سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

ثقفی, علی, کامران, مهدیه. (1395). بررسی روابط متقابل حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد با استفاده از سیستم معادلات همزمان. , 6(15), 81-110.
علی ثقفی; مهدیه کامران. "بررسی روابط متقابل حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد با استفاده از سیستم معادلات همزمان". , 6, 15, 1395, 81-110.
ثقفی, علی, کامران, مهدیه. (1395). 'بررسی روابط متقابل حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد با استفاده از سیستم معادلات همزمان', , 6(15), pp. 81-110.
ثقفی, علی, کامران, مهدیه. بررسی روابط متقابل حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد با استفاده از سیستم معادلات همزمان. , 1395; 6(15): 81-110.

بررسی روابط متقابل حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد با استفاده از سیستم معادلات همزمان

چشم انداز مدیریت مالی
مقاله 5، دوره 6، شماره 15، آبان 1395، صفحه 81-110    اصل مقاله (10.45 M)
نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
علی ثقفی1؛ مهدیه کامران* 2
1دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
2*دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
چکیده
صاحبنظران امروزه حاکمیت شرکتی را بهترین سازوکار بهبود روابط میان سهامداران و مدیریت، می­دانند. از این­رو، بهبود آن می­تواند وضعیت نقدشوندگی و عملکرد شرکت­ها را که مرتبط با عملکرد سهامداران و مدیریت است تحت­الشعاع قرار دهد. از سوی دیگر، بهبود نقدشوندگی و عملکرد شرکت­ها می­تواند خود محرکی برای افزایش جذب و جلب­توجه سهامداران و مدیریت تلقی شود و با تحریک مجدد حاکمیت شرکتی روند بهبود وضعیت نقدینگی و عملکرد را تسریع بخشد. از این­رو، بهتر است این متغیرها در قالب چرخه­ای همزمان مورد مطالعه قرار گیرند. هدف این پژوهش، بررسی روابط متقابل بین حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد شرکت­های پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران است. بدین منظور حاکمیت شرکتی بر مبنای روش امتیازبندی حاکمیت شرکتی براون و کایلور (2006) و تعدیل آن با توجه به پیش­نویس حاکمیت شرکتی بورس اوراق بهادار تهران (1386)، با 7 مکانیزم دوگانگی وظیفه مدیرعامل، استقلال هیئت­مدیره، اندازه هیئت­مدیره، مالکیت سرمایه­گذاران نهادی، اندازه موسسه حسابرسی، دوره تصدی حسابرس و دوره تصدی مدیرعامل؛ نقدشوندگی با بهره­گیری از نرخ گردش سهام و عملکرد با تاکید بر فرصت رشد (Q توبین)، سنجیده شده است و با استفاده از روش نمونه­گیری حذفی در قلمرو زمانی 1388 تا 1392، نمونه از بورس تهران انتخاب و با توجه به مبانی نظری حاکمیت شرکتی، نقدشوندگی و عملکرد، به تبیین مدل­ها در قالب سیستم معادلات همزمان پرداخته شده است. نتایج برآورد مدل‌های رگرسیونی در قالب معادلات همزمان نشان می­دهد که تاثیر برخی از مکانیسم­های حاکمیت شرکتی بر عملکرد شرکت­ها بدون درنظر گرفتن متغیر واسطه­ای نقدشوندگی معکوس و معنادار است. بین عملکرد و نقدشوندگی بدون درنظر گرفتن متغیر واسطه­ای حاکمیت شرکتی رابطه دوطرفه وجود دارد و با درنظر گرفتن آن، تنها تاثیر نقدشوندگی بر عملکرد معنادار است. در نهایت بین حاکمیت شرکتی و نقدشوندگی هیچ­گونه رابطه معناداری وجود ندارد. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
حاکمیت شرکتی؛ نقدشوندگی؛ عملکرد؛ فرصت رشد؛ سیستم معادلات همزمان
عنوان مقاله [English]
Examining the interrelationships of corporate governance, liquidity and performance using the system of simultaneous equations
نویسندگان [English]
Ali Saghafi1؛ Mahdieh Kamran2
2phd candidate, Allame Tabatabaei
چکیده [English]
Today, experts consider corporate governance as the best mechanism for improving relations between shareholders and management. Therefore, its improvement can overshadow the liquidity situation and the performance of companies, which is related to the performance of shareholders and management. On the other hand, improving the liquidity and performance of companies can be considered as a stimulus to increase the attraction and attention of shareholders and management, and accelerate the process of improving liquidity and performance by re-stimulating corporate governance. Therefore, it is better to study these variables in the form of simultaneous wheels. The purpose of this research is to examine the interrelationships between corporate governance, liquidity and performance of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. For this purpose, corporate governance is based on the scoring method of corporate governance by Brown and Kaylor (2006) and its adjustment according to the corporate governance draft of Tehran Stock Exchange (2006), with 7 mechanisms of dual duties of the CEO, independence of the board of directors, size of the board of directors, ownership of institutional investors, the size of the auditing firm, the tenure of the auditor and the tenure of the CEO; Liquidity has been measured using the stock turnover rate and performance with an emphasis on growth opportunity (Tobin's Q), and using the elimination sampling method in the period from 1388 to 1392, a sample was selected from the Tehran Stock Exchange and according to the theoretical foundations of corporate governance, Liquidity and performance have been explained in the form of simultaneous equations system. The results of the estimation of regression models in the form of simultaneous equations show that the effect of some corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of companies is inverse and significant without considering the variables of liquidity mediators. There is a two-way relationship between performance and liquidity without considering the mediating variable of corporate governance, and considering it, only the effect of liquidity on performance is significant. Finally, there is no significant relationship between corporate governance and liquidity.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Corporate governance, liquidity, Function, growth opportunity, System of simultaneous equations
مراجع
  1. . Admati, A. R., & Pfleiderer, P. (2006). The 'wall street walk' as a form of shareholder activism, Working Paper.
  2. Agarwal, R., Erel, I., Stulz, R., & Williamson, R. (2006). Do U. S. firms have the best corporate governance? A cross-country examination of the relation between corporate governance and shareholder wealth. Available at SSRN.
  3. Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (2008). Liquidity, the value of the firm, and corporate finance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 20(2), 32-45.‏
  4. Arazpour, A., & Fadaeinejad, M. (2014). The effects of corporate governance on stock liquidity: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange. Management Science Letters, 4(6), 1117-1122.‏
  5. Baker M. Stein J (2003). Market Liquidity as a Sentiment Indicator, Journal of Financial Markets 7 (3).
  6. Baker, M., & Stein, J. (2004). Market liquidity as a sentiment indicator, Journal of Financial Markets 7 (3), 271–299.
  7. Balasubramanian, N., Black, B. S., & Khanna, V. (2010). The relation between firm-level corporate governance and market value: A case study of India. Emerging Markets Review, 11(4), 319-340.‏
  8. Billett, M.T., KING, T.H.D. & Mauer, D.C. (2007). Growth opportunities and the choice of leverage, debt maturity, and covenants. The Journal of Finance, 62(2): 697-730.
  9. Black, B., (2001). The corporate governance behavior and market value of Russian firms. EmergingMarkets Review 2, 89–108.
  10. Brockman, P,. & Chung, D, Y. (2003). Investor Protection and Firm Liquidity. Journal of Finance, 58.
  11. Brown, L., & Caylor, M. (2006). Corporate governance and firm operating performance.
  12. Chai, D., Faff, R., & Ghaghori, P. (2010). New evidence on the relation between stock liquidity and measures of trading activity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 19, 181-192.
  13. Chan, H,. & Faff, R. (2003). An Investigation into the Role of Liquidity in Asset Pricing: Australian Evidence, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 11: 555-572.
  14. Chen, W.P., Chung, H., Lee, C.F., Liao, W.L., (2007). Corporate governance and equity liquidity: analysis of S&P transparency and disclosure rankings. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (4), 644–660.
  15. Cheung, W., Chung, R., & Fung, S. (2013). Stock Liquidity, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: Evidence from Real Estate Investment Trusts.‏ Southwestern Finance Association conference.
  16. Chung, K. H., Elder, J., & Kim, J. (2010). Corporate Governance and Liquidity, Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis 45 (2), 265-291.
  17. Chung, R., Fung, S., & Hung, S. K. (2012). Institutional investors and firm efficiency of Real.
  18. Coffee, J. (1991). Liquidity versus control: The institutional investor as corporate monitor. Columbia Law Review 91, 1277–1368.
  19. Datar, V. T. Y., Naik, N., & Radkluiffe, R. (1998). Liquidity and Stock Return: An Alternative Test, Journal of Financial Market 1: 203-219.
  20. Darabi R., Karimi. A. (1389). Research of Financial Accounting and Auditing. Journal of Financial Accounting and Auditing, 2(8), 99 – 130.
  21. Daryaee, A., Pakdel, A., Falah Mohammadi, N. (1390). Explain the relationship between corporate governance and liquidity of the stock using the system of simultaneous equations. Accounting Research, Issue 10, 132- 146.
  22. Diamond, D., & Verrecchia, R. (1981). Information aggregation in a noisy rational expectations economy. Journal of Financial Economics 9 (3), 221–235.
  23. Durnev, A., & Kim, E. (2005). To steal or not to steal: Firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. The Journal of Finance, 60(3), 1461-1493.‏
  24. Edmans, A., & Manso, G. (2011). Governance through trading and intervention: A theory of multiple blockholders. Review of Financial Studies, 24(7), 2395-2428.‏
  25. Edmans, A., Fang, V. W., & Zur, E. (2013). The effect of liquidity on governance. Review of Financial Studies, hht012.‏
  26. Edmans, Alex, (2007). Blockholders, market efficiency, and managerial myopia, WorkingPaper, University of Pennsylvania. Estate Investment Trusts, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 45(1), 171-211.
  27. Ebrahimi Kordlar, A., Rahmati, S. (1393). Review of the Relation of Auditor’s Size, Tenure & Industry Specialization with Stock Liquidity. Accounting and Auditing Research, 21(5), 38-51.
  28. Etemadi, H., Rasaiian, A., Kordtabar, H. (1389). About some of the tools of corporate governance and stock liquidity. Development and Investment Journal, 1(5), 31.
  29. Fakhari, H., Yousefnejad, S. (1385). The relationship between systematic risk and the growth of corporate profits in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Accounting and Auditing Research, 13(45), 89 - 109.
  30. Frieder, L., & Martell, R. (2006). On Capital Structure and the Liquidity of a Firm's Stock. www.ssrn.com. 54-71.Working Paper, Georgia State University.
  31. Fang, V., Noe, T., & Tice, S. (2009). Stock market liquidity and firm value. Journal of FinancialEconomics 94 (1), 150-169.
  32. Fang, Y., Lai, K. K., & Wang, S. Y. (2006). Portfolio rebalancing model with transaction costs based on fuzzy decision theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 879-893.‏
  33. Faure-Grimaud, A., & Gromb, D. (2004). Public trading and private incentives. Review of Financial Studies 17(4), 985 – 1014.
  34. Florackis C,. & Ozkan A. (2009). The impact of managerial entrenchment on agency costs: an empirical investigation using UK panel data. Eur Financ Manag; 15:497–528.
  35. Foster, G. (1986). Financial Statement Analysis. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Inc.
  36. Ghanbari, F. (1386). Evaluation of corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of companies listed on the stock exchange. AL Zahra University, Master's thesis.
  37. Gompers, P., Ishii, J,. & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (February): 107-155.
  38. Gruszczynski, M. (2006). Corporate governance and financial performance of companies in Poland. International Advances in Economic Research, 12(2), 251-259.‏
  39. Gutierrez , Roberto and Pirinsky, Christo, (2007). Momentum, reversal, and the tradingbehaviors of institutions. Journal of Financial Markets 10, 48-75.
  40. Hassas Yeganeh, Y., Raeesi, Z., Hoseini, M. (2009). Relationship between Quality of Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance in Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Management Sciences, 4 (13), 75-100.
  41. Hosseini, M., (1386), Effect of institutional shareholders as a measure of corporate governance on shareholder returns of companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange, Tehran University, School of Management, Master's thesis.
  42. Holmström, B., & Tirole, J. (1993). Market liquidity and performance monitoring. Journal of Political Economy 101 (4), 678 – 709.
  43. Jain, P. K. (2003). Institutional design and liquidity at stock exchanges around the world. Available at SSRN 869253.‏
  44. Jain, P. K., Kim, J. C., & Rezaee, Z. (2008). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Market Liquidity. Financial Review, 43(3), 361-382.‏
  45. Jensen, M.C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2): 323-329.
  46. Jahankhani, A., Zarif fard, A. (1374). Do managers and shareholders of an appropriate benchmark for measuring the value of their company. Journal of Fanancial Research, 7(2).
  47. Johnson, S., Malkamaki, M,. & Wanjau, K. (2006). Tackling the 'frontiers' of microfinance in Kenya: The role for decentralized services. Small Enterprise Development 17, 41-53.
  48. Kahn C., & Winton, A. (1998). Ownership structure, speculation, and shareholder intervention. Journal of Finance 53 (1), 99-129.
  49. Karamanou, I., & Vafeas, N. (2005). The Association between Corporate Boards, Audit Committees, & Management Earning Forecasts: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43 (3): 453-486.
  50. Kashanipoor, M., S. Mehran and Joseph Pashanzhad, (1389). Communication explores some of the mechanisms of corporate governance and market liquidity, financial accounting research, S61-76.
  51. Khoshnood, M., Farkhondeh, M. (1394). The relationship between stock liquidity and free cash flow in companies listed on the Stock Exchange. Journal of Financial Management Perspective, 11, 107-124
  52. Kyle, A. S., & Vila, J. (1991). Noise trading and takeovers, RAND Journal of Economics, 22 (1), 54-71.
  53. Lang, M., Lins, K. V., & Maffett, M. (2012). Transparency, liquidity, and valuation: International evidence on when transparency matters most. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(3), 729-774.‏
  54. Lesmond, D., O'Conner, P., & Senbet, L. (2008). Capital Structure and Equity Liquidity. www.ssrn.com.
  55. Li, W. X., Chen, C. C. S., & French, J. J. (2012). The relationship between liquidity, corporate governance, and firm valuation: Evidence from Russia. Emerging Markets Review, 13(4), 465-477.‏
  56. Marshall Ben R, Young, M. (2003). Liquidity and stock returns in pure order-driven markets: evidence from the Australian stock market, International Review of Financial Analysis, 12 Extrapolative Expectations: Implications for Volatility and Liquidity: 173–188.
  57. Maug, E., (1998). Large shareholders as monitors: Is there a trade-off between liquidity and control? , Journal of Finance, 53, 65–98.
  58. Malekian E., Daryaee, A. (1390). Relationship between the characteristics of company ownership and corporate governance structure (company listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange). Advances in Accounting, 3(1) (3/60), 121 -143.
  59. Mahdavi, GH., Behpoor, S., Kazem Nejad, F. (2015). Exploring the Relationship between disclosure quality and performance of companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange using the system of simultaneous equations. Evaluation of Accounting and Auditing, 21(3), 371-376.
  60. Mehrani, S., Rasaiian A. The Relationship between stock liquidity measures and annual stock return in Tehran Stock Exchange. (1388). Advances in Accounting (Social Sciences and Humanities Shiraz), 1(1) (3/57) , 217 -230.
  61. McKnight, P. J., & Weir, C. (2009). Agency costs, corporate governance mechanisms and ownership structure in large UK publicly quoted companies: A panel data analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49(2), 139-158.‏
  62. Namazi, M., Kermani E. (1387). Effect of ownership structure on the performance of listed companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. Accounting and Auditing Research, 15(53), 83 - 100.
  63. Noe, T. H., (2002). Investor activism and financial market structure, Review of Financial Studies 15 (1), 289-318.
  64. Pasquariello B, Wu. (2008). Does Asymmetric Information Drive Capital Structure Decision?, Oxford Journals, 22 (8), 3211-3243.
  65. Rahimian, N., Salehinejad, SH., Saleki, A. (1388). Interface between some mechanisms of corporate governance and information asymmetry firm listed in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Accounting and Auditing Results, 16(58), 71 – 86.
  66. Sami, H., Wang, J., & Zhou, H. (2011). Corporate governance and operating performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 20(2), 106-114.‏
  67. Sheikh, M., Rvzbkhsh, N. (1390). The value of incremental information content of accruals, balance sheet, operating profit, operating cash flow predicted future operating cash flows. Accounting and Auditing Research, Issue: 11, 64-79.
  68. Serkanian, J., Raei, R., Falahpoor, S. (1394). The relationship between liquidity and stock returns in the stock market in Iran, Jornal of Financial Management Perspective, 11, 9-26.
  69. Subrahmanyam, A., & Titman, S. (2001). Feedback from stock prices tocash flows, Journal of Finance 56, 2389–2413.
  70. Tang, K., & Wang, C. (2011). Corporate governance and firm liquidity: evidence from the Chinese stock market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 47(sup1), 47-60.‏
  71. Tehran Stock Exchange Code of Corporate Governance, Approved by the Board of Directors of the Tehran Stock Exchange -11 / 8/86. available on http://tse.ir/cms/Portals/1/Hesabresi%20Dakheli/rahbari%20sherkati.pdf
  72. Van Den Berghe, L. A. A,. Carchon, S. W. M. (2001). Corporate Governance Practices in Flemish Family Businesses. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=288287 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.288287.
  73. Watts, R. & Zimmerman, J. (1986). Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  74. Yazdanian, N. (1385). The role of corporate governance in decreasing in earning management. Allameh Tabatabayi University, Master's thesis.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,392
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,598