Impact of equity ownership on the financial performance a study of listed logistic firm in india

Impact of Equity Ownership on the Financial Performance A study of Listed Logistic Firms in India Prof. Mahesh Bendigeri Assistant Professor Global Business School, Hubli Email: maheshbendigeri@gmail.com Mobile: 9342585290 Dr. Ramesh Olekar Associate Professor Department of Commerce, VSK University P G centre, Nandihalli-Sandur Email: ramesh.olekar@rediffmail.com Mobile: 9448641182 Ms. Rashmi Koujalgi Research Scholar Global Business School, Hubli Email: koujalagi_rashmi@yahoo.com Mobile: 9591364372

“Impact Of Equity Ownership On The Financial Performance A Study Of Listed Logistic Firms In India” Published in Global Journal of Management and Research – An International Peer Reviewed Journal , July – September ISSN 2278-0955 Page 68

Abstract This study is undertaken to examine the relationship of equity ownership and financial performance of logistic firms in India. The study explored the possibility that whether equity ownership type affects the financial performance of listed logistic Indian firms. The study examined the relationship of equity ownership with accounting as well as market performance measures of financial performance of the firms. The 25 most actively listed logistic Indian companies on BSE 500 indices and few on NSE listed constituting the bulk of trading, are chosen to constitute the sample of the study. A period of one year as of ending 2010 -2011 financial statement is considered. The study used Ordinary least square (OLS) to examine the relationship between the equity ownership and financial performance of the Indian listed firms. From the study it is found that Promoters’ holding has positive relationship with accounting measures such as RONW, ROCE and negative relationship with marketing measures such as PE, PBV. Whereas Non Promoters Holding has positive relationship with marketing measures and negative relationship with accounting measures.

Keywords: Equity Ownership, Financial Performance, Accounting Measure, Logistic, Marketing measures

Introduction This study seeks to determine whether the equity ownership structure affects Logistics companies’ financial performance. Ownership structure is analysed in terms of promoters holding and non promoters holdings. The impact of ownership on financial performance has been thoroughly explored in the corporate governance literature and the causality linkages between ownership and performance are discussed in traditional agency theory. This may be very important as ownership structure plays a key role in corporate governance, especially in developing countries. The literature indicates that highly concentrated ownership is more widespread in developing economies and developed countries outside the Anglo-American countries (Shleifer and Vishny 1997; La Porta et al. 1999). In spite of economic and legal differences, almost all Asian companies have concentrated stock ownership reflecting a predominance of family ownership (Chakrabarti 2002).

Corporate Governance has come to mean many things. Traditionally and at a fundamental level, the concept refers to corporate decision making and control, particularly the structure of the board and its working procedures. Hermes, (2004). Jenifer, (2002) defines Corporate Governance as a set of interlocking rules by which corporations, shareholders and management govern their behaviour. In each country, this is a combination of a legal system that sets some common standards of governance and systems of behaviour determined by firms themselves. Corporate Governance scandals and accounting failures such as Maxwell in the UK and Enron in the US have been dominating business debates during the last decade.

Capital structure, equity ownership structure and its impact on financial performance of firms has always been a serious agenda for researches across the globe. Scholars across the world are putting efforts to understand the impact of capital structure and equity ownership on financial performance of the firms. What is the composition of debt and equity in capital structure of the firm and who owns the firm’s equity and how does that affect financial performance of a firm has been a topic investigated by researchers for decades? The modern organization emphasizes the separation of management and ownership; in practice, the interests of group managing the company can vary from the interests of those that supply the capital to the firm. The review of literature has suggests that an immense attention to the ownership structure and financial performance of the firms. One of the biggest conflicts in any public limited company is not only between management and the shareholders but also between the controlling interest shareholders and non controlling interest shareholders. The share holders having controlling interest in a public limited company is able to influence the decisions of top management but the same luxury is not available with the smaller shareholders having non controlling interest in the company. This distribution of shareholders between shareholders having controlling and noncontrolling interest varies from company to company. In other words the equity ownership structure varies from company to company and that so the performance of the company varies from company to company depending upon the ownership distribution.

Literature Review: The firm’s equity and how does ownership affect firm value has been a topic investigated by researchers for decades; however, most of the studies in this context are conducted outside of India. The study failed to document any relevant study on the topic in Indian context. Fama and Jensen (1983 a & b) addresses the agency problems and they explained that a major source of cost to shareholders is the separation of ownership and control in the modern corporation. Even in developed countries, these agency problems continue to be sources of large costs to shareholders.

Demstez and Lehn (1985) argued both that the optimal corporate ownership structure was firm specific, and that market competition would derive firms toward that optimum. Because ownership was endogenous to expected performance, they cautioned, any regression of profitability on ownership patterns should yield insignificant results.

Loderer and Martin (1997) analyzed the shareholding of insiders (i.e., director’s ownership) as a measure of ownership. Taking the said measure as endogenous variable and Tobin’s Q as performance measure, they found (through simultaneous equation model) that ownership does not predict performance, but performance is a negative predictor of ownership. Pedersen and Thomsen (1997) examined the impact of ownership structure on company economic performance in the largest companies from 12 European nations. According to their findings the positive marginal effect of ownership ties to financial institutions is stronger in the market-based British system than in continental Europe. Cho (1998) found that firm performance affects ownership structure (signifying percentage of shares held by directors), but not vice versa. Lehmann and Weigand (2000) found that (1) the presence of large shareholders does not necessarily enhance profitability, and (2) the high degree of ownership concentration seems to be a sub-optimal choice for many of the tightly held German corporations.

Guner Gursoy and Kursat Aydogan (1999) have found that there is a significant impact of ownership structure -ownership concentration and ownership mix- on both performance and risktaking behavior of Turkish firms. Higher concentration leads to better market performance. Family owned firms seem to have lower performance with lower risk. While firms with foreign ownership display better performance, government owned firms have lower accounting, but higher market performance with high risk.

Sanghoon Lee (2000) have shed light on the role ownership structure plays in corporate performance, and thus offer insights to policy makers interested in improving corporate governance systems in an emerging economy such as South Korea.

Objectives: • • •

To examine the relationship of equity ownership type and financial performance of listed logistics firms in India for the period of one year.

To analyze the impact of equity ownership type on accounting as well as market performance measures of financial performance of the selected listed logistics firms in India To suggest the best possible combination of equity ownership for firms planning to enter capital market for raising equity capital through IPO.

Research Methodology: The data is collected through secondary sources. The secondary data is collected from financial statements of selected listed logistics Indian firms” through moneycontrol.com and stock market websites such as www.bseindia.com. In all 25 most actively listed logistic Indian companies on BSE 500 indices as well as NSE are selected. Annual Report of these companies for a period of 1year 2010 -2011 is selected. The 25 companies cover a broad spectrum of different services of logistic sector in India. Statistical tools such as Ordinary Least Square Estimation, Descriptive statistics, Correlation matrix, ANOVA techqiue, Regression Coefficient Estimates are selected for analysis of data. The following accounting and market performance measures are used for research purpose. Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Asset (ROA) variables - representing accounting performance measures, and Price-Earning Ratio (P/E) and Price to Book Value (P/BV) – representing stock market performance measures; are used.

Explanations of ratios used for the study: ROCE: Return on Capital Employed = (Adjusted net profits*/Capital employed)×100 RONW: [Return on share holder's investment = {Net profit (after interest and tax) / Share holder's fund} × 100] PE: Price Earnings Ratio = Market price per equity share / Earnings per share D/E: Debt Equity Ratio = External Equities / Internal Equities PBV: Price to Book Value= P0/BV0=PBV=ROE-G1/R-G1

The following formula was used for modeling: Yij = α + xde,j + xph,j + xnp,j + ε ……………………(i) Where ε ~ ND (0, σ2) Yij : i corresponds to RONW, ROCE, P/E or P/B for company j (j=1…25) xde,j : represents the debt to equity ratio for company j, xph,j : represents the promoter holding in the company xnp,j : represents non promoter holding of the company.

The independent variables are represented by the percentage of Debt to Equity ratio (D/E) and Promoters and Non promoters holding in the company. Whereas dependant variables are represented by the percentage of RONW, ROCE, PE, PBV ratios.

Analyses and interpretation Table 1(a): Frequency Distribution Measure of Ownership Structure Promoters Holdings Non Promoters Holdings Range

Frequency

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%

1 0 1 3 6 1 8 4 2 0

Percentage % 3.85 0 3.85 11.54 23.07 3.85 30.76 15.38 7.69 0

Cumulativ e% 3.85 3.85 7.7 19.24 42.31 46.16 76.92 92.31 100 100

Frequency 0 2 4 8 1 6 3 1 0 1

Percentage % 0 7.69 15.39 30.77 3.84 23.07 11.54 3.84 0 3.84

Cumulative % 0 7.69 23.08 53.85 57.69 80.76 92.3 96.16 96.16 100

Table 1(b): Summary Statistics (%) Mean

Maximum

Minimum

Std. Dev.

PROMOTERS_HOLDING

54.8308

83.7

6.6

19.20775

Observa tion 25

NON_PROMOTERS_HOLDING 45.1712

93.4

16.3

19.20848

25

Interpretation: Inspection of ownership data reveals that the concentration of equity ownership in sampled 25 listed Logistic Indian firms of Bombay stock exchange and Nation stock exchange of India Two measures of the structure of corporate ownership are used: the fraction of shares owned by a firm’s promoters, (Indian and Foreign promoters’ holding) and the fraction of shares owned by a non promoters (including all institutional and non institutional promoters). Table 1(a) and 1(b) lists the frequency distribution of these measures of corporate ownership. The results suggests that promoter’s holding ranges from 6.6% per cent to 83.7 per cent around a mean of 54.83 per cent; non promoter share holding ranges from 16.3 per cent to 93.4 per cent around a mean of 45.17 per cent.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics RONW Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance

8.37 2.74 5.90 0.00

ROCE 10.61 1.91 9.80 0.00

P_E

P_B

PH

17.32

1.916

54.8308

2.85 15.50 0.00

0.41059 6 1.1 0

3.84155 60.8 0 19.2077 5

13.96

9.56

14.23

2.05298 2

194.95

91.30

202.37

4.21473 3

368.937 6 -0.07639

5.70

-0.60

-0.37

0.56139 2

Skewness Range Minimum Maximum

-1.20 80.00 -40.30 39.70

0.46 34.10 -3.20 30.90

0.59 50.60 0.00 50.60

1.07302 3 8.2 -1.2 7

-0.57628 77.1 6.6 83.7

Sum Count

217.70 26.00

265.20 25.00

432.90 25.00

47.9 25

1370.77 25

Kurtosis

NP H 45.1 712 3.84 169 7 39.2 0 19.2 084 8 368.

965 8 0.07 713 0.57 596 4 77.1 16.3 93.4 112 9.28 25

Interpretation: Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the sampled data. The distributions of these two variables are skewed. The coefficient of skewness for ownership structure is positive, implying that the distribution has a long right tail. To obtain a symmetric distribution, the raw data are converted to log values using the logistic transformation, i.e. log [percentage ownership/(100percentage ownership)].

Table 3: Correlaetion Matrix RONW ROCE P_E P_B PH NPH D RONW 1 0.78314 ROCE 7 1 0.17002 P_E -0.0507 9 1 0.39668 0.34253 P_B 0.411717 5 5 1 0.33982 0.38707 PH 4 5 -0.11603 -0.28056 1 NPH -0.33984 -0.3871 0.115906 0.28047 -1 1

1 D/E

-0.18539

-0.26928

-0.13809

-0.2929

0.18698 1

0.1870 2 1

Interpretation: Table 3 gives the correlation matrix of the sampled data. In our sample, the correlation between the two measures of ownership concentration is -1. This negative value indicates that many of the important shareholders are not defined as management shareholders since they have representation on corporate boards. So perfect negative correlation between two measures of ownership concentration.

Based on the above correlation analyses, accounting measures such as RONW & ROCE have positive relationship with equity ownership such as PH at the values of 0.3398 and 0.3870 respectively and negative relationship with NPH at the values of -0.3398 and -0.3871 respectively.

Whereas marketing measures such as PE and PB have positive relationship with equity ownership such as NPH at the value of 0.1159 & 0.2804 respectively and have negative relationship with PH at the value of -0.1160 & -0.2805 respectively.

As this above mentioned relationship policy applicable to other respective variables.

Table 4: ANOVA Table and regression coefficient estimation: Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.338256054 R Square 0.114417158 Adjusted R Square 0.075913556 Standard Error 13.64577052 Observations 25 SUMMARY : Groups RONW PH

Return on Networth to Promoters Holding Count Sum Average 26 217.7 8.373076923 26 1429.17 54.96807692

Variance 194.9548462 354.6700562

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

SS 1 553.3321772 23 4282.762223 24 4836.0944

Coefficients Intercept

Standard Error

5.574250891 8.406382843

MS 553.3321772 186.2070532

t Stat -0.663097434

F 2.97159623

P-value 0.513859628

X Variable 1 Estimated Y value actual Y value=

0.249924344 0.144981858

1.723831845

8.16 8.37

0.098156296

11.42060449 (@ 68%)

Interpretation: With given rate of 54%, this is mean value of Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of RONW is 8.16% and the actual mean value is 8.37%, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the RONW (dependant variable ) for unit change in the value of PH ( independent variable) Positive Relationship Increase in PH @ Increase in RONW @ 68% 11.42 It is found that there is close positive relationship between Promoters Holding and Return on Networth.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations SUMMARY Groups RONW NPH

0.338109693 0.114318165 0.075810259 13.64653319 25 Return on Networth to Non Promoter Holdings Count Sum Average Variance 26 217.7 8.373076923 194.9548462 26 1170.88 45.03384615 354.6976886

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

SS 1 552.8534361 23 4283.240964 24 4836.0944

Intercept

Coefficients 19.41872532

Standard Error 7.096499549

X Variable 1

-0.249865519

0.145018583

Estimated Y value actual Y value=

MS F 552.8534361 2.968693365 186.227868

t Stat P-value 2.736380829 0.011764096 1.722989659 0.098311061

8.174776977 8.37

6.925449383 (@50%)

Interpretation: With given rate of 45%, this is mean value of Non Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of RONW is 8.17% and the actual mean value is 8.37%, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the RONW (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of NPH (independent variable)

Negative Relationship Increase in NPH @ Decrease in RONW 50% @ 6.92 It is found that there is close Negative relationship between Non Promoter Holding and Return on Networth.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics 0.38555368 Multiple R 5 0.14865164 R Square 4 Adjusted R 0.11163649 Square 8 9.00601292 Standard Error 6 Observations 25 SUMMARY Groups ROCE PH

Return on Capital Employed to Promoter Holding Count Sum Average Variance 10.7807692 26 280.3 3 88.42481538 54.9680769 26 1429.17 2 354.6700562

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

Intercept X Variable 1

SS 1

325.7282169

23 24

1865.490183 2191.2184

Coefficients 0.09152488 1 0.19179868

Standard Error 5.548284095 0.095708496

MS F 325.728216 9 4.015968059 81.1082688 3

t Stat

P-value

0.01649607 0.986980902 2.00398803 0.056986605

1 Estimated Y value actual Y value=

9

10.6327803 9 13.13383519 10.78 (@68%)

Interpretation: With given rate of 54%, this is mean value of Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of ROCE is 10.63 % and the actual mean value is 10.78%, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the ROCE (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of PH (independent variable) Positive Relationship Increase in PH @ 68%

Increase in ROCE @ 13.13%

It is found that there is close positive relationship between Promoter Holding and Return on Capital Employed.

Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations SUMMARY Groups ROCE NPH

0.38558012 5 0.14867203 3 0.11165777 4 9.00590508 2 25 Return on Capital Employed to Non Promoters Holding Count Sum Average Variance 10.7807 26 280.3 7 88.42482 45.0338 26 1170.88 5 354.6977

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

SS 1

325.7729

23 24

1865.446 2191.218 Standard Error

X Variable 1

Coefficients 19.2720394 8 0.19180450 1

Estimated Y value actual Y value=

10.6408369 3 9.681814 10.78 (@ 50%)

Intercept

MS F 325.772 9 4.016615 81.1063 3

4.68327

t Stat P-value 4.11508 2 0.000423

0.095704

-2.00415 0.056968

Interpretation: With given rate of 45%, this is mean value of Non Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of ROCE is 10.64% and the actual mean value is 10.78%, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the ROCE (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of NPH (independent variable) Negative Relationship Increase in NPH @ Decrease in ROCE @ 50% 9.68% It is found that there is close Negative relationship between Non Promoter Holding to Return on Networth.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.113729708 R Square 0.012934446 Adjusted R Square 0.029981447 Standard Error 14.43749848 Observations 25 SUMMARY Groups P_E PH

Price Earnings Ratio to Promoters Holding Count Sum Average Variance 26 445.1 17.11923 195.2856 26 1429.17 54.96808 354.6701

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

1 23 24 Coefficients

SS MS F 62.82227 62.82227 0.301391 4794.151 208.4414 4856.974 Standard

t Stat

P-value

Intercept X Variable 1

21.93448251 0.084231536

Estimated Y value actual Y value=

17.30511729 17.11

Error 8.894429 2.466092 0.021543 0.15343

-0.54899 0.588303

14.85903 68%

Interpretation: With given rate of 54%, this is mean value of Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of PE is 17.30 % and the actual mean value is 17.11 %, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the PE (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of PH (independent variable) Negative Relationship Increase in PH @ Decease in PE @

68%

14.85%

It is found that there is close Negative relationship between Promoters Holding and Price Earnings Ratio.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics 0.11360721 Multiple R 7 R Square 0.0129066 Adjusted R 0.03001050 Square 5 14.4377021 Standard Error 3 Observations 25 SUMMARY Groups P_E NPH

Price Earnings to Non Promoters Holding Count Sum Average Variance 17.1192 26 445.1 3 195.2856 45.0338 26 1170.88 5 354.6977

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

SS 1

62.68701

23 24

4794.287 4856.974

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1

13.5154037 0.08413759 9

Estimated Y value

17.3015956 4

Standard Error 7.507925 0.153426

17.72228

MS F 62.6870 1 0.300733 208.447 2

t Stat P-value 1.80015 2 0.084968 0.54839 1 0.588707

actual Y value=

17.11

50%

Interpretation: With given rate of 45 %, this is mean value of Non Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of PE is 17.3 % and the actual mean value is 17.13 %, which shows the less difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the PE (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of NPH (independent variable) Positive Relationship Increase in NPH @ 50 Increase in PE @ % 17.72 % It is found that there is close positive relationship between Price Earnings Ratio to Non Promoters Holding.

SUMMARY Regression Statistics 0.27974591 Multiple R 1 0.07825777 R Square 5 Adjusted R 0.03818202 Square 6 2.01340663 Standard Error 5 Observations 25

Groups P_B PH

Price to Book Value to Promoters Holding Count Sum Average Variance 26 49.5 1.903846 4.049985 26 1429.17 54.96808 354.6701

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

Intercept X Variable 1 Estimated Y value actual Y value=

1 23 24

Coefficients 3.55544528 4 -0.02990008

1.91213691 1.9

SS MS F 7.916055639 7.916056 1.952746 93.23754436 4.053806 101.1536 Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

1.240388183 2.866397 0.008726 0.021396829 -1.39741 0.175627

1.522239872 68%

Interpretation: With given rate of 54%, this is mean value of Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of PB is 1.91 % and the actual mean value is 1.9 %, which shows there is no difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the PB (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of PH (independent variable) Negative Relationship Increase in PH @ Decease in PB @ 68% 1.5% It is found that there is close Negative relationship between Price to Book Value to Promoters Holdings.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics 0.27965195 Multiple R 6 0.07820521 R Square 6 Adjusted R 0.03812718 Square 2 2.01346403 Standard Error 7 Observations 25 SUMMARY Groups P_B NPH

Price to Book Value to Non Promoters Holding Count Sum Average Variance 26 49.5 1.903846 4.049985 26 1170.88 45.03385 354.6977

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total

1 23 24

X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.56588276 3 0.02988889 5

Estimated Y value actual Y value=

1.91177968 8 1.9

Intercept

SS MS F 7.910739174 7.910739 1.951324 93.24286083 4.054037 101.1536 Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

1.047045901 0.540456 0.594078 0.021396621 1.396898 0.175778

2.060327494 50%

Interpretation: With given rate of 45 %, this is mean value of Non Promoters Holdings (Independent variable), the estimated mean value of PB is 1.91 % and the actual mean value is 1.9 %, which shows there is no difference between estimated and actual value.

Below table denotes the change in the PB (dependant variable) for unit change in the value of NPH (independent variable) Positive Relationship Increase in NPH @ 50 Increase in PB @ 2.06 % % Shows that there is close positive relationship between Price to Book Value to Non Promoters Holdings.

Findings: Based on overall above regression analyses, Promoters’ holding has positive relationship with accounting measures such as RONW, ROCE and negative relationship with marketing measures such as PE, PBV. Whereas Non Promoters Holding has positive relationship with marketing measures and negative relationship with accounting measures. As per the above correlation and regression analyses, concentrated equity ownership type (PH) has positive relationship with accounting measures such as RONW, ROCE and negative relationship with marketing measures such as PE, PBV. Whereas dispersed equity ownership type (NPH) has positive relationship with marketing measures and negative relationship with accounting measures. Further company can continue with its existing promoters holding equity ownership, which is favorable only with accounting measures not with the market measures or it can have equity ownership with proper judiciary mixture of both Promoters holding and non promoters holding which is favorable for both accounting (RONW, ROCE) as well as market (PE, PBV) measures.

Conclusion The significance of ownership characteristics and accounting performance measures i.e. ROA and ROE could be explained by the fact that the fundamental evaluation of companies, measured by, its financial indicators such as (ROA and ROE) are the most important factors used by investors in India to assess company’s performance. In India, although earlier investors have culturally placed more emphasis on accounting performance measures, not stock market indicators, due to the fact that the Indian firms are largely closely held family owned business houses. Furthermore, these

promoters groups always favored payment of dividends rather than stock price appreciation, due to more focus on fundamental factors rather than speculative market related factors. For that reason, the dividends yields paid by Indian companies are always very high compared to other emerging and developed markets. Thus the study did not consider dividend yield in the stock market indicators since it will be a distorted measure since issuers in India always pay a high dividends yield, sometimes, irrespective of earnings, since they are valued by investors according to dividends not price appreciation.

Furthermore, the type of ownership had an insignificant impact on stock market performance measures, which might imply that the stock performance was mainly affected by either economic and market conditions or speculative factors rather than ownership concentration.

In addition, the results of this study could also indicate that there might be the possibility of non impact of equity ownership type on entire stock market performance but at least it has impact on market performance measures (PE, PBV) of individual company explains about the market measure financial performance of the particular company. Therefore based on various statistical analysis study we concludes that equity ownership structure with proper judiciary mixture has positive relationship with both accounting as well as market performance measure of selective listed logistic firms of India.

Bibliography: 1. Aman Srivastava (2011), Equity Ownership and Financial Performance, journal of economics and Behavioral Studies, Vol 2, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 131-137, Apr 2011 2. Demsetz, H. et al (2001): Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7, pp. 209–33.

3. Donaldson, L. et al (2001): Board Structure, Board Processes and Board Performance: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Comparative International Management, June 2001.

4. Olayinka Marte Uadiale (2010) The Impact of Board Structure on Corporate Financial Performance in Nigeria, International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 10; October 2010 5. Shahab-ud-din & dr. Umara noreen (2012), Ownership Mix And Firm’s Risk Taking Behavior: Evidence From Pakistani Capital Market, International Journal Of Research In Commerce & Management, pg. 10, volume no. 3 (2012), issue no. 3 (march) 6. Sanghoon Lee (2008), Ownership Structure and Financial Performance: Evidence from Panel Data of South Korea, Forthcoming in Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(2), Winter 2008 pg. no. 1 7. Vincent O. Ongore , The Relationship Between Ownership Structure And Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis Of Listed Companies In Kenya Annexure: List of Logistic Companies selected for the study: ABC India Ltd, ABG Infralogistics Ltd, Agarwal Industrial Corporation Ltd, Allcargo Logistics Ltd, Aqua Logistics Ltd, Arshiya International Ltd, Chokani global express, SKS Logistics, Blue

dart logistics, Central Provinces Railways Company Ltd, Chartered Logistics Ltd, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Corporate Courier & Cargo Ltd, Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics, Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Gati Ltd, Global Vectra Helicorp, Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd, Sanco Trans, Shreyas Shipping, Sical Logistics, Transport Corporation of India Ltd, Varun shipping logistics, International Travel House Ltd, Aegis Logistics Ltd, Balurghat Technologies Ltd