Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effectiveness of Ownership Structure on the Financial Performance of Construction and Manufacture Industries

건설업과 제조업의 기업성과에 대한 소유구조의 효과성 분석

  • Received : 2011.05.24
  • Accepted : 2011.07.07
  • Published : 2011.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study proposed to compare the performance differences between a manufacturing company and a construction company in accordance with the mutual relations and ownership structures with the management performance based on the increase or decrease of the large shareholders' share-holding ratio (insider ownership, foreign share-holding, institutional investors' share-holding) of a KOSPI listed company in Korea during 10 years(1998-2007). To sum up the research work, first, the increase of foreign share-holding supported the results of previous studies which foreign share-holding has a positive effect on the long term performance by having a positive(+) effect on MTB, and the increase of an insider ownership supported the management entrenchment hypothesis of previous studies by having a negative(-) effect on MTB. However, relations between institutional investors's share-holding and MTB could not find out linkages in spite of the results of previous studies where dealt with the active monitoring hypothesis. Also, to examine the linkages of ROA and the ownership structure, though the increases of foreign share-holding and insider ownership had a positive(+) effect on ROA, the increases of institutional investors' share-holding had a negative(-) effect on it. It showed different analysis results from the active monitoring hypothesis of institutional investors. As a result of verifying whether there is "any difference in the management performances between the construction industry and the manufacturing industry according to the equity structure" which is the second hypothesis, nothing of the insider ownership and whether or not there is the construction industry, foreign share-holding and whether or not there is the construction, and the institutional ownership and whether or not there is the construction industry gave a statistical difference to MTB and ROA. Accordingly, it was possible to find out there is no difference in the management performance between the construction industry and the manufacturing industry based on the ownership structure in spite of different characteristics from the manufacturing industry such as the revenue recognition in ordering, production and accounting.

기업의 소유구조와 기업 가치에 미치는 영향에 관하여, 일반 제조업과는 상이한 업종상 회계상 특성을 가진 건설기업의 경영성과를 소유구조에 따라 일반 제조기업과 비교한 연구는 미진하였다. 본 연구에서는 1998년도부터 2007년도까지 우리나라 KOSPI 상장기업의 주요 주주지분율(내부지분율, 외국인지분율, 기관투자자지분율)의 증감에 따른 경영성과와의 상호 연관성 여부와 지분구조에 따라 제조기업과 건설기업과의 성과 차이에 대하여 비교하고자 한다. 실증결과를 요약하면, 첫째 외국인지분의 증가는 MTB에 정(+)의 영향을 미치어 외국인투자자지분이 기업의 장기적 경영성과(MTB)에 긍정적 영향을 준다는 선행 연구의 결과를 지지 하였으며, 내부지분율의 증가는 MTB에 부(-)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타나 선행연구의 경영자안주가설을 지지 하였다. 단지, 기관투자자지분율과 MTB와의 관련성은 적극적 감시가설을 언급한 앞선 여러 연구의 결과에도 불구하고 연동성을 찾아 볼 수 없었다. 또한 소유구조와 ROA의 연동성을 살펴보면 내부지분율 및 외국인지분율의 증가는 ROA에 정(+)의 영향을 미치나 기관투자자 지분율의 증가는 부(-)의 영향을 미치어 앞선 기관투자자의 적극적 감시가설과는 다른 결과를 보여주었다. 두 번째 지분구조에 따라 건설업과 제조업간의 경영성과가 차이가 있는지를 검증한 결과 내부지분율과 건설업유무, 외국인지분율과 건설업유무, 기관투자가지분율과 건설업유무 모두 MTB 와 ROA에 통계적으로 차이를 주지는 못하는 것으로 나타나 발주, 생산 및 회계상 수익의 인식 등 제조업과의 다른 특성에도 불구하고 지분구조에 따른 건설기업과 제조기업의 경영성과에는 차이는 없음을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ang. J. S, Cole. R. A, and Lin. J. W, "Agency Costs and Ownership Structure", The Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, Issue. 1, pp. 81-106, Feb, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00201
  2. Bradford. W, "The Issue Decision of Manager-Owner under Information Asymmetery", The Journal of Finance, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 1245-1260, Dec, 1987. https://doi.org/10.2307/2328525
  3. CAK, "2007 Financial Statements of Construction Industry", Construction Association of Korea, 2008
  4. Choi. Sang-Gill, and Kim. Kang-Soo, "An Analysis of the Trends of the Construction Industry with Asset & capital Trunover of the Korean Construction Industry", The Journal of Industrial Sciences, Vol. 9, 2001.
  5. Demsetz. H, and K. Lehn, "The Structure of Ownership and The Theory of The Firms", Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp 375-390, Jun, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1086/467041
  6. Demsetz. H, and K. Lehn, "The Structure of Corporate Ownership : Cause and Consequences", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp 1155-1177, Dec, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1086/261354
  7. Fama. Eugene F, "Agency problems and the theory of the firm", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 288-307, Apr, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1086/260866
  8. Herman. E. S, "Corporate Control, Corporate Power", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, pp. 58-59, 1981.
  9. Hwang. Dong-Sub, "Ownership and performance : in consideration of firm size", Korean Business Education Review, Vol. 28. pp. 483-494, 2002.
  10. Holderness. C. G, and Sheehan. D. P, "The Roll of Majority Shareholders in Publicly held Corporations: An Exploratory Analysis", Journal of Finanacial Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 317-346, Jan-Mar, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90049-9
  11. Jun. Young-Soon, "The Association Between Foreign and Domestic Institutional Ownership and Earnings Quality", Korean Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1001-1032, 2003.
  12. Jensen C. Michael, and Meckling H. William, "Theory of the Firm : Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, Issue. 4, pp. 305-360, Oct, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  13. Jung. Koo-Yul, and Kwon. Soo-Young, " Ownership Structure and Earnings Informativeness: Evidence from Korea", The International Journal of Accounting, Vol 37, Issue. 3, pp. 301-325, 2001.
  14. Khanna. T, and Palepu. K, "Emerging Market Business Groups, Foreign Investors, and Corporate Governanc", NBER Working Paper, No. 6955, Feb, 1999.
  15. Kamerscehen. D, "The Influence of Ownership and Control on Profit Rates", The American Economic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 432-447, Jun, 1968.
  16. Michael C. Jensen, and William H. Meclking, "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, Issue. 4. pp. 305-360, Oct, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  17. Morck. Randall, Shleifer. Andrei, and Vishny. Robert W, "Management Ownership and Market Valuation An Empirical Analysis", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 293-315, Jan-Mar, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90048-7
  18. McConnell. John J., and Servaes. Henri., "Addition evidence on equity ownership and corporate value" Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 595-612, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(90)90069-C
  19. McConnell. John J., and Servaes. Henri., "Equiuty Ownership and the Two Faces of Debt", Journal of Financial Economics, pp. 131-157, 1995.
  20. Park. Jung-Hun, and Noh. Eun-Jung, "Effects of a firm's ownership structure on agency costs: Focusing on the effects of foreign ownership and top management ownership", Management Accounting Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 143-164, 2008.
  21. Pound John, "Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 237-265, Jan-Mar, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90046-3
  22. Stano Miron, "Monopoly Power, Ownership Control and Corporate Performance", The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 672-679, Aut, 1976. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003279
  23. Villalonga. Belen and Amit. Raphael, "How Do Family Ownership, Control and Management Affect firm value?", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 80, Issue. 2, pp. 365-417, May, 2006.
  24. Wang. Se-Jong, "Construction Industry and National Economy", CERIK Report, pp. 23-39, 1995.
  25. Wruck, K. H., "Equity Ownership Concentration and Firm Value Evidence from Private Equity Financing", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, pp. 3-28, June, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(89)90003-2

Cited by

  1. The moderating effect of Korean fashion SMEs’ company age andsize on the relationship between management ownership and company financial growth vol.24, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7741/rjcc.2016.24.2.248