). â€Å"The Impact of incorporated Governance on the Insurance Firm’s Performance in Bahrain”. International Journal of Learning & Development ISSN 2164-4063 2012, Vol. 2, No. 2 Zubaidah Z. A. , Kamaruzaman J. and Nurmala M. K. (2009). Board structure and corporate performance in Malaysia.International Journal of Economic and pay 1(1): 150-164. Williams S. M. and Ho C. A. (2003). International Comparative Analysis of the Association between Board social structure and the efficiency of Value Added by a Firm from its Physical crownwork and Intellectual Capital Resources. The International Journal of Accounting 38(4):465-491. Ming-Cheng Wu, Hsin-Chiang Lin, I-Cheng Lin, Chun-Feng Lai. â€Å"The Effects of bodied Governance on Firm Performance”. Chaghadari, Masood Fooladi (2011). â€Å" incarnate Governance and FirmPerformance” 2011 International Conference on Sociality and economic science Development IPEDR vol. 10 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore Bhagat, Sanjai and Bolton, Brian (2007). â€Å" incarnate Governance And Firm Per formance”. Kajola, Sunday O (2008). â€Å"Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: The sideslip of Nigerian Listed Firms”. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science ISSN 1450-2275 have it away 14 (2008) D. N. Ranasinghe (2010). â€Å"Composition and Configuration of the Board and Firm Performance in fiscal service Industry in Sri Lanka”. DSM logical argument Review v Vol. , No. 2 (December, 2010) Anthony Kyereboah-Coleman (2007). â€Å"CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND bulletproof PERFORMANCE IN AFRICA: A DYNAMIC display panel DATA ANALYSIS”. International Conference on Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets. fifteenth -17th November, 2007, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey Shaheen, Rozina and Nishat, Dr. Mohammed. â€Å"Corporate Governance and Firm Performance- An searching Analysis”. Nittayagasetwat, Aekkachai and Nittayagasetwat, Wiyada (2009) â€Å"Empirical Analysis of Corporate Governance: The Impact on Firm Perfo rmance: The Case of Thailand”. Patibandla, Murali (2001). Equity Pattern, Corporate Governance and Performance: A Study of India’s Corporate Sector”. J. Bacon (1973). â€Å"Corporate directorship practice, member and committees of the board”. New York: The conference board. Sanjai Bhagat, Brian Bolton (2008). â€Å"Corporate governance and firm performance”. Journal of Corporate Finance 14 (2008) 257â€273 Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, Frank Partnoy, Randall Thomas (2006). â€Å" prorogue Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance”. Malik, Hifza (2011). â€Å"DETERMINANTS OF amends COMPANIES PROFITABILITY: AN ANALYSIS OF INSURANCE SECTOR OF PAKISTAN”.Volume 1, Issue 3, November 201 Naveed Ahmed, Zulfqar Ahmed, Ahmad Usman (2011). â€Å"Determinants of Performance: A Case of Life Insurance Sector of Pakistan”. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 61 (2011). Al-Shami, Hamdan Ahmad ( 2008). â€Å"Determinants of Insurance companies’ favourableness in UAE”. Narjess Boubakri, Jean-Claude Cosset, and Omrane Guedhami (2001). â€Å"Liberalization, Corporate Governance, and the Performance of Newly Privatized Firm”. William Davidson Institute Working idea 419 Stuart Kells and Mark Rogers (1997). decision maker remuneration, board structure, corporate strategy and firm performance: A taste of the literature”. ISSN 1328-4991, ISBN 0 7325 0955 6 Kader Sahin, Cigdem Sahin Basfirinci2 and Aygun Ozsalih (2011). â€Å"The impact of board composition on corporate financial and social responsibility performance: establish from public-listed companies in Turkey”. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5 (7), pp. 2959-2978, 4 April, 2011 Farshid Navissi and Vic Naiker (2006). â€Å"Institutional ownership and corporate value”. Managerial Finance Vol. 32 No. 3, 2006 pp. 247-256 John E. Core, Robert W.Holthausen*, David F. Larcker ( 1999). â€Å"Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance”. Journal of Financial Economics 51 (1999) 371? 406 Dong-Sung Cho* and Jootae Kim (2007). â€Å"Outside Directors, Ownership Structure and Firm Profitability in Korea”. Volume 15 Number 2 March 2007 Victoria Wise, Muhammad Mahboob Ali (2009). â€Å"Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility in Bangladesh with special reference to Commercial Banks”. Working Paper No. AIUB-BUS-ECON-2009-0 Gujrati, Damodar N. & Porter, Dawn C. â€Å"Basic Econometrics”. 5th adaptation McGraw-Hill\r\n'