Institutional investors, risk/performance and corporate governance

Modern portfolio theory suggests that investors minimize risk for a given level of expected return by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. This study sets out to determine the role of the institutional investor in monitoring risk and firm performance. Using a sample of Australian firms from 2006 to 2008, our empirical study shows a positive association between firm-specific risk, risk-management policy, and performance for firms with increasing institutional shareholdings. The study also finds that the significance of this association depends on the institutional investor's ability to influence management, which in turn depends on the size of ownership and whether the investee firm does not have potential business dealings with the investor. We also find that when firms are financially distressed, institutional investors engage in promoting short-term performance or exit rather than support long-term value creation. The results are robust while controlling the potential for endogeneity and using sensitivity tests to control for variants of performance and risk. These findings add to the growing body of literature examining institutional ownership and the importance of understanding the role of risk-management in the risk and return relation.

Reframe QUT's evaluation framework : a case study of planning, policy and positioning leading to educational best practice

Every university in Australia has a set of policies that guide the institution in its educational practices, however, the policies are often developed in isolation to each other. Now imagine a space where policies are evidence-based, refined annually, cohesively interrelated, and meet stakeholders’ needs. Is this happenstance or the result of good planning? Culturally, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is a risk-averse institution that takes pride in its financial solvency and is always keen to know “how are we going?” With a twenty-year history of annual reporting that assures the quality of course performance through multiple lines of evidence, QUT’s Learning and Teaching Unit went one step further and strategically aligned a suite of policies that take into consideration the needs of their stakeholders, collaborate with other areas across the institution and use multiple lines of evidence to inform curriculum decision-making. In QUT’s experience, strategic planning can lead to policy that is designed to meet stakeholders’ needs, not manage them; where decision-making is supported by evidence, not rhetoric; where all feedback is incorporated, not ignored; and where policies are cohesively interrelated, not isolated. While many may call this ‘policy nirvana’, QUT has positioned itself to demonstrate good educational practice through Reframe, its evaluation framework. In this case, best practice was achieved through the application of a theory of change and a design-led logic model that allows for transition to other institutions with different cultural specificity. The evaluation approach follows Seldin’s (2003) notion to offer depth and breadth to the evaluation framework along with Berk’s (2005) concept of multiple lines of evidence. In summary, this paper offers university executives, academics, planning and quality staff an opportunity to understand the critical steps that lead to strategic planning and design of evidence-based educational policy that positions a university for best practice in learning and teaching.