The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Corporate Governance Strength and Leverage: Empirical Evidence from Jordan

  • Received : 2021.02.20
  • Accepted : 2021.06.01
  • Published : 2021.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of corporate governance strength on capital structure in an emerging country, namely, Jordan, by constructing a corporate governance score that captures both internal monitoring mechanisms (foreign ownership and institutional ownership) and external monitoring mechanism (audit fees). In addition, this study uses profitability as control variable. This paper uses data of non-financial companies (industrial and services) of 87 listed firms on Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) from 2011 to 2019. Using the random-effects generalized least square (GLS) regression model, the findings reveal that foreign ownership significantly and negatively influences the level leverage, while institutional ownership has a positive and insignificant association with level leverage. Further, audit fees have a positive and strong significant association with level leverage in Jordan. In addition, profitability has a positive and significant association with leverage. These outcomes suggest that foreign ownership should be encouraged in listed companies as it can replace the weakness of other corporate governance mechanisms in Jordan. The outcomes of the current study should be of great interest to regulators and policy-makers. The results, which are robust to a range of alternative proxies and to additional tests, provide new insights into the determinants of level leverage.

Keywords

1. Introduction

The fundamental objective of a firm is the maximization of the wealth of shareholders. Corporate governance and firm leverage play a major role in maximizing the wealth of shareholders. Strong corporate governance leads to the enhancement of firm value (Black, 2000; Gompers et al., 2003; Rouf, 2014), whereas high leverage leads to a decline in the firm value due to increased risk of bankruptcy (Obradovich & Gill, 2012). It is therefore necessary for a firm to establish a strong governance and an optimal capital structure. Salehi, Arianpoor, and Dalwai (2020) found that companies are able to reduce the cost of equity by establishing strong corporate governance. However, Jantadej and Wattanatorn (2020) argue that corporate governance plays a crucial role in protecting shareholder wealth and reduces asymmetric information between corporate and external investor including debt holder leading to a decreasing in cost of debt financing.

Corporate governance has been defined as the control systems and practices through which investors or lenders get assurance of receiving returns on the money they invested (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). A solid and well established corporate governance system is important for the rapid advancement of an economy. The countries with strong corporate governance systems have been able to rapidly expand their corporate sector by bringing more capital into their economies at lower costs, thereby increasing the value of the firm and maximizing the wealth of the shareholders (Ahmed Sheikh & Wang, 2012). Integration of China’s economy into the global economy along with the speedy development of capital markets enabling higher investment from different countries have caught the attention of researchers to investigate the governance structure of the firms in China (Huang & Wang, 2015; Liu & Fong, 2010; Wei, 2007; Xu & Wang, 1997).

The outside auditor performs a vital role in monitoring the interest of protecting and management shareholders in the capital markets via the financial statements the public companies. In view of the benefits derived from the auditor, they provided standardized reports to regulators, investors, and other important personalities involved in the business. The pass and fail model are adopted by many nations, including Jordan in presenting the audit report to show the difference in companies audit process with little insight.

Ownership structure has become a subject for organi-zations, accounting profession’s regulators, several resear-chers and existing authorities around the world (Filatotchev, Jackson, & Nakajima, 2013). The monitoring strength acquired from the ownership structure results in a type of control applied to the firm, specifically the high management team (González & García-Meca, 2014). As a result, the ownership structure is a core determinant of the agency cost (Habbash, Xiao, Salama, & Dixon, 2014). Many empirical studies have confirmed the effective role of ownership structure in monitoring the firm’s action, for instance, Siregar and Utama (2008) argue that ownership structure influences the monitoring mechanisms used by the firm. Further, Alshetwi (2016) and Ramadan (2015) find that top stockholders have less influence on earnings management, and can decrease the level of management opportunism.

Ownership and control separations are associated with agency problems among shareholders and management, which generate the requirement for external auditors. External auditors are in charge of confirming that the statements of a financial report are impartially specified according to generally accepted accounting principles and revealing the firm’s operating outcomes and accurate economic condition. Therefore, the confirmation of the external auditors enhances the integrity of the financial statements (Al-Zoubi, 2017).

2. Literature Review

In the context of business, the financial leverage term is seen as a loan, or refers to borrowing (getting debt) to finance various purchases (Gill & Mathur, 2011). If a firm acquiring a lot of debts (leverage), it seems to raise its chance of insolvency (Asif et al., 2011). When debt (external financing) is employed rather than equity (internal financing), the firm capital is not deducted by the issuing more ownership securities. Investors are aware that getting debt is a good thing for companies seeking to grow. Nevertheless, when leverage reaches a critical position, investors become worried regarding the firm’s financial position (Bhatti et al., 2010). Although, academic research has been done on the subject of leverage and earning power, it has found contradictory results (Asif et al., 2011; Ayub, 2015; Enqvist et al., 2014; Lartey et al., 2013). Some studies have stated that companies with a high level of financial leverage are profitable (Lartey et al., 2013; Memon et al., 2012). That is to say, there is a positive association between the leverage and the firm’s earning power when a company depends greatly on debt (external finance), which will lead to maximize the wealth of shareholders (Memon et al., 2012). Moreover, when equity holders control the business operations, then the level of debt and financial leverage become positively correlated to each other, and vice versa (Kraus & Litzenberger, 1973). However, Nguyen and Nguyen (2020) show that capital structure has a negative effect on the firm performance.

Hingorani, Lehn, and Makhija (1997) argued that foreign ownership could use their control to mitigate agency problems by aligning the interests of managers and other shareholders. According to Guedhami, Pittman, and Saffar (2009) reported that foreigners prefer transparent companies, as it could reduce information asymmetry and the impulse for expropriation. Moreover, foreign investors are more experienced and efficient in evaluating companies (Grinblatt & Keloharju, 2001; Seasholes, 2000). Ferreira and Matos (2008) reported that foreign ownership plays a more efficient role on corporate governance level than domestic intuitional, leading to enhanced firm performance, which may influence corporate investment policy.

Furthermore, foreign investors face more agency costs than domestic institutional investors due to various legal environments (Patibandla, 2006). Merton (1987) argues that investors have various amounts of information related to a company and they invest in a company that is already well-known to them. According to Zou and Xiao (2006), foreign owners are able to discipline the local managers via debt financing as foreign ownership focuses on corporate valuations and transparency. However, Suto (2003) found that foreign ownership reduces the agency cost of equity financing. These could appear as reasons for the negative relationship between foreign investors and leverage.

Phung and Le (2013); Sivathaasan (2013); Mishra (2013) reported significant positive influence of foreign ownership on leverage. The result indicates that foreign investors are motivated to force firms to employ more debt to mitigate the agency problem because of the issue of high level of information asymmetry in Vietnam. From the information asymmetric argument for foreign investors, it is expected that there is a negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. According to Kang and Stulz (1997), foreign investors tend to invest in large and low leverage firms suggesting that large firm have lower information asymmetries than small firms.

However, Li et al. (2009) point out that foreign investment is negatively related to all measures of leverage. This result is clarified by two explanations. First, firms with high foreign ownership would have more diversified financing channels to access capital than others because of their reputation and relationship. In the same result Huang et al. (2011) argue that foreign owners are mainly institutional investors with considerable experience in monitoring managers. Le and Tannous (2016) found a negative relationship between foreign ownership and capital structure. This negative relation in the Vietnamese market can be clarified. First, firms having foreign ownership usually are reputable and have strong financial circumstances. Therefore, they can easily finance for their firms from multiple channels. Second, foreign owners can reduce the agency cost of equity as they can help firms to control overinvestment problems. Similarly, Gupta, Yadav, and Jain (2020), investigating Indian firms in the period from 2008 to 2018 by using the generalized method of moments (GMM) technique for empirical analysis, observe that there is a statistically significant negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. In addition, Chen and Yu (2011); Anwar and Sun (2015) provide that foreign ownership affect leverage significantly and negatively. However, Zou and Xiao (2006) reported a non-monotonic relationship between foreign ownership and leverage.

Institutional ownership structure can advance the corpo- rate governance effectiveness since institutional investors monitor the progress of firms where ownership is denoted by shares holding. According to Al-Najjar and Clark (2017), institutional ownership is the percentage of shares held by institutions. Institutional investors exert a greater influence on corporate governance and are important performers in most financial markets due to their influence and the policy of privatization being pursued by several countries (Al-Najjar, 2010). Institutional investors consist of pension funds, trust institutions, insurance companies, financial and investment companies (Lang & McNichols, 1997). Chung and Wang (2014) find that changes in leverage decrease when changes in institutional ownership increase, suggesting that a firm reduces its debt level as institutional investors substitute for external debt monitoring.

According to Sun, Ding, Guo, and Li (2016) found a positive relation between institutional ownership and leverage. This study provides two explanations: First, high institutional ownership firms have an incentive to issue more bonds and less equity. Second, such firms are more likely to turn to other types of debt as financing channels. However, past studies have reached inconclusive results between institutional ownership and leverage. Tong and Ning (2004) argue that as domestic institutional investors have better access to different information resources, they prefer firms with low leverage ratio, since firms with high leverage could face future financial difficulties. Furthermore, institutional investors could use their monitoring ability to minimize the conflict between managers and other shareholders (Pushner, 1995). Several authors such as Ciceksever, Kale, and Ryan (2006); Ezeoha and Okafor (2010); Michaely and Vincent (2012) found a negative relation between institutional ownership and leverage. Ashrafi and Muhammad (2014), investigating Malaysian firms in the period from 2002 to 2011 by using the generalized method of moments (GMM) technique for empirical analysis, observe that there is a statistically significant negative relationship between institutional ownership and leverage. In contrast, Crutchley, Jensen, Jahera, and Raymond (1999) found a positive relation between institutional ownership and leverage.

According to Al-Ajmi and Saudagaran (2011), economic reliance of external auditors on their clients is one of the factors that threaten independence. Unpaid audit fee is one of the factors that were found to negatively affect the perceived auditor independence (Alleyne, Devonish, & Alleyne, 2006). Stanley (2011) demonstrated that unexpected contemporaneous audit fees are higher when the client has lower future return on assets, suggesting that auditors charge a premium in the presence of increased likelihood of future client losses and future auditor litigation. Forms of auditor business risk with respect to cash holdings and its potential consequences include shareholder class action lawsuits for lost wealth, which typically name both the client and the auditor as defendants, lost audit fees resulting from declining client performance, and reputational damages due to the auditor’s association with the client. These arguments suggest that audit fees are associated with leverage.

Essentially, higher audit risk requires greater audit effort, which translates into higher audit fees (Ettredge, Fuerherm, & Li, 2014). In Jordan, Vanstraelen (2000) asserted that audit fees have a big effect on the audit quality; and the decrease in the audit fees is considered one of the problems by the Jordanian audit firms. Siam (2003) found that among other factors, audit fees significantly influence the independence of external auditors in Jordan. Overall, the higher the audit fees, the better the audit quality (Gist, 1994; Clarkson & Simunic, 1994).

Using a sample of 150 Indonesia firm-year observations between 2014 and 2016, Harahap and Prasetyo (2018) examined the relationship between audit fees and leverage. The study found that the relationship between audit fee and leverage is not significant. In another study, Nehme and Jizi (2018) conducted a study on London firms for the period of 2011 until 2015. The panel data fixed-effects method resulted in negative and significant association between audit fees and leverage. This implies that low leverage firms are subject to less audit testing and consequently require less chargeable hours, as they are considered less risky (Fan & Wong, 2005). Firms with larger asset size incur relatively higher audit fees as they are likely to have more diversified and complex business transactions (Demsetz & Strahan, 1997), which require more audit hours and hence higher audit fees (Haskins & Williams, 1990). Similarly, Benjamin et al. (2015) found the same results in US S&P firms for the period from 2000 to 2012. Recently, Barua, Hossain, and Rama (2019) also found a negative and significant relationship between audit fees and leverage for manufacturing firms listed in USA firms.

On the other hand, Hossain and Sobhan (2019), investigating Bangladesh firms in the period from 2015 to 2018 by using a robust ordinary least square (OLS) method for empirical analysis, observe that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between audit fees and leverage. In addition, Gul and Tsui (1997); Shakhatreh, Alsmadi, and Alkhataybeh (2020) found a positive relation between audit fees and leverage.

3. Hypothesis Development

Foreign shareholders play a key part in the ownership structure of firms particularly in developing countries (Randoy & Goel, 2003; Douma, George, & Kabir, 2006). Furthermore, previous empirical evidence indicates that the presence of foreign ownership leads to lessening agency cost (Abor & Biekpe, 2007; Guo & Zhou, 2015). The foreign owners are able to discipline the local managers via debt financing as foreign ownership focuses on corporate valuations and transparency (Zou & Xiao, 2006). Suto (2003) states that foreign ownership reduces the agency cost of equity financing. This would lead to negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. However, in Jordanian setting, Zeitun (2009) and Al-Thuneibat (2018) conclude that foreign ownership negatively influences on firm’ performance. Several empirical studies for example, Chen and Yu (2011); Anwar and Sun (2015); Le and Tannous (2016) found that foreign ownership affects leverage significantly and negatively. However, Zou and Xiao (2006) reported a non-monotonic relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. Therefore, the first hypothesis is developed as follows:

H1: There is a negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage.

In order to monitor the activities of firm’s management, institutional ownership serves as internal mechanism which further safeguard the enactment of firm’s value maximization. Under information asymmetry theory, Myers and Majluf (1984) state that company could reduce information asymmetric problem by first using internal funds, followed by debt and finally equity. Institutional investors mitigate the adverse selection costs of equity by reducing information asymmetry through information- gathering activities and their trading patterns (Sias, 2004; Bushee & Goodman, 2007). Chang, Kang, and Li, (2016) argued that by strengthening the corporate governance, institutional investors play a strong role in monitoring and mitigating agency costs.

Several empirical studies, for example, Michaely and Vincent (2012); Ashrafi and Muhammad (2014); Gupta, Yadav, and Jain (2020) found that institutional ownership affect leverage significantly and negatively. In contrast, Crutchley, Jensen, Jahera, and Raymond (1999); Abobakr and Elgiziry (2016) and Sun, Ding, Guo, and Li (2016) reported significant and positive relationship between Institutional ownership and leverage. However, In Jordan, there is lack of evidence for institutional ownership and leverage. Therefore, the second hypothesis is developed as follows:

H2: There is a positive relationship between institutional ownership and leverage.

In the modern business world, diversified capital structure is very common meaning that companies have both equity and debt capital in their capital structure. Equity providers get dividend whereas debt providers earn interest as a benefit on their investment. It is likely that debt providers impose a great number of conditions in order to secure their invested money. It implies that the company with high debt capital faces a large number of debt covenants (increase pressure on management), which lead management to earnings manipulation in order to convince the capital providers. Thus, external audit fees are expected to have a positive association with leverage. The literature provided exception to Hossain and Sobhan (2019) and Shakhatreh, Alsmadi, and Alkhataybeh (2020) who found that external audit fees are significantly and positively associated with leverage. In contrast, Md Noor and Raihan Sobhan (2019) reported that there is no significant relationship between audit fees and leverage. The previous studies (Sun & Liu, (2011), Hay et al., (2006), Simunic, (1980) and Firth (1993) have identified a positive association between client risk and the external audit fees. However, the consideration of risk factors was different such as equity to total assets, low level of return on assets. Therefore, based on the finding of the previous studies, the following hypothesis is developed:

H3: There is a positive relationship between audit fees and leverage.

4. Methodology

4.1. Population and Sampling

This study examines the relationship between internal monitoring mechanisms corporate governance (foreign ownership and institutional ownership) and external monito ring mechanism (audit fees) on leverage of the public-listed firms on Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) from 2011 to 2019. This period is selected due to the fact that the implementation of corporate governance in Jordan started after the year 2009.

4.2. Model Specification

To investigate the influence of corporate governance on leverage, the following regression model is employed (see Table 1).

Table 1: Measurement of Variables

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_245_t0001.png 이미지

Levergeit = β0 + β1Fownit + β2Iownnit + β4Afeeit + Proit + εit

5. Empirical Results

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics. Table 3 displays the results of correlation analysis. This study assumes a negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. Table 4 shows that the relationship between foreign ownership and leverage is negative and significant (β = −0.5363, p = 0.004). This result is consistent with the result of Kang and Stulz (1997); Kim and Piman (1998); Li, Yue, and Zhao (2009); Le and Tannous (2016) who find a negative relationship between foreign ownership and leverage. This result foreign investors tend to invest in large and low leverage firms suggesting that large firm have lower information asymmetries than small firms, and therefore, hypothesis one (H1) is accepted.

Table 2: Summary Statistics

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_245_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3: Correlation Matrix Results

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_245_t0003.png 이미지

Note: ***, ** and * Indicates significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance based on t-statistics.

Institutional ownership is expected to be positively associated with leverage. Table 4 shows that there is an insignificant positive relationship between institutional ownership and leverage (β = 0.0192, p = 0.182). A plausible explanation for insignificant result is that, since domestic private institutional investors have low ownership, they do not have enough incentive to involve in management actions as they bear the costs of monitoring but the benefits accrue to other shareholders. This result is not consistent with Crutchley, Jensen, Jahera, and Raymond (1999) who found that institutional ownership positively influences leverage. Thus, hypothesis two (H2) is not accepted.

Table 4: GLS Regression Results of LEVERAGE Model

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_245_t0004.png 이미지

This study expected a positive relationship between audit fee and leverage. As shown in Table 4, audit fee has a positive and significant relationship with leverage (β = 0.1072, p = 0.000). This result suggests that audit fee contributes positively to the leverage. This result is consistent with Hossain and Sobhan (2019) and Shakhatreh, Alsmadi, and Alkhataybeh (2020) who found that leverage positively influences audit fees, which is in line with agency costs explanations under corporate governance whereby leverage exert a stronger effect on audit fees in firms with low growth opportunities. These relationships were expected because of the high level of debt capital indicates a large number of debt covenants that lead management to manipulate performance in order to make debt providers happy.

In Jordan, audit fees have a significant influence on audit quality and independence of external auditors (Siam, 2003; Vanstraelen, 2000). This study contributes to the existing literature by finding that audit fee has significant influence on leverage, and thus, hypothesis three (H3) is accepted.

6. Conclusion

Optimal leverage and strong corporate governance structures are vital for increasing the value of the firm and maximizing the wealth of shareholders. However, prior literature suggests that the governance characteristics and leverage structures change at various life-cycles of the firm. Therefore, this study has examined 87 companies in the industrial and service sector on Amman stock exchange, using the random-effects generalized least square (GLS) regression model to study the effects of both internal monitoring mechanisms (foreign ownership and institutional ownership) and external monitoring mechanism (audit fees) on the leverage of a firm.

The results of this study point to several factors affecting leverage. The results show a significant negative relation- ship between foreign ownership and profitability, while audit fees has a positive and significant association with leverage in Jordan. The results also indicate a non-significant relationship between institutional ownership and firm complexity as well as leverage.

These outcomes suggest foreign ownership should be encouraged in listed companies as it can replace the weakness of other (CG) mechanisms. The outcomes of the current study should be of great interest to regulators and policy-makers. The results, which are robust to a range of alternative proxies and to additional tests, provide new insights into the determinants of leverage. Consequently, such results perhaps alert the firms’ audit committees and the Jordanian securities commission (JSC), to verify the reasons that make institutional ownership engage in leverage. In addition, the result of this study could encourage JSC to develop the Jordanian corporate governance code and tighten the penalties of companies that do not comply with the requirements of such code.

However, this research is limited to the region of Jordan with a small sample size. Future research should test the arguments and conclusions of this study in different contexts as knowledge of the interactions of the effects of different ownership structure and audit quality remain limited. Better research along with improved literature is much needed for the effects of various metrics about ownership on leverage, especially in emerging markets.

References

  1. Abobakr, M. G., & Elgiziry, K. (2016). The effect of board characteristics and ownership structure on the corporate financial leverage. Accounting and Finance research, 5(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/afr.v5n1p1
  2. Abor, J., & Biekpe, N. (2007). Corporate governance, ownership structure and performance of SMEs in Ghana: implications for financing opportunities. The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(3), 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710756562
  3. Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robbins, G. E. (2005). A clash of capitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate restructuring in 1990s Japan. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000305
  4. Ahmed Sheikh, N., & Wang, Z. (2012). Effects of corporate governance on capital structure: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(5), 629-641. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701211275569
  5. Al-Ajmi, J., & Saudagaran, S. (2011). Perceptions of auditors and financial-statement users regarding auditor independence in Bahrain. Managerial Auditing Journal, 26(2), 130-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901111095010
  6. Alkhawaldeh, A. A. (2012). Effects of family and foreign ownership structure on Jordanian credit risk assessments. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 90(June), 92-113. http://www.internationalresearchjournaloffinanceandeconomics.com
  7. Almasarwah, A. (2015). Earnings management and its relationship with corporate governance mechanisms in Jordanian industrial firms. Loughborough, UK: Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University.
  8. Al-Najjar, B. (2010). Corporate governance and institutional ownership: evidence from Jordan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(2), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011035693
  9. Al-Najjar, B., & Clark, E. (2017). Corporate governance and cash holdings in MENA: Evidence from internal and external governance practices. Research in International Business and Finance, 39(July), 1-12. http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/16475/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.07.030
  10. Alshetwi, M. (2016). The association between audit committee members' multiple directorship, ownership and earnings management in Saudi Arabia. International Business Research, 9(10), 33-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n10p33
  11. Al-Thuneibat, A. (2018). The Relationship between the Ownership Structure, Capital Structure and Performance. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 25(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.31966/jabminternational.v1i25.326
  12. Alvin Alleyne, P., Devonish, D., & Alleyne, P. (2006). Perceptions of auditor independence in Barbados. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(6), 621-635. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610674898
  13. Alzoubi, E. S. S (2016). Audit quality and earnings management: Evidence from Jordan. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 17(2), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-09-2014-0089
  14. Alzoubi, E. S. S. (2017). Audit quality, debt financing, and earnings management: Evidence from Jordan. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 30(May), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2017.12.001
  15. Ampenberger, M., Schmid, T., Achleitner, A. K., & Kaserer, C. (2013). Capital structure decisions in family firms: empirical evidence from a bank-based economy. Review of Managerial Science, 7(3), 247-275. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/48400 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0077-2
  16. Anwar, S., & Sun, S. (2015). Can the presence of foreign investment affect the capital structure of domestic firms? Journal of Corporate Finance, 30, 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.11.003
  17. Ashrafi, M., & Muhammad, J. (2014). How do institutional investors influence capital structure decisions? A case of Malaysian firms. Asian Journal of Research in Banking and Finance, 4(4), 54-71.
  18. Asif, A., Rasool, W. & Kamal, Y. (2011). Impact of financial leverage on dividend policy: empirical evidence from Karachi stock exchange-listed companies. African Journal of Business Management, 5(4), 1312-1324. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
  19. Ayub, Q. M. Y. (2015). Impact of working capital management on profitability of textile sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 7(1), 174. http://ijibm.elitehall.com
  20. Barua, A., Hossain, M. S., & Rama, D. V. (2019). Financial versus operating liability leverage and audit fees. International Journal of Auditing, 23(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12157
  21. Basioudis, I. G., Geiger, M. A., & Papanastasiou, V. (2006). Audit fees, non-audit fees, and auditor reporting on UK stressed companies. National Auditing Conference, 2(1), 1-24.
  22. Bhatti, A. M., Majeed, K., Rehman, I. U., & Khan, W. A. (2010). Effect of leverage on risk and stock returns: evidence from Pakistani companies, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 58(58), 32-49. http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm
  23. Black, B. (2000). Does Corporate Governance Matter--A Crude Test Using Russian Data. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149, 21-31.
  24. Bushee, B. J., & Goodman, T. H. (2007). Which institutional investors trade based on private information about earnings and returns? Journal of Accounting Research, 45(2), 289-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00234.x
  25. Chang, K., Kang, E., & Li, Y. (2016). Effect of institutional ownership on dividends: An agency-theory-based analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2551-2559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.088
  26. Chen, C. J., & Yu, C. M. J. (2011). FDI, export, and capital structure. Management International Review, 51(3), 295-320. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11575-011-0077-0 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11575-011-0077-0
  27. Chung, C. Y., & Wang, K. (2014). Do institutional investors monitor management? Evidence from the relationship between institutional ownership and capital structure. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 30, 203-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2014.10.001
  28. Ciceksever, B., Kale, J., & Ryan, H. (2006). Corporate governance, debt, and activist institutions. Georgia State University. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891410
  29. Clarkson, P. M., & Simunic, D. A. (1994). The association between audit quality, retained ownership, and firm-specific risk in US vs. Canadian IPO markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17(1-2), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(94)90010-8
  30. Crutchley, C., Jensen, M., Jahera J., & Raymond, J. (1999). Agency problem and the simultaneity of financial decision making: The role of institutional ownership. International Review of Financial Analysis, 8(2), 177-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-5219(99)00011-3
  31. Demsetz, R. S., & Strahan, P. E. (1997). Diversification, size, and risk at bank holding companies. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 29(3), 300-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2953695
  32. Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: Evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 637-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.535
  33. ElBannan, M. A. (2017). Stock market liquidity, family ownership, and capital structure choices in an emerging country. Emerging Markets Review, 33, 201-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2017.11.001
  34. Enqvist, J., Graham, M., & Nikkinen, J. (2014). The impact of working capital management on firm profitability in different business cycles: Evidence from Finland. Research in International Business and Finance, 32, 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2014.03.005
  35. Ettredge, M., Fuerherm, E. E., & Li, C. (2014). Fee pressure and audit quality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(4), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.04.002
  36. Ezeoha, A. E., & Okafor, F. O. (2010). Local corporate ownership and capital structure decisions in Nigeria: a developing country perspective. Corporate Governance, 10(3), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011051893
  37. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325. http://www.jstor.org/stable/725104 https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
  38. Fan, J. P. H., and T. J. Wong. 2005. Do external auditors perform a corporate governance role in emerging markets? Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(1), 35-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679x.2004.00162.x
  39. Ferreira, M., & Matos, P. (2008). The colors of investors' money: The role of institutional investors around the world? Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 499-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.003
  40. Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G., & Nakajima, C. (2013). Corporate governance and national institutions: A review and emerging research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(4), 965-986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9293-9
  41. Firth, M. (1993). Price setting and the value of a strong brand name. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 381-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116 (93)90020-Y
  42. Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2003). Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22(2), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2003.22.2.53
  43. Ghazalat, N. A. M., Islam, A., & Noor, Bin, I. M. (2017). Impact of internal ownership on the monitoring and mitigating mechanisms of earnings management practices. Corporate Ownership & Control, 14(2), 289-295. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv14i2c2p2
  44. Gill, A. & Mathur, N. (2011). Factors that influence financial leverage of Canadian firms. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, 1(2), 19-37. https://doi.org/10111080.2969
  45. Gist, W. E. (1994). Empirical evidence on the effect of audit structure on audit pricing. Auditing, 13(2), 25.
  46. Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107-156. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535162
  47. Gonzalez, J. S., & Garcia-Meca, E. (2014). Does corporate governance influence earnings management in Latin American markets? Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 419-440. https://doi 10.1007/s10551-013-1700-8
  48. Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2001). Distance, language, and culture bias: The role of investor sophistication. Journal of Finance, 56, 1053-1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00355
  49. Guedhami, O., Pittman, J. A., & Saffar, W. (2009). Auditor choice in privatized firms: Empirical evidence on the role of state and foreign owners. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(2-3), 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.08.003
  50. Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. S. L. (1997). A test of the free cash flow and debt monitoring hypotheses: Evidence from audit pricing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24(2), 219-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(98)00006-8
  51. Guo, F., & Ma, S. (2015). Ownership characteristics and earnings management in China. The Chinese Economy, 48(5), 372-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2015.1067086
  52. Guo, J., & Zhou, N. (2015). Foreign ownership and real earnings management: Evidence from Japan. Journal of International Accounting Research, 14(2), 185-213. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51274
  53. Gupta, S., Yadav, S. S., & Jain, P. K. (2020). Impact of Foreign Ownership on Leverage: A Study of Indian Firms. Global Business Review, 0972150920927360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920927360
  54. Habbash, M., Xiao, L., Salama, A., & Dixon, R. (2014). Are independent directors and supervisory directors effective in constraining earnings management? Journal of Finance, Accounting and Management, 5(1), 81-87.
  55. Harahap, J. O., & Prasetyo, A. B. (2018). Ownership structures and characteristics influence on audit fee. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 5(2), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2018.822
  56. Haskins, M. E., & Williams, D. D. (1990). A contingent model of intra-big eight auditor changes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 9(3), 55-74.
  57. Hay, D. C., Knechel, W. R., & Wong, N. (2006). Audit fees: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(1), 141-191. https://doi.org/10.1506/4XR4-KT5V-E8CN-91GX
  58. Hingorani, A., Lehn, K., & Makhija A. K. (1997). Investor behavior in mass privatization: the case of the Czech voucher scheme. Journal of Financial Economics, 44, 349-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00008-1
  59. Hossain, M. N., & Sobhan, R. (2019). Determinants of audit fees: Evidence from pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Bangladesh. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 4(1), 815-821. www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd29656.pdf
  60. Huang, B. -Y., Lin, C. -M. and Huang, C. -M. (2011). The Influences of Ownership Structure: Evidence from China. The Journal of Developing Areas, 45, 209-227. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23215271 https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2011.0003
  61. Huang, Y. S., & Wang, C. -J. (2015). Corporate governance and risk-taking of Chinese firms: The role of board size. International Review of Economics & Finance, 37, 96-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.016
  62. Isakov, D., & Weisskopf, J. P. (2015). Pay-out policies in founding family firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 330-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.01.003
  63. Jaafar, A., & El-Shawa, M. (2009). Ownership concentration, board characteristics and performance: Evidence from Jordan. Accounting in Emerging Economies, 9(November), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3563(2009)0000009005
  64. Jantadej, K., & Wattanatorn, W. (2020). The effect of corporate governance on the cost of debt: Evidence from Thailand. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(9), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.283
  65. Kang. J., & Stulz. R. (1997). Why is there a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 46(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00023-8
  66. Kim, K. A. & Pirnan L. (1998). A test of the two-tier corporate governance structure: the case of Japanese Keiretsu. Journal of Financial Research, 40(4), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6803.1998.tb00268.x
  67. Kraus, A. & Litzenberger, R. H. (1973). Optimal financial leverage. The Journal of Finance, 28(4), 911-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01415.x
  68. Lang, M., & McNichols, M. (1997). Institutional trading and corporate performance. Working Paper 1460, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. https://doi.org/10.10112017915&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  69. Lartey, V. C., Antwi, S. & Boadi, E. K. (2013). The relationship between liquidity and profitability of listed banks in Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(3), 48-56. http://www.iiste.org/journals/
  70. Le, T. P. V., & Tannous, K. (2016). Ownership structure and capital structure: A study of Vietnamese listed firms. Australian Economic Papers, 55(4), 319-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.12089
  71. Li, K., Yue, H., & Zhao, L. (2009). Ownership, institutions, and capital structure: Evidence from China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 471-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2009.07.001
  72. Liu, H., & Fong, M. W. (2010). Board characteristics of medium and large Chinese companies. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 10(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011035684
  73. Memon, F., Bhutto, N. A., & Abbas, G. (2012). Capital structure and firm performance: a case of textile sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(9), 9-15.
  74. Merton, R. C. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x
  75. Michaely, R., & Vincent, C. (2012). Do institutional investors influence capital structure decisions? SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1941902
  76. Mishra, A. V. (2013). Foreign ownership in Australian firms. Research in International Business and Finance, 28, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.09.002
  77. Myers, S. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39, 572-592. https://doi.org/10.3386/w1393
  78. Nehme, R., & Jizi, M. (2018). The efficiency of corporate boards and firms' audit fees: the case of the FTSE financial institutions. Pacific Accounting Review, 30(3), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-12-2016-0116
  79. Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, A. H. (2020). The impact of capital structure on firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(4), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no4.97
  80. Obradovich, J., & Gill, A. (2012). The impact of corporate governance and financial leverage on the value of American firms. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 91. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/busi_fac_pubs/25
  81. Patibandla, M. (2006). Equity pattern, corporate governance and performance: A study of India's corporate sector. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.04.004
  82. Phung, D. N., & Le, T. P. V. (2013). Foreign ownership, capital structure and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Vietnamese listed firms. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(2), 44-58.
  83. Pushner, G. M. (1995). Equity ownership structure, leverage, and productivity: Empirical evidence from Japan. Pacific-Basin Journal, 3(2-3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-538X(95)00003-4
  84. Ramadan, I. Z. (2015). Does ownership structure affect Jordanian companies' tendency to practice earnings management? Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 7(2), 281-291. https://doi.org/10.5296/ajfa.v7i2.8537
  85. Randoy, T., & Goel, S. (2003). Ownership structure, founder leadership, and performance in Norwegian SMEs: implications for financing entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 619-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00013-2
  86. Rouf, A. (2012). The Relationship between Corporate Governance and Value of the Firm in Developing Countries: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(1), 73-85.
  87. Rouf, A. (2014). The Relationship between Corporate Governance and Value of the Firm in Developing. The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 5(3), 237-244. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijaef.2011.237.244
  88. Sakaki, H., Jackson, D., & Jory, S. (2017). Institutional ownership stability and real earnings management. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(1), 227-244. . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-016-0588-7
  89. Salehi, M., Arianpoor, A., & Dalwai, T. (2020). Corporate Governance and Cost of Equity: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(7), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.149
  90. Shakhatreh, M. Z., Alsmadi, S. A., & Alkhataybeh, A. (2020). The effect of audit fees on disclosure quality in Jordan. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1771076. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1771076
  91. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x
  92. Siam, W. (2003). The factors affected on Auditor independence under professionalism legislations. Paper presented at the Scientific Conference No.5, Amman, Jordan.
  93. Sias, R. W. (2004). Institutional herding. Review of Financial Studies, 17, 165-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhg035
  94. Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490397
  95. Siregar, S. V., & Utama, S. (2008). Type of earnings management and the effect of ownership structure, firm size, and corporate governance practices: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting, 43(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.01.001
  96. Sivathaasan, N. (2013). Foreign ownership, domestic ownership, and capital structure: Special reference to manufacturing companies quoted on Colombo Stock Exchange in Sri Lanka. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(20), 35-41. http://www.iiste.org/journals/
  97. Stanley, J. D. (2011). Is the audit fee disclosure a leading indicator of clients' business risk? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30(3), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt10049
  98. Stulz, R. (1988). Managerial control of voting rights: Financing policies and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 25-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90039-6
  99. Sun, J., & Liu, G. (2011). Client-specific litigation risk and audit quality differentiation. Managerial Auditing, 6(4), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901111124639
  100. Sun, J., Ding, L., Guo, J. M., & Li, Y. (2016). Ownership, capital structure and financing decision: Evidence from the UK. The British Accounting Review, 48(4), 448-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2015.04.001
  101. Suto, M. (2003). Capital structure and investment behavior of Malaysian Firms in the 1990s: A study of corporate governance before the crises. Blackwell Publishing Limited, 11(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00299
  102. Tong, S., & Ning, Y. (2004). Does capital structure affect institutional investor choices? The Journal of Investing, 13(4), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.2004.450757
  103. Vanstraelen, A. (2000). Impact of renewable long-term audit mandates on audit quality. European Accounting Review, 9(3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180020017140
  104. Wei, G. (2007). Ownership structure, corporate governance and company performance in China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 13(4), 519-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602380701300130
  105. Xu, X., & Wang, Y. (1997). Ownership structure, corporate governance, and corporate performance: The case of Chinese stock companies (Vol. 1794): World Bank Publications.
  106. Yoo, T., & Koh, Y. (2014). Agent or structure for principal-principal conflicts? Audit firms versus foreign ownership in the Asian context. Asian Business & Management, 13(4), 309-332. www.palgrave-journals.com/abm/ https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2014.11
  107. Zeitun, R. (2009). Ownership structure, corporate performance and failure: Evidence from panel data of emerging market the case of Jordan. Corporate Ownership and Control, 6(4), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i4p10
  108. Zraiq, M. A. A., & Fadzil, F. H. B. (2018). The impact of ownership structure on firm performance: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management, 3(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijafrm.20180301.12