Liquidity, institutional ownership and regulation fair disclosure

There is a body of academic literature addressing two issues of importance for leveling the playing field for all classes of investors: 1) the impact of institutional investors on liquidity; and 2) the impact of Regulation Fair Disclosure on institutional investors and liquidity. Our study addresses both issues with the purpose of attaining a better understanding and explanation of this relationship. We classify institutional ownership according to Bushee's (1998, 2001) methodology; transient institutions, dedicated institutions and quasi-indexers. Our results indicate that while transient institutions and quasi-indexers have a positive impact on liquidity, dedicated institutional ownership is negatively associated with liquidity. This result is consistent with prior theoretical studies. We also find that the effectiveness ofthe Regulation Fair Disclosure in improving liquidity is limited to firms with higher transient institutional ownership, whereas quasi-indexed institutions have not been significantly affected by the regulations. In fact, the liquidity of firms is lower for firms with higher dedicated institutional holdings, which is evidence of the "chilling effect".

Institutional ownership and firm performance: evidence from Finland

This paper investigates the relationship between different classes of institutional investors and firm performance. Using industry level data from Finland, which is characterized by various institutional investors who own multiple ownership stakes in different firms across a broad spectrum of industries, the paper exhibits two novelties. First, unlike previous studies which treated institutional investors as a monolithic group, we segment them in classes. Second, we recognize the joint determination of firm performance and institutional ownership. We account for this issue in the context of a system of equations, using three stage least squares methodology. The empirical results suggest a significant two-way feedback between firm performance and institutional equity ownership. However, this effect is not symmetric. We find that institutional investors with likely investment and business ties with firms have adverse (negative) effect on firm performance and the impact is very significant in comparison to the negative effect of firm performance on institutional ownership.

On institutional ownership and firm performance : a disaggregated view

We study the relationship between institutional ownership and firm performance in Finland. A systems approach is employed to investigate the potential two-way causality between firm performance and ownership structure. Three-stage least squares estimation technique is used to solve for the systems. The evidence suggests an endogeneity problem between firm performance and institutional ownership. However, the magnitude of the problem differs with respect to the concentration of ownership measure used. Our results show that a more equal distribution of the voting power among the largest institutional stakeholder may exert positive effects on firm performance. We also find a significant difference relating to firm performances and equity ownerships between the two classes of institutional investor. Consistent with the ownership structure in Finland, we find that a simple ownership concentration index does not influence firm performance.

Institutional Ownership, Audit Committee and Risk Disclosure – Evidence from Australian Stock Market

This study investigates the influence of institutional ownership and audit committees corporate risk disclosures. Focusing on analysing firms’ risk disclosures make in their 2009 annual reports, our sample constitutes a sample of 66 Australian listed firms. We divide institutional shareholders into dedicated-type institutional block shareholders and transient-type institutional block shareholders. We find that while there is no significant relationship between dedicated-type institutional block shareholders and risk disclosure, there is a positive relationship between transient-type institutional block shareholders and risk disclosures. Our result is consistent with a principal that wields limited monitoring resources while achieving high resource dependency over management. We also find a significant and positive relationship between audit committee independence and risk disclosures, showing the positive role played by audit committee in improving the information transparency and reducing information asymmetry in capital market.

Earnings behaviour of financially distressed firms:The role of institutional ownership

Using a sample of 859 U.S. bankruptcy-filing firms over the period 1986-2004, we examine the earnings behaviour of managers during the distressed period by looking at sources of abnormal accruals prior to the bankruptcy-filing year. Results show that managers of highly distressed firms shift earnings downwards prior to the bankruptcy filing. We test and provide evidence in support of two potential contributing factors. First, top-level management turnover among distressed firms leads new managers to earnings bath choices during the distressed period. Second, qualified audit opinions exert pressure on managers to follow more conservative earnings behaviour during the distressed period. Evidence is also provided that the management of distressed firms with lower (higher) institutional ownership has greater (lesser) tendency to manage earnings downwards. Results also show that higher institutional ownership mitigates the negative abnormal returns of firms with top management turnover. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to examine whether institutional ownership relates to market reaction in conjunction with a top management turnover or a qualified audit opinion during the distressed period. Prior studies focused on the investigation of earnings management or institutional ownership (separately) during the distressed period, but did not examine if the effect of institutional ownership on earnings behaviour also influences subsequent returns. Thus, the results of this study should be of interest to analysts, standard setters and regulatory bodies since our results show that management turnover, qualified audit opinions and firm governance mechanisms affect the quality of earnings and the level of abnormal returns. © 2007 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney.

The impact of the Malaysian code on corporate governance: compliance, institutional investors and stock performance

In 2001, the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG) became an integral part of the Bursa Malaysia Listing Rules, which requires all listed firms to disclose the extent of compliance with the MCCG. Our panel analysis of 440 firms from 1999 to 2002 finds that corporate governance reform in Malaysia has been successful, with a significant improvement in governance practices. The relationship between ownership by the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and corporate governance has strengthened during the period subsequent to the reform, in line with the lead role taken by the EPF in establishing the Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group. The implementation of MCCG has had a substantial effect on shareholders' wealth, increasing stock prices by an average of about 4.8%. Although there is no evidence that politically connected firms perform better, political connections do have a significantly negative effect on corporate governance, which is mitigated by institutional ownership.

Institutional investors, political connections and analyst following in Malaysia

We examine the association between institutional ownership, political connections, and analyst following in Malaysia from 1999 to 2009. Based on 940 firm-year observations, we document a positive relation between institutional ownership, particularly by Employees Provident Fund (EPF), and analyst following, thus supporting the governance role that institutional investors play in promoting corporate transparency. However, there is no evidence that political connections matter to analyst following. The monitoring role of institutional investors, including EPF, does not appear to be any different between politically connected and non-connected firms.

Institutional investors, risk/return and corporate governance : practical lessons from the Global Financial Crisis

The global grown in institutional investors means that firms can no longer ignore their influence in capital markets. However, not all institutional investors have the same motives to influence the firms they invest in. Institution investors' ability to influence management depends on the size of their investment and whether they have any business relations with the firm. Using a sample of Australian firms from 2006 to 2008, our empirical results show that the proportion of a company's shares held by institutional investors is positively associated with firm governance ratings, risk and profitability. This study shows that a positive association between risk and return is associated with large active institutional ownership, which we interpret as shareholders with sufficient power to pressure management to increase short-term profits.

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.

Institutional investors: arbitrageurs or rational trend chasers?

This paper studies the relationship between institutional investor holdings and stock misvaluation in the U.S. between 1980 and 2010. I find that institutional investors overweigh overvalued and underweigh undervalued stocks in their portfolio, taking the market portfolio as a benchmark. Cross-sectionally, institutional investors hold more overvalued stocks than undervalued stocks. The time-series studies also show that institutional ownership of overvalued portfolios increases as the portfolios' degree of overvaluation. As an investment strategy, institutional investors' ride of stock misvaluation is neither driven by the fund flows from individual investors into institutions, nor industry-specific. Consistent with the agency problem explanation, investment companies and independent investment advisors have a higher tendency to ride stock misvaluation than other institutions. There is weak evidence that institutional investors make positive profit by riding stock misvaluation. My findings challenge the models that view individual investors as noise traders and disregard the role of institutional investors in stock market misvaluation.

External monitoring, managerial ownership and form performance in Malaysian capital market: a GMM based panel data approach

This study re-examines whether the structure of share ownership by both directors and institutional ownership provides explanation for firm performances. These relationships are modelled and estimated using GMM based dynamic panel data over a period from 1997 to 2001 with a sample of 100 CI components companies listed on Main Board of Malaysia. The findings provide strong evidence of simultaneity between firm performance and managerial ownership. Although an insignificant relationship between firm performance and institutional ownership is~ observed, the institutional holdings provide strong substitute for managerial ownership with a strong negative relationship between managerial ownership and institutional ownership. This is in line with the managerial incentive hypothesis, which suggests that manager's share in the firm's ownership leads to better performance and the monitoring substitute hypothesis, which suggests that managerial ownership could be effectively replaced by institutional ownership.