Corporate governance mechanisms and bank performance: evidence from the Greek banks during crisis period

  • Received December 31, 2016;
    Accepted February 22, 2017;
    Published April 28, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Andreas G. Georgantopoulos , Ioannis Filos
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(1-1).2017.02
  • Article Info
    Volume 14 2017, Issue #1 (cont.), pp. 160-172
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    14 articles
  • 1497 Views
  • 396 Downloads

This paper is the first research attempt that investigates the impact of a large number of corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of Greek banks,employing widely accepted in the literature of corporate governance econometric models. Results indicate that system GMM models are more suitable methodological tools than pooledOLS and fixed effects models to address well-known econometric problems, such as endogeneity, simultaneity and unobserved heterogeneity of individual banks. The findings, as derived from the application of GMM models, imply that increasing the board size and the number of independent directors can both have positive impact on the performance of Greek banks, but only up to a certain point. Thus, bank efficiency will increase as board size and the proportion of independent directors grow up to a point where these relationships hit a maximum from which bank performance decreases. Our multi-model estimations failed to trace any significant contribution of the number of female and foreign directors on the performance of Greek banks. Finally, the dual appointment of a CEO as Chairman appears to affect negatively two out of four proxies of bank performance. Overall, the results provide support for the positive impact of corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of Greek banks. The significance of these findings increases, considering that the period under study (2008-2014) is marked by high market volatility and uncertainty due to the well-known debt crisis that plagues Greece since the beginning of 2008.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Full sample descriptive statistics
    • Table 2. Pooled OLS empirical findingswith the inclusion of BoardSizeSQ
    • Table 3. Fixed effectsempirical findingswith the inclusion of BoardSizeSQ
    • Table 4. Two-step system GMM empirical findings with theinclusion of BoardSizeSQ
    • Table 5. Two-step System-GMM empirical findings with theinclusion of IndepDirSQ
    • Adams, R. B., Mehran, H. (2012). Bank board structure and performance: evidence for large bank holding companies. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 21, 243-267.
    • Adams, R. B., Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291-309.
    • Adams, R. B., Hermalin, B., Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. Review of Financial Studies, 18 (4), 1403-1432.
    • Adams, R. B., Mehran, H. (2005). Corporate performance, board structure and its determinants in the banking industry. Working Paper, SSRN.
    • Adams, R. B., Mehran, H. (2003). Is corporate governance different for bank holding companies? Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 123-142.
    • Agrawal, A., Knoeber, C. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 377-397.
    • Andres, P., Vallelado, E.(2008). Corporate governance in banking: the role of board of directors. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32, 2570-2580.
    • Arellano, M., Bond, S. (1998). Dynamic panel data estimation using DPD98 for GAUSS: A guide for users. Working Paper, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2006). Enhancing Corporate Governance for Banking Organizations.
    • BCBS. (2005). International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework. Consultative Document.
    • Brickley, J. A., Coles, J. L., Jarrell, G. (1997). Leadership structure: separating the CEO and chairman of the board. Journal of Corporate Finance, 3, 189-220.
    • Caprio, G., Levine, R. (2002). Corporate governance of banks: concepts and international observations. Paper Presented at the Global Corporate Governance Forum Research Network Meeting 2002.
    • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., Simpson, W.G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review, 38, 33-53.
    • Catalyst. (2010). Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors of the Fortune 500, Catalyst, New York, NY.
    • Coles, J.L., Daniel, N.D., Naveen, L., 2008. Boards: does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 329-356.
    • Deya, A., Engelb, E., Liuc, X. (2011). CEO and board chair roles: To split or not to split? Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1595-1618.
    • Eagly, A., Carli, L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.
    • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35-54.
    • Grose, C., Kargidis, T., Chouliaras, V. (2014). Corporate governance in practice. The Greek case. Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, 369-379.
    • Gul, F. A., Srinidhi, B., Ng, A. C. (2011). Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51, 314-338.
    • Hahn, D. P., Lasfer, M. (2016). Impact of foreign directors on board meeting frequency.International Review of Financial Analysis, 46,295-308.
    • Harris, M., Raviv, A. (2008). A theory of board control and size. Review of Financial Studies, 21(4), 1797-1832.
    • Hermalin, B. E., Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 9, 7-26.
    • James, J. B., Joseph, C. (2015). Corporate governance mechanisms and bank performance: resource-based view. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 117-123.
    • Khanchel, I. (2007). Corporate governance: measurement and determinate analysis. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22, 740-760.
    • Klein, A. (2002). Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35, 375-400.
    • Liang, Q., Xu, P., Jiraporn, P. (2013). Board characteristics and Chinese bank performance.Journal of Banking and Finance, 37,2953-2968.
    • Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., Yang, T. (2008). A large sample study on board changes and determinants of board structure. JournalofFinancialEconomics, 87, 308-328.
    • Lorsch, J. W., Lipton, M. (1993). On the leading edge: The lead director. Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 79-80.
    • Mallin, C., Farag, H., Ow-Yong, K. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Islamic banks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, 521-538.
    • Mollah, S., Zaman, M. (2015). Shari’ah supervision, corporate governance and performance: Conventional vs. Islamic banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 58, 418-435.
    • Nguyen, B. D., Nielsen, K. M. (2010). The value of independent directors: evidence from sudden death. Journal of Financial Economics, 98, 550-567.
    • Pathan, S., Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 1573-1589.
    • Peck-Ling, T., Nai-Chiek, A., Chee-Seong, L. (2016). Foreign ownership, foreign directors and the profitability of Malaysian listed companies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 580-588.
    • Pi, L., Timme, S.G. (1993). Corporate control and bank efficiency. Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 515-530.
    • Raheja, C.G. (2005). The determinants of board size and composition: a theory of corporate boards. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40, 283-306.
    • Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to “difference” and “system” GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, 9, 86-136.
    • Windmeijer, F. (2000). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear two-step GMM estimators. Working Paper. The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581-606.
    • Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-212.
Related Articles

  • Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?

    Patrick VelteORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #2         pp. 19-35 Views: 4477 Downloads: 1720 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.

  • Corporate governance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of selected multinational firms in Nigeria

    Gideon Tayo Akinleye , Odunayo OlarewajuORCID Researcher ID, Bamikole Samson Fajuyagbe doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(1).2019.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 17, 2019         Issue #1         pp. 11-18 Views: 3415 Downloads: 570 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study focused on corporate governance and performance of selected Nigerian multinational firms from 2012 to 2016. Specifically, the study focused on the effect of board size, activism and committee activism on return on asset and firm growth rate. Secondary data collected from four multinational firms were analyzed via static panel estimation techniques. While board size and board activism exerted significant negative impact on return on asset, committee activism exerted insignificant impact. The results of the study further showed that board size and board activism exert insignificant negative impact on firm’s growth rate, while committee activism insignificantly spurs firm’s growth rate. Decisively, discoveries from this study reflect that corporate governance has significant negative impact on return on asset, but has insignificant influence on the growth rate of Nigerian multinational firms. Based on these findings, the authors recommended that corporate governance dynamics in firms world over should be reconsidered, such that it gives credence to more than just numbers of persons or meetings held, but the main reasons and deliberations in such meetings. It was also recommended that excessive increase in magnitude or frequency of meetings held by board of directors cum committee should be avoided.

  • Impact of corporate governance mechanisms on financial reporting quality: a study of Indian GAAP and Indian Accounting Standards

    Faozi A. AlmaqtariORCID Researcher ID, Abdulwahid Abdullah HashedORCID , Mohd ShamimORCID , Waleed M. Al-ahdal doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.01
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020         Issue #4         pp. 1-13 Views: 2967 Downloads: 612 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The present study examines the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on financial reporting quality under Indian GAAP and Indian Accounting Standards (Ind. AS). A sample of 97 companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange is selected. Corporate governance mechanisms have been considered as independent variables, and financial reporting quality is the dependent variable. Corporate governance is measured by board effectiveness (board size, independence, diligence, and expertise), audit committee attributes (size, independence, diligence, and expertise), foreign ownership, and audit quality. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and OLS regression are conducted to estimate the results. The study results reveal that board characteristics and audit committee attributes, except for audit committee diligence, have a significant effect on financial reporting quality. However, the impact of board diligence and audit committee attributes is negative. Foreign ownership has no contribution to financial reporting quality, but audit quality has a significant effect. The findings of the study have considerable implications for regulators, policymakers, managers, investors, analysts, and academicians. More emphasis should be given to compliance with Ind. AS, and an oversight body for compliance with Ind. AS should be established.

    Acknowledgment
    This publication was supported by Deanship of Scientific Research, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia.

Download Preview
Close
Investment Management and Financial Innovations
Investment Management and Financial Innovations