WorkingPaper 57

PIDE Working Papers
2010: 57
Corporate Governance in Pakistan:

Corporate Valuation, Ownership
and Financing
Attiya Y. Javid
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad
and
Robina Iqbal
Freelance Researcher
PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

ISLAMABAD
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, photocopying, recording or
otherwise—without prior permission of the Publications Division, Pakistan Institute of Development
Economics, P. O. Box 1091, Islamabad 44000.
© Pakistan Institute of Development

Economics, 2010.
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

Islamabad, Pakistan
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.pide.org.pk
Fax: +92-51-9248065
Designed, composed, and finished at the Publications Division, PIDE.

CONTENTS
Pages
Abstract vii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study 3
1.3 Organisation of the Study 4
Chapter 2. Overview of Corporate Governance in Pakistan 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Institutional Framework 5
2.3 Code of the Corporate Governance 9
2.4 Assessment of Corporate Governance 10
2.5 Corporate Governance under Concentrated
Ownership 12
2.6 Corporate Governance in South Asia 13
2.7 Summary and Conclusion 16
Chapter 3. Determinants of Corporate Governance 16
3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 Review of Previous Literature 17
3.3 Corporate Governance Index 18
3.4 Determinants of Corporate Governance 20
3.5 Estimation Technique 21
3.6 Empirical Findings 22
Chapter 4. Corporate Governance and Corporate Valuation 25
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Review of Previous Empirical Literature 26
4.3 Data and Methodological Framework 29
Pages
Chapter 5. Corporate Governance and Corporate Ownership 37
5.1 Introduction 37
5.2 Review of Previous Literature 39
Chapter 6. Corporate Governance and External Financing 55
6.1 Introduction 55
6.2 Review of Previous Literature
6.4 Empirical Evidence 62
Chapter 7. Conclusion 64
Appendi ces 69
References 72
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Year Wise Distribution of Companies 8
Table 2.2 Provincial Wise Distribution of Companies 8
Table 2.3 Capitalisation Break Down for the Year 2007 9
Table 2.4 KSE Performance at Glance 9
Table 2.5 Ownership Concentration of 50 Random Companies
for Pakistan for 2003-2007 12
Table 2.6 Inventors Composition in Listed Private Companies 13
Table 2.7 Ownership Composition of Pakistan’s Top 40 Listed
Companies 13
Table 2.8 Basic Statistics of Corporate Sector of India 15
Table 2.9 Types of Financial Institutions in Bangladesh 15
Table 2.10 Dhaka Stock Exchange Select Statistics 15
Table 3.1 Summary Statistics of Corporate Governance Index 22
Table 3.2 Evidence on Determinants of Corporate Governance 23
Table 4.1 Evidence on Corporate Governance and Firm
Performance (Tobin Q) 33
Pages
Performance (ROA) 33
Performance (D/P) 34
Table 5.1 Determinants of Concentration of Ownership by Top
Five Shareholders 49
Table 5.2.1 Relation between Tobin Q and Ownership by Top Five
Shareholders 51
Table 5.2.2 Relation between ROA and Ownership by Top Five
Shareholders 51
Table 5.3.1 Evidence on Performance and Ownership Identity 53
Table 5.4 Evidence on Performance and Manager-Ownership 55
Table 6.1 Determinants of External Financing through Equity 62
Table 6.2 Evidence on Firm Performance and Need of External
Finance 63
Table A1 Corporate Governance Index (CGI) Components 69
Table A2 Description of Variables 70
Table A3 List of Companies 71
ABSTRACT
In this study the relationship between corporate governance and corporate
valuation, ownership structure and need of external financing for the Karachi
Stock Market is examined for the period 2003 to 2008. To measure the firm-
level governance a rating system is used to evaluate the stringency of a set of
governance practices and cover various governance categories: such as board
composition, ownership and shareholdings and transparency, disclosure and
auditing. The sample consists of 60 non-financial firms listed on Karachi Stock
Exchange and comprises more than 80 percent of market capitalization at
Karachi Stock Market in 2007. The results confirms the theoretical notion that
firms with better investment opportunities and larger in size adopt better
corporate governance practice. The proposition that ownership concentration is a
response to poor legal protection is also validated by the results. The more
investment opportunities lead to more concentration of ownership and the
ownership concentration is significantly diluted as the firm size expands. The
findings are consistent with theoretical argument claiming that family owners,
foreign owners and bring better governance and monitoring practices which is
consistent with agency theory. The results suggest that firms which need more
equity financing practice good governance. The results show that firms with
high growth and large in size are in more need of external finance. The
relationship between external financing and ownership concentration is
negative. The results reveal that the firms which practice good governance, with
concentrated ownership, need more external finance which have more profitable
investment opportunities and are larger in size are valued higher. The interaction
term of any variable with law enforcement term are not significant in any model
suggesting that firm performance is not affected by rule of law in countries
where legal environment is weak. These results adds an important link to the
explanation of the consequences weak legal environment for external financing,
corporate valuation and corporate governance. The results show that Corporate
Governance Code 2002 potentially improves the governance and decision
making process of firms listed at KSE.
JEL classification: G3 F3
Keywords: Ownership Concentration, Corporate Governance, Firm
Performance, External Financing, Panel Data
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION*
1.1. Background
Good corporate governance contributes to sustainable economic
development by enhancing the performance of companies and increasing their
access to outside capital. In emerging markets good corporate governance serves
a number of public policy objectives. It reduces vulnerability of the financial
crises, reinforcement property rights; reduces transaction cost and cost of capital
and leads to capital market development. Corporate governance concerns the
relationship among the management, board of directors, controlling
shareholders, minority shareholders and other stakeholders. In Pakistan, the
publication of the SECP Corporate Governance Code 2002 for publicly listed
companies has made it an important area of research of corporate sector.
A corporate governance system is comprised of a wide range of practices
and institutions, from accounting standards and laws concerning financial
disclosure, to executive compensation, to size and composition of corporate
boards. A corporate governance system defines who owns the firm, and dictates
the rules by which economic returns are distributed among shareholders,
employees, managers, and other stakeholders. As such, a county's corporate
governance regime has deep implications for firm organisation, employment
systems, trading relationships, and capital markets. Thus, changes in Pakistani
system of corporate governance are likely to have important consequences for
the structure and conduct of country business.
In its broadest sense, corporate governance refers to a complementary set
of legal, economic, and social institutions that protect the interests of a
corporation’s owners. In the Anglo-American system of corporate governance
these owners are shareholders. The concept of corporate governance presumes a
fundamental tension between shareholders and corporate managers [Berle and
Means (1932) and Jensen and Meckling (1976)]. While the objective of a
corporation’s shareholders is a return on their investment, managers are likely to
have other goals, such as the power and prestige of running a large and powerful
organisation, or entertainment and other perquisites of their position. In this
situation, managers’ superior access to inside information and the relatively
Acknowledgements: The authors are Professor of Economics, Pakistan Institute of

Development Economics, Islamabad and freelance researcher respectively. The authors wish to
thank Dr Rashid Amjad, Dr Tariq Javed and Dr Idrees Khawaja for their valuable comments. They
are grateful to Hafeez Ahmed and Shahab-u-Din for providing assistance in compiling data and
Yasir Iqbal for computer assistance. Any remaining errors and omissions are the authors’ sole
responsibility.
2
powerless position of the numerous and dispersed shareholders, mean that

managers are likely to have the upper hand. The researchers have offered a
number of solutions for this agency problem between shareholders and
managers which fall under the categories of incentive alignment, monitoring,
and discipline. Incentives of managers and shareholders can be aligned through
practices such as stock options or other market-based compensation [Fama and
Jensen (1983a)]. Monitoring by an independent and engaged board of directors
assures that managers behave in the best interests of the shareholders [Fama and
Jensen (1983)]. Chief Executive Officer (CEO)’s who fail to maximise
shareholder interests can be removed by concerned boards of directors, and a
firm that neglects shareholder value is disciplined by the market through hostile
takeover1 [Jensen and Ruback (1983)].
The code of corporate governance introduced by SECP in early 2002 is
the major step in corporate governance reforms in Pakistan. The code includes
many recommendations in line with international good practice. The major areas
of enforcement include reforms of board of directors in order to make it
accountable to all shareholders and better disclosure including improved internal
and external audits for listed companies. However, the code’s limited provisions
on director’s independence remain voluntary and provide no guidance on
internal controls, risk management and board compensation policies.
The main focus of this study is to examine the relationship between
corporate governance and corporate performance, corporate ownership,
corporate financing for publicly listed Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) firms.
Therefore, we attempt to identify the relationship between corporate governance
proxies and firm value in our sample of KSE firms. This emphasises the
importance of legal rules and the quality of their enforcement. In Pakistan, with
traditionally low dispersion of ownership, the primary methods to solve agency
problems are the legal protection of minority investors, the use of boards as
monitors of senior management, and an active market for corporate control. In
contrast to developed markets in Pakistan corporate governance is characterised
by lesser reliance on capital markets and outside investors, but stronger reliance
on large inside investors and financial institutions to achieve efficiency in the
corporate sector. In this case, outside (smaller) investors face the risk of
expropriation in the form of wealth transfers to larger shareholders.
According to Shliefer and Vishny (1997) corporate governance
mechanisms are economic and legal institutions that can be altered through the
political process. As regards governance reform, product market competition
would force firms to minimise costs, and as part of this cost minimisation to
adopt rules, including corporate governance mechanisms, enabling them to raise
external capital at the lowest cost in the long run. On this evolutionary theory of
1
A takeover which goes against the wishes of the target company’s management and board
of directors.
3
economic change [Alchian (1950); Stigler (1958)], competition would take care
of corporate governance.
Corporate governance in agency theory perspective is referred to as
separation of ownership and control [Barle and Means (1932)]. There are two
most common approaches to corporate governance to protect investors’ rights.
First approach is to give investors power through legal protection from
expropriation by managers. Protection of minority rights and legal prohibitions
against managerial self-dealing are examples of such mechanisms. The second
major approach is ownership by large investors (concentrated ownership):
matching significant cash flow rand control rights. Most corporate governance
mechanisms used in the world-including large share holdings, relationship
banking, and even takeovers- can be viewed as examples of large investors
exercising their power. We discuss how large investors reduce agency costs.
While large investors still rely on the legal system, they do not need as many
rights as the small investors do to protect their interests. For this reason,
corporate governance is typically exercised by large investors. Despite its
common use, concentrated ownership has its costs as well, which can be best
described as potential expropriation by large investors of other small investors
and stakeholders in the firm [Shliefer and Vishny (1997)].
1.2. Objective of the Study

The main focus of the study is to investigate does corporate governance
matters in Pakistan equity market? What are its implications for corporate
valuation, corporate, ownership and corporate financing?
The first dimension of this issue is measuring the corporate governance in
Pakistan. Corporate governance is interpreted as mechanism–both institutional and
market based, that induces the self-interested managers (controllers of the firm) to
make decisions that maximise the value of the firm to its shareholders (owners of
the firm) [OECD (1999)]. The aim of these mechanisms is to reduce agency costs
that arise from principle agent problem; and they could be internal and/or external
in nature [Klapper and Love (2002)]. Internal mechanism deals with the
composition of the board of directors, such as proportion of independent outside
directors, distinction of CEO and chairperson etc. another important mechanism is
ownership structure, or the degree at which the ownership by managers obvious
trade-off between alignment and entrenchment effects. External mechanism on the
other hand rely on takeover market in addition to regulatory system, where as the
take over market act as a treat to existing controllers in that it enable outsiders to
seek control of the firm if bad corporate governance results in significant gap
between potential and actual value of the firm. So given these mechanisms, it is
investigated that the legal system is the only way to ensure good corporate
governance. It is also examined that effective presence of these mechanisms
positively associated with firm value.
4
The second dimension of this issue is to investigate the determinants of

concentrated form of ownership structure in Pakistan and its affect on firm
performance. The reason is that when the legal framework does not offer
sufficient protection for the outside investors, entrepreneurs and original owners
are forced to maintain large position in their companies which results in
concentrated form of ownership [La Porta, Shleifer, and Vishny (1999)].
The third dimension of this study is to assess the determinants of firms to
raise external finance through equity and to examine that the firms that rely
more on external financing sources are performing better.
1.3. Organisation of the Study

Rest of the study is organised as follows. Chapter 2 provides overview of
corporate governance in Pakistan and it also discuses the data used in the
subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 measures the corporate governance by using 22
factors which constructs aggregate corporate governance index, and this index is
divided in to three sub-indices. This chapter also discusses the determinants of
corporate governance in Pakistan. In Chapter 5, the determinants of ownership
structure are explored. The effect of ownership structure with firm performance
is also investigated. The identity of owners is then related to firm value. In the
Chapter 6 examines the factors that influence the need of external finance in
Pakistan and its effect on firm value. Chapter 7 concludes the study.
Chapter 2: OVERVIEW OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

IN PAKISTAN
2.1. Introduction
Corporate governance matters for the financial development by
increasing the flow of capital to the capital market. East Asian financial crisis
attract serious attention to importance of corporate governance in developing
countries. The OECD has established a set of corporate governance principles in
1999 that have become the core template for assessing a country’s corporate
governance arrangements.
La Porta, et al. (2000) Defined, “Corporate governance is, to a certain
extent, a set of mechanisms through which outside investors protect themselves
against expropriation by the insiders.” They define “the insiders” as both
managers and controlling shareholders.
“Corporate governance comprises the private and public institutions (both
formal and informal) which together govern the relationship between those who
manage corporations and those who invest resources in corporations. These
institutions typically include a country’s corporate laws, securities regulations,
stock-market listing requirements, accepted business practices and prevailing
business ethics” [Omran (2004)]. Thus, changes in Pakistani system of corporate
5
governance are likely to have important consequences for the structure and
conduct of country business.
The issue of Corporate Governance of banks has also fundamental
importance for emerging Economies. SBP restructured the regulatory
framework governing the commercial banking industry and issued some
guidelines for corporate governance. The study of Kalid and Hanif (2005)
provides an overview of development in the banking sector and measures of
corporate governance in Pakistan. Their study observes that SBP organised its
role as a regulator and supervisor and make the central bank relatively more
effectively in recent years. Moreover, the legal and regulatory structure
governing the role and functions of commercial banks has been restructured.
However, as the process of corporate governance of banks in Pakistan is very
recent, not enough information is available to make an assessment of the impact
of these policies such as an evaluation of the improvement in bank efficiency or
reduction in bank defaults.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan issued Code of
Corporate Governance in March 2002 in order to strengthen the regulatory
mechanism and its enforcement. The code of corporate governance is the major
step in corporate governance reforms in Pakistan. The code includes many
recommendations in line with international good practice. The major areas of
enforcement include reforms of board of directors in order to make it
accountable to all shareholders and better disclosure including improved internal
and external audits for listed companies. However, the code’s limited provisions
on director’s independence remain voluntary and provide no guidance on
internal controls, risk management and board compensation policies.
The plan of the chapter is as follows. The institutional framework is
presented in Section 2. Section 3 briefly reviews the code of corporate
governance of Pakistan. The assessment of the code of corporate governance is
provided in Section 4. Section 5 explores corporate governance under ownership
structure of Pakistan. Section 6 concludes our discussion.
2.2. Institutional Framework

East Asian financial crisis and corporate failure like Enron have brought
to light the importance of an effective institutional framework. In order to the
improve value of the corporate governance for finance development of a country
attention must be given to strengthen the institutional framework. That strong
institutional framework would help in effective corporate management and for
developing advanced capital markets that increases shareholder value and
enhance corporate governance.
The establishment of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
represents an important milestone in the development of the regulatory
framework of the capital market in Pakistan. The Securities and Exchange
6
Commission of Pakistan (The Commission) was established in pursuance of the

Securities and Exchanges Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 and became
operational on 1st January, 1999. It succeeds the Corporate Law Authority
(CLA), which was a Government department attached to the Ministry of
finance. It was initially concerned with the regulation of corporate sector and
capital market. In accordance with the approved Corporate Plan, the
Commission has been organised into the following six Divisions:
• Company Law Division.

• Securities Market Division.
• Specialised Companies Division.
• Finance and Admin Division.
• Human Resource and Training Division.
• Insurance Division.
Each of division is divided into Departments and Wings for effective
administration. The Departments are headed by Executive Directors, with
oversight by commissioners.2
The continuing challenges of the Commission include: based on the
regulatory principles develop a modern and efficient corporate sector and capital
market; based on international legal standards. In order to foster principles of
good governance in the corporate sector and protect investors through
responsive policy measure and enforcement practice develop an efficient and
dynamic regulatory body.
The SECP is governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of
Pakistan Act, 1997 which encompasses the constitution of the Commission
appointment and terms and conditions of the Chairman and Commissioners,
functions and powers of the Commission and financial arrangements. The
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is administering many laws.
These includes: insurance Ordinance, 2000 (previously as Insurance Act, 1938;
The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act,1997; The company
ordinance, 1984 (amended and implemented in 2002); The Modaraba
Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980; The
Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.
The Policy Board is established by the Securities and Exchange Commission
of Pakistan Act, 1997 in order to provide guidance to the Commission in all matters
relating to the functions of the Commission and formulation of the policies. The
Policy Board consists of maximum nine members appointed by the Federal
Government. Out of nine members five members would be as ex-officio members
and five members would be from private sector.
2
See official website of securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan for detail;
www.secp.org.pk.
7
A number of significant amendments in corporate laws were made with

the objective of updating these laws to keep pace with developments in the
corporate sector. These include: amendments in Securities and Exchange
Ordinance, 1969; Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (floatation and control)
Ordinance, 1980; Companies Ordinance, 1984; the securities and exchange
commission of Pakistan Act, 1997.
Amendments in company ordinance, 1984, suggested by the SECP have
been approved by the cabinet in 2002. The amendments mainly relates to
incorporation of single member company. Because of this amendment an
individual trader or manufacturer would be able to establish a company having
its own separate entity and thus enjoying the privilege of limited liability. This
new concept will help for expansion of a discipline corporate sector. The
companies have been provided the period of four months in order to present
audited account before shareholders. The private companies which convert into
public companies after one year of their incorporation have been exempted to
hold their statutory meetings. The new amendments make it compulsory that
copies of minutes of meetings will be provided to every director within 14 days
of the date of such meetings. Appointment of a whole time qualified company
secretary by a listed company has been made mandatory for efficient corporate
compliance. Through these new amendments a company may remove its
auditors through special resolution mean by the majority of 75 percent.
However, appointment of new auditors in place of removed auditors will be
made with the approval of the Commission. Quorum of a general meeting of a
public listed company has been increased from three members to ten members
present in person representing not less than 25 percent of total voting power.
Stock markets are important as a source of investment finance for
corporations in developing countries. At present, three stock exchanges are
functioning in Pakistan, namely Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE), Lahore Stock
Exchange (LSE) and Islamabad Stock Exchange (ISE). Trading on all the three
stock exchanges is fully automated (for performance see Table 2.4). The three
stock exchanges are also linked to the Central Depository System (CDS).
Since the last decade, the capital markets of Pakistan have witnessed a
substantial growth leading to a manifold increase in the trading volume. The
custody and safe keeping of physical certificates required maintenance of huge
vaults by the individuals and institutions and the physical settlement of
certificates was no longer feasible. Moreover, the manual system was also
plagued by lengthy delays, risks of damage, forgeries and considerable time and
capital investment. Central Depository Company of Pakistan Limited (CDC)
was incorporated in 1993 and subsequently became operational in 1997 to
manage and operate the Central Depository System (CDS). CDS is an electronic
book entry system to record and transfer securities. Electronic book entry means
that the securities do not physically change hands and the transfer from one
client account to another takes place electronically. CDC provides the backbone
8
for smooth and efficient settlement operations of the Pakistani capital market.
Almost all of the total settlement of the stock exchanges is now done through the
CDS. 3
To encourage corporate governance the institute of corporate governance
of Pakistan a non-profit organisation is established under Section 42 of company
ordinance, 1984. It is public private partnership. Securities and Exchange
Commission of Pakistan, State Bank of Pakistan, three stock exchanges and
banking and insurance institutions are founding members of this institution.
In 2006 PICG in collaboration with IFC and State Bank of Pakistan
conducted a conference of banking reforms in Pakistan. The conference aspired
to create increased understanding of the need for good governance among
Pakistan’s banking sector. Charged
Table 2.1
Year Wise Distribution of Companies
Financial Year Incorporated Companies No. of Equity Issue to Public (Rs bill)
1998-99 968 0.44
1999-00 1074 0.00
2000-01 1169 2.03
2001-02 1183 1.99
2002-03 1553 5.97
2003-04 2207 0.98
2004-05 3078 48.88
2005-06 6186 24.34
2006-07 4703 9.60
Source: Annual Report of SECP 2006-07.
Table 2.2
Provincial Wise Distribution of Companies
2005 2006 2007
Province / Territory (% Share) (% Share) (% Share)
Punjab 43 39 46
Sindh 39 29 34
NWFP 11 9 6
Baluchistan 1 4 1
Islamabad Territory 6 19 13
Source: Annual Report of SECP 2005, 2006, 2007.
3
See official website of CDC www.CDCPakistan.com.
9
Table 2.3
Capitalisation Break Down for the Year 2007
Listed Unlisted Private
Paid Up Capital (Rs) Com Public Com Com SMCs Total Percentage
Up to 10,000 1 448 20,607 373 24,429 42.87
100,000 to 500,000 1 343 7,037 100 7,481 14.97
500,001to1,000,000 0 105 4,566 59 4,730 9.46
1,000,001 to 10,000,000 34 343 10,804 48 11,229 22.47
10,000,000 to 100,000,000 226 662 3,168 28 4,084 8.17
1000,000,001 to 500,000,000 236 224 319 2 799 1.60
500,000,001 to 1,000,000,000 45 32 29 0 106 0.21
1,000,000,001 and above 69 36 18 0 123 0.25
Source: Annual Report of SECP 2007.
Table 2.4
KSE Performance at Glance
2004 2005 2006 2007
KSE 100 Index 5,279.18 7,450.12 9,981.40 13,772.26
Market Capitalisation (Rs bill) 1,421.58 2,068.19 2,801.28 4,019.46
Turnover (Shares Mill) 389 343 321.10 367.96
Source: Annual Report of SECP 2004,2005,2006,2007.
2.3. Code of the Corporate Governance

Many new financial instruments are introduced by the SECP in order to
enhance corporate governance. The code of corporate governance was issued in
March 2002 by the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan in order to
improve transparency, governance and protect the interest of the investors by
improving the disclosure in financial reporting of companies. The Code of Corporate
Governance is the results of the joint effort of Securities and Exchange Commission
of Pakistan and Chartered of Pakistan in collaboration with Institute of Cost and
Management Accountants of Pakistan (ICMAP) and three Stock Exchanges. The
code includes many recommendations in line with international good practice.
All listed companies publish and circulate a statement along with their
annual reports to set out the status of their compliance with the best practices of
corporate governance. The Code primarily aims to establish a system whereby a
company is directed and controlled by its directors in compliance with the best
practice so as to safeguard the interest of diversified stakeholders. It proposes to
restructure the composition of the board of directors in order to introduce broad
based representation by minority shareholders and by executive and non-
executive directors.4 ’5 The Code emphasised openness and transparency in
4
All listed companies shall encourage effective representation of independent non-executive
directors, including those representing minority interest, on their Boards of Directors so that the
Board as a group include core competencies considered relevant in the context of each listed
company (Clause (i) of Code of Corporate governance, 2002).
5
Implementation of the clause of non-executive directors is voluntary not mandatory.
10
corporate affairs and the decision making process and requires directors to
discharge their fiduciary responsibilities in the larger interest of all stakeholders
in a transparent, informed, diligent, and timely manner. The salient feature of the
Code includes setting up of audit committees and internal audit functions by all
listed companies [Code of Corporate Governance (2002)].
In August 2002 SECP launch a project on corporate governance in
collaboration with UNDP and Economic Affairs Division of Government of
Pakistan. This project is launched mainly for the implementation of code of
corporate governance and strong regulatory frame work for the corporate sector
in Pakistan.
In 2007 the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, International
Financial Corporation (IFC) and Institute of Corporate Governance of Pakistan
(PINCG) conducted a Survey on “Code of Corporate Governance of Pakistan”.
The survey targeted the local listed and large local non-listed companies and
financial sector institutions. Among the key findings in the survey, a major one
is the need for creating awareness amongst the directors of companies about the
benefits of the Code, so that they could go further than the tick-box approach to
implementing the Code, and understand and implement the Code in its true
spirit. Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan developed a board
development series (BDS) with the help of IFC. PICG conducted many
workshops for the purpose of understanding corporate governance and
responsibilities of boards of directors.
2.4. Assessment of Corporate Governance

The SECP is enforcing corporate governance regulations SECP is
receiving technical assistance from Asian Development Bank to improve
corporate governance enforcement programme and also from World Bank is
build awareness and training. Other elements of enforcement regime are not so
strong ICAP has some self regulatory function and stock exchanges are lacked
the resources and expertise to effective monitor implementation of the code.
Karachi Stock Exchange has set up a Board Committee on the Code of
Corporate Governance and a unit in the Company Affairs Department to
monitor compliance with the code.
The basic shareholders rights are protected in Pakistan at least laws in
book. The registration is secure and dematerialised through Central Depository
Committee (CDC). Shareholders can demand a variety of information directly
from the company and have a clear right to participate in Annual General
Meetings (AGM). Directors are elected using a form of cumulative voting and
can remove through share holder resolution. The changes in the company
articles, increasing authorised capital and sale of major corporate assets are
require shareholders approval. While more effective enforcement contributed to
improve compliance, some companies do not hold annual general meetings
11
(AGMs) or hold in places where it is difficult for shareholders to reach. The law
also does not support voting by post or electronically. The concentrated control
limits and influence of minority shareholders, and effectively reduce their
protection from abuse. When families dominate the shareholders meeting and
board, director’s accountability to other shareholders become critical and
currently in Pakistan this accountability is absent in many companies. The
shareholder recording process for share hold in the CDC works effectively.
However, although the registration’s role has been reduced by the CDC’s
operations, some inefficiency is still there. Some companies do not pay dividend
on time, and take longer than 5 days to re-register share in the name of
depository. The annual reports of SECP suggest that the percentage of
companies paying dividends is 35 percent and shareholders can complain SECP
about non payment of dividends.
The quality of disclosure has improved over last six years due to
increasing monitoring role of the SECP and the requirement of code.
Shareholders owning 10 percent or more of voting capital disclose their
ownership and the annual report includes the pattern for major shareholdings.
However pyramid structure, cross holdings and the absence of joint action make
it difficult for outsiders to understand the ownership structure of companies,
especially in case of business groups.
The family owned companies are typically managed by owners
themselves. In case of state owned enterprises and multinationals there is often
direct relationship between state/foreign owners and management again
bypassing the boards. Many important corporate decisions are not made on
Board AGMs level. The code explicitly mentions director’s duties to act with
objective an independent judgment and in the best interest of company. In
business groups boards are dominated by executive and non-executive members
of controlling family and by proxy directors appointed to act on their behalf.
Inter-looking directorships are often used to retain majority control. Family
dominated boards are less able to protect minority shareholder’s rights and risk a
loss of competitiveness as other boards become more professional.
The code strengthen the role of non-executive directors by restricting the
percentage of executive director to 75 percent in non-financial firms and
recommending that institutional investor in 75 percent in non-financial firms and
recommending institutional investor be representation. However given the
dominant ownership structure, this does not present controlling families from
having disproportionate representation on the board.
“The adoption of the Corporate Governance Code has improved the
overall corporate structure and business environment by making the companies
more responsible, and by ensuring transparency and accountability in the
corporate and financial reporting framework. The inclusion of non-executive
directors on the board is a big step forward as it will discourage the tendency of
protecting personnel interests and motives at the expense of the minority
12
shareholders. Moreover, the addition of the non-executive members has

improved decision-making process, which is not only slow previously, but also
opaque due to the lack of interest of the board of directors to meet as and when
required”, Rias and Saeed (2005). In the view of Syed (2005) the publication of
quarterly results by firms enables the investors to make better investment
decision. Under the Code, listed companies shall share with SECP and stock
exchange, all information that will affect the market price of its shares. The
disclosure of material information ensures transparent trading.
2.5. Corporate Governance under Concentrated Ownership

Corporate ownership is very concentrated in Pakistan (see Table 2.5).
The mean value of ownership concentration for the 60 companies for the year
2003-2007 shows that more than 50 percent of the shares are owned by top 3
shareholders.
In Pakistan the main owners are local family-controlled business groups
and the families behind them, the state, and the affiliates of multinational
corporations (see Table 6). According to Gani and Ashraf (2005), “The business
groups in Pakistan (previously known as twenty-two families) are informal
combinations of legally independent business entities run by families. The
family patriarch is the dominant shareholder and manager whereas the
immediate and distant family-members help operate various firms within the
business group”.
In many countries pyramidal ownership structures, which dominant
shareholders and business groups use to enforce their control over firms within
the group, are common. Pyramid ownership structures make it possible to
control some firms even with a very small share of their total capital. The results
of Gani and Ashraf (2005) suggest that for the perspective of external
shareholder firms that are affiliated with business groups have lower
transparency and weaker corporate governance mechanism. Consequently, the
market participants discount the value of group firms even though they are more
profitable than non-group firms. They interpret this evidence that the business-
group mechanism in Pakistan makes it easier to expropriate minority
shareholders than non group firms.
Table 2.5
Ownership Concentration of 50 Random Companies for Pakistan for 2003-2007
Mean Median Minimum Maximum S.D
T3 52.0 50.70 2.5 96.8 21.0
T5 62.39 64.23 3.5 99.00 21.17
T3: Percentage of ownership shares held by top three shareholders.
T5: Percentage of ownership shares held by top five shareholders.
13
Table 2.6
Inventors Composition in Listed Private Companies
(Percentage Shares Owned by an Investor Type)
Investor Type Textile Non-Textile
Direct Holding by Family Members 29.3 9.1
NIT/ICP 8.4 11.1
Financial Institutions 5.1 8.2
Foreign Investors 1.9 14.3
Joint Stock Companies 23.2 16.9
Associated Companies of the Controlling Family 17.4 21.4
Source: Cheema, Bari, and Siddique (2003).
Table 2.7
Ownership Composition of Pakistan’s Top 40 Listed Companies
% of Top 40 % of Top 40s Market
Companies Capitalisation
Ownership Type All Non-financial All Non-financial
Local Private Family -Based 52.5 59.0 30.2 29.8
Government 12.5 12.0 36.5 36.8
Semi-Government 22.5 14.0 16.3 15.6
MNCs 12.5 15.0 17.0 18.0
Source: Cheema, Bari, and Siddque (2003).
Cheema, Bari, and Siddique (2003) summaries the corporate growth

history of Pakistan, providing an overview of the ownership, state of financial
market, and market dynamics. They highlight the salient feature of ownership
structure of Pakistan’s top 40 listed companies in Pakistan (Table 2.6).
2.6. Corporate Governance in South Asia

The process of improving the best practice of corporate governance in
South Asia is ongoing. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India recognise the importance
of corporate governance. India issued Code of Corporate Governance in 1998,
Pakistan issued Code of Corporate Governance in 2002, and Sri Lanka has also
Code of Corporate Governance. Issuance of Code increased the transparency in
the corporate sector of these countries.
The four country comparative analysis by Sobhan and Wendy (2003)
provide an immensely rich resource which can be mined for numerous lessons
of experience and critical factors for corporate governance. They draw many
important lessons from the four country reports on corporate governance. In
their view corporate governance cannot be introduced in isolation from a range
of other reforms (macro-economic, micro-economic, accounting, legal, banking
and institutional) – nor can these other reforms achieve all their objectives
without corporate governance initiatives. Moreover there is the need to monitor
the trends in different sectors of the markets. From the country reports they also
14
draw lesson that critical importance of the company and contract laws and the
efficacy of the legal system should also be recognise. It is notable that all the
countries have developed special commercial courts of one sort or another to
handle the commercial disputes, but the reports all generate a sense of gloom,
almost of despair, when it comes to the efficacy of the law, and of the need to
modernise bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings.
The OECD and the World Bank Group have combined their efforts to
promote policy dialogue on corporate governance and have established Regional
Corporate Governance Round tables and assessment of corporate governance in
close partnership with national policy-makers, regulators and market
participants. It draws lessons from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, assesses
progress and remaining challenges, and formulates common policy objectives
and a practical reform agenda for improving corporate governance in Asia.6
India has a sizeable corporate sector registered as closely- or widely-held
companies under the Companies Act. Table 8 g ives the data for basic statistic of
corporate sector of India for1997-2000. “Since the first Corporate Governance
ROSC assessment dated July 31, 2000, a series of legal and regulatory reforms
have transformed the Indian corporate governance framework and improved the
level of responsibility/accountability of insiders, fairness in the treatment of
minority shareholders and stakeholders, board practices, and transparency In
particular, the securities regulator introduced a corporate governance clause in
the listing agreement that clarified many issues. Recent efforts to strengthen
enforcement have enhanced investors’ trust in the market. The financial press is
increasingly reporting violations of shareholder rights. These are positive drivers
of change. However, enforcement and implementation of laws and regulations
remain important challenges.” ROSC (2004).
In Bangladesh lending institutions are broadly categorised into banks and
non-banking financial institutions. Overall performance measures of the stock
exchange show low trading volume, intermittent and very few new offerings,
and declining valuations Sobhan and Wendy (2003). 7 “The Bangladesh
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Institute of Chartered Accountants
of Bangladesh have demonstrated a keen interest in implementing International
Accounting Standards (IAS) and International Standards on Auditing (ISA) to
upgrade the quality of corporate financial reporting. Various steps have already
been taken; however, further results will require the design and implementation
of a comprehensive action plan on accountancy reform. The accounting and
auditing practices in Bangladesh suffer from institutional weaknesses in
regulation, compliance, and enforcement of standards and rules. The preparation
of financial statements and conduct of audits, in many cases, are not consistent
with internationally acceptable standards and practices. Better-qualified
6
See White Papers on corporate governance in Asia, 2003.
7
See Table 2.10.
15
graduates generally do not join the accounting profession because it is not

viewed as a stepping-stone to a rewarding and prestigious career. The out-of-
date legal requirements, widespread non-compliance with accounting and
auditing standards, ineffective enforcement mechanism, poor quality accounting
education and training, and inadequate adherence to professional ethics have
contributed to the weakness of the financial reporting regime”, ROSC (2003).
Table 2.8
Basic Statistics of Corporate Sector of India
1997 1998 1999 2000
Number of Companies
Closely held (Private limited) 386,841 415,954 440,997 487,111
Widely held (Public limited including listed) 64,109 68,546 71,064 76,029
Paid-up Capital (Rs Billion)

Closely held (Private limited) 588 718 790 1,013
Widely held (Public limited including listed) 1,257 1,409 1,503 2,063
Government Companies
Number of Companies 1,220 1,223 1,240 1,256
Paid-up Capital (Rs billion) 797 824 890 982

Source: Sobhan and Werner (2003).
Table 2.9
Types of Financial Institutions in Bangladesh
Type of Financial Institution Number of Institutions
Non-Bank Financial Institutions 28
State-owned Commercial Banks 4
Specialised and Development Banks 11
Private Commercial Banks 26
Islamic Private Commercial Banks 02
Foreign Commercial Banks 10
Source: Sobhan and Wendy (2003).
Table 2.10
Dhaka Stock Exchange Select Statistics
1999 2000 2001 2002
No. of Listed Companies 221 230 231 239
Market Capitalisation ($ Mill) 870 1,165 1,176 1,184
Market Cap as % of GDP 2.04% 2.65% 2.52%
DSE All Share Price Index 647.95 853.75 829.61 848.41
Source: Sobhan and Wendy (2003).
16
2.7. Summary and Conclusion

The issue of corporate governance is important for developing countries
because it is central to financial and economic development of a country.
Pakistan has develop good corporate governance laws but with poor
implementation of these laws together with political instability that adversely
affect corporate governance. Code of corporate governance is issued by SECP in
March 2002. The adoption of the Corporate Governance Code has improved the
overall corporate structure and business environment. The quality of disclosure
has improved over last four years due to increasing monitoring role of the SECP
and the requirement of code.
In Pakistan the main owners are local family-controlled business groups
and the families behind them, the state, and the affiliates of multinational
corporations. Ownership is very concentrated in the few hands of large families.
These families control ownership shares through pyramids and tunnelling.
Business groups have lower transparency and weaker corporate governance
mechanism. Pyramid ownership structures make it possible to control some
firms even with a very small share of their total capital. The basic shareholders
rights are protected in Pakistan at least laws in book. The registration is secure
and dematerialised through Central Depository Committee (CDC).
Chapter 3: DETERMINANTS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
3.1. Introduction
In the developed markets the subject of corporate governance is well
explored as a significant focus of economics and finance research but there is
also a growing interest across emerging markets in this area. In Pakistan, the
publication of the Corporate Governance Code 2002 by SECP for publicly listed
companies has made it an important area of research of corporate sector.
A corporate governance system is comprised of a wide range of practices
and institutions, from accounting standards and laws concerning financial
disclosure, to executive compensation, to size and composition of corporate
boards. A corporate governance system defines who owns the firm, and dictates
the rules by which economic returns are distributed among shareholders,
employees, managers, and other stakeholders. As such, a county’s corporate
governance regime has deep implications for firm organisation, employment
systems, trading relationships, and capital markets. Thus, changes in Pakistani
system of corporate governance are likely to have important consequences for
the structure and conduct of country business.
The plan of the chapter is as follows. Section briefly reviews the literature
in this area. The measurement of corporate governance index and its sub-indices
is presented in Section 3. The Section 4 examines the determinants of corporate
governance in case of Pakistan equity market. Last section concludes the study.
17
3.2. Review of Previous Literature

The assessment of the corporate governance for developed markets is
well researched area. Studies have shown that good governance practices have
led the significant increase in the economic value added of firms, higher
productivity and lower risk of systematic financial failure for countries. It has
now become an important area of research in emerging markets as well.
For US Firms a broad measure of Corporate Governance Gov-Score is
prepared by Brown and Caylor (2004) with 51 factors, 8 sub categories for 2327
firms based on dataset of Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS). Their findings
indicate that better governed firms are relatively more profitable, more valuable
and pay more cash to their shareholders. Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003) use
Investor Responsibility Research Centre (IRRC) data, and conclude that firms
with fewer shareholder rights have lower firm valuations and lower stock
returns. They classify 24 governance factors into five groups: tactics for
delaying hostile takeover, voting rights, director/officer protection, other
takeover defenses, and state laws. Most of these factors are anti-takeover
measures so G-Index is effectively an index of anti-takeover protection rather
than a broad index of governance. Their findings show that firms with stronger
shareholders rights have higher firm value, higher profits, higher sales growth,
lowest capital expenditures, and made fewer corporate acquisitions.
In past few years corporate governance has become an important area of
research in Pakistan. Cheema, et al. (2003) suggests that corporate governance
can play a significant role for Pakistan to attract foreign direct investment and
mobilise greater saving through capital provided the corporate governance
system is compatible with the objective of raising external equity capital through
capital markets. The corporate structure of Pakistan is characterised as
concentrated family control, interlocking directorships, cross-shareholdings and
pyramid structures. The concern is that reforms whose main objective is
minority shareholder protection may dampen profit maximis ing incentives for
families without providing offsetting benefits in the form of equally efficient
monitoring by minority shareholders. If this happens the reform may end up
creating sub optimal incentives for profit maximisation by families. They argue
that a crucial challenge for policy-makers is to optimise the dual objectives of
minority shareholder protection and the maintenance of profit-maximising
incentives for family controllers. There is a need for progressive corporations to
take a lead in the corporate governance reform effort as well.
Rais and Saeed (2005) analyse the Corporate Governance Code 2002 in
the light of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) framework and its
enforcement and application in Pakistan in order to understand the dynamics of
public decision making and assess the efficacy of the regulation policy of SECP
in the arena of corporate governance. The analysis shows that though the listed
companies are gearing themselves up to adopt the Code, there are some
18
constraints, and reservations about the way it was drafted and implemented. The
study by Ghani, et al. (2002) examines business groups and their impact on
corporate governance in Pakistan for non-financial firms listed on the Karachi
Stock Exchange of Pakistan for 1998-2002. Their evidence indicates that
investors view the business-group as a mechanism to expropriate minority
shareholders. On the other hand, the comparative financial performance results
suggest that business groups in Pakistan are efficient economic arrangements
that substitute for missing or inefficient outside institutions and markets. The
study by Ashraf and Ghani (2005) examines the origins, growth, and the
development of accounting practices and disclosures in Pakistan and the factors
that influenced them. They document that lack of investor protection (e.g.,
minority rights protection, insider trading protection), judicial inefficiencies, and
weak enforcement mechanisms are more critical factors than are cultural factors
in explaining the state of accounting in Pakistan. They conclude that it is the
enforcement mechanisms that are paramount in improving the quality of
accounting in developing economies.
Mir and Nishat (2004) and Shaheen and Nishat have done rating of
corporate governance based on annual reports and survey data respectively for
the year 2004 and relate this governance score with firm value. Javid and Iqbal
(2007) used panel data from annual reports for 2003 to 2006 to measure factors
of corporate governance. All these studies come to the conclusion that better
governance practices increase the value of the firm. The International Financial
Corporation (IFC), SECP and Institute of Corporate Governance, Karachi
undertook a survey to awareness the corporate governance for the year 2006.
There is an increasing interest in analysing affect of corporate governance
on stock market in Pakistan but many issues in this area are uncovered. In
particular, firm-level corporate governance rating and its affect on the corporate
valuation, corporate ownership and corporate financing are central issues of this
area which needs in depth research. It is in this pers pective this study aims to
make contribution in the literature on corporate governance.
3.3. Corporate Governance Index

It is expected that better corporate governance is correlated with better
operating performance and higher market valuation in case of KSE listed firms.
In order to construct corporate governance index for the firms listed on KSE, a
broad, multifactor corporate governance rating is done which is based on the
data obtained from the annual reports of the firms submitted to SECP. The index
construction is as follows: for every firm, there are 22 governance proxies or
indicators are selected,8 these indicators are categorised into three main themes.
The three categories or sub-indices consist of: eight factors for the board
8
The list of these variables is given in the Appendix. Table A2.
19
composition and independence index seven for ownership, shareholdings and

seven for transparency, disclosure and audit.
The weighting is in the construction of index is based on subjective
judgments. The assigned priorities amongst and within each category is guided
by emp irical literature and financial experts in this area. The maximum score is
100, then, a score of 100 is assigned if factor is observed, 80 if largely observed,
50 for partially observed and 0 if it is not observed.9 The average is taken out to
arrive at the rating of one sub-index. By taking the average of three sub-indices
we obtain CGI for a particular firm.
Each sub-index comprises of series of factors leading to measure
corporate governance. Board composition index captures board autonomy,
structure and effectiveness. Autonomy is measured through various indicators of
board independence including percentage of nominees, outside and independent
directors on board, separation of CEO and chairman, a separate CFO (Corporate
Financial Officer). The various measures of board effectiveness are chair CEO
split, regularity of meetings, and attendance by outside board members, and
creditor’s nominee on board. The separation of role of CEO and chair dilutes the
power of CEO and increases board’s ability to properly execute the oversight
judgment. It also critically evaluates executive directors and the presence of
non-executive member on board reduces the influence of management on the
board. Moreover a higher proportion of outside directors10 on the board lead to
higher company performance. The CEO may find a smaller board more easily
dominated and more manageable due to the potential for social cohesion [Shaw
(1981)]. A large group of directors would require more time and effort on the
part of CEO to build census for a given course of action. Therefore if the board
is large, its independence is increased in the sense that the CEO’s ability to
influence is diluted and it is more difficult for the CEO to dominate the board.
There is also some evidence in favour of larger boards. Chaganli, Mahajam and
Sharma (1983) have studied the relationship between board size and bankruptcy
and have found that non-failed firms in their sample, tended to have larger
boards then the failed firms. Thus larger boards may be more independent of
management and that is the reason that the larger boards are associated with
higher performance.
The ownership and shareholdings is the second aspect of corporate
governance. The purpose of this sub-index is to measure the degree to which the
board and managers have incentives that align their interest with those of
shareholders. The third sub-index deals with disclosures. It attempts to measure
the public commitment of the firm to good governance. Components following
9
This is based on the report of World Bank, Report on the Observance of Standards and
Code (ROSC), Corporate Governance Country Assessment: Pakistan, June 2005.
10
Any member of a company’s board of directors, who is not an employee or shareholder in
the company.
20
full disclosure of corporate governance practices, directors’ bibliography, and

internal audit committee reduce information asymmetry and it is valued by
investor [Klein, et al. (2005)].
3.4. Determinants of Corporate Governance

The purpose is to assess the factors that determine the corporate
governance practices adopted by firms. It is expected that in case of Pakistan,
variables such as concentration of ownership, need of external finance,
profitable investment opportunities, and size of the firm are related to the firm’s
decision to comply with the code of corporate governance. Ownership
concentration is a substitute of weak investor protection [La Porta, et al. (1999)].
The more the concentration of ownership and larger the cash flow rights of large
shareholders, the more is entrenched and more the large owners influence the
decision-making process [Drobetz, Schillhofer, and Zimmerman (2004)]. The
concentration of ownership is negatively related to quality of corporate
governance practices. In some firms the entrepreneur founders who used their
own resources and retained earnings to finance their firms and have significant
ownership stakes in the listed firms . This issue is addressed by using ownership
concentration by top five largest shareholders. The firms with greater need of
external financing practice high quality governance [Durnev and Kim (2006);
Rajan and Zingales (1998)]. It is expected that there is negative association
between ownership concentration and corporate governance and positive
relation between external financing needs and quality of corporate governance.
Further, in countries with weak legal regimes firms have difficulty in raising
external finance due to investors’ lack of trust in legal protection of their rights
[La Porta, et al. (1998)]. In this study the significance of rule of law as
determinant of corporate governance is analyzed. To assess influence of legal
environment across the firm, this variable is introduced in interaction terms. To
test the hypothesis that the quality of corporate governance is positively related
to growth in investment opportunities, and negatively to concentration of
ownership the model suggested by Dunev and Kim (2006) is estimated:
CGI i = α + β1EFi + β 2Owni + β 3Invi + β 4Sizei + β 5Lw i

… (3.1)
* EFi + β 6 Lw i * Owni + ε it
Where CGLi is a vector of corporate governance index, Ownt is the

concentration of ownership held by top five shareholders, EFi is external finance
that is calculated by multiplying market capitalisation of each firm with
percentage of shares that are not taken by the top five shareholders of each firm,
Invi is investment opportunities measured by the past growth in sales, Lwi is rule
of law that is used for the proxy of enforcement of law, and Sizei is measured by
the log of total asset. εi is random error term.
21
The model (3.1) develops the linkage between corporate governance and
ownership concentration, need of external finance, quality of enforcement of law
and other firm specific variables and interaction terms [Durnev and Kim
(2006)]. In the set of control variables which include size (natural logarithm of
assets) and investment opportunities (average sale growth) are used in
estimation. Firm size and growth control for potential advantages of scale and
scope, market power and market opportunities. The leverage (long term
debt/total assets) controls for different risk characteristics of firm. Ownership
concentration is expected to improve investor protection. In case of family
ownership the entrepreneur have significant ownership stakes in the listed firms
and use their own resources and retained earning to finance their firms, to
capture concentration of ownership the percentage of ownership by top five
largest shareholders is used.
A growing firm with large need of external financing has more incentive
to adopt better governance practices in an attempt to lower cost of capital
[Klapper and Love (2003) and Gompers, et al. (2003)]. The firms with more
need of external finance would be more likely to choose better governance
structure because firm’s insiders believe that better governance structure will
further raise firm value they adopt good governance to signal that insider behave
well and they can easily excess to external finances.
3.5. Estimation Technique

The panel data estimation technique is used because by pooling cross-
section and time series the sample size increases. The panel data take account of
the endogenity and control for the firm specific effects. The Generalised Method
of Moments is also used suggested by Georgen, et al. (2005). To obtain
consistent estimates, the model is first differenced to estimate the fixed effects,
then all right hand side variables in lag are used as instruments and thus
eliminating inconsistency arising from endogenity [Arellano and Bond (1991)].
The consistency of GMM model depends on the validity of both of both the
instruments and the assumption that the error terms do not exhibit serial
correlation. Therefore two specification tests, Sargan test of over-identifying
restriction and test that error term is not serially correlated are performed. The
failure to reject the null hypothesis in both tests gives support to GMM model
[Arellano and Bond (1991)]. The following equation describes the relationship:
Yit = α + β X it + µ it … … … … … (3.2)
Where Y and X have both i and t subscripts for i =1.2, N firms and t = 1, 2,…T
time period. Yit represent the dependent variable in the model, Xit contain set of
explanatory variables. The previous empirical studies suggest that the
Generalised Method of Moment (GMM) is more suitable method [Arellano and
Bonds (1991)]. The lagged dependent variable is most likely to be correlated
22
with the firm specific effect and estimates using ordinary least square method
(OLS) provided inconsistent and biased estimates. To get the consistent
estimation, the model is first difference to estimate the fixed effect and then we
use the instruments on the right hand side variable using their lagged values to
estimate the inconsistency which can be arising from endogenity of the
regressors.
For panel data we have six years of data and 60 firms of Karachi Stock
Exchange (KSE). The Arellano and Bonds (1991) suggest that the estimation
from GMM is first difference; which removes the time invariant µi and leave the
equations automatable by instrument as described by the following equation:
Yit – Yit-1 = a + (y it –y it-2 ) + ß (xit – xit-1 ) + (µi -µi ) + (v it –v it-1 ) … (3.3)
Which leads us to assume that there is no serial correlation in the disturbance
term eit and all the lagged level of variables can be used as valid instruments in
the first difference equation.
3.6. Empirical Findings

The model (3.1) develops the linkage between corporate governance and
ownership concentration, need of external finance, quality of enforcement of law
and other firm specific variables and interaction terms [Durnev and Kim
(2006)]. Table 3.1 presents the summary statistics of total corporate governance
index CGIi and its sub-indices, which are Board Composition (Board i ),
Ownership and Shareholdings (Share i ) and Disclosure, Transparency and
auditing (Disci ).
Table 3.1
Summary Statistics of Corporate Governance Index
Mean Max Min SD CGI Board Rights Disc
CGI 54.30 70.42 30.89 7.99 1.00
Board 55.58 87.50 25.00 16.02 0.62 1.00
Share 46.97 78.57 7.14 16.10 0.57 0.11 1.00
Disc 60.36 94.29 30.00 10.93 0.44 0.05 0.06 1.00
This Table 3.1 provides the summary statistics of distribution of

Corporate Governance index, and the sub-indices (Board, Shareholdings and
Disclosure). This table also presents the pair-wise correlation between the
indices. Appendix A gives detailed information on each sub-index. The
maximum score is 100, which is assigned if indicator is observed, 80 if largely
observed 50 for partially observed and 0 if it is not observed. The total index
consist of governance proxies in three sub-categories and is constructed using
the equal weighting scheme. The average rating of CGI is 54.30 and it ranges
23
from 70.42 to 30.89. The sub-index with highest rating is Disc (Disclosure,
Transparency and Auditing), which can be explained by the fact that this area is
emphasised by regulations of SECP.
To investigate the determinants of corporate governance due to
multicollenearity in ownership concentration and external finance firm corporate
governance score is regressed on two set of determinants and results are reported
in Table 3.2. One set includes concentration of ownership and control variable
and other determinants include external finance plus control variables.
Ownership structure shows negative and significant relationship with CGI and
Disclosure scores however, when use interaction term of own with law the result
shows no impact of legal environment. This suggests that weakness of
investment protection and absence of corporate control firms rely on governance
structure that is dominated by high concentration of ownership. The firm with
concentrated ownership there is no reason to expect firms to disclose more. The
inclusion of disclosure and transparency scores and other attributes are included
in CGI scores also and they are not directly related to agency problem. In
addition, this result indicates that negative relationship between corporate
governance and ownership concentration is strong with weak legal regime. The
Dunev and Kim (2006) have come up with same finding in case of US market.
Table 3.2
Evidence on Determinants of Corporate Governance
Determinants of Determinants of Determinants of Determinants of
CGI Board Shareholdings Disclosure
EF 0.16** 0.63** 0.20*** 0.29***
(1.92) (1.62) (1.57) (1.53)
Own –1.34** –0.30*** –0.23* –0.29
(–1.89) (–1.47) (–2.44) (–1.33)
Inv 0.05** 0.01*** 0.12** 0.03** 0.11** 0.11** 0.13** 0.04***
(1.76) (1.57) (1.69) (1.52) (1.84) (1.82) (1.64) (1.58)
SIZE 0.56*** 0.69** 0.62*** 0.12** 0.29*** 0.29** 0.18*** 0.16**
(1.54) (1.82) (1.47) (1.48) (1.67) (1.92) (1.43) (1.85)
Lev 0.14** 0.05** 0.31*** 0.35** 0.23*** 0.17***
(1.92) (1.71) (1.67) (1.56) (1.46) (1.52)
LAW*OWN 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.25
(1.11) (0.11) (0.61) (0.83)
LAW*EF 0.001 0.01 0.004 0.02
(0.56) (0.89) (1.02) (1.11)
Constant –0.27 0.48 0.42 1.11 –0.23 –0.14
(–0.31) (1.27) (0.27) (1.02) (–0.07) (–0.71)
R2 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31
Note: The *, ** and *** indicates the significance levels at 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent
respectively. Values in parenthesis are t-statistics.
The results show positive association between need of external finance

and corporate governance quality, because good practices are signal that insiders
are adopting good practices. As a result the value of firm is higher and
24
entrepreneur can get easy and less costly access to external finance [Pistor, et al.
(2003)]. The positive sign of the coefficient of size shows that large firms show
better governance. Investment opportunities have positive impact both CGI and
Disclosure scores. This confirms the theoretical notion that firms with better
investment opportunities perform better corporate governance practice. The
interaction terms of legal regime with external financing show positive and
insignificant relationship with CGI and Disclosure scores which suggests that in
legal environment which is less investor friendly firm specific factors matters
more in choice of corporate governance practices.

The corporate governance index and disclosure and transparency
index are used wh ich are developed using the information from the annual
reports of the companies. In order to construct corporate governance index
for the firms listed on KSE, a broad, multifactor corporate governance rating
is done which is based on the data obtained fro m the annual reports of the
firms submitted to SECP. The index construction is as follows: for every
firm, there are 22 governance proxies or indicators are selected , these
indicators are categorised into three main themes. The three categories or
sub-indices consist of: eight factors for the board composition and
independence, seven for ownership, shareholdings and seven for
transparency, disclosure and audit.
The sample firm consists of 00 firms which are active, representative
of all non -financial sectors and comprises more than 90 percent of market
capitalisation at Karachi stock market. In this Chapter, we presented a
simple model of determinants of corporate governance. Our result shows
that the strength of corporate governance systems is affected by the
concentration of ownership, external financing needs of corporations, size,
investment opportunities of the firm. Thus with good corporate governance
standards in place; it is ultimately the financial market which rewards good
governance practices and punishes bad governance. The results show that
firms with high growth and large in size are in more need of external finance
adopt better governance practices and are more transparent. The firms with
more concentrated ownership do not follow the good qualit y governance and
disclose less. The law does not matter in adopting good practices. Our
results also generally confirm the prediction of the theory that enforcement
of law does not matter in investment growth and ownership structure in
weak legal regime countries like Pakistan. Thus legal protection is essential
for effective corporate governance. Our results adds an important link to the
explanation of the consequences weak legal environment for financial
market development, external financing, corporate valuation and corporate
governance.
25
Chapter 4: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND

CORPORATE VALUATION
4.1. Introduction
Corporate governance is the means by which minority share holders are
protected from the expropriation of the managers or controlling shareholders.
Good corporate governance contributes to sustainable economic development by
enhancing the performance of companies and increasing their access to outside
capital. In emerging markets good corporate governance serves a number of
public policy objectives. It reduces vulnerability of the financial crises,
reinforces property rights; reduces transaction cost and cost of capital and leads
to capital market development. Corporate governance concerns the relationship
among the management, board of directors, controlling shareholders, minority
shareholders and other stakeholders.
The better corporate governance leads to better firm performance by
protecting the rights of outside investors from the expropriation of controlling
shareholders. In Pakistan, with traditionally low dispersion of ownership, the
primary methods to solve agency problems are the legal protection of minority
investors, the use of boards as monitors of senior management, and an active
market for corporate control. In contrast to developed markets in Pakistan
corporate governance is characterised by lesser reliance on capital markets and
outside investors, but stronger reliance on large inside investors and financial
institutions to achieve efficiency in the corporate sector. In this case, outside
(smaller) investors face the risk of expropriation in the form of wealth transfers
to larger shareholders.
The main focus of this chapter is to examine the relationship between
corporate governance and firm performance for publicly listed Karachi Stock
Exchange (KSE) firms. In the firm level corporate governance characteristics we
considered board composition and effectiveness, ownership and shareholding
rights, auditing, transparency and disclosure quality. They are summarised in an
aggregate corporate governance index (CGI) which is computed as sum of three
indices. It is only investigated whether corporate governance broadly defined
affect firm performance, but identify whether some corporate governance factors
are more important than other corporate governance indices and firm value
which is measured by Tobin Q, ROA and ROE with corporate governance
practices adopted by these firms.
This study extends our earlier work [Javid and Iqbal (2007)] in several
ways: by updating the data, adding more variables and using panel data
estimation technique. It contributes to the emerging literature in Pakistan
relating indices of corporate governance to firm level performance which is
measured by Tobin Q (which is market performance measure and captures
market penetration) and return on assets and return on equity (accounting
26
performance measures). This study adds to existing literature by applying the

relevance of law for corporate governance in Pakistan and emphasises that
beyond the law on book, law enforcement must be credible [La Porta, et al.
(1999); Pistor, et al. ( 2000)].
The plan of the chapter is as follows. The review of empirical findings of
previous research is presented in Section 2. Section 3 briefly reviews the
corporate governance policy framework of Pakistan. Section 4 provides
methodological framework and a description of the data. The results for the
relationship between corporate governance and firm valuation are presented in
Section 5 and last section concludes.

“In the new and evolving international environment with a large private
sector and global integration of world capital markets, corporate governance has
become the prominent topic of institutional reform. For governments,
encouraging better corporate governance practices in policy making enables
firms to raise more domestic as well as foreign capital. For firms, an efficient
market will differentiate between the firms that embrace best corporate
governance practices and those who find corporate governance a distraction.
Therefore firms attempting to drive their competitiveness and reduce the cost of
capital will adopt best corporate governance practices. For investors, corporate
governance will be put on par with financial indicators when evaluating
investment decisions because corporate governance has a significant impact on
equity performance and risk”, FTSE (2005).
La Porta, et al. (1999) have shown that, for the 20 largest listed
companies in 27 wealthy, industrialised countries, 36 percent are widely held, 30
percent remain family controlled, and 18 percent are state-controlled, using a 20
percent direct plus indirect ownership measure.
“There are three general corporate governance models based on
ownership: the separation of company ownership and control because
shareholding is widely dispersed; a dominant owner who exercises control and
appoints management; and an intermediate case where a large shareholder (a
blockholder in the terminology) has veto power over major management
decisions. Shareholder control may be achieved through majority ownership, or
indirectly through the pyramiding of share ownership through affiliated
companies that are part of the (family-controlled) business group.
In Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, and indeed most developing economies
there is no separation of ownership and control; owners control their companies
even when they are listed. The United States, United Kingdom and Japan are
cases where, for most companies, shareholding is widely distributed, with no
dominant blockholders. Even so, the US and the UK’s degree of emphasis on
shareholder value and external market disciplines are at the other extreme from
27
the Japanese case. The continental European corporate governance systems are
significantly different in some respects from the market-oriented Anglo-
American model. Each European country has its own distinct laws, institutions
and norms. Corporate governance in Germany and Japan are often compared
since both have relied heavily on relationship banking and monitoring by major
bank creditors, in contrast to the greater reliance on capital market finance in the
US and UK”, Patrick (2001).
“In recent years, there has been significant effort to understand the
agency conflicts among the different agents related to the firm and the
effectiveness of the internal and external control mechanisms in inducing
managerial value-enhancing actions. These controls traditionally have been
classified as internal or external. A recent group of studies in the area of
corporate governance recognise the possible existence of interactions among the
different control mechanisms. In this sense, Williamson (1983) states the
substitution hypothesis between internal and external control mechanisms,
according to that, when the takeover market is weak, as in the case of the
Spanish market, there is a greater role for internal control mechanisms. The
alternative control mechanisms are grouped forming the corporate governance
system. Traditionally these systems have been classified as external (market
oriented) and internal (network oriented). The external systems, dominant in
Anglo-Saxon economies, are based on the control exerted by the markets. These
systems are characterised by the existence of a highly developed and liquid
capital market, with a high amount of listed companies.
The Spanish economy is characterised by a low proportion of listed
companies compared to the US or the UK. Moreover, the stock ownership is
highly concentrated in the hands of non-financial companies, financial
institutions and families. This lower development of the financial markets and
the stability and concentration of stock ownership suggests that the Spanish
corporate governance system is an internal one based on the board of directors
and the supervisory role of large shareholders”, Fernandez and Arrondo
(2005).
There is a large of body of empirical research that has assessed the impact
of corporate governance on firm performance for the developed markets
[Anderson and Reeb (2004); Bahjat and Black (1999, 2001); Black, et al.
(2003); Bradley (2004); Drobetz, et al. (2004); Durnev and Kim (2005); Roe, et
al. (1996); Gompers, et al. (2003) and numerous others]. These studies have
shown that good governance practices have led the significant increase in the
economic value added of firms, higher productivity and lower risk of systematic
financial failure for countries. The studies by Shleifer and Vishny (1997) and
Hermalin and Weisbach (2003) provide an excellent literature review in this
area. It has now become an important area of research in emerging markets as
well [Klapper and Love (2003); Javid and Iqbal (2006) and Mir and Nishat
(2004)].
28
There are some empirical studies that analyse the impact of different
corporate governance practices in the cross-section of countries. A noteworthy
study in this regard is done by Mitton (2001) find the firm-level differences in
variables are related to corporate governance has strong impact on firm
performance during East Asian Crisis in Korean, Malaysian, Indonesian,
Philippines and Thailand. The results suggests that better price performance is
associated with firms that have indicators of higher disclosure quality, with
firms that have higher outside ownership concentration and with firms that are
focused rather than diversified.
Most of the empirical work for exploring possible relationship between
corporate governance and firm performance is done for developed markets. For
US Firms a broad measure of Corporate Governance Gov-Score is prepared by
Brown and Caylor (2004) and their findings indicate that better governed firms
are relatively more profitable, more valuable and pay more cash to their
shareholders. Gompers, et al. (2003) show that firms with stronger shareholders
rights have higher firm value, higher profits, higher sales growth, lowest capital
expenditures, and made fewer corporate acquisitions.
It is expected that limiting board size is to improve firm performance
because the benefits by larger boards of increased monitoring are outweighed by
the poorer communication and decision-making of larger groups [Lipton and
Lorsch (1992) and Jensen (1993)]. The study by Yermack (1996) provides an
inverse relation between board size and profitability, asset utilisation, and
Tobin’s Q which conform this hypothesis. Anderson, et al. (2004) come to
conclusion that the cost of debt is lower for larger boards, because creditors
believe these firms are having more effective monitors of their financial
accounting processes. Brown and Caylor (2004) find that firms with board sizes
of between six and 15 have higher returns on equity and higher net profit
margins than do firms with other board sizes.
The relation between the proportion of outside directors, a proxy for
board independence, and firm performance is inconclusive. Fosberg (1989),
Weisbach (1991) and Bhagat and Black (2002) find no relation between the
proportion of outsider directors and various performance measures. Baysinger
and Butler (1985) and Rosenstein and Wyatt (1990) on the other hand show that
the market rewards firms for appointing outside directors; Brickley, et al. (1994)
find a positive relation between the proportion of outsider directors and the stock
market reaction to poison pill adoptions; and Anderson et al. (2004) show that
the cost of debt, as proxied by bond yield spreads, is inversely related to board
independence. The studies that using financial statement data and Tobin’s Q find
no link between board independence and firm performance, while those using
stock returns data or bond yield data find a positive link [Hermalin and
Weisbach (1991) and Bhagat and Black (2002)]. Brown and Caylor (2004) do
not find Tobin’s Q to increase in board independence, but they do find that firms
29
with independent boards have higher returns on equity, higher profit margins,
larger dividend yields, and larger stock repurchases, suggesting that board
independence is associated with other important measures of firm performance
aside from Tobin’s Q.
The evidence on the association between audit-related governance factors
and firm performance is mixed. Brown and Caylor (2004) show that
independent audit committees are positively related to dividend yield, but not to
operating performance or firm valuation. Klein (2002) documents a negative
relation between earnings management and audit committee independence, and
Anderson, et al. (2004) find that entirely independent audit committees have
lower debt financing costs.
The separation of CEO and chairman affects firms’ performance because
the agency problems are higher when the same person holds both positions.
Yermack (1996) shows that firms are more valuable, when the CEO and board
chair positions are separated. Core, et al. (1999) finds that CEO compensation is
lower when the CEO and board chair positions are separate. Brown and Caylor
(2004) conclude that firms are more valuable when the CEO and board chair
positions are separate.
In past few years corporate governance has become an important area of
research in Pakistan. Mir and Nishat (2004); Shaheen and Nishat (2004)
empirically test the link between corporate governance structure and firm
performance for Pakistan using one year cross firm data and find a positive
relation between governance and firm performance measures. Javid and Iqbal
use panel data analysis and document a positive and significant association
between the quality of firm-level corporate governance and firm performance
for the period 2003 to 2006.
There is an increasing interest in analysing affect of corporate governance
on stock market in Pakistan but many issues in this area are uncovered. In
particular, the firm-level corporate governance rating and its affect on the
valuation of the firm, which is central issue of this area needs in depth research.
It is in this perspective this chapter aims to make contribution in the literature on
corporate governance.
4.3. Data and Methodological Framework
4.3.1. Data
To asses the relationship corporate governance and firm valuation at firm
level, data of 60 non-financial firms listed on Karachi Stock Exchange is used.11
The data set is obtained from the annual reports of these firms for the year 2003
to 2008. Data on rule of law has been taken from World Bank governance
11
List of companies is provided in Appendix Table A1.
30
indicators. The ranking of rule of law as ranging from 0 to 1 for Pakistan is 0.34
as average of five years. That indicates very poor legal environment for Pakistan
in term of enforcement of law. 12
The Corporate Governance index and sub-indices are developed in
Chapter 3. The size is defined as natural logarithm of total asset and growth of
sales is taken as investment opportunities. The leverage is defined as ratio of
book value of long term debt to book value of total asset. The data of all these
variables are obtained from the annual reports of the listed firms in the sample.
The panel data models are used and GMM is adopted as estimation technique
discussed in Chapter 3.
4.3.2. Empirical Methodology

It is well established that country’s laws of corporate governance affect
firm value. 13 The objective is to examine whether variation in firm-specific
governance is associated with differences in firm value, when they have
different characteristics (size, investment opportunities and leverage) and doing
business in poor legal environment.14 To explore the relationship between
corporate governance and firm valuation: Tobin’s Q, return on assets, return on
equity and dividend pay-out ratio. To test the hypothesis that the firms with
good corporate governance practices are valued higher, the model proposed by
Black, et al. (2003) is used which is as follows:
Perfi = α + β1CGI i + β 2Invi + β 3Levi + β 4Size + β 5Lwi * CGI i + ε it (4.1)
Where Prefi is performance measure Tobin’s, D/Pi , ROA i and ROEi are used to
measure firm performance, CGIi is a vector of corporate governance index, Invi
is investment opportunities measured by the past growth in sales, Lw i is rule of
law that is used for the proxy of enforcement of law, and Sizei is measured by
the log of total asset. εi is random error term. It is expected that firms that are
adopting better governance practices with better investment opportunities and
larger is size should have higher valuation.
In exploring that good corporate governance cause higher firm valuation,
an important issue is endogenity [Black, et al. (2003) and others ]. The firms
with higher market value would be more likely to choose better governance
structure because the firm’s insiders believe that better governance structure will
12
Although as Pakistan belongs to common law countries legal origin. In view of La Porta,
et al. (1997) common law countries provide strong investor protection in term of law on books. The
ranking of rule of law indicate the fact that enforcement of law is very low against high ranking on
law on books.
13
La Porta, et al. (2002) show that firm value is positively associated with the rights of
minority shareholders. Daines (2001) finds that firms incorporated in Delaware have higher
valuations than other U.S. firms.
14
As indicated by the ranking of rule of law by World Bank.
31
further raise firm value. In addition, the firms adopt good governance to signal
that insiders are doing well to raise the firm value. A growing firm with large
need of external financing has more incentive to adopt better governance
practices in an attempt to lower cost of capital [Klapper and Love (2003) and
Gompers, et al. (2003)]. These investment opportunities are reflected in the
valuation of the firm, implying a positive association between governance and
firm performance. Therefore, in estimating governance-performance relation the
panel data estimation technique is used to control for endogenity.
To deal with issue a set of control variables is included following Kaplan
and Zingales, (1997); Black, et al., (2003) and Klein, et al. (2005). The firm
performance is regressed on corporate governance indices and other control
variables. Along with three governance indices, board, shareholdings and
disclosure, a set of control variables which include size (ln assets), leverage
(debt/total asset ratio) and investment opportunities (growth rate of sales) are
used in estimation. Firm size and investment opportunities control for potential
advantages of scale and scope, market power and market opportunities. The
leverage controls for different risk characteristics of firm.

To investigate whether differences in the quality of firm level corporate
governance also help to explain firm level difference in performance, we regress
firm performance measures on index of corporate governance (CGIi ) and control
variables The firm’s performance is measured by Tobin Q, ROA, ROE and D/P
and the results are reported in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. The results of association
between corporate governance indices and Tobin Q are presented in Table 4.1.
The Tobin Q is regressed on the total corporate governance index CGIi with
each sub-index add one by one along with set of control variables There is
positive and significant relationship between CGIi and Tobin’s Q supporting our
hypothesis that corporate governance affects firm value. The CGIi remains
positive but significance level reduces with adding more explanatory variables.
This shows that the inclusion of firm characteristics have improved the
specification of the model. Therefore we find evidence that corporate
governance effects firm’s performance. This result suggests that a certain level
of governance regulations in emerging market like Pakistan has not make the
overall level of governance up to a point that governance remain important for
investor. The inter-firm differences in firm characteristics matters to investor in
valuing firm. This result is also conformed by several studies for developing
markets as well as developed markets [La Porta, et al. (2002) and Drobetz, et al.
(2004)]. The financial control variables are for the most part statistically
significant. Investment opportunities have positive impact aggregate corporate
governance index and sub-indices. This confirms the theoretical notion that
firms with better investment opportunities perform better corporate governance
32
practice. The firm size has positive and significant association with firm
performance. The leverage is positively and significantly related to firm
performance. The interaction terms of legal environment with corporate
governance show positive and insignificant relationship with Tobin Q which
suggests that in legal environment which is less investor friendly firm specific
factors matters more in choice of corporate governance practices.
The results based on total corporate governance suggest that corporate
governance does matter in Pakistani stock market. However these findings do
not fully reveal the importance of each category of corporate governance to firm
performance. The results regarding relationship of firm value with three sub-
indices and all control variables. These results indicate that two sub-indices
except disclosure have positive and some significant impact on firm
performance. The board composition and ownership and shareholdings have
some significant influence on firm performance. However investors are not
willing to pay a premium for companies that are engaged in open and full
disclosure. The results based on sub-indices reveal importance of board
composition, ownership and shareholdings with firm performance and this
evidence is also supported by other studies [Klein, et al. (2005)].
The board composition index has a positive and statistically significant
effect on firm performance and when entered in model with other sub-indices it
remains positive but become insignificant but coefficient of determination has
improved. This past evidence generally failed to find any clear relation between
board composition and firm performance. The survey of literature concludes that
the evidence on this matter is ambiguous [Bahjat and Black (1999, 2000) and
Hermalian and Weisbach (2003)]. The ownership and shareholdings sub-index
has a positive effect on Tobin Q when it is entered into model alone however,
when include with other sub-indices but this effect is turned insignificant. These
results show that most of the firms have ownership with dominant block holder
or have ownership concentration and in block holder firm board independence is
not associated with good performance. The assumption of agency theory does
not fully apply to these firms where the alignment of ownership and control is
tighter thus suggesting the need of outside directors on the board of these firms.
As control variables are included specification of model improves.
The results of firm performance including control variables are also
consistent with prior research. The coefficient of size is positive and significant in
most of the cases. This shows that the listed firms that are likely to grow faster
usually have more intangible assets and they adopt better corporate governance
practices. The coefficient of investment opportunities is significant and positive
because higher growth opportunities are associated with higher firm valuation.
The coefficient of leverage is positive and significant, is consistent with the
prediction of standard theory of capital structure which says that higher leverage
increase firm’s value due to the interest tax-shield [Rajan and Zingales (1998)].
33
The interaction terms of legal environment with corporate governance sub indices
show positive and insignificant relationship with firm performance indicating that
in weak legal regime the firm chose to adopt better governance practices.
Table 4.1
Evidence on Corporate Governance and Firm Performance (Tobin Q)
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
CGI 0.03**
(1.97)
Board 0.01* 0.02*
(5.04) (2.06)
Share1 0.04** 0.01
(3.14) (1.41)
DIS 0.04 0.01
(0.18) (0.18)
INV 0.03** 0.02* 0.003* 0.003 0.002*
(1.98) (2.04) (3.51) (2.36) (2.15)
SIZE 0.05* 0.04* 0.04* 0.05* 0.04*
(5.27) (4.46) (3.85) (4.20) (3.05)
Lev 0.06* 0.06* 0.04* 0.06 0.06*
(3.70) (4.00) (2.16) (4.06) (2.09)
LAW*CGI 0.003 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.001
(0.06) (0.71) (0.91) (0.99) (0.01)
Constant –0.07 –0.15 0.04 –0.15 –0.06
(–0.37) (–0.23) (0.18) (–0.79) (–0.80)
R2 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30
respectively. Values in parenthesis are t-stat istics.
Table 4.2
Evidence on Corporate Governance and Firm Performance (ROA)
CGI 0.39**
(1.52)
Board 0.13* 0.21**
(2.00) (1.84)
Share1 0.01 0.13***
(1.23) (1.52)
DIS 0.23* 0.06
(2.71) (1.26)
INV 0.02** 0.02*** 0.01** 0.03* 0.0***
(1.39) (1.46) (1.32) (2.36) (1.38)
SIZE 0.26* 0.29* 0.27* 0.28* 0.28***
(6.62) (6.29) (5.26) (2.85) (1.69)
Lev 0.33* 0.33* 0.33* 0.31* 0.06*
(5.31) (4.26) (3.26) (4.88) (2.09)
LAW*CGI –0.11 –0.42* –0.03 0.44* –0.10
(–0.51) (–1.11) (–0.08) (1.26) (0.46)
Constant 0.26 0.22 0.31 0.71 –0.06
(0.33) (0.29) (0.40) (0.91) (–0.80)
R2 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.31
34
Table 4.3
Evidence on Corporate Governance and Firm Performance (D/P)
CGI 0.01**
(1.64)
Board 0.02* 0.01
(2.06) (1.13)
Share1 0.01 0.01
(1.41) (1.37)
DIS 0.01* 0.02
(2.44) (0.51)
INV 0.22** 0.22** 0.17*** 0.12*** 0.01**
(1.96) (1.88) (1.65) (1.59) (1.84)
SIZE 0.03* 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.02 0.01*
(2.02) (1.38) (1.40) (0.91) (2.05)
Lev 0.02** 0.06* 0.03** 0.01** 0.02*
(1.90) (2.02) (1.83) (1.84) (2.72)
LAW*CGI 0.16 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.13
(0.81) (1.17) (1.02) (1.21) (1.11)
Constant –0.62 –2.13 –0.77 –0.80 1.65
(–0.71) (–1.50) (–0.81) (–0.38) (0.94)
R2 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.31
The results based on association between ROA and corporate governance

and ROE and corporate governance are almost same. In Table 4.2 the results
regarding relationship of firm value using return on assets with aggregate
corporate index and three sub-indices and all control variables are presented.
The evidence suggests that corporate governance affects corporate valuation in
Pakistani; however, the importance of each category of corporate governance is
not same in explaining firm performance. These results indicate that two sub-
indices: board composition and disclosures have positive and some significant
impact on firm performance. The ownership and shareholdings have no
significant influence on firm performance. These results show that most of the
firms have ownership with dominant block holder or have ownership
concentration and in these firms the return on assets are not associated with
good performance. The large sized firms with more investment opportunities
and which are levered have high return on asset. As regards the quality of legal
environment the interaction terms of rule of law with corporate governance
show no relationship with return on asset which suggests that in weak legal
environment the law does not matter in firm valuation [La Porta, et al. (2000)].
35
To investigate the relation between firm value measured by dividend pay-

out ratio and corporate governance D/P is regressed on corporate governance
and firm attributes: investment opportunities, size, leverage and size. Positive
and significant coefficient of CGI reveals the fact that firms with higher-quality
corporate governance are valued higher and distribute the dividend more. When
D/P is regressed on sub-indices of corporate governance, the board composition
and disclosure and transparency index have positive and significant results but
positive and insignificant for shareholder and ownership indices. In general the
ownership and shareholders rights that align the managers and shareholders
interest are significantly valued by investors. This is also true for board
composition and independence index. Both sub-indices board and disclosures
have positive association with firm performance. These results are consistent
with agency theory which focuses on monitoring of managers whose interests
are assumed to diverge from those of other share holders. However the
assumptions of agency theory are not applied to block holder owned firms. Most
of the firms listed on KSE are family owned or institution owned. In these firms
the alignment of ownership and control is tight and thus suggesting the need of
outside directors on the board. Interaction term for CGI with law has the
expected positive sign for Pakistan with poor legal environment is consisted
with notion that positive relationship between corporate governance and
valuation is stronger in weak legal regime . The study by Dernev and Kim (2006)
also conclude that high class corporate governance is valued higher in case of
US market.
Investment opportunities have positive and significant impact on
corporate valuation measured by the D/P in all specifications. Our results
confirm our predictions that firms with better investment opportunities have
higher dividend payout ratio. The coefficient of size is positive and significant
in most of the cases. This shows that the listed firms that are likely to grow
faster usually have more intangible assets and they adopt better corporate
governance practices. The coefficient of leverage is positive and insignificant,
which is contrary with the prediction of standard theory of capital structure
which says that higher leverage increase firm’s value due to the interest tax-
shield [Rajan and Zingales (1998)]. The result of interaction term of rule of
law with corporate governance does not have any significant impact on the
valuation of the firm. These results indicate that legal framework is not
providing relevant information regarding firm dividend pay-out in case of
Pakistan. However, these findings are consistent to some extent with the
notion that positive relationship is between governance and valuation is
stronger in weak legal regimes [La Porta, et al. (1997)]. This explains the
reason of mixed relation between firm valuation and corporate governance in
US firms which are subject to strongest legal framework worldwide [La Porta,
et al. (1998) and Dunev and Kim (2006)].
36
When dividend pay-out is used as performance measure the aggregate

corporate governance and the board composition and independence has a
positive and statistically significant affect on firm’s dividend payout and when
entered in model with other sub-indices. The ownership and shareholdings sub-
index has a positive effect on firm performance when it is entered into model
alone and also when is included with other sub-indices but this affect is
marginally significant or it remains positive but become insignificant but
coefficient of determination has improved. These results show that most of the
firms have ownership with dominant block holder or have ownership
concentration and in block holder firm board independence is not associated
with good performance. The assumption of agency theory does not fully apply
to these firms where the alignment of ownership and control is tighter thus
suggesting the need of outside directors on the board of these firms. As control
variables are included specification of model improves.
The results of dividend payout regressed on corporate governance
including control variables are also consistent with prior research [Arnott and
Asness (2003) and Shaheen and Nishat (2004)]. There is positive association
between corporate governance and dividend payouts consistent with the
theoretical notion that the firms that are better governed payout more. The
coefficient of size is positive and significant in most of the cases. This shows
that the listed firms that are likely to grow faster usually have more intangible
assets and they adopt better corporate governance practices. The coefficient of
investment opportunities is significant and positive because higher profitable
opportunities are associated with higher firm valuation. The coefficient of
leverage is positive and significant, is consistent with the prediction of standard
theory of capital structure which says that higher leverage increase firm’s value
due to the interest tax-shield [Rajan and Zingales (1998)]. The interaction terms
of legal regime with investment opportunities show positive and insignificant
relationship with CGI, board, shareholdings and disclosure scores which
suggests that in legal environment which is less investor friendly firm specific
factors matters more in choice of corporate governance practices. These results
are consistent theoretical proposition of La Porta, et al. (1999) and with
empirical findings by Durnev and Kim (2006) and Pistor, et al. (2003).
4.5. Summary and Conclusions

The relationship between corporate governance variables has been widely
analysed for the developed markets but very little work has been done on how a
broad range of governance mechanism factors effect the firm performance in
thinly traded emerging markets. In this study we fill this gap by analysing the
relationship between corporate governance and firm performance for the
Karachi Stock Market. To proxy for firm-level governance we use a rating
system to evaluate the stringency of a set of governance practices and cover
37
various governance categories: such as board composition, ownership and

shareholdings and transparency. Our sample firm consists of 50 firms which re
active, representative of all non-financial sectors and comprises more than 80
percent of market capitalisation at Karachi stock market.
The results document a positive and significant relation between the
quality of firm-level corporate governance and various firm performance
measures. In general the ownership and shareholders rights that align the
managers and shareholders interest are significantly valued by investors. This is
also true for board composition and independence index. Both these sub-indices
have positive association with firm performance. These results are consistent
with agency theory which focuses on monitoring of managers whose interests
are assumed to diverge from those of other share holders. However, the
assumptions of agency theory are not applied to block holder owned firms. Most
of the firms listed on KSE are family owned or institution owned. In these firms
the alignment of ownership and control is tight and thus suggesting the need of
outside directors on the board. However, the results show that open and
transparent disclosure mechanism that reduces the information asymmetry have
no affect on firm performance. This is due to the reason that we have used the
annual reports as data source and these reports do not reveal all the information
required for rating corporate governance. As regards the quality of legal
environment the interaction terms of rule of law with corporate governance
show no relationship with firm performance; which suggests that even firms in
weak legal environment can enjoy high valuation if they adopt better quality
governance and disclose practices [La Porta, et al. (2000)].
Our results show that Corporate Governance Code 2002 potentially
improves the governance and decision making process of firms listed at KSE.
Large shareholders still have a tight grip of companies. However, one can argue
that adequate firm-level governance standard can not replace the solidity of the
firm. The low production and bad management practices can not be covered
with transparent disclosures and transparency standards.

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP
5.1. Introduction
The nature of relation between the ownership structure and corporate
governance structure has been the core issue in the corporate governance
literature. From a firms’ perspective, ownership structure determines the firms’
profitability, enjoyed by different stake-holders. In particular, ownership
structure is an incentive device for reducing the agency costs associated with the
separation of ownership and management, which can be used to protect property
rights of the firm [Barbosa and Louri (2002)]. With the development of
38
corporate governance, many corporations owned by disperse shareholders and

are controlled by hire manager. As a results incorporated firms whose owners
are dispersed and each of them owns a small fraction of total outstanding shares,
tend to underperformed as indicated by Berle and Means (1932). Latter this
theoretical relationship between a firm’s ownership structure and its
performance is empirically examined by Jensen and Meckling (1976) and
Shlefier and Vishny (1986).
La Porta, et al. (1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000) have shown that the
countries with weak legal environment, the original owners tries to ma intain
large positions in their corporations which results in concentration of ownership.
Equity ownership by insiders can align insider interest with those of
shareholders, thereby leading to greater firm value [Klapper and Love (2002)] In
underdeveloped markets in addition to weak legal enforcement reasons, due to
underdeveloped nature of financial markets that would allow limited access to
external financing and result in predominance of family firms [La Porta, et al.
(1997, 1998) and Pistor, et al. (2003)]. In case of Pakistan the majority of the
firms are owned by the family or institution [Cheema, et al. (2003) and Iqbal
(2006)]. Further the researchers have comprehensively studied the conflict
between managers and owners regarding the functioning of the firm for
developed markets, although, the research on understanding the differences in
behaviour of different shareholder identities is limited for emerging markets.
Corporate Governance reforms started with the introduction of Corporate
Governance Ordinance in 2003. There is little work done to examine the
association between corporate governance and corporate ownership pattern in case
of Pakistan. Cheema, et al. (2003) has identified only the nature of corporate
ownership structure in Pakistan without analysing its impact on corporate
performance. Iqbal (2006) has investigated the relationship between performance
and ownership shares of different categories of shareholders such as family
ownership foreign investors’ ownership and institutional share holders but has not
included the effect of other variable that might influence ownership concentration.
She comes up with conclusion that the positive relationship between ownership
concentrations as measured by top five shareholders and firm performance in
general. We want to fill the gap of needed research area on the relation between
corporate ownership and corporate governance in context of Pakistan. The
association between equity ownership and firm performance is also investigated.
The focus of this chapter is to investigate whether the equity ownership
structure matters in case of Pakistan and its implications for corporate
governance and corporate valuation. The remaining of this chapter is organised
as follows. Section 2 reviews the important empirical studies concerning the
relationship between corporate governance, ownership structure. In Section 3,
the empirical s1pecification of the model is described. Section 4 presents the
discussion of the empirical results. Last section concludes this chapter and gives
policy implications.
39

One of the earliest treatments of ownership and control issues is the
seminal work of Berle and Means (1932). Early work in this area was largely
descriptive [Mean (1930, 1931)]. As research became systematic in approach,
researchers relied primarily on agency theory to guide their studies. The
central premise of this theory is that managers, as agents of shareholders
(principals), can engage in decision making and behaviours that may be
inconsistent with maximis ing shareholders wealth [Fama and Jensen (1983);
Jensen and Meckling (1976)]. As evidence of its applicability to ownership
studies, agency theory has been characterised as “a theory of the ownership (or
capital) structure of the firm” . More resent research has also noted the
dominance of agency theory as the guiding framework for corporate
governance studies generally ownership studies more specifically such as
Daily, et al. (1998) and Dalton, et al. (2003)].
Agency theory suggests that the corporate form of organisation
characterised by a professional management with little ownership operating
business on the behalf of a large number of widely dispersed shareholders
represent an archetypal principal agent problem [Eisenhardt (1989)]. Managers
who disregard shareholder interest may be ousted by powerful shareholders or
by hostile takeovers. This presupposes that shareholders have an interest to
indulge in monitoring managerial behaviour. However, shareholders differ with
respect to incentives to spend resources on monitoring. Shareholders owing a
miniscule proportion of shares of a firm have very little incentive to devote the
necessary time and effort on voicing their view.
Resource-based theory suggests that considerable resource heterogeneity
exists among various shareholders categories. For an emerging economy firm,
these differences arise from shareholders being foreign or domestic and financial
or non-financial. The impact on firm performance of these owners with diverse
resource endowments is expected to differ as a consequence of this
heterogeneity in resources and organisational capabilities.
A feasible solution to the agency problem that arises from separation of
ownership and control is that managerial interests can be aligned with those of
shareholders through equity ownership [Himmelberg, et al. (1999)].
There is another focus of the ownership studies to reduce the agency
problem– institutional investors and large block-holders. Institutional investors
and large block-holders control an increasing amount of corporate equity. Many
shareholders in these categories will take active interest in the governance of
firms in which they invest because their ownership stakes do not permit them to
easily divest the equity they hold in firms not meeting their performance
expectations [Lane, et al. (1998)]. If these individuals or groups sold their
equity, given their relative large equity positions, it would trigger a precipitous
decline in the value of their holdings.
40
Since Berle and Means (1932) the separation of corporate ownership

from control has given rise to large literature devoted to elaborating, refuting or
testing it. Hassen (1983) argued that if, as Berle and Mean claimed, corporate
officers are promoting their own financial interests at the expense of the
shareholders, then the remedy is to encourage shareholders to pay an active role
in nominating and electing directors and thus influence the selection of the
officers who run the enterprise. While Jensen and Meckling (1976) argue that
introduction of managerial share ownership may reduce these agency problems,
thus aligning the interest of managers and shareholders. The potential problems
associated with the separation of ownership and control in the corporate is
subject of research for many decades and have witness an evolution from
concentrated ownership to increasingly diffuse ownership. This trend towards
increasing separation of ownership from management is documented by Berle
and Means (1932) and they argue that managers might guard their own interest
at the shareholders’ expense. Later Jensen and Meckling (1976), assert that firm
value is reduced when ownership and control are separated rather than combined
due to added costs of monitoring and the managers participate in activities that
may not enhance firm value for the owners. In all other organisation
configuration in which the decision-making and ownership functions are
separated, costs are increased by the residual claimants since the potential exists
for the different individual to pursue potentially conflicting optimisation paths
[Daily and Dollings (1992)]. However, Fama (1980) and Fama and Jensen
(1983a,1983b,1985) maintain that there are efficiencies to separating ownership
and control into decision-making and risk-bearing functions which make
dispersed ownership advantageous because the efficiency gains outweigh the
agency costs. The findings of Graff (1950) and Feinberg (1975) suggest that
organisations with combined ownership and control, owner-operators may
choose to exchange profits for other benefits, such as choosing current over
future consumption [Fama and Jensen (1985)] and on-the-job non-pecuniary
consumption [Demsetz (1983)]. Consequently, such organisations will likely be
undervalued by the market.
Although there is a presumption in the literature that large shareholders
have power and stronger incentive to ensure shareholder value maximisation
[Jensen and Meckling (1976); Zeckhouser and Pound (1990); Burkart (1997)]
the theoretical relationship between large owners and firm value is ambiguous.15
The empirical evidence on corporate governance suggests that large owners
have stronger incentive and better opportunities to exercise control over
manager than small shareholders. Claessen, Djankov, and Pohl (1996, 1999)
find evidence of a positive relation between shareholding concentration and firm
15
Some authors find a relationship between ownership concentration and firm value or firm
performance, other find no significant relationship, no conclusion can be drawn about the real effect
of ownership concentration.
41
performance in Czech Republic, Kocenda and Svejnar (2002) only partly

confirm that observation. Block-holder ownership above a certain level may
lead to entrenchment of owner-mangers that expropriate the wealth of minority
shareholders [Fama and Jensen (1983); Morck, et al. (1989); Shleifer and
Vishny (1997)]. A negative effect of market value on ownership concentration is
proposed and supported by Demsetz and Lehn (1985).
In the view of Kuznetsov and Muravyev (2001) concentrated ownership
has its costs. They may arise when large shareholders, capable to influence
corporate decision directly, maximise value for themselves and deprive small
owners of their part of residual income. Other negative consequences of
ownership concentration include raised cost of capital due to lower market
liquidity or decrease diversification opportunities on the part of the investors
[Fama and Jensen (1983)]. Moreover, concentrated ownership prevents
additional monitoring of managers by the stock market, which is available under
diffused ownership with high liquidity of shares [Holmstrom and Tirole (1993);
La Porta, et al. (1999); Claessens, et al. (2000) and Faccio and Lang (2002)]
present ultimate control as well as the extent of concentrated ownership
structure in publicly traded companies around the world. They found that
publicly traded companies in most countries possess a higher level of ownership
concentration. Yeh (2003) in Taiwan, Dzieranowski and Tamowicz (2004) in
Poland and Cheema, et al. (2003) in Pakistan find that the companies’ shares are
common concentrated in the hand of largest shareholders.
In most of developing markets including Pakistan, the closely held firms
(most often family controlled but also state-controlled firms or firms held by
widely corporations and by financial institutions) dominate the economic
landscape. The main agency problem is not the manager-shareholder conflict but
rather the risk of expropriation by the dominant or controlling shareholder at the
expense of minority shareholders. The agency problem in these markets is that
control is often obtained through complex pyramid structures ,16 interlock
directorship,17 cross shareholdings,18 voting pacts and/or dual class voting shares
that allow the ultimate owner to maintain (voting) control while owning a small
fraction of ownership (cash flow rights). The dominant shareholder makes the
decisions but does not bear full cost. Moreover large shareholders create group
structure such as pyramids that enable them to transfer assets or profits to other
dominated entities. These practices called tunnelling. The negative impact that
16
Pyramids are a particular form of inter-firm shareholding arrangement in which firm A
holds a stake in firm B, which holds a stake in firm C. The distinguishing characteristic of pyramid
arrangement is that firm A is attempting to exercise control over firm C while minimising its
financial investment in firm C, either directly or indirectly.
17
It occur when a firm’s employee sits on other firm’s board, and that firm’s employee sits
on the first firm’s board. These employees are generally the CEO or another person high in
management of their respective firms.
18
Cross-holding means company Y directly or indirectly controls its own stock.
42
large family shareholders can have on firm value can be even greater when
family members hold executive positions in the firm. The choice of a family
member as CEO can have a significant impact if the individual does not have the
talent, expertise or competency to run the business and may lack have labour
market. The opportunity cost created by a suboptimal appointment will be
shared by all shareholders while the private benefits accrue entirely to the family
[Peres-Gonzalez (2001)]. Klein, et al. (2005) argue that differences in ownership
structures across countries may create differences in the governance-
performance relationship. Likewise, differences in the general environment (for
example, competition in product and capital markets, the efficiency of the
market for corporate control and managerial labour markets) may produce
different governance-performance relationship in different countries. Firms with
large undiversified owners such as founding families may forgo maximum
profits because they are unable to separate their financial preferences with those
of outside owners. Families also often limit executive management positions to
family members, suggesting a restricted labour pool from which to obtain
qualified and capable talent, potentially leading to competitive disadvantages
relative to non-family firms [Morck, et al. 2000)]. Maury (2006) finds that in
Western European Countries family control increase firm profitability, whereas
legal environment protect minority shareholders against family opportunism.
Ben-Amar and Andre (2005) find that a large proportion of Canadian public
companies have controlling shareholders (families) that often exercise control
over voting rights while holding a small fraction of cash flow rights. The long-
term nature of the founding-family ownership suggest that external bodies, such
as suppliers or providers of capital, are more likely to deal with the same
governing bodies and practices for longer periods in family firms than in non-
family firms. Thus, the family’s reputation is more likely to create longer-lasting
economic consequences for the firm relative to non-family firms where
managers and directors turn over on a relatively continuous basis [Anderson and
Reeb (2003)].
Since Berle and Mean (1932), the conflict between manager and
shareholders has been studied extensively by researchers seeking to understand
the nature of the firm. When shareholders are too diffused to monitor managers,
corporate assets can be used for the benefit of the managers rather than for
maximis ing shareholder wealth. Therefore a solution to this problem is to give
managers equity stake in the firm. Doing so will resolve the moral hazard
problem by aligning managerial interests with of shareholders [Himmelberg,
Hubbard, and Palia (1999)]. The capability of the managers to perform mutual
monitoring depends on the dispersion of managerial power, a mutual monitoring
system being more difficult to establish when there is a clear concentration of
power in the hands of a single manager. If a single member of the managerial
team clearly dominates the others, the rest of the managers could lack the power
or even the information to control the head of the organisation [Fernandez and
43
Arrondo (2005)]. Stulz (1988) demonstrate that sufficiently high managerial

ownership, by allowing managers to block takeover bids, can lower firm value.
Using U.S data, Morck, et al. (1988); McConnell and Servaes (1990, 1995);
Hermalin and Weisbch (1991); and Holderness, et al. (1999) all find firm value
to rise with low levels of managerial ownership and to fall with higher levels of
managerial ownership.
The effects of foreign investment on economic performance have been the
subject of perennial academic and popular debate. Anti-globalisation protesters have
railed against the low wages paid in developing countries affiliates relative to those
in developed source countries. Other has concerned themselves with the potentially
negative effects of entry by foreign firms, with their global production network, on
domestic suppliers of parts and component in upstream industries. On the other
hand, most economists would point to higher levels of productivity and higher
wages paid by foreign affiliates relative to other domestic producers in the host
countries. They also emphasised the potential externalities from FDI including the
knowledge spillovers from foreign affiliates to their less productive domestic
counterparts. Particularly in concentrated domestic markets, another effect of entry
by foreign firms may be an increase in the degree of product market competition,
with attendant benefits to consumers in the form of lower price and implications for
domestic firms’ incentive to innovate [Griffith, and Simpson (2004)]. Griffith and
Simpson (2003) find foreign-owned firms are frequently the technological leaders
within UK industries and that technology transfer from these technological leaders
makes a substantial contribution to productivity growth in domestic-owned
establishments. Griffith (1999) and Oulton (2000) argue that reason for the observed
higher productivity of foreign-owned firm at the economy -wide level might simply
be that they are disproportionately concentrated in high productive sectors. Choi and
Yoo (2005) show that foreign investors positively affect firm performance by active
monitoring, complementing the inadequate or inefficient monitoring of domestic
institutions. Khanna and Palepu (1999) also provide evidence that foreign financial
institutions are a source of not only financing but also scarce monitoring skills in
emerging markets like India. It is not the ownership but the factors underlying
ownership that matter. Control-enabling property rights are one such factor. In term
of performance, firm in which property rights devolve unambiguously to foreign
shareholders outperform firm in which foreign shareholders cannot exercise
effective control. With control comes a level of profitability that is not available at
lower levels of share holding. If foreign investors wish to enjoy relatively superior
returns in India, and consider their associates as an integral part of their global
operations, they should in term of investing at the levels that will provide them the
control19 [Chhibber and Majumdar (1999)].
19
51 percent shareholding in Indian firms gives foreign investors unambiguous control over
assets and income partitioning. An over 51 percent stake has been assumed to imply not only
operational control, but also over decision-making.
44
There is an extensive theoretical literature on the role and incentive of

financial institutions/banks monitoring non-financial corporations. Chirinko, et
al. (1999) explain that financial institutions might be important mainly because
of their role as supplier of debt but also as equity holder. Apart from their role as
shareholder and creditor, both of which are mechanism of outside control,
financial institution, banks and other financial institutions (pension funds etc.)
are also linked with firm through their representation on supervisory board. It is
generally viewed that more equity the financial institution holds, the more it is
information and power to monitor the firm’s management, thereby firm
performance. But there is also a view that financial institution, notably banks,
behave as monopolist, using their power (as the sole supplier of external
finance) to extract profits from the firm at the expense of firm performance.
Jensen (1989) argues that joint ownership of debt and equity by large informed
investors (such as Japanese bank) results in stringent managerial monitoring and
create strong incentive for managers to make value-maximising decisions.
Gedajlovic and Shapiro (2002) are also of the view that financial institutions are
well positioned to monitor the manager of the firm within their network.
Lichtenberg and Pushner (1994) study support the proposition that equity
ownership by financial Institution in Japan effectively substitute for the missing
external takeover20 market by resulting in monitoring and intervening when
necessary, thus reducing the incidence and severity of lapses from efficient
behaviour. Sheard (1989, 1991), Aoki and Sheard (1992), and Morck and
Nakamura (1999b) propose that financial institution equity block primarily as
anti-takeover barriers.
Recent literature on corporate governance also pays much attention to the
issue of shareholders identity. It stress that the objective functions and the cost
of exercising ownership control over managers very substantially for different
types of owners. The implication is that it matters not only how much equity a
shareholder owns, but also who is this shareholder—a family, a private person,
worker, manager, financial institution or foreign enterprise. However much of
the existing literature is based on the functioning of developed markets’ firms,
and therefore presumes a wider dispersion in ownership structure than one find
in developing markets like Pakistan where large share holdings are common in
the world, except the US and UK [La Porta, et al. (1999), 21 it is argued that large
share-holders’ incentive and ability to collect information and to monitor
management reduce agency costs [Shleifer and Vishny (1986)]. Most of the
works in literature have evolved around the developed economies and very little
20
Takeovers: if a firm is inefficiently operated, then there is scope for improved performance
if an outsider (or some of current shareholders) take over the firm, replaces its management, and
initiates a new business strategy [Yafeh (2000)].
21
Recent evidence highlights a substantial degree of ownership concentration including
family ownership in large firms around the world [Morck, et al. (2005); Burkart, et al. (2004)].
45
is known (empirically) about such issues in emerging market economies,

especially for Pakistan.22 This study tries to fill this gap.

The analysis based on sample of 60 firms 23 listed at Karachi, Lahore
Stock Exchange and Islamabad Stock Exchange over the time period 2003 to
2008. We confine our analysis to non-financial firms and the selection of 60
firms is primarily based on the availability of annuals reports of corporations for
all sample years. Five ownership variables are included: ownership
concentration (T5), family ownership (FAM), managerial shareholding (Dir),
financial institution shareholding (Fin) and foreign investor’s shareholding
(Fore). We use top five shareholders as proxy for the ownership concentration to
analysis that whether corporate ownership affects corporate governance and
corporate performance or not. In top five shareholders there is no distinguish
between different categories of shareholders. Any cut-off level is not used for
inclusion of any shareholder in top five categories.24
The family ownership is defined where a family or a group of family can
control shares in a target company either by owing shares directly or indirectly
through associated company [Cheema, et al. (2003)]. Thus family ownership
comes from two sources: through direct ownership, through associated
companies. Direct ownership is where the founder or a member of his or her
family by either blood or marriage is an officer, a director, or a blockholder,
either individually or as a group. Associated companies are those companies that
are associated with each other if one company controls another company, or two
companies are controlled by the same person or family.
Director Ownership is the share ownership by management and board of
directors varies substantially across firms.
Foreign Ownership are defined as companies which are incorporated
outside Pakistan but have a place of business in Pakistan under the companies
Ordinance, 1984, ‘Foreign Companies’. The Ordinance also defines a foreign
subsidiary as a company in which more than 50 percent of the equity is held by a
single foreign company. In Pakistan there is no legal limit by the government for
minimum and maximum level of equity holding by foreign investors as compare
22
Cheema, et al. (2003) provide descriptive nature of ownership structure of Pakistan’
corporate sector while empirical studies on relationship between ownership and performance are on
their early stages.
23
List of sample firms is given in Appendix.
24
The idea behind 10 percent of the shares is that the passage of special resolution under the
Pakistan Companies ordinance of 1984, as a result of which alteration in a firm’s activities can be made
only by the 75 percent majority vote of shareholders in favour of such resolution. Only 10 percent class
of shareholders have the ability to block the members’ special resolutions that are necessary to make
significant changes. Moreover, disclosure of the aggregate of shareholding, restriction on the sale of
shares to public are all associated with more than 10 percent holding of shares.
46
to India where no foreign investor hold more than 51 percent equity stakes of a
firm. Financial Institutions/Banks Ownership 25 is defined as financial
institutions in our sample represent legal minority shareholder (holding at least
10 percent of share holders on average).26 The GMM estimation technique is
applied on panel data as discussed in Chapter 3.
5.3.1. Determinants of Ownership Concentration

Recent evidence suggests that In Pakistan ownership is concentrated
[Chemma, et al. (2003); Iqbal (2006) and La Porta, et al. (1999)]. Most firms are
closely held either by families, directors, foreign or institution owners. We
distinguish amo ng different ownership type in our analysis, we control
ownership type in our ownership model and we also provide separate estimate of
determinants of ownership for each ownership category. As mentioned above a
block holder is defined to be any entity owning more than 10 percent of the firm
equity. For robust empirical findings an alternate measure of ownership
concentration such as the percentage of shares owned by the largest five block
holders is also used. In the absence of adequate investor protection
concentration of ownership becomes a more important tool to resolve agency
conflict between controlling and minority shareholder [Shleifer and Wolfenson
(2002)]. Therefore the hypothesis tested is that there is association between
concentration of ownership and quality of corporate governance practices in
case of Pakistani listed firms. To test this hypothesis the empirical specification
of the model proposed by Pistor, et al. (2003), Durnev and Kim (2005) and
Klein, et al. (2005) are used:
Owni = α + β1CGI i + β 2 Invi + β 3 Size + β 4 Lwi * CGI i + ε it … (5.1)
In the model Owni is the ownership concentration of firm i at time t. CGIi is a

vector of corporate governance index, Invi is investment opportunities measured by
25
Under the financial institutions ordnance, 2001 “Financial Institution” are defined as; (i)
any company whether incorporated within or outside Pakistan which transacts the business of banking or
any associated or ancillary business in Pakistan through its branches within or outside Pakistan and
includes a government savings bank, but excludes the State Bank of Pakistan; (ii) a modaraba or
modaraba management company, leasing company, investment bank, venture capital company, financing
company, unit trust or mutual fund of any kind and credit or investment institution, corporation or
company; and (iii) any company authorised by law to carry on any similar business, as the Federal
Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify (The Financial Institutions
Ordinance, 2001,XLVI of 2001).
26
The Company Ordinance, 1984 and the Code of Corporate Governance do not recognise
minority shareholders with a shareholding below 10 percent. The minimum threshold for seeking
remedy from the Court against mismanagement and oppression requires initiation of the company by
no less than 20 percent of the shareholders. Shareholders representing 10 percent can apply to SECP
for appointment for inspector for investigation into the affairs of the company. See section 263 and
290 of the Company Ordenence,1984.
47
the past growth in sales, Lwi is rule of law that is used for the proxy of enforcement
of law, and Sizei is measured by the log of total asset. εit is random error term.
It is expected that shareholders with greater cash flow rights practice
lower quality corporate governance. The negative relationship between
ownership and quality of corporate governance is stronger is stronger in weak
legal regime [Durnev and Kim (2006); La Porta, et al. (1998). The owner
shareholders of the firm with more profitable investment opportunities divert
less for outside shareholders gain and practice high quality governance [Durnev
and Kim (2006); Johnson, et al. (2000)]. The firm level variables, we control the
firm size and we expect an inverse relationship between Sizei and Owni due the
risk neutral and risk averting effects because the market value of a given stake of
ownership is greater in larger firm, this higher price should reduce the degree of
concentration. At the same time risk aversion should discourage any attempt to
preserve the concentration of ownership in face of larger capital because this
would require the owners to allocate more of their wealth to single venture
[Domsetz and Lehn (1985)]. Following La Porta, et al. (1998) the ownership
concentration of the firm is related to legal environment of the country, the rule
of law index as a proxy for the efficiency of the legal environment is used. We
expect to find negative relationship between ownership concentration and rule of
law because in countries like Pakistan with poor investor protection ownership
concentration might become a substitute for legal protection as shareholders
may need to own more capital in order to exercise control.
5.3.2. Ownership Concentration and Firm Performance

The deficiency of external governance mechanism that is weakness of
investor protection and absence of well developed market for corporate control leads
investor to rely on governance structure that is dominated by highly concentrated
ownership. In this section the impact of ownership concentration on the firm
performance is examined. The firm performance improves when ownership and
managerial interest are merged through concentration of ownership [Agrawal and
Mandeike (1987)]. The reason is that when major shareholdings are acquired,
control can not be disputed and resulting concentration of ownership might lower or
completely eliminate agency costs. In addition block holders might provide an
opportunity to extract corporate resources for private benefits in a way that would
have a negative effect on firm valuation. We propose hypothesis that there is positive
relationship between concentration of ownership and firm performance. To test this
hypothesis a regression equation linking the concentration of ownership with firm
performance after controlling some firm variables as suggested by Pistor, et al.
(2003) and Klein, et al. (2005) is estimated:
Perfi = α + β1Owni + β 2 CGI i + β 3 Invi + β 4 Sizei + β 5 Lw i

* Owni + β 6 Lwi * CGI i + ε it
48
Where Perfi is measure of performance for firm i at time t, return on assets

ROA, return on equity (ROE) and Tobin’s Q, remaining variables are same as
defined for model (5.1). When profitable investment opportunities are there, the
controlling shareholders divert to concentrated ownership and corporate
valuation become higher. The positive relationship between ownership and firm
value is higher in weak legal environment [La Porta, et al. (2002), Durnev and
Kim (2006)]. It is expected that firms with better investment opportunities,
better corporate governance practices should have higher valuation.
5.3.3. Ownership Identity and Firm Performance

Since the type of ownership concentration might vary across firms
according to the identity of large shareholders, we postulate that the relationship
between larger shareholder and firm performance depends on who the large
shareholders are. The concentration of ownership split into four separate groups,
director ownership, family ownership, institutional ownership, foreign
ownership. The separate analysis for each ownership type is performed as well.
The hypothesis is that the identity of ownership matters in determining the firm
performance. The following model is estimated to determine the relationship
between ownership identity and firm performance.
Perfi = β 0 + ∑ θ Own
j
j ijt + β1 Invi + β3 Sizei + β 4 Lwi * Invi + β 5 Lwi * Owni + ε it (5.3)
Where Ownijt is the percentage of share held by owner of type j of firm i at time
t. Fur ownership variables are included to see the impact of different categories
of ownerships: family ownership (Fam), the managerial shareholding (Dir),
financial institution shareholding (Fin) and foreign investor’s shareholding
(Fore).Other variables are the same as used in model (5.1) and (5.2).

The analysis begins by exploring the determinants of ownership
concentration. The ownership concentration is measured as percentage of
share owned by the largest five shareholders in a firm, and a block is defied
as to be any entity owning more than 10 percent of the firm’s equity. The
panel data estimation to estimate model (5.1) for five specifications with
aggregate CGIi index and with sub-indices that are board composition,
shareholdings and audit, disclosure and transparency. The results are
presented in Table 5.1.
The results suggest that there is negative relationship between ownership
concentration and quality of corporate governance as indicated by negative and
significant coefficient of CGIi . The study of Duenerv and Kim (2006) suggest
there is positive relation between cash-flow rights and corporate governance,
however, Morck, et al. (1996) and McConnell and Servaes (1990) argue that
Table 5.1
Determinants of Concentration of Ownership by Top Five Shareholders
CGIi –0.07** –0.01**
(–1.74) (–4.02)
Board i 0.01 0.08* –0.01 0.05**
(0.75) (2.14) (0.57) (1.68)
Disi –0.01* –0.05** –0.01* –0.04
(3.33) (1.66) (3.29) (1.03)
Inv 0.54* 0.50* 0.50* 0.46* 0.59* 0.47* 0.49* 0.27** 0.57*
(4.14) (2.59) (2.59) (2.29) (3.02) (2.43) (2.56) (2.31) (2.90)
Size –0.01** –0.03** –0.03** –0.02** –0.02* –0.01*** –0.03*** –0.01** 0.03**
(1.89) (–1.75) (–1.73) (–1.86) (–1.82) (–1.64) (–1.47) (–1.67) (–1.60)
Lev 0.01 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.03*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.01** 0.01*** 0.03***
(1.79) (1.62) (1.62) (1.35) (1.54) (1.65) (1.61) (1.44) (1.55)
Lw*CGI –0.03 –0.07* –0.03* –0.06*
(–0.32) (–4.51) (–2.78) (–3.21)
Constant 4.14 5.21 5.22 4.25 5.25 4.73 5.31 0.55 5.30
(23.74) (16.46) (16.49). (18.28) (16.65) (19.19) (16.54) (–2.67) (16.58)
R2 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27
Note: The *, ** and *** indicates the significance levels at 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent respectively. Values in parenthesis are t-statistics.
50
greater ownership concentration may align their interest with minority

shareholders, but it results in greater degree of managerial entrenchment. The
transparency scores (Disci ), board composition score (Board i ) and shareholding
scores (Sharei ) when included in the model 2, 3, 4, 5 the relation becomes
insignificant and shows that these governance indicators do not effect the
concentration of ownership. There is no reason to expect that firms where
ownership is concentrated they disclose more, or board has any role etc. This
negative coefficient of law variable with corporate governance index suggests
that the relationship between ownership concentration and quality of corporate
governance is stronger in weak legal regime and. This suggests in the absence of
adequate legal protection for investor, concentration of ownership become an
instrument to resolve agency conflict between controlling and minority
shareholders. This result suggests that ownership concentration is indeed a
response of poor legal protection [La Porta, et al. (1999); Durnev and Kim
(2005)]. The leverage is not a significant determinant of ownership
concentration in all cases. The effect of Invi is always positive and significant in
all our models, which shows that more investment opportunities leads to more
concentration of ownership and when firm suffers from a substantial drop in
profitable investment opportunities, the controlling shareholders divert more
corporate resources. Johnson (2000) documents such behaviour by Asian firms
before the East Asian crisis. The positive relationship between investment
opportunities and concentration of ownership is stronger in weak legal
environment. The impact of Sizei on OWNi is negative indicating that ownership
concentration is significantly lower as the firm size expands and Boubakri, et al.
(2003) have also documented a negative association between the size and
ownership concentration.
As regards the results of effect of ownership concentration and firm
valuation, the regression results are based on two accounting measures (ROA
and ROE) and market measure that is Q-ratio for firm performance. We estimate
different specifications for each performance measure and Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2
presents the results.. Our results are consistent with several empirical findings
that document a positive and significant relationship between ownership
concentration and firm performance implying that ownership concentration
matters in determining firm’s value. Another important finding is the favourable
effect that market bestows on firms that follows good practices and is
transparent. The positive corporate governance index and disclosure and
transparency score imply that the firm that practice good governance and
disclose more achieve superior performance compared to other firms. However,
firm level variable show significant relationship with firm performance. We find
that large size firms are more likely to achieve better performance. The reason
might be that the competition effects and the market power of large-sized firms
enable them to out-perform small-size firms in Pakistan. The firms with more
51
Table 5.2.1
Relation between Tobin Q and Ownership by Top Five Shareholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Owni 0.04* 0.06* 0.09* 0.03** 0.10* 0.07** 0.05 0.10*
(1.98) (1.95) (3.38) (1.86) (2.36) (1.67) (1.58) (2.36)
CGIi 0.05** 0.05
(1.85) (0.28)
Board 0.04* 0.01* 0.04* 0.09*
(3.15) (5.68) (3.33) (5.30)
Disci 0.05* 0.01** 0.05* 0.06
(2.57) (1.86) (2.80) (0.27)
Inv 0.06** 0.05** 0.04** 0.01** 0.12 0.05** 0.01** 0.09** 0.11**
(1.66) * (1.54) (1.76) (1.97) * (1.84) (1.75) (1.94)
(1.55)) (1.42)
Size – – – 0.04 – –0.03 – 0.04** –
0.03** 0.02** 0.02** (.–2.90) 0.02** (–2.51) 0.04** (–3.04) 0.12**
(–2.41) (–1.86) (–1.84) (–1.78) (–1.78) (–1.81)
Lev 0.08** 0.09** 0.10** 0.07** 0.08** 0.08 0.04 0.08** 0.09
(1.61) (1.77) (1.78) * (1.70) (5.22) (1.71) * (1.71)
(1.36) (1.49)
Law*CGIi –0.10 0.05* 0.01 0.04*
(–0.17) (5.03) (1.05) (4.12)
Intercept 0.59 0.19 0.19 0.91 –0.02 0.21 0.08 0.53 –0.01
(3.07) (0.66) (0.65) (4.27) (–0.01) (0.86) (0.28) (2.07) (–0.05)
R Square 31 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33
Table 5.2.2
Relation between ROA and Ownership by Top Five Shareholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Owni 0.04* 0.04* 0.03* 0.03** 0.03* 0.03 ** 0.03* 0.03** 0.03**
(2.14) (2.18) (2.17) (1.92) (1.84) (2.02) (2.04) (.1.78) (.1.79)
CGIi 0.12 0.03
(1.13) (0.03)
Board 0.13* 0.15* 0.13* 0.12**
(2.47) (2.26) (2.61) (1.77)
Disci 0.12** 0.18* 0.15** 0.15**
(1.60) (2.24) (1.74) (1.74)
Inv 0.13* 0.13* 0.13** 0.15* 0.15* 0.13* 0.13* 0.14* 0.15*
(2.83) (2.04) (2.03) (3.31) (3.34) (2.84) (2.86) (3.303 (3.24)
Size 0.03 0.03** 0.03* 0.03* 0.03 0.03 0.03* 0.15 0.03
(5.63) (5.72) (5.71) (.6.13) (5.94) (5.26) (5.59) (5.80) (5.78)
Lev –0.05* –0.04* –0.05 –0.04** –0.04 –0.04 –0.04 –0.04* –0.04*
(–7.03) (–7.02) (–7.00) (–7.07) (–7.06) (–6.84) (–6.87) (–6.84) (–6.84)
Law*CGIi 0.26 –0.22 0.63** 0.12
(0.12) (–0.56) (1.92) (0.27)
Intercept –10.69 –20.81 –18.66 –19.63 –16.24 –1.82 –11.85 –10.19 –11.29
(–1.67) (–1.76) (–1.96) (–2.69) (–1.72) (–0.21) (–1.20) (–1.14) (–1.14)
R Square 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33
52
investment opportunities outperform compared to those which have less

investment opportunities. Nevertheless we fail to find any impact of leverage on
the firm value. The interaction term of any variable with law enforcement term
are not significant in any model suggesting that firm performance is not affected
by rule of law in countries where legal environment is weak.
The type of ownership concentration varies across firms according to the
identity of large shareholders, we explore the relationship between firm
performance depends on who are the large shareholders. For deeper analysis we
split the split the concentration of ownership into four separate groups of
owners: director ownership, family ownership, foreign ownership and
institutional ownership. Different specifications are estimated in a system of
equation given in model (5.3) to determine the relationship between ownership
identity and firm performance after controlling for firm level variables. The
results reported in Tables 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3. The results in Table 5.3.1.
Indicates that all type of ownership concentration have positive and significant
effect on firm performance. The family ownership results in better firm value
relative to other type of ownership, as indicated by higher coefficient
significance level. The family’s historical presence, large equity position, and
control of management and director posts place them in an extraordinary
position to influence and monitor the firm.
The results of foreign ownership support our prediction that foreign
ownership shares positively impact firm performance. The fact that foreign
shareholders use their ownership stakes as a means to foster their strategic
interest, which securing access to new markets, location specific resources and
low cost production facilities. These findings are consistent with theoretical
argument claiming that fami ly owners and foreign owners bring better
governance and monitoring practices.
There is insignificant positive effect associated with financial institution
ownership. These results can be attributed to the dominance of government
owned financial institution in corporate equity holding. The corporate
governance index and disclosure and transparency have positive effect on
performance. The results support our previous findings that size and investment
opportunities have significant effect in most of our model. The interaction of
corporate governance with legal term has no impact.
The results of Tables 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 also indicate that ownership
identity matters for the firm performance. Different agents play their role
while determining firm performance. In Tables 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 the results of
foreign ownership support our hypothesis that foreign ownership shares
positively impact firm performance. One reason for the higher productivity of
foreign-owned multinational might simply be that they are concentrated in
high productivity sectors. Moreover, in domestic market, they tend to
select investments in companies, which are large, familiar and actively traded.
53
Table 5.3.1
Evidence on Performance and Ownership Identity
Tobin Q ROA ROE
Fam 0.18* 0.16* 0.22* 0.12** 0.21* 0.17* 0.31* 0.08* 0.05*
(3.09) (2.57) (3.41) (2.27) (2.01) (1.98) (1.95) (1.88) (1.77)
Fore 0.02** 0.02** 0.02* 0.25 0.13** 0.04** 0.11*** 0.04*** 0.01
(1.63) (1.74) (2.04) (1.41) (1.86) (1.77) (1.67) (1.82) (1.73)
Fin 0.17 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.12
(1.00) (0.44) (1.13) (1.33) (0.44) (1.04 (0.51) (0.51) (0.97)
CGIi 0.19 ** 0.15** 0.21***
(1.98) (1.89) (1.73)
Disci 0.18** 0.02** 0.01***
(1.66) (1.74) (1.54)
Inv 0.06** 0.06** 0.05** 0.02 0.02* 0.01* 0.001 0.02* 0.01**
(1.62) (1.74) (1.66) (1.40) (1.91) (1.89) (0.95) (1.98) (1.69)
Size 0.03 0.03 * 0.04* 0.33 0.21** 0.07** 0.92* 0.92* 0.432*
(4.12) (4.24) (4.31) (1.83) (1.84) (2.01) (2.72) (2.72) (1.98)
Lev 0.01 0.01 0.02***
(1.01) (1.03) (1.57)
Law*CGIi 0.29 0.49 –0.12 0.01 0.004 0.02 0.11
(0.08) (0.15) (1.04) (1.11) (0.88) (1.06) (0.49)
Intercept 0.26 0.14 0.19 –0.77 –0.80 –0.54 1.65 –2.15 –1.11
(2.93) (0.97) (1.29) (–0.81) (–0.38) (–1.55) (0.94) (–2.31) (–2.24)
R2 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31
Table 5.3.2
Tobin Q ROA ROE
Dir 0.26* 0.20* 0.30* 0.17** 0.19** 0.20* 0.18** 0.18** 0.19**
(3.85) (3.37) (4.16) (1.95) (1.87) (2.00) (1.97) (1.89) (1.96)
Fore 0.20** 0.21** 0.10 0.09** 0.08** 0.07** 0.10** 0.11** 0.10*/
(1.87) (1.92) (1.74) (1.74) (1.87) (1.77) (1.89) (1.87) (1.74)
Fin 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.11
(0.90) (0.96) (0.44) (1.01) (0.42) (0.63) (0.59) (0.87) (0.67)
CGIi 0.01 0.01 0.01
(1.24) (1.13) (1.11)
Disci 0.52* 0.49 0.41*
(3.55) (2.65) (2.04)
Inv 0.06** 0.06** 0.05** 0.03** 0.02** 0.02* 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.02**
(1.72) (1.73) (1.67) (1.66) (1.69) (1.67) (1.61) (1.63) (1.60)
Size 0.31* 0.31* 0.33* 0.29* 0.27* 0.27* 0.30* 0.28* 0.28*
(3.99) (4.02) (4.13) (2.87) (3.01) (3.00) (2.66) (2.97) (2.88)
Lev 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.10
(0.90) (0.92) (1.47) (0.87) (1.02) (1.10) (0.86) (0.90) (1.11)
Law*CGI i 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
(0.16) (0.26) (0.23) (0.25) (0.20) (0.21)
Intercept 0.23 0.15 0.20 0.23 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.14 0.25
(3.11) (1.20) (1.60) (2.12) (1.23) (1.45) (2.02) (1.12) (1.49)
R2 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29
54
Table 5.3.3
. Tobin Q ROA ROE
Fore 0.25* 0.14* 0.14 0.20* 0.10* 0.11 0.21* 0.13* 0.12*
(4.69) (2.11) (2.06) (3.15) (2.01) (2.02) (3.03) (2.01) (2.00)
Fii 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.14
(0.78) (0.93) (0.13) (0.84) (0.86) (0.24) (0.94) (1.03) (0.47)
CGIi 0.36*** 0.34*** 0.35***
(1.55) (1.54) (1.60)
Disci 0.32* 0.31* 0.32*

(3.07) (2.98) (3.01)
Inv 0.06** 0.09* 0.09* 0.10** 0.07* 0.07* 0.11** 0.08* 0.08*
(1.75) (2.22) (2.28) (1.74) (2.11) (2.21) (1.81) (2.13) (2.17)
Size 0.08** 0.01 –0.01 0.38** 0.01 –0.01 0.38** 0.01 –0.01
(1.68) (2.69) (–2.84) (1.68) (2.69) (–2.84) (1.68) (2.69) (–2.84)
Lev 0.02 0.06* 0.06* 0.02*** 0.04* 0.05* 0.02 0.05* 0.05*
(1.00) (2.42) (2.51) (1.54) (2.39) (2.44) (1.33) (2.23) (2.41)
Law*CGIi 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
(1.01) (0.40) (1.00) (0.54) (1.01) (0.47)
Intercept 0.62 0.44 0.39 0.60 0.45 0.37 0.60 0.41 0.35
(15.02) (4.67) (3.96) (12.13) (4.66) (3.84) (13.13) (4.05) (3.75)
R2 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.27
Financial institutions have positive and insignificant influence on firm

performance that indicates ineffectiveness of financial institution in Pakistani
corporate sector.
Table 5.4 shows Director Ownership (Dir) have positive and significant
impact on the firm performance. The results are in agreement with our
prediction that block-holdings by directors’ increase firm value. Managers have
a strong incentive to manage their companies well and generate wealth as their
fortunes are tied to the well being of the company.
55
Table 5.4
Evidence on Performance and Manager-Ownership
Tobin Q ROA ROE
Dir 0.46** 0.24* 0.11** 0.12** 0.21* 0.27* 0.33* 0.08* 0.05*
(3.20) (1.88) (1.97) (2.27) (2.01) (2.08) (1.95) (2.11) (1.98)
CGIi 0.11** 0.04** 0.11***
(1.74) (1.89) (1.84)
Disci 0.01* 0.02** 0.01***
(1.96) (1.74) (1.63)
Inv 0.01* 0.03*** 0.02** 0.02*** 0.02* 0.01* 0.01 0.02* 0.04**
(1.98) (1.77) (1.82) (1.64) (1.91) (1.89) (0.95) (1.98) (1.69)
Size 0.04 0.27* 0.13** 0.04 0.21** 0.10** 0.25* 0.03* 0.02*
(0.90) (2.02) (1.82) (1.83) (1.84) (2.01) (2.72) (2.72) (1.98)
Law*CGIi 0.02 0.001 –0.12 0.01 0.004 0.02 0.11
(0.97) (1.02) (1.04) (1.11) (0.88) (1.06) (0.49)
Intercept –0.62 –2.13 –2.77 –0.77 –0.80 –0.54 1.65 –2.15 –1.11
(–0.71) (–1.50) (–2.01) (–0.81) (–0.38) (–1.55) (0.94) (–2.31) (–2.24)
R2 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.30

This chapter determines the factors influencing the ownership
concentration, and the effect of this on the other aspects such as firm performance
using representative sample of 60 firms. The results reveal that in Pakistan
corporations has more concentration of ownership which is the response of weak
legal environment and this result validates the La Porta, et al. (1997, 1998, 1999,
2000) findings. The concentration of ownership seems to have positive effect on
firms’ profitability and performance measures. There is negative association
between corporate governance practices and disclosures and transparency with
concentration of ownership. The identity of ownership matters more than the
concentration of ownership. The results indicate that firm specific factors matters
more in concentration of ownership. The findings reveal that more investment
opportunities provides greater opportunity to for ownership concentration,
however size has opposite effect and leads to delusion of ownership. It results in
diverse ownership to get wider access to funds and share ownership. These results
are consistent with studies Boubakri, et al. (2003).

EXTERNAL FINANCING
6.1. Introduction
Corporate governance is a mechanism in which the supplier of finance to
corporations assures themselves of getting return on their investment. It makes
56
supplier of finance get manager to return some of the profits to them, and make
sure that managers do not use for their interest the capital they supply or invest it
in unprofitable projects, above all how do the supplier of finance control
managers [Shleifer and Vishny (1997)]. The enterprises need finance for
investment and acquire it either by internally generated finance or externally
generated finance, which are closely related to the ownership structure, financial
market development and enforcement of law of a country. In companies with
foreign owners have an advantage in their access to external finance as compare
to domestically owned companies because their financial resources coming from
abroad.
The access to external finance is an important factor to determine the
ability of a firm to operate and expand. The economic researchers have studied
how various macroeconomic and microeconomic factors influence such access;
for example, the empirical literature shows that the need of external finance
depends on the macroeconomic environment because the availability of external
financing varies with the change in the business cycle conditions and change in
monetary policy in particular. This credit channel research argues that corporate
access to credit is the principal mechanism linking monetary policy and the real
economy [Kashyap, et al. (1993, 1995) and Oliner and Rudebusch (1996a,
1996b). At the micro level, research has shown that characteristics specific to a
firm influence the degree to which macroeconomic changes affect its access to
external financing; specifically, firms that are more vulnerable financially—such
as smaller, younger, riskier, and more indebted firms —are found to be more
affected by tighter monetary policy [Atanasova and Wilson (2004) and
Bougheas, et al. (2006)].
This is conformed by empirical evidence that firms with high dependence
on external finance grow faster in countries where external finance is readily
available [Pistor, et al. (2003) and La Porta, et al. (1999)]. Corporations with
limited access to external resources may still operate in the informal sector and
at a reduced scale in under developed countries [Pistor, et al. (2003); Rajan and
Zingler (1998); Livine and Zervos (1998)]. La Porta, et al. (1999) argue that in
countries where legal environment provides protective to the rights of outside
investors, investors are willing to finance firms by equity and debt and financial
markets become expanded and valuable. On the other hand in countries where
legal environment is weak investors’ rights are not protected the financial
markets remains under-developed.
Many studies show that to promote economic growth attention has shifted
to the capital markets due to the limited conventional sources of raising finance.
In capital markets, corporate governance plays important role in determining
external financing sources provided by outside investors. Corporate governance
institutions appear to be weaker in developing than in developed countries and
thus provide less of a check on managers in developing countries who wish to
57
issue equity to finance low return investments. Managers who wish to undertake
low return investments in countries with strong corporate governance systems
accordingly prefer to rely on internal cash flows to finance these investments,
managers making similar investments in countries with weak corporate
governance systems are freer to use the equity market as a source of finance
[Pistor, et al. (2003)]. Thus, differences in corporate governance structures will
be seen to explain both differences in the sources of finance for investment
across countries and differences in the returns on investment [Gompers, et al.
(2003)]. Corporate governance has recently received much attention for this
purpose the impact of corporate governance practices on access to external
financing is investigated in case of Pakistan.
This empirical analyses is extension of our earlier study [Javid and Iqbal
(2007)] which identify the determinants of external finance resources The firm
with profitable investment opportunities lead to more diversification due to need
of more external financing. The firms with greater external financing reliance
are better performing firms. This study contributes to existing literature by
exploring the firms which rely more on external finances have higher value. In
addition in this study panel data estimation technique is applied. To establish the
empirical framework on the basis of theory which suggests that with better legal
environment of country investors are more willing to provide external funds
debt and equity, the rule of law is used as indicator of enforcement of law in
Pakistan. The effects of ownership is captured by focusing only on the
concentration of ownership in the hand of top five shareholders and this
restriction is in line with the previous literature that reveal the fact that in
countries like Pakistan with weak governance practices, it is efficient for the
corporations to retain control of their firms in hand of few investors .27
The rest of this chapter is organised as follows. Section 2 of the chapter
presents review of the literature. Section 3 describes the data and methodology.
Section 4 presents empirical finding. Section 5 concludes the chapter.

“Corporate governance rules, norms and procedures have evolved
gradually over times as firms and economies develop and grow. This is reflected
in the industrial and financial histories of the advanced industrial nations: the
U.K., the U.S., continental Europe, and Japan. The prototypical pattern is that a
firm is founded by an entrepreneur and his family who own, control, manages
and finances it. Over time, the successful firm grows and becomes large, and
evolves over generations from family to professional management, from family
to more or less dispersed share ownership with public listing of the company on
the country’s stock exchange, and from informal to extensive, formal external
27
See Jensen and Meckling (1977), Zingales (1995), Bebchuk (1999).
58
finance. While this may be the general pattern, or at least the stereotype, there
are considerable national and firm-specific variations in the nature and degree of
separation of ownership and control, and some large firms remain under
inherited family control. And of course there are always new firms which have
grown rapidly and remain under founder control”, Patrick (2001).
A large body of empirical literature suggests that financial market
underdevelopment and limited availability of bank credit is serious barrier for
the establishment of new enterprises and constraint to economic growth.28 The
literature on law and finance shows that investor protection plays an important
role in shaping the financial structure of an economy, by affecting the relative
importance of equity and debt financing [La Porta, et al. (1999)].
In the view of Patrick (2001) the sources of corporate governance change
and improvement lie not only within the firm, but particularly in the financial
markets, where lenders, bondholders, and shareholders condition the cost and
availability of funds on good corporate governance and performance, supported
by government changes in relevant legal rules and their implementation,
including those of standards-setting organisations of accountants and other
professionals.
“Under the agency view, managers over invest to reap private benefits
such as “perks”, large empires, and entrenchment. Since the external capital
market limits the extent to which managers can pursue self-interested
investment, an influx of cash flow enables the manager to invest more and
increases investment distortions. Under asymmetric information, the managers
themselves (who act in the interest of shareholders) restrict external financing in
order to avoid diluting the (undervalued) shares of their company. In this case,
cash flow increases investment, but reduces the distortion”, Malmendier and
Tate (2004).
In Hyytinen and Pajarinen (2005) study the relation between firm-level
disclosure quality and the availability of external finance to Finnish firms. They
estimate excess growth is made possible by external finance and the excess
growth is associated with the quality of disclosure which seems to be strongest
for financially constrained firms. Their empirical analysis identify the firms in
need for external finance voluntarily look for good disclosure quality, because it
reduces barriers to external finance.
Durnev and Kim (2006) in their study using firm-level governance and
transparency data on 859 firms in 27 countries, find that firms with greater
growth opportunities, greater needs for external financing, and more
concentrated cash flow rights practice higher-quality governance and disclose
more. Moreover, firms that score higher in governance and transparency
28
Rajan, and Zingales (1998), Levine (1999), Cetorelli, Nicola, and Philip Strahan (2006),
De Soto, Hernando (2000), Beck, Levine, and Loyaza (2000), Black, Sandra and Strahan (2002),
Beck, Demirguk-Kunt, and Levine (2005).
59
rankings are valued higher in the stock market. All these relations are stronger in
countries where investment environment is less investor friendly, demonstrating
that firms do adapt to poor legal environments to establish efficient governance
practices.
The findings of La Porta, et al. (1997, 1998) show that weak investor
protection limits excess to external finance. While De Soto (2000) suggests that
poor legal enforcement of corporate laws and unclear property rights limit
individuals' ability to commit contracts and thus their excess to external
resources. Shleifer and Wolfenzon (2002) argue that better transparency and
disclosure of information to the shareholders, and the enforcement of laws that
protect their rights, reduce the costs of external finance. Perotti and Volpin
(2007) provide evidence that better investor protection not only favour
competition and entry into the financial developed sector, it is also better for the
politically accountable countries. The paper also suggests that improving formal
investor protection laws while ignoring its enforcement may not improve access
to finance.
In view of Bekaert, Harvey, and Lundblad (2005) financial liberalisations
are most successful in countries with good political institutions. Bebchuk and
Neeman (2006) provide evidence that block-holders by using corporate
resources protect their control benefits and may undermine good corporate
governance. La Porta, et al. (1997, 1998) in their study conclude that differences
in the structure of laws and quality of their enforcement, such as legal origin of
their laws, play important role for the differences in financial development
among different countries. Empirical results of Beck and Levins (2005) also
show that legal origin 29 has very significant impact on firm’s abilities to raise
external finance. Their data indicate that firms in French Legal Countries face
higher obstacles in contracting for external finance than firms in other countries.
Firms in countries with common law face lower financial obstacle than firms in
civil law countries. Moreover their result also indicate that foreign-owned firms
and large firms face lower financing obstacles than domestic, or small firm,
whereas family owned firms particularly face high obstacle in raising external
finance. Countries with high GDP face lower obstacle in raising external finance
than countries with lower GDP.
González, Lopez, and Saurina (2007) examine access by Spanish firms to
external financing from bank and non-bank sources over the period from 1992 to
2002 and their results provide insights into the determinants of firms ’ borrowing
efforts in Spain and more broadly. For example, they find that Spanish firms are
quite dependent on short-term, non-bank financing, which is less sensitive to
firm characteristics than bank financing. Yet, short-term bank financing is
accessed more frequently during economic expansions, suggesting that firms
29
La Porta, et al. (1998) identify mainly two legal families around the world, common law
origin and civil law origin.
60
substitute away from more expensive forms of non-bank financing as their

conditions improve. The authors confirm that smaller, younger, riskier, and
more indebted firms rely more on external credit than on internal financing, such
as retained earnings and other equity, and they expand these results by showing
that the nature of firms ’ banking relationships, such as the number of banks
borrowed from and whether collateral is required for the loans, also influences
access to external finance.
This work is extension of our earlier study Javid and Iqbal (2007) in
which we investigate the determinants of external financing and conclude that
the firms with greater growth opportunities, greater needs for external financing
practice higher-quality governance and disclose more. In this chapter we explore
firms that rely more on external financing sources are valued higher in the stock
market.
6.3.1. Data
To analyse determinant of external recourses, and linking access of
external finance with corporate governance, corporate and corporate valuation at
firm level, the data of 60 non-financial firms listed on Karachi Stock Exchange
is used. Any direct measure of external finance is not available therefore;
following La Porta, et al. (1998), the ratio of the stock market capitalisation held
by minorities to sales is used as proxy for external finance for all 60 non-
financial firms. The financial variables are obtained from the annual reports of
the firms. The GMM estimation technique is applied to estimate panel data
model as discussed in Chapter 3.
6.3.2. Methodological Framework

The purpose is to examine the factors that influence the need of firms for
external finance through equity, when they have adopted different level of corporate
governance and doing business in poor legal environment.30 The firms which rely on
external financing are higher valued firms. The empirical evidence suggest that the
firms with greater need of external financing for a given level of profitable
investment opportunities practice high quality governance [Durnev and Kim (2006)
and Rajan and Zingales (1998)]. The contrary evidence comes from the study by
Demirgue-Kunt and Maksimovie (1998) which argues that profitable firms have
more internally generated funds and hence rely less on external financing. It is
expected that there is positive relation between external financing needs and quality
of corporate governance. Further, in countries with weak legal regimes firms have
difficulty in raising external finance due to investors’ lack of trust in legal protection
30
As indicated by the ranking of rule of law by World Bank.
61
of their rights [La Porta, et al. (1998)]. In this study the significance of rule of law as
determinant of external financing is analysed. Since the influence of legal
environment across the firm is assessed, therefore it is introduced in interaction
terms. To test the hypothesis that the firms which are in need of greater external
finance practice higher level of corporate governance, following La Porta, et al.
(1997) and Pistor, et al. (2003) the empirical specification of the model becomes:
EFi = α + β1CGI i + β2Owni + β 3Invi + β 4Size + β 5Levi + β 6 Lwi *CGI i + εit (6.1)
Where EFi is external finance that is calculated by multiplying market

capitalisation of each firm with percentage of shares that are not taken by the top
five shareholders of each firm, CGIi is a vector of corporate governance index,
Invi is investment opportunities, Lw i is rule of law that is used as the proxy of
enforcement of law, Sizei is the size of firm and Levi . εi is random error term.
To investigate that the firms, which rely more on external finance are
valued higher. The firm performance is regressed on external finance, corporate
governance and control variables. The model is given below:
Perfi = α + β1EFi + β 2CGI i + β3Invi + β4 Size + β5Levi + β6 Lwi * CGI i + εit (6.2)
Where Prefi is performance indicators measured as ROA, ROE and Tobin’s Q.

and other variables are same as defined for model (6.1). It is expected that firms
with better investment opportunities, better corporate governance practices
should have higher valuation.
A growing firm with large need of external financing has more incentive
to adopt better governance practices in an attempt to lower cost of capital
[Klapper and Love (2003) and Gompers, et al. (2003)]. These growth
opportunities are reflected in the valuation of the firm, implying a positive
association between more reliance on external sources and firm performance.
The firms with more need of external finance would be more likely to choose
better governance structure because firm’s insiders believe that better
governance structure will further raise firm value they adopt good governance to
signal that insider behave well and they can easily excess to external finances.
In the set of control variables which include size (natural logarithm of
assets) and investment opportunities (average sale growth) are used in
estimation. Firm size and growth control for potential advantages of scale and
scope, market power and market opportunities. The leverage (long term
debt/total assets) controls for different risk characteristics of firm. Ownership
concentration is expected to substitute the weak investor protection and lack of
financing due to underdevelopment of the financial markets. In some firms the
entrepreneur founders who used their own resources and retained earning to
finance their firms and have significant ownership stakes in the listed firms, this
issue is addressed by using ownership concentration by top five largest
shareholders.
62
6.4. Empirical Evidence

To investigate whether differences in the quality of firm level corporate
governance help to explain firm level financial needs in a cross-section of
companies the external financing need is regressed on index of corporate
governance score and control variables and Table 6.1 reports the results. The
results indicate that there is positive association between need of equity
financing and quality of corporate governance taken as aggregate corporate
governance index and also with board, transparency and disclosure scores of
these firms, though the significance level is marginal. This suggests that firms
which need more equity financing practice good governance. The interaction
term of law with corporate governance have no significant impact. As regards
the concentration of ownership it is negatively associated with reliance on
external financing sources. This result is consistent with Shleifer and Vishny
(1997) results who argue that countries with stronger shareholder protection,
investors can afford to take minority position rather than controlling stakes. As a
result firms tend to dispersed shareholders as owners and capital market are
rather liquid. By constrict where shareholders rights are not well protected, the
investor compensate this deficiency of financing by taking controlling stakes in
a firm. The investment opportunities are positively related to external finance
and suggest that firms with high growth are in more need of external finance.
These results suggest the firm specific factors matters more in influencing the
need of external financing when the legal environment is less investor friendly.
Table 6.1
Determinants of External Financing through Equity
Independent Variables 1 2 3 4
CGI 1.27**
(1.90)
Dis 0.08** 0.56*
(1.67) (1.98)
Board 0.31 0.78
(0.30) (1.03)
Own –0.01*** 0.12*** 0.001** 0.04
(1.76) (1.53) (1.72) (1.32)
Inv 0.12* 0.03* 0.10*** 0.02***
(3.02) (3.09) (1.61) (1.56)
Size 0.14* 0.13* 0.13*** 0.12*
(3.30) (3.11) (1.52) (2.21)
Lev 0.11* 0.12* 0.11*** 0.03**
(3.50) (3.47) (1.36) (1.90)
Lw*CGI –0.03 –0.01 –0.03 0.20
(–0.90) (–1.07) (–1.49) (0.03)
Constant –0.50 –0.48 0.49 0.55
(–2.86). (–2.75) (–1.92) (–2.67)
R2 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.29
63
To investigate the relation between firm value and access to external financial
resources, the three performance measures Tobin’s Q, ROA and ROE. Performance
indicators are regressed on external finance, corporate governance and firm attributes:
investment opportunities, size and interaction of enforcement of law with external and
corporate governance and Table 6.2 presents the results. The firm that adopt better
governance practices and disclose more in order to access less costly financing sources
and these factors adds to their performance. Positive and significant coefficient of
aggregate governance score and disclosure score indicate this fact that firms with
higher-quality corporate governance and which are transparent are valued higher. In
general the firms that align the managers and shareholders interest and are transparent
are significantly valued by investors. These results are consistent with agency theory
which focuses on monitoring of managers whose interests are assumed to diverge from
those of other share holders. The study by Dernev and Kim (2006) also conclude that
firms in need of external finance follow high governance practices and high class
corporate governance is valued higher in case of US market. Investment opportunities
have positive and significant impact on corporate valuation in all the models. These
results confirm the predictions that firms with better investment opportunities have
higher valuation. The coefficient of size is positive and significant in most of the cases.
This shows that the large-sized firms that are likely to grow faster usually rely more on
external resources and they adopt better corporate governance practices. The results of
interaction term of rule of law with corporate governance and external financing do not
have any significant impact on the valuation of the firm. These results indicate that
legal framework is not providing relevant information regarding firm valuation in case
of Pakistan. However, these findings are consistent to some extent with the notion that
positive relationship is between access to external finance, governance and valuation is
stronger in weak legal regimes [La Porta, et al. (1997); Pistor, et al. (2003); Durnev
and Kim (2006)].
Table 6.2
Evidence on Firm Performance and Need of External Finance
Tobin Q ROA ROE
EF i 0.10** 0.13* 0.11* 0.04** 0.03* 0.02* 0.04*** 0.11 0.12**
(1.87) (3.51) (2.87) (1.86) (1.93) (1.71) (1.57) (1.36) (1.58)
CGIi 0.23** 0.11** 0.03**
(1.94) (1.88) (1.97)
Disc i 0.04* 0.1 1** 0.01**
(2.00) (1.96) (1.87)
Inv 0.13** 0.23** 0.02** 0.09* 0.17*** 0.12*** 0.16** 0.04** 0.12
(1.77) (1.96) (1.88) (2.01) (1.65) (1.59) (1.54) (1.88) (0.05)
Size 0.09* 0.05* 0.15* 0.12 0.01** 0.03*** 0.09** 0.36** 0.12
(1.95) (2.21) (2.11) (1.69) (1.71) (1.59) (1.69) (1.97) (0.72)
Lev 0.01* 0.02** 0.03** 0.12** 0.10** 0.16** 0.12** 0.02** 0.07***
(1.78) (1.52) (1.87) (1.86) (1.74) (1.97) (1.75) (1.92) (1.54)
Law*CGIi –0.68 0.–70 0.92**
(–1.27) (–1.49) (–1.74)
Intercept –2.36 –0.24 –3.10 –0.57 –0.73 –0.80 0.87 –2.01 –1.65
(–1.47) (–2.50) (–1.87) (–1.22) (–2.43) (–2.38) (–1.98) (–3.54) (0.94)
R2 0.30 0.31 0.32 0..29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31
64

The factors that influence access to external finance are investigated
widely for the developed markets but very little work has been done on how
factors effect access to external finance in case of emerging markets. In this
study the gap is filled by analysing an important issue of our times that the firms
that are growing faster and need more external finance are one that practice
good governance and are transparent in case of Pakistani Market. To address
this issue empirically two models are estimated. First, the determinants of
external financing through equity are investigated. Second, it is examined that
firms that are more in need of external finance are valued higher in the stock
market. Our sample firm consists of 60 non-financial firms which are listed on
the Karachi Stock Exchange and comprises more than 80 percent of market
capitalisation at Karachi stock market.
The results show that the strength of corporate governance systems
affects the access to external financing of corporations. This suggests that
firms which need more equity financing practice good governance. The
results show that firms with high growth and large in size are in more need
of external finance. The results also generally confirm the prediction of the
theory that positive relationship between more access to external financing
and valuation is strong in weak legal regime countries like Pakistan. Thus
legal protection is essential for effective provision of financing. One
implication that comes out from these findings that pro -growth polices
generate more profitable investment opportunities and stimulate the external
financing needs of the corporations. These results adds an important link to
the explanation of the consequences weak legal environment for financial
market development, external financing, corporate valuation and corporate
governance.
Chapter 7: CONCLUSION
The relationship between corporate governance variables has been widely
analysed for the developed markets but very little work has been done on how a
broad range of governance factors effect the corporate performance, corporate
ownership, and corporate access to external financing in thinly traded emerging
markets. In this study this gap is filled by analysing the relationship between
corporate governance and corporate valuation, its ownership structure and its
ability to access to external financing for the Karachi Stock Market. To measure
the firm-level governance we use a rating system to evaluate the stringency of a
set of governance practices and cover various governance categories: such as
board composition, ownership and shareholdings and transparency, disclosure
and auditing. The sample consists of 60 non-financial firms listed on Karachi
Stock Exchange and comprises more than 80 percent of market capitalisation at
Karachi Stock Market in 2007.
65
The corporate governance index and disclosure and transparency index

are used which are developed using the information from the annual reports of
the companies. In order to construct corporate governance index for the firms
listed on KSE, a broad, multifactor corporate governance rating is done which is
based on the data obtained from the annual reports of the firms submitted to
SECP. The index construction is as follows: for every firm, there are 22
governance proxies or indicators are selected, these indicators are categorised
into three main themes. The three categories or sub-indices consist of: eight
factors for the Board, seven for ownership, shareholdings and seven for
transparency, disclosure and audit. The weighting is in the construction of index
is based on subjective judgments. The assigned priorities amongst and within
each category is guided by empirical literature and financial experts in this area.
The maximum score is 100, then, a score of 100 is assigned if factor is observed,
80 if largely observed, 50 for partially observed and 0 if it is not observed at all.
The average is taken out and we arrive at the rating of one sub-index. 31 By
taking the average of three sub-indices we obtain CGI for a particular firm.
After measuring the corporate governance index, the analysis begins by
estimating a simple model of determinants of corporate governance. To
investigate the determinants of corporate governance the individual firm
corporate governance score is regressed on ownership concentration, access to
external finance, investment opportunities, firm size, leverage and interaction
term of rule of law with external finance and ownership concentration.
Ownership structure shows negative and significant relationship with aggregate
corporate governance and disclosure scores however, when the interaction term
of ownership with law there is no impact of legal environment. The
concentration of ownership is negatively related with corporate governance.
This suggests that weakness of investment protection and absence of corporate
control firms rely on governance structure that is dominated by high
concentration of ownership. The firm with concentrated ownership there is no
reason to expect firms to disclose more. The inclusion of disclosure and
transparency scores and other attributes are included in corporate governance
index scores also are not directly related to agency problem. In addition, this
result indicates that negative relationship between corporate governance and
ownership concentration is strong with weak legal regime. Investment
opportunities and firm size have positive impact both aggregate corporate
governance score and disclosure scores. This confirms the theoretical notion that
firms with better investment opportunities and larger in size adopt better
corporate governance practice. The interaction terms of legal regime with
external finance and concentration of ownership show insignificant relationship
with corporate governance index and disclosure scores which suggests that in
31
Sub-Index include (i) Board composition index, (ii) The ownership and shareholdings
Index, (iii) Disclosure and Transparency.
66
legal environment which is less investor friendly firm specific factors matters
more in choice of corporate governance practices.
In exploring the relationship between corporate governance and corporate
valuation, the firm performance is linked to corporate governance, investment
opportunities, firm size, and leverage and interaction term of law enforcement
with corporate governance. The results document a positive and significant
relation between the quality of firm-level corporate governance and firm
performance. The firm performance is measured by two market level measures:
Tobin Q and dividend payout ratio and two accounting measures: return on
assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). In general the ownership and
shareholders rights that align the managers and shareholders interest are
significantly valued by investors. This is also true for board composition and
independence index. Both these sub-indices have positive association with firm
performance. These results are consistent with agency theory which focuses on
monitoring of managers whose interests are assumed to diverge from those of
other shareholders. However, the assumptions of agency theory are not applied
to block holder owned firms. Most of the firms listed on KSE are family owned
or institution owned. In these firms the alignment of ownership and control is
tight and thus suggesting the need of outside directors on the board. However,
the results show that open and transparent disclosure mechanism that reduces
the information asymmetry have no affect on firm performance. This is due to
the reason that we have used the annual reports as data source and these reports
do not reveal all the information required for rating corporate governance.
The factors which determine the ownership concentration are explored,
and the results suggest that there is negative relationship between ownership
concentration and quality of corporate governance practices. The results reveal
that in Pakistan corporations has more concentration of ownership which is the
response of weak legal environment and this result validates the La Porta, et al.
(1997, 1998, 1999, 2000) findings. This result suggests that ownership
concentration is a response to poor legal protection [La Porta, et al. (1999)],
Durnev and Kim (2006)]. The leverage is not a significant determinant of
ownership concentration in all cases. The affect of profitable investment
opportunities .is always positive and significant in all our models, which shows
that more investment opportunities leads to more concentration of ownership
and when firm suffers from a substantial drop in profitable investment
opportunities, the controlling shareholders divert more corporate resources. The
impact size on concentration of ownership is negative indicating that ownership
concentration is significantly lower as the firm size expands.
The concentration of ownership seems to have positive effect on firms’
profitability and performance measures. Our results are consistent with several
empirical findings that document a positive and significant relationship between
ownership concentration and firm performance implying that ownership
concentration matters in determining firm’s value. There is negative association
67

concentration of ownership. The results indicate that firm specific factors
matters more in concentration of ownership. The findings reveal that mo re
investment opportunities provides greater opportunity to for ownership
concentration, however size has opposite effect and leads to delusion of
ownership. It results in diverse ownership to get wider access to funds and share
ownership. The interaction term of any variable with law enforcement term are
not significant in any model suggesting that firm performance is not affected by
rule of law in countries where legal environment is weak.
For deeper analysis the concentration of ownership is split into four
separate groups of owners: director ownership, family ownership, foreign
ownership and institutional ownership. The results indicate that all type of
ownership concentration have positive and significant effect on firm
performance. The results indicate that family ownership concentration results in
better firm value relative to other type of ownership, as indicated by higher
coefficient significance level. These findings are consistent with theoretical
argument claiming that family owners and foreign owners bring better
governance and monitoring practices. The corporate governance index and
disclosure and transparency have positive effect on performance. The results
support our previous findings that size and investment opportunities have
positive and significant effect in most of our model.
In this study the determinants of external finance are also examined. The
results show that the strength of corporate governance systems affects the excess
to external financing by corporations. This suggests that firms which need more
equity financing practice good governance. Thus with good corporate
governance standards in place, it is ultimately the financial market which
rewards good governance practices and punishes bad governance. The results
show that firms with high growth and large in size are in more need of external
finance. Thus legal protection is essential for access to less costly external
financing. The relationship between external financing and ownership
concentration (percentage shareholding by top five shareholders) is negative;
however, investment opportunities and size both have positive impact on firm
value. This confirms the theoretical notion that firms with better investment
opportunities and more intangible assets perform better corporate governance
practice. The interaction terms of legal regime with corporate governance have
no insignificant relationship which suggests that in legal environment which is
less investor friendly firm specific factors matters more in choice of corporate
governance practices.
In investigating the relation between firm value and access to external
financial resources we come to the conclusion that the firms need more external
finance which have more profitable investment opportunities and are also valued
higher. These firms adopt better governance practices and disclose more in order
to access less costly financing sources and these factors adds to their
68
performance. The fact that the firms with higher-quality corporate governance
practices and which are transparent; investors are more willing to provide
finance to them. These results are consistent with agency theory which focuses
on monitoring of managers whose interests are assumed to diverge from those of
other share holders and investor feel protected and expect to get returns of his
investment. The results investigating the relationship between corporate
governance and corporate ownership reveal that in Pakistan corporations has
more concentration of ownership which is the response of weak legal
environment and this result validates the La Porta, et al. (1997, 1998, 1999,
2000) findings. The concentration of ownership seems to have positive effect on
firms’ profitability and performance measures. There is negative association
concentration of ownership. The identity of ownership matters more than the
concentration of ownership. The results indicate that firm specific factors
influence more in concentration of ownership. The findings reveal that more
investment opportunities provides greater opportunity to for ownership
concentration, however size has opposite effect and leads to delusion of
ownership. It results in diverse ownership to get wider access to funds and share
ownership. These results are consistent with studies Boubakri, et al. (2003).
The results show that Corporate Governance Code 2002 potentially
improves the governance and decision making process of firms listed at KSE.
Large shareholders still have a tight grip of companies. However the results
show that the firm level factors are more important indicate that adequate firm-
level governance standard can not replace the solidity of the firm. The
implication that the results suggests is that the low production and bad
management practices can not be covered with transparent disclosures and
transparency standards. Other implication that comes out from these findings
that pro-growth polices generate more profitable investment opportunities and
stimulate the external financing needs of the corporations. In Pakistan
corporations has more concentration of ownership which is the response of weak
legal environment. These results adds an important link to the explanation of the
consequences weak legal environment for external financing, corporate
valuation and corporate governance.
One can argue that a good corporate governance system should combine
some type of legal protection of both the rights of large investors and those of
small investors. Indeed, corporations in successful market economies, such as
the United States, Germany, and Japan, are governed through somewhat
different combinations of legal protection and concentrated ownership. In
Pakistan there is lack of mechanisms for legal protection of investors and
ownership concentration is substitute for this. The analysis suggests that the in
revising corporate governance regulations SECP should adapt the international
code of corporate governance according to the needs of Pakistani corporations.
69
Appendices
APPENDIX
A1: Corporate Governance Index (CGI) Components
Sub-Index 1: The Board of Directors

(i) Board Size (number of directors).
(ii) Board Composition (Clear cut job description of all board members).
(iii) Chairman CEO Separation (if not any lead director).
(iv) Outside directors available to board (independent directors, nominee
directors).
(v) Board attendance (board meetings).
(vi) Outside director attendance in Meetings.
(vii) Existence of the position of CFO.
(viii) Directors representing minority shareholders.
Sub-Index:2 Ownership and Shareholdings

(i) Presence of outside block holder (more than 10 percent
shareholdings).
(ii) Does the CEO own shares.
(iii) Directors ownership (block ownership) other than CEO and
Chairman.
(iv) Chairman or CEO is Block Holder (10 percent).
(v) Concentration of ownership (Top five).
(vi) Dividend Policy.
(vii) Staff benefits other than wages and salaries.
Sub-Index 3: Transparency, Disclosures, and Auditing

(i) Does the company have full disclosure of corporate governance
practices.
(ii) Does the company disclose how much it paid to its auditor for
consulting and other work.
(iii) Does the company disclose full biographies of its board members.
(iv) Disclosure of internal audit committee.
(vi) Disclosure of board directors and executive staff members’
remuneration.
(vii) Disclosure in the company’s annual report) of share ownership
according to the requirement of Code.
(viii) Information of the executive management staff members ownership
(employees ownership).
70
Table A1
Description of Variables
Variable Symbol Definition
Firm Value Q Tobin Q defined as sum of the book value of long term
debt and market value of the equity divided by the
book value of the total asset. Source: Annual Reports
of Corporations.
Return on Assets ROA A performance measure. It is measured by operating
profit divided by the book value of total asset. Source:
Annual Reports of the Corporations.
Return on Equity ROE A performance measure. It is measured by operating
profit divided by the equity capital. Source: Annual
Reports of the Corporations.
External Equity Finance EF Market capitalisation of each firm multip ly with
percentage of shares that are not taken by the top three
shareholders. Source; Market capitalisation from
Business Recorder’s website:
(www.brecorder.com.pk), percentage of shares are not
held by top three shareholder is from annual reports of
corporation.
Investment Opportunities Inv Average Sales Growth. Source: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Corporate Governance CGI Score of Corporate Governance Index. Source.
Disclosure Disc Disclosure and Transparency Scores. Source:
Shareholding and Ownership Share Shareholding and Ownership Scores.
Board Composition Board Board Composition Score.
Ownership Concentration Own Percentage of share ownership of first Five largest
shareholders. Source: Annual Reports of Corporations:
Annual Reports of Corporations.
Family Ownership Fam Percent Share held by Family: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Director Ownership Dir Percent Share held by Directors: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Foreign Ownership Fore Percent Share held by Foreign: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Financial Institution Ownership Fin Percent Share held by Family: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Percent Share held by Financial Institution ICP, NIT:
Annual Reports of Corporations.
Size of the Firm Size Ln(Assets). Source: Annual Reports of Corporations.
Law Lw Rule of Law. Source: World Bank.
Profit Pr Net income/total assets. Source: Annual Reports of
Corporations.
Leverage Lev Book value of Long-term Debt/Book value of total
asset. Source: Annual Reports of Corporations.
71
Table A2
List of Companies Included in the Sample
Name of Company Symbol Sector
Abbot Pakistan ABBOT Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Aruj Garments ARUJ Textile Composite
Agriauto Industries Ltd. AGIL Engineering and Allied
Al-Ghazi Tractors AGTL Auto and Allied
Azam Textiles AZTL Textile Composite
Ayesha Textile AYTL Textile Composite
Brother Textiles Ltd. BRTL Textile Composite
Bata Pakistan BATA Leather and Allied
Cherat Cement CHCC Cement
Crescent Textile Mills CRTM Textile Composite
Crescent Steel CSAP Engineering
Dadabhoy Cement DBYC Cement
Dar Es Salaam Sugar DSSL Sugar and Allied
Din Motors DEEN Auto and Allied
Fuji Fertili ser Bin Qasim FFCL Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Dawod Hericules DHML Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Engro Chemical Pakistan ENGRO Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Faisal Spinning FASM Textile Spinning
Emco Industries Ltd. EMIL Glass and Allied
Fauji Fertili ser FFCL Fertiliser
Fateh Textile FTHM Textile Composite
Ferozson L td. FZML Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Ellcot Spinning Mills ESML Textile Spinning
Gul Ahmed Textile GULT Textile Composite
Honda Atlas HONDA Auto and Allied
Hub Power Co. HUBC Power Generation & Distribution
I.C.I. Pak ICI Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Indus Motors INDU Auto and Allied
Indus Polyester Company IDML Auto and Allied
Japan Power JPPO Power Generation & Distribution
Karachi Electric Supply Co. KESC Power Generation & Distribution
Lever Brothers Pakistan LEVER Food and Allied
Metropolitan Steel MMSL Engineering and Allied
Mandviwalla Mauser Ltd. MMPL Plastic and Allied
Merit Packing Ltd . MPL Paper and Board
Maple Leaf Cement MPLC Cement
Mohammad Farooq Textiles MFTL Textile Composite
Mitchell's Fruit MFFL Food and Allied
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills MPKS Sugar and Allied
National Refinery NATR Fuel and Energy
Nestle Milk Pak Ltd. NESTLE Food and Allied
Oil and Gas Development Corp Ltd. OGDC Fuel and Energy
Packages Ltd. PACK Paper and Board
Pakistan PVC Ltd. PVCL Cables and Electric Goods
Pakistan Tobacco Company PAKT Tobacco
Pakistan Hotel Development Ltd. PHDL Service
Pakistan Services PKSL Leather
Pakistan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. PAKG Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
PTCL PTC Fuel and Energy
Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. PPL Fuel and E nergy
Pakistan Papaersack Corporation PPCL Paper and Board
Sitara Chemicals SITC Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Sui Southern Gas Company SNGC Fuel and Energy
Sui Northern Gas Company SSGC Fuel and Energy
Shahtaj Sugar Mills SSML Sugar and Allied
Sindh Abadgar Sugar SASL Sugar and Allied
S.G. Fibre Ltd. SGFL Textile Composite
Suzuki Motorcycles SMCL Auto and Allied
Southern Electric SELL Fuel and Energy
72
REFERENCES
Agrawal, A., and G. Mandelker (1987) Large Shareholders and the Monitoring
of Managers: the Case of Anti-takeover Charter Amendments. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis 25: 143-161.
Alchian, Armen (1950) Uncertainty Evolution and Economic Theory. Journal of
Political Economy 58, 211– 221.
Anderson, R., S. Mansi, and D. Reeb (2004) Board Characteristics, Accounting
Report Integrity, and the Cost of Debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics
37: (September), 315–342.
Arnott, R., and C. Asness (2003) Surprise! Higher Dividends Higher Earnings
Growth. Financial Analysis Journal 59, 70– 87.
Aoki, M., and P. Sheard (1992) The Role of the Main Bank in the Corporate
Governance Structure of Japan. Stanford University (Working Paper).
Arellano, M., and S. R. Bond (1991) Some Tests of Specification for Panel
Data: Mote Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.
Review of Economic Studies 58, 277–297.
Baysinger, B., and H. Butler (1985) Corporate Governance and Board of
Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition. Journal of
Law, Economics and Organisation 1, 101–124.
Barbosa, N., and H. Louri (2002) On the Determinants of Multinationals’
Ownership Preferences: Evidence from Greece and Portugal. International
Journal of Industrial Economics 20, 493– 515.
Boubakri, Nargees, Jean-Cluade Cosset, and Omrane Guedhami (2003) Post
Privatisation Corporate Governance: The Role of Ownership Structure and
Investment Protection. Journal of Financial Economics 76:2, 369–399.
Ben-Amar, W. and P. Andre (2005) Separation of ownership from Control and
Acquiring firm performance: The Case Study of Family Ownership and
Control. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC). (Working Paper).
Berle, A., and G. Means (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property.
New York: Macmillan.
Burkart, M. (1997) Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:3, 693– 729.
Black, B., H. Jang, and W. Kim (2003) Does Corporate Governance Affect Firm
Value? Stanford Law School. (Working Paper 327).
Bebchuk, L. (1999) A Rent Protection Theory of Corporate Ownership and
Control. (NBER Working Paper 7203).
Bebchuk, L., A. Cohen, and A. Ferrell (2004) What Matters in Corporate
Governance? Harvard Law School. (Working Paper).
Bahjat, S. and B. Black (1999) The uncertain Relation between Board
Composition and Firm Performance. Business Law 54, 921– 963.
73
Bhagat, S., and B. Black (2002) The Non-correlation between Board

Independence and Long-term Firm Performance. Journal of Corporation
Law 27, 231– 274.
Bradeley, N. (2004) Corporate Governance Scoring and the Link between
Corporate Governance and Performance Indicators in Search of Holy Grail.
Corporate Governance, 12, 8– 11.
Brickley, J., J. Coles, and R. Terry (1994) Outside Directors and the Adoption of
Poison Pills. Journal of Financial Economics 35: (June), 371–390.
Brown, L. D. and M. L. Claylor (2004) Corporate Governance and Firm
Performance. Gorgia State University, USA. (Working Paper).
Beck, T. A. D. and R. Levin (2005) Law and Excess to External Finance.
American Law and Economics 7.
Beck, Thorsten, Ashi Demirguk-Kunt, and Ross Levine (1999) A New Database
on Financial Development and Structure. World Bank. (Working Paper).
Beck, Thorsten, Ross Levine, and Norman Loyaza (2000) Finance and the
Sources of Growth. Journal of Financial Economics 58, 261–300.
Bekaert, Geert, Campbell Harvey, and Chris Lundblad (2005) Does Financial
Liberalisation Spur Growth? Journal of Financial Economics 77, 3– 55.
Benmelech, E., and T. Moskowitz (2006) The Political Economy of Financial
Regulation: Evidence from U.S. State Usury Laws in the 18th and 19th
Century. University of Chicago. (Mimeographed).
Chaganli, R., V. Mahajam and S. Sharma (1983) Corporate Board Size, Its
Composition and Corporate Failure in the Field of Retailing Industry.
Journal of Management Studies 22, 400– 417.
Cheema, A. (2003) Corporate governance in Pakistan; Issues and Concerns. The
Journal 8, 7–19, NIPA, Karachi.
Cheema, A., F. Bari, and O. Saddique (2003) Corporate Governance in Pakistan:
Ownership, Control and the Law. Lahore University of Management
Sciences, Lahore.
Chibber, P. K., and S. K. Majumdar (1999) Foreign Ownership and Profitability:
Property Rights, Control, and the Performance of Firms in Indian Industry.
The Journal of Law and Economics 42:1, 209–238.
Choi, J. J., and S. Yoo (2005) Foreign Investment and Firm Performance.
Korean Institute of International Economic Policy. (Discussion Paper).
Chirinko, B., H. V., Ees, H. Garretsen, and E. Sterken (1999) Firm Performance,
Financial Institutions and Corporate Governance in the Netherlands. CESifo
Working Paper Series. (Working Paper 210).
Claessens, S., S. Djankov, and G. Pohl (1996) Ownership and Corporate
Governance: Evidence from the Czech Republic. (Policy Research Working
Paper 1737).
Claessens, S., and S. Djankov (1999) Ownership Concentration and Corporate
Performance in the Czech Republic. (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2145.)
74
Claessens, S., S., Djankov, and L. Lang (2000) The Separation of Ownership
and Control in East Asian Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58,
81– 112.
Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J .P. H. Fan, and L. H .P. Lang (2002) Disentangling
the Incentive and Entrenchment Effects of Large Shareholdings. Journal of
Finance 57, 2741–2771.
Core, J., W. R., Holthausen, and D. Larcker (1999) Corporate Governance,
Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance. Journal of
Financial Economics 51, 371–406.
Cetorelli, Nicola, and Philip Strahan (2006) Finance as a Barrier to Entry: Bank
Competition and Industry Structure in US Local Markets. Journal of Finance
61, 437–61.
Daily, C. M., J. L. Johnson, A. E. Eustrand, and D. R. Dalton (1998)
Compensation Committee Composition as a Determinant of CEO
Compensation. Academy of Management Journal 41, 209–220.
Daily, C. M., D. R. Dalton, and N. Rajagopalan (2003) Governance through
Ownership: Centuries of Practice, Decades of Research. Academy of
Management Journal 46:2, 151– 158.
Dalton, D. R., C. M. Daily, S. T. Certo, and R. Roengpitya (2003) Meta-
analyses of Financial Performance and Equity: Fusion or Confusion?
Academy of Management Journal 46, 13–26.
Demsetz, H. (1983) The Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm.
Journal of Law and Economics 26, 375–390.
Demirgüç-Kunt, A. and V. Maksimovic (1998) Law, Finance, and Firm Growth.
Journal of Finance 53, 2107– 2137.
Demirgüç-Kunt, A. and Ross Levine (2005) Law, Finance, Access to Finance.
American Law and Economic Review 7: 1, 211–252.
Demsetz, H., and K., Lehn (1985) The Structure of Corporate Ownership:
Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy 93, 1155– 1177.
Dzierzanowski, M. and P. Tamowicz (2004) Ownership and Control of Polish
Corporations. Corporate Ownership and Control 1, 20–30.
Drobetz, W. and A. Schillhofer, and H. Zimmerman (2004) Corporate
Governance and Expected Stock Return: Evidence from Germany. European
Financial Management 10:4, 267–293.
Durnev, Art and E. Han Kim (2006) To Steal or Not to Steal: Firm Attributes,
Legal Environment, and Valuation. Journal of Finance 60:3, 1461–1493.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of
Management Review 14, 57– 74.
Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen (1983a) Agency Problems and Residual Claims.
Journal of Law and Economics 26: 2, 327– 349.
Fama, E., and M. C. Jensen (1983b) Separation of Ownership and Control.
Journal of Law and Economics 26, 301– 325.
75
Fama, E. (1980) Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of
Political Economy 88, 288-307.
Fama, E. and M. C. Jensen (1985) Organisation Forms and Investment Decision.
Journal of Financial Economics 14, 101–119.
Faccio, M. and L. Lang (2002) The Ultimate Ownership of Western European
Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 65, 365–395.
Feinberg, R. M. (1975) Profit Maximisation vs. Utility Maximisation. Southern
Economic Journal 42, 130–134.
Fosberg, R. (1989) Outside Directors and Managerial Monitoring. Akron
Business and Economic Review 20, 24-32.
Fernchdez, C. and R. Arrondo (2005) Alternative Internal Control as Substitutes
of the Board of Directors. Corporate Governance 13, 856– 866.
FTSE ISS (2005) Corporate Governance Rating and Index Series—Measuring
the Impact of Corporate Governance on Global Portfolios. (FTSE Iss Cgi
Series Research Report: 2005.)
Gani, W. I. and J. Ashraf (2005) Corporate Governance, Business Group
Affiliation, and Firm Performance: Descriptive Evidence from Pakistan. Lahore
University of Management Sciences. (CMER Working Paper No 05-35).
Gedajlovic, E. R., and D. M. Shapiro (2002) Ownership Structure and Firm
Profitability in Japan. Academy of Management Journal 19, 533– 553.
Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick (2003) Corporate Governance and Equity
Prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 107– 155.
González, Raquel Lago, Banco de España, and Jose A. Lopez (2007)
Determinants of Access to External Finance: Evidence from Spanish Firms.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Graff, J. De. V. (1950) Income Effect and Theory of the Firm. Review of the
Economic Studies 1, 79– 86.
Griffith, R. (1999) Using the ARD Establishment-level Data to Look at Foreign
Ownership and Productivity in the United Kingdom. Economic Journal 109,
416–442.
Griffith, R. and H. Simpson (2003) Characteristics of Foreign Owned Firms in
British Manufacturing. (NBER Working Paper 9573).
Griffith, R. and Simpson. (2004) Foreign Ownership and Productivity: New
Evidence from the Service Sector and the R & D Lab. Institute for Fiscal
Studies, London. (WP04/22).
Gillan, S., J. Hartzell, and L. Starks (2003) Explaining Corporate Governance:
Boards, Bylaws, and Charter Provisions. University of Delaware and
University of Texas. (Working Paper).
Hessen, R. (1983) The Modern Corporation and Private Property: A
Reappraisal. Journal of Law and Economics 26, 273–289.
Hermalin, B. E. and M. Weisbach (1988) The Determinants of Board
Composition. The Journal of Economics 19, 589– 606.
76
Hermalin, B. E. and M. S. Weisback (1991) The Effect of Board Composition

and Direct Incentives on Corporate Performance. Financial Management 20,
101–12.
Hermalin, B. E. and M. S. Weisback (2001) Boards of Directors as an
Endogenity Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature.
(NBER Working Paper Series 8161).
Himmelberg, C., R. G. Hubbard, and D. Palia (1999) Understanding the
Determinants of Managerial Ownership and the Link between Ownership
and Performance. Journal of Financial Economics 53: 353-384.
Holderness, C., R. Kroszner, and D. Sheehan (1999) Were the Good Old Days
that Good? Evolution of Managerial Stock Ownership and Corporate
Governance since the Great Depression. Journal of Finance 54, 435– 469.
Holmstrom, B., and J. Tirole (1993) Market Liquidity and Performance
Monitoring. Journal of Political Economy 101.
Hyyinen, Ari and Mika Pajarinen 2005 External Finance, Firm Growth and the
Benefits of Information Disclosure: Evidence from Finland. European
Journal of Law and Economics 19, 69– 93.
Javid, Attiya Y. and Robina Iqbal (2006) Corporate Governance and Firm
Performance. The Pakistan Development Review 45: 4.
Javid, Attiya Y. and Robina Iqbal (2007) External Financial Resource Management
by Listed Pakistani Firms. The Pakistan Development Review 46: 4.
Javid, Attiya Y. and Robina Iqbal (2009) Ownership Concentration, Corporate
Governance and Firm Performance: Evidence from Pakistan. The Pakistan
Development Review 48:4.
Iqbal, S. (2006) Outflow of Profits to Hit $ 102m this Year. The Dawn,
Islamabad.
Iqbal, Robina (2006) Corporate Ownership Structure and Firm Performance;
Evidence from Pakistani Listed Companies. M Phil Dissertation, Economics
Department, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Jensen, M.C., and W. H. Meckling (1976) Theory of the Firm: Managerial
Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial
Economics 3, 305– 360.
Jensen, M. (1993) The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of
Internal Control Systems. Journal of Finance 48: (July), 831–880.
John, K. and L. W. Senbet (1998) Corporate Governance and Board
Effectiveness. Journal of Banking and Finance 22: (May), 371-403.
Johnson, S., P. Boone, A. Breach, and E. Friemdan (2000) Corporate
Governance and the Asian Financial Crisis . Journal of Financial Economics
58, 141–186.
Kalid, A. M. and M. N. Hanif (2005) Corporate Governance for Bank in
Pakistan: Recent Development and Regional Comparison. Lahore University
of Management Sciences, Lahore. (CMER Working Paper).
77
Kaplan, S. N. and L. Zingales (1997) Do Financing Constraints Explain why

Investment is Correlated with Cash Flow? Quarterly Journal of Economics
112, 169–215.
Klapper, L. F. and I. Love (2002) Corporate Governance, Investor Protection,
and Performance in Emerging Markets. Unpublished manuscript.
Klein, A. (2002) Audit Committee, Board of Director Characteristics, and
Earnings Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33: (August),
375–400.
Klein, P., D. Shapiro and J. Young (2005) Corporate Governance, Family
Ownership and Firm Value. Corporate Governance, 13.
Kocenda, E. and J. Svejnar (2002) The Effects of Ownership Forms and
Concentration on Firm Performance after Large-scale Privatisation. William
Davidson Institute (Working Paper Number 471).
Kuznetsov, P. and A. Muravyev (2001) Ownership Structure and Firm
Performance in Rusia: The Case of Blue Chips of the Stock Market,
Economics Education and Research Consortium. (Working Paper No.
01/10).
Kashyap, A. K., J. C. Steinand, and D. W. Wilcox (1993) Monetary Policy and
Credit Conditions Evidence from the Composition of External Finance.
American Economic Review 83, 78– 98.
Kashyap, A. K., J. C. Steinand and D. W. Wilcox (1996) Monetary Policy and
Credit Conditions: Evidence from the Composition of External Finance:
Reply. American Economic Review 86, 310– 314.
Lane, P. J., A. A. Jr., Gannella, and M. H. Lubatkin (1998) Agency Problems as
Antecedents to Unrelated Mergers and Diversification. Strategic
Management Journal 19, 555–578.
La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1997) A Survey
of Corporate Governance. Journal of Finance, 52:2, 737-783.
La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1998) Law and
Finance. Journal of Political Economy 106, 1113–1155.
La Porta R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes A. Shleifer R.Vishny (1999) Corporate
Ownership Around the World. Journal of Finance 54, 471–517.
La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (2000) Investor
Protection and Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics 58, 3–27.
Leech, D. and J. Leahy (1991) Ownership Structure, Control Type
Classifications and the Performance of Large British Companies. The
Economic Journal 101, 1418–1437.
Lipton, M. and J. Lorsch. (1992) A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate
Governance. Business Lawyer 59: (November), 59–77.
Lemmon, M. L. and K. V. Lins (2003) Ownership Structure, Corporate
Governance and Firm Value: Evidence from the East Asian Financial Crisis .
Journal of Finance 58, 1445– 1468.
78
Lichtenberg, F. and G. Pushner (1994) Ownership Structure and Corporate

Performance in Japan. Japan and the World Economy 6, 239– 261.
Lins, K. (2003) Equity Ownership and Firm Value in Emerging Markets. The
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (forthcoming).
Levine, Ross E. (2004) Finance and Growth: Theory and Evidence. (NBER WP
10766).
Levine, Ross E. and Sarah Zervos (1998) Stock Market and Economic Growth.
American Economic Review 88: 3, 37– 58.
Malmendier, U. and G. Tate (2004) Overconfidence and Corporate Investment
NBER (Working Paper Series, Working Paper 10807).
Maury, B. (2006) Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Empirical
Evidence from Western European Corporation. Journal of Corporate
Finance 12, 321–41.
McConnell, J. J. and H. Servaes (1990) Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership
and Corporate Value. Journal of Financial Economics 27, 595–612.
McConnell, J. and H. Servaes (1995) Equity Ownership and the Two Faces of
Debt. Journal of Financial Economic 39, 131–157.
Mitton, Todd (2001) A Cross-firm Analysis of Corporate Governance on East-
Asian Crisis. Journal of Financial Economics (May), 5–50.
Mir, Shahid and Mohammad Nishat (2004) Corporate Governance Structure and
Firm Performance in Pakistan: An Empirical Study. Paper presented at
Second Annual Conference in Corporate Governance. Lahore University of
Management Sciences, Lahore.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1988) Management Ownership and
Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics
20, 293–315.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1989) Alternative Mechanisms for
Corporate Control. American Economic Review 79, 842–852.
Morck, R. and M. Nakamua (1999a) Banks and Corporate Control in Japan.
Journal of Finance 54, 319–339.
Morck, R. and M. Nakamua (1999b) Japanese Corporate Governance and
Macroeconomic Problems. Harvard Institute of Economic. (Research Paper).
Morck, R. K., D. A. Stangeland, and B. Yeung (2000) Inherited Wealth,
Corporate Control and Economic Growth: The Canadian Disease? In Randall
Morck (ed.) Concentrated Corporate Ownership. National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER). 319–369.
Morck, R. (2005) The Global History of Corporate Governance—An
Introduction in R. Morck (ed.) The History of Corporate Governance around
the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers. University of
Chicago Press. (forthcoming).
OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (2004) Draft Revised Text, available
http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,2340,en_2649_34813_31530865_1_1_1
_37439,00.html
79
Omran, Mohammad (2004) The Performance of State Owned Enterprises and

Newly Privatised Firms: Empirical Evidence form Egypt. The Arab
Academy of Science and Technology and Arab Monetary Fund.
Oulton, N. (2000) Why do Foreign-owned Firms in the UK have Higher Labour
Productivity? Bank of England. (Mimeographed).
Oliner, S. and G. Rudebusch (1996a ) Is there a Broad Credit Channel for
Monetary Policy? Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Economic Review
2, 3–20.
Oliner, S. and G. Rudebusch (1996b ) Monetary Policy and Credit Constraints:
Evidence from the Composition of External Finance: Comment. American
Economic Review 86, 300–309.
Patrick, H. (2001) Corporate Governance, Ownership Structure and Financial
Crisis: Experience of East Asian Countries. KDIC International Financial
Symposium.
Peres-Gonzalez, F. (2001) Does Inherited Control Hurt Firm Performance?
Columbia University. (Working Paper).
Pistor, K., Y. Keinan, J. Kleinheisterkamp, and D. M. West (2003) Evolution of
Corporate Law and the Transplant Effect: Lessons from Six Countries. The
World Bank Research Observer 18: 1, 89– 112.
Pistor, K., D. Berkowitz, and J. F. Richard (2001) Economic Development,
Legality, and the Transplant Effect. European Economic Review 47: 1.
Perotti E., and P. Volpin (2007) Politics, Investor Protection and Competition.
Financial ECGI Working Paper Series in Finance. (Working Paper No. 162).
Project Report: SEC-UNDP Project on Corporate Governance (July 2003),
available at http://www.secp.gov.pk/dp/pdf/ProjectReport.pdf
Rajan, R. and L. Zingales (1998) Financial Dependence and Growth. American
Economic Review 88, 559– 87.
Rais, R. B. and A. Saeed (2005). Regulatory Impact Assessment of SECP’s
Corporate Governance Code in Pakistan. Lahore University of Management
Sciences, Lahore. (CMER Working Paper 06-39).
Roe, S. and C. R. Lee-Sing (1996) Governance Structure, Corporate Decision
Making and Firm Performance in North America. Industry, Canada.
(Working Paper 7).
Report on the Observance of Standards and Code (ROSC), Corporate
Governance Country Assessment: Pakistan. June 2005.
Governance Country Assessment: Bangladesh. June 2005.
Governance Country Assessment: India . June 2003.
Governance Country Assessment: Sri Lanka. June 2005.
Rosenstein, S. and J. Wyatt. (1990) Outside Directors: Board Independence and
Shareholder Wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26, 175–191.
80
Shaw, M. (1981) Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behaviour.

McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
Shleifer, A. R. and W. Vishny (1986) Large Shareholders and Corporate
Control. Journal of Political Economy 94, 461– 488.
Shleifer, A. R. and W. Vishny (1997) A Survey of Corporate Governance.
Journal of Finance 52:2, 737–783.
Shleifer, A. and Wolfenzon Daniel (2002) Investor Protection and Equity
Markets. Journal of Financial Economics 66, 3–27.
Shaheen, Rozina and Mohammad Nishat (2005) Corporate Governance and
Firm Performance: An Exploratory Analysis. Paper presented in the
Conference of Lahore School of Management Sciences, Lahore.
Sheard, P. (1989) The Main Bank System and Corporate Monitoring and
Control in Japan. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 11, 399–
422.
Sheard, P. (1991) The Economics of Interlocking Shareholding in Japan.
Richerche Economiche 45, 421–448.
Shleifer, A. and D. Wolfenzon (2002).Investor Protection and Equity Markets.
Journal of Financial Economics 66, 3– 27.
State Bank of Pakistan (2001-2006) Balance Sheet Analysis of Joint Stock
Companies Listed on Karachi Stock Exchange.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (2002) Code of Corporate
Governance. SECP.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (1980) The Modaraba
Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980.
SECP.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (1969) The Securities and
Exchange Ordinance, 1969. SECP.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (1984) The Company
Ordinance, 1984.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (2000) Insurance Ordinance
of Pakistan, 2000. SECP
Syed, S. I. (2005) Corporate Governance in the Financial Sector of Pakistan.
Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore. (Research Paper).
Stigler, George (1958) The Economics of Scale. Journal of Law and Economics
1, 54–71.
White Paper on Corporate Governance in Asia (2003) available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,2340,en_2649_34813_2048216_1_1_1_
37439,00.html
Yafeh, Y. (2001) Corporate Governance in Japan: Past Performance and Future
Prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 16, 74–84.
Yeh, Y. H. (2003) Corporate Ownership and Control: New Evidence from
Taiwan. Corporate Ownership and Control 1, 87– 101.
81
Yermack, D. (1996) Higher Market Valuation for Firms with a Small Board of
Directors. Journal of Financial Economics 40: (February), 185–211.
Zeckhouser, R. and J. Pound (1990) Are Large Shareholders Effective
Monitors? An Investigation of Share Ownership and Corporate Performance.
In R. Hubbard (editor) Asymmetric Information, Corporate Finance and
Investment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Press. 149–180.
Zigales, Luigi (1995) What Determines the Value of Corporate Votes?
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 1075–1110.

WorkingPaper 57

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WorkingPaper 57

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

WorkingPaper 57

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIDE Working Papers

Corporate Governance in Pakistan:

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

© Pakistan Institute of Development

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

Designed, composed, and finished at the Publications Division, PIDE.

Acknowledgements: The authors are Professor of Economics, Pakistan Institute of

powerless position of the numerous and dispersed shareholders, mean that

1.2. Objective of the Study

The second dimension of this issue is to investigate the determinants of

1.3. Organisation of the Study

Chapter 2: OVERVIEW OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

2.2. Institutional Framework

Commission of Pakistan (The Commission) was established in pursuance of the

• Company Law Division.

A number of significant amendments in corporate laws were made with

2.3. Code of the Corporate Governance

2.4. Assessment of Corporate Governance

shareholders. Moreover, the addition of the non-executive members has

2.5. Corporate Governance under Concentrated Ownership

Cheema, Bari, and Siddique (2003) summaries the corporate growth

2.6. Corporate Governance in South Asia

graduates generally do not join the accounting profession because it is not

Paid-up Capital (Rs Billion)

Paid-up Capital (Rs billion) 797 824 890 982

2.7. Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 3: DETERMINANTS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

3.2. Review of Previous Literature

3.3. Corporate Governance Index

composition and independence index seven for ownership, shareholdings and

full disclosure of corporate governance practices, directors’ bibliography, and

3.4. Determinants of Corporate Governance

CGI i = α + β1EFi + β 2Owni + β 3Invi + β 4Sizei + β 5Lw i

Where CGLi is a vector of corporate governance index, Ownt is the

3.5. Estimation Technique

3.6. Empirical Findings

This Table 3.1 provides the summary statistics of distribution of

The results show positive association between need of external finance

3.7. Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 4: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND

performance measures). This study adds to existing literature by applying the

4.2. Review of Previous Literature

4.3. Data and Methodological Framework

4.3.2. Empirical Methodology

Perfi = α + β1CGI i + β 2Invi + β 3Levi + β 4Size + β 5Lwi * CGI i + ε it (4.1)

4.4. Empirical Findings

The results based on association between ROA and corporate governance

To investigate the relation between firm value measured by dividend pay-

When dividend pay-out is used as performance measure the aggregate

4.5. Summary and Conclusions

various governance categories: such as board composition, ownership and

Chapter 5: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND

corporate governance, many corporations owned by disperse shareholders and

5.2. Review of Previous Literature

Since Berle and Means (1932) the separation of corporate ownership

performance in Czech Republic, Kocenda and Svejnar (2002) only partly

Arrondo (2005)]. Stulz (1988) demonstrate that sufficiently high managerial

There is an extensive theoretical literature on the role and incentive of

is known (empirically) about such issues in emerging market economies,

CGIi 0.36* 0.34* 0.35***