Governance, efficiency and risk taking in Chinese banking

Abstract

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2016.08.001We employ a hand-collected unique dataset on banks operating in China between 2003 and 2011 to investigate the impact of board governance features (size, composition and functioning) on bank efficiency and risk taking. Our evidence suggests that board characteristics tend to have a greater influence on banks' profit and cost efficiency than on loan quality. We find that the proportion of female directors on the board appears not only to be linked to higher profit and cost efficiency but also to lower traditional banking risk. Similarly, board independence is associated with higher profit efficiency of banks; while the opposite is found for executive directors and in the presence of dual leadership of the CEO/chairperson. Among the control variables, we found that liquidity negatively affects profit and cost efficiency, while positively affecting risk. Interestingly, we find some evidence of an incremental effect of specific board characteristics on efficiency for banks with more concentrated ownership structures and state-owned institutions; while for banks with CEO performance-related pay schemes the effect on efficiency when significant is usually negative. Our results offer useful insights to policy makers in China charged with the task of improving the governance mechanisms in banking institutions.Peer reviewe

Board Rudiments and the Executive Attitude Towards Corporate Risk-Taking

“…Consistently, I found no substantial indication of association between board independence, quality as well as ethnic diversity and the industry adjusted standard deviations of Tobin's q, ROA and ROE. These results of robustness and heteroskedasticity tests are equally similar to those reported in prior related studies (Dong et al 2017;Mathew, et al 2016;Huang and Wang 2015;Lenard et al 2014;Cucinelli 2013;Wang and Hsu 2013;Nakano and Nguyen 2012;Pathan 2009;Cheng 2008;Van der Walt et al 2006;Mak and Kusnadi 2005).…”

“…This empirical result is robustly stable even when subjected to sensitivity and variability tests. The finding thus re-affirms the conventional assertion that a dual leadership structure is detrimental to effective firm governance and accountability (see : Dong et al 2017;Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle 2012;Arslan et al 2010). In part, the result furthermore confirms the risk-averse hypothesis whereby the CEO would rather adopt a cautious managerial approach that safeguards their personal reputation and job security than to potentially wreck the boat (Burton 2000).…”

“…Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle (2012) using a sample of 74 US-based listed firms drawn from the financial services industry, found that CEO power is positively related to excessive managerial risk-taking. The study was further collaborated by Dong et al (2017) who found significantly positive association between the CEO/Chairperson duality and high banking risk. In view of the foregoing and given that absolute majority of firms covered in the data sample have adopted a non-dual leadership structure, this study hypothesized that.…”

The Value of Public Sector Risk Management: An Empirical Assessment of Ghana

“…That is why every organization implements risk assessment to identify threats and then manage them efficiently since business conditions are constantly changing Baumgartner and Rauter 2017;Da Silva Etges et al 2018). It is relevant to perform risk assessment to identify the internal and external threats that the entity is exposed to (Dementiev 2016;Dong et al 2017). The risks could appear in different forms; for example, an entity can be confronted with financial reporting errors, fraud, irregularities or inadequate workforce training; however, external risks could refer to changing and complex consumer demands, new competitors, or possible natural disasters (Balabonienė and Večerskienė 2015).…”

“…Risk management is a deliberate process involving the identification, assessment and prioritizing of risks, taking into account both positive and negative implications followed by a commitment of resources to mitigate and monitor in order to keep the risks under control to counter any unfortunate happenings with the intention of maximizing rewards (Lerskullawat 2017). However, due to the challenges associated with the process, which mainly are to do with a scarcity of resources, most firms prepare a list of risks with the most pressing ones highly preferred to less important risks in order not to render the procedure unbearable for organizations so as to be strictly practice (Afiah and Azwari 2015;Dong et al 2017). Since risk management process is so demanding and quite expensive such that an organization is committing more resources into managing risks, the outcome must create value for the public sector rather than contribute to waste of resource at the detriment of the taxpayer (Zins and Weill 2017).…”