2015
DOI: 10.1002/jcaf.22120
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ownership Structure, Fraud, and Corporate Governance

Abstract: A dispersed ownership system has widely disseminated shares and no dominant shareholder or group of shareholders. This is more commonly the share ownership pattern in the United States and the United Kingdom. A concentrated ownership system is more common in continental Europe. In this system one shareholder, family, or group of shareholders has majority or dominant control of companies. Different types of fraud are incentivized under each system. Dispersed ownership systems encourage earnings management, so e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Prior research highlights the role played by the firm control structure on corporate governance, specifically the identity of controlling blockholders (Connelly et al, 2010;Filatotchev and Wright, 2011;Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). The findings that the identity of ultimate controlling shareholders affects corporate governance complement prior results that examine other aspects of ownership structure (Brandã o and Cris ostomo, 2015;Bozec and Bozec, 2007;Henry, 2010;Goldberg et al, 2016;Singh and Davidson, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Prior research highlights the role played by the firm control structure on corporate governance, specifically the identity of controlling blockholders (Connelly et al, 2010;Filatotchev and Wright, 2011;Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). The findings that the identity of ultimate controlling shareholders affects corporate governance complement prior results that examine other aspects of ownership structure (Brandã o and Cris ostomo, 2015;Bozec and Bozec, 2007;Henry, 2010;Goldberg et al, 2016;Singh and Davidson, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…The overall empirical evidence on the negative role played by related party transactions in expropriation of shareholders wealth coupled with the recent corporate financial scandals such as Enron creates fertile ground for public misperception of these transactions and leads to regulatory sanctions to protect shareholders wealth (Pizzo, 2013). However, certain scholars argue that these regulations may be insufficient to guard company resources and call for additional advanced enforcement measures such as specialized courts, anti-tunneling social norms (Enriques, 2015) and effective corporate governance mechanisms to reduce information asymmetry and agency costs (Goldberg et al , 2016).…”
Section: Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Monitoring by shareholders can deter financial misconduct. Research reveals that firms with more concentrated ownership are less inclined to misconduct because their controlling shareholders hold large numbers of shares, giving them enhanced power to monitor managers (Chen et al, 2006; Goldberg et al, 2016). Scholars also suggest that institutional ownership can reduce the likelihood of financial misconduct via external monitoring by institutional investors (Dharwadkar et al, 2008).…”
Section: Conceptual Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%