History of Canadian Labour Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

History of Canadian Labour - Essay Example Triggered by a conflict between metal workers and their bosses, the agitation rapidly spread throughout the city's working class. This essay is going to trace the growth and development of the working class people in the history of Canada between 1880 and 1920. A thorough assessment of the period will be made with regards to simultaneous union and splitting of the working class on the basis of race, gender, region and skills. The Knights of Labor made their presence felt by uniting workers of different types. Gradually the organization spread its control over small towns and villages. It was in 1881 when Hamilton became one of the strongholds of the labor organization, followed by Qubec and BC, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. The local neighboring areas of New Brunswick and Alberta were also parts of the 450 local assemblies across Canada. Labor politics rose to prominence as the Knights of Labor reform group coordinated and controlled the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada. The self-governing labor political campaign, which played a crucial role in terms of growth and development of working class militancy in Canada in the end of the nineteenth century, led to parliamentary lobbying, thus bringing the most pertinent issues of the working class before political and administrative authorities. The fundamental rights of the working class people were brought to notice through intensive campaigning and follow-up mechanisms. The dedication of the Knights leaders and more importantly, the spontaneous participation of labors from all areas of manual works helped enormously to turn the campaign into a success story. The Knights approached Ontario and the West in 1886, but the major success as far as voicing peoples' rights and demands is concerned came in Qubec and Ottawa in the 1890s. The development of working class unions in Canada prior to the World War II hastened up when the Knights of Labor organization was forced out on the ground of duality from the TLC at Berlin in 1902. The influence of the Knights of Labor on the working class did not concern just the idea of making unions, but the intent to curb the monopoly and exploitation of the contemporary capitalist social structure by developing alternatives based on equality and justice. To expatiate furthermore on the thesis topic in hand, one needs to gain a clear insight on the value of skilled labors. In any society, skilled labors do have an upper hand over incompetent labors. The age of rapid spread in industrialization necessitated deployment of efficient labors to maximize output in factories. During the span of forty years from 1880 to 1920, the working class fraternity of Canada orchestrated community business to maximize production. In Toronto, skilled and experienced craftsmen exercised far greater control over their employers in terms of production. The individual as well as collective discipline of veteran labors was considered to be an asset in Canada in those times. The labor unions in Toronto and other places acted forthrightly on choosing the right people for the right cause. But when the industrial capitalization threatened to disturb the balance of the working class society, a protest movement was on the cards. By and large, the working clas

The Legacy of Vietnam Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Legacy of Vietnam - Term Paper Example The withdrawal of forces implied no direct involvement, but the US still planned to safeguard ‘Saigon’ through military and economic aid. Although Nixon’s regime uncompromisingly worked for â€Å"Thieus’s† (South Vietnamese Premier) cause but because of certain issues raised by the US Congress, the aid to the South Vietnam was cut by half. Reduced aid further weakened South Vietnam’s position. This period was also marked by the premature resignation of President Nixon. The advance by the North Vietnamese communist army was swift and the conquest was completed in 1975. One of the prime implications of the conflict was economic. The war had brought a wave of inflation that the US had not witnessed in years with money flowing into Indochina for the ‘Anti Communist’ cause. Although the North Vietnamese were ostensibly victorious in unifying Vietnam, their victory was accompanied by the drainage of its State treasury. The country had b een ecologically damaged and all other institutions apart from the army had been moribund during the war years. The war had ironically turned Vietnam into one of the poorest countries of the world with fourth largest army in the world. The political implications were also major and they transcended the immediate region of Vietnam and also affected the proximal regions. The following chaos in Laos and Cambodia form an integral part of the ‘legacy’ of the war. The new unified Vietnam was facing its own problems with the culturally disparate north and south struggling to maintain a same national identity. In the post war years, America has made deliberate attempts to erase the lost Vietnam War from its consciousness. This made the veterans position rather flimsy as their efforts and sacrifices in the war were being rendered futile and meaningless by the public. This forced exclusion of Vietnam War has in a way alienated the war veterans who have suffered from isolation, dr ug abuse and many psychological disorders. Moreover, the views of the public on the war are very variegated which make the Vietnam War a fairly complex issue to understand. With the loss of the Vietnam War, the writer believes that the American policy makers have become more and more security conscious over the years. Taking the increased involvement of the USSR in the Afghan region as an example, the Americans spent millions of dollars on harnessing fundamentalist guerilla warfare in the region. Similar examples can also be seen in the leftist revolutions in the Central American region. The conclusion perhaps holds the crux of the article. The writer with the entire historical contextualization is trying to assert that the Vietnam War was in fact a paramount event in the history of international politics. It was marked with the exposure of the vulnerability of a Superpower that was far more superior militarily and economically from its opponent but had to suffer a humiliating defea t. The writer believes the contemporary world is not the world that was easily manageable by the imperial powers as in the 1940s. The political intervention of the powerful nations is not as easy as it used to be in the earlier half of the century when the superpowers defined the political map to suit their strategic interests. In the new era, America needs to accept its weaknesses and accommodate situations that might not be as palatable

Persona Responsibility Essay Essay Example for Free

Persona Responsibility Essay Essay Personal responsibility, in this context, is an important concept composed of these parts: Fist, what the words personal responsibility means to you? Second, what relationship exists between personal responsibility and college success? Last but not least, what preliminary plan do you have to practice personal responsibility in your education? Personal responsibility is a decision that you make to live up to your own ideals and expectations. It also means that you would be accountable for what you say, do, or think. It can also mean self awareness of a person towards the success of one’s life. Personal responsibility starts inside us and move outwards. We should not blame others for our mistakes. We should start blaming our self if something went wrong that way we can find ways to fix it and move on our life. Also, don’t postpone doing what you can do today, because tomorrow has it own problem to solve; if you can, today is the perfect day to develop your talents. Many students believe that it is a responsibility of the instructors or other students to help them succeed in college. I believe it is me and only me who can achieve my own success. Personal responsibility is accepting what ever consequences come from my actions and understanding how to improve and make necessary changes. By setting personal goals, staying focused, and time management skills, I can achieve college success. A good way to improve my college career is to stay organized. Often times in college, the schedule of classes, and making time for things other than school can be extremely challenging. This requires me to have a good time management skills, keep a detailed schedule of all future deadlines, and to have whatever resources and supplies available and ready to use. The Journal  of College Admission says: â€Å"The student would benefit from using organizational tools, such as planners, calendars, to-do-list, folders, blinders, and dividers† (Prevatt, Huijun, Welles, 2011, para.). Also, every society, like every family has their rules. If you want to live a better life with no troubles, you have to follow those rules. Following the rules makes your life easier and happy. When it comes to relationship between personal responsibility and college success, we all need to think twice. There is correlation between personal responsibility of the student and their success in college. This relationship exists because personal responsibility directly affects issues that are pertinent to ones life such as family, relationships, education, as well as physical and spiritual well-being of an individual. Personal responsibility determines the success of the student in college for a number of reasons (Charles, 2008). The first, and I think one of the most important, is self-discipline. Personal responsibility is the ability to be in control of ones life in terms of actions, emotions, etc. Students who do not have personal responsibility concerning their lives are prone to influences of doing what others are doing by just following them without proper reasons. This lack of self-control comes about because any individual without a sense of personal responsibility will always be irresponsible. A student without personal responsibility will blame the lecture for failing in the exam when a responsible student with personal responsibility will rather analyze the reasons behind his/her failure and decide to take action to pass the exam. This explains why students who have a sense of personal responsibility have higher scores than those without personal responsibility (Bourbon, 1994). The other factor that makes students who take personal responsibility to succeed in college more than the others who do not take personal responsibility is that they do not allow circumstances to hinder their progress in life. They do have a high sense of self-esteem, which makes them to confront issues critically rather than emotionally. Students who feel that they are not in control pity themselves when they have issues to deal with in their lives thus affecting their physical health negatively. This may lead to absenteeism from classes and even suicidal cases (Charles,  2008). Students who are aware of the words personal responsibility also manage to delay gratification; it’s the ability to deny oneself pleasure in pursuit of a particular goal. Personal responsibility enables a student to stick out or to persevere in pursuit of academic excellence thereby delaying the enjoyment of pleasures, which may affect the concentration, or peace of mind in pursuit of excellence. Th e delay gratification of pleasures such as drug abuse, sexual relationships, and hooliganism are known to affect student’s academic performance (Bourbon, 1994). Studying at university is not just about learning a lot of things that are fascinating in themselves but, preparing your future in a work place. At the same time as you develop your knowledge of your subject and the skills required to perform well in it, you’re actually developing a whole range of skills and intellectual abilities that can be transferred to other areas of life, including your future employment. To reach that goal, you have to be hard on yourself; you have to set a study time and respect it no mare what, Study individually is good, but, group study is better because you have more than one ideas and a lot of experiences to take advantage of. You also need an appropriate place with no noise around to be concentrate and do your work. Be strict on your school schedule like you are for the one at wor k. Make sure to do all your assignments on time and make sure that you respect the time you set for your studies. College demand extra work to do. You have to manage your time between your work, your family members, your friends and so on †¦ Time managing is very important if you want to succeed in college. Planning thing ahead can help thing get done early so that you can have enough time to do your school work. As work responsibilities, school has his part too. Study, do assignment on time, participle in group activity, find a good place and time to study. Discipline is a key word I Think to succeed in college. A person cannot succeed if there is not a personal responsibility for what he/she is doing. In order for me to practice my personal responsibility in my education, I need to do my own assignment, do my work on time; don’t wait for someone else to do it for me. If I’m having troubles understanding a subject, I can as my instructor or a classmate for help for more explanations instead of letting someone else do it for me. Doing your own assignment helps understanding your courses and be successful at the end. References Charles, Chester (2008). Building Classroom Discipline Boston: Pearson Education Bourbon, Thomas (1994). Discipline at Home and School: New York: Brandt

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance CHAPTER IV As noted earlier, the need for corporate governance arises from the potential conflicts of interest among participants (stakeholders) in corporate structure. These are often referred as agency problems arise from two main sources. First, different participants have different goals and preferences. Second, the participants have imperfect information as to each others actions, knowledge and preferences. Berle and Means (1932) addressed these conflicts by examining the separation of ownership and control. They noted that this separation, in the absence of other corporate governance mechanisms, provide executives with the ability to act in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of shareholders. However, executives activities are potentially constrained by numerous factors that constitute and influence the governance of the corporations that they manage. These factors can be thought of as either internal control mechanisms (such as the board) or external control mechanisms (s uch as the market for corporate control). An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners. Although institutional investors are the predominant players in some countries financial markets and are therefore important in corporate governance, yet the ownership  structures and other governance characteristics differ across markets. These differences are attributable in part to legal and regulatory systems and in part to the manner in which the markets have evolved. These characteristics will continue to vary across countries, leading to differences in the role and influences of institutional investors in corporate governance. Previous researchers have shown that because of the costs involved, only large shareholders have the incentive to provide extensive monitoring of management. Whether institutions as large shareholders should, or will, provide such monitoring depends in part on the constraints to which they are subjected, their objectives, and their preferences for liquidity. Keeping the above into consideration, it is pertinent to examine the intricacies of institutional holdings in the governance matters of Indian corporates. Many a time, institutional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The ongoing debate as to the institutional holdings and the corporate governance is very live or interactive in the academics these days too. The results of earlier studies are inconclusive as to the deterministic value of the one or the other. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score index has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark to rate sampled firms in terms of corporate governance. The institutional holdings in terms of equity investment has been expressed in percentages to total investment and comparatively, in terms of the relative composition of the institutional equity investment. This chapter makes a detailed analysis of the dynamics of corporate governance and the institutional holdings in the following three perspectives: 4.1) Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition 4.2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance (dependent variable) 4.3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable) The results obtained for the sampled in this regard are reported, in an analytical frame, here as under: 4.1.1) Status of Institutional Holdings: The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in table no. 4.1 given below: Table 4.1 Institutional Holdings in the Sampled Companies Institutional Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 61 30.5 53 26.5 46 23.0 46 23.0 47 23.5 5-10 34 17.0 31 15.5 30 15.0 26 13.0 27 13.5 10-15 30 15.0 34 17.0 22 11.0 25 12.5 22 11.0 15-26 37 18.5 40 20.0 43 21.5 43 21.5 42 21.0 26-50 36 18.0 38 19.0 54 27.0 55 27.5 55 27.5 Above 50 02 1.0 04 2.0 05 2.5 05 2.5 07 3.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the present table reveals that the proportions of institutional holdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with larger proportions of institutional holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions of holdings have been declining over the study period. As institutions have above 50 percent holdings in only 1 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 3.5 percent. Similarly, institutions have holdings from 26 to 50 percent in 18 percent companies in 2004 that rises to 27.5 percent companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies in which institutions have holdings from 15 to 26 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower institutional holdings also validates it. As institutions have less than 5 percent stake in 30.5 percent companies in 2004, which reduced to only 23.5 percent companies in 2008. Similarly, institutions have holdings up to 10 percent in 17 percent companies that reduced to 13.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that institutional investors have been increasing their stake in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. 4.1.2 Constituents of Institutional Holdings: As noted earlier, Institutional holdings have been further classified into three categories i.e., Mutual Fund, (Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies) and Foreign Institutional Investors. The results obtained for the sampled companies as regard to the status of Mutual Funds holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.2 given below: Table 4.2 (a) MF Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Mutual Fund Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 140 70.0 143 71.5 117 58.5 113 56.5 119 59.5 5-10 42 21.0 34 17.0 52 26.0 54 27.0 41 20.5 10-15 14 7.0 14 7.0 22 11.0 23 11.5 29 14.5 15-20 03 1.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 Above 20 01 0.5 02 1.0 02 1.0 03 1.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.2 (b) MF Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Mutual Funds Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 96 48.0 104 52.0 100 50.0 103 51.5 101 50.5 20-40 55 27.5 38 19.0 41 20.5 50 25.0 47 23.5 40-60 22 11.0 21 10.5 24 12.0 14 7.0 23 11.5 60-80 09 4.5 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 Above 80 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 12 6.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depict that mutual funds have increased their proportions of shareholdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of sampled companies with higher proportions of mutual funds holdings has been increasing over the study period. Similarly, the number of sampled companies with lower proportions of mutual funds holdings has been decreasing over the same period. As mutual funds have more than 20 percent holdings in 0.5 percent companies in 2004, which increased to 2 percent companies at the end of the study period. Similarly, Mutual Funds have holdings to the extent of 20 percent only in 1.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 3.5 percent companies in 2008. It is also observed that there were only 14 companies in 2004 in which mutual funds holdings were from 10 to 15 percent, which increased to more than double at the end of the study period. It is also validated by the observations of the companies in which mutual funds have lower stake. There were 70 percent companies in which mutual funds had less than 5 percent holdings and the proportion of companies with such holdings reduced to 59.5 percent in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that mutual fund companies have become more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in part (b) of the present table reveal out that there is no consistency in the investment pattern of mutual funds in the sampled companies over the study period. Mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings have remained more or less between zero and 20 percent in about 50 percent companies. On an average in 23 percent companies, mutual funds hold 20 to 40 percent shares. Mutual Funds reduced their holdings in 20 to 40 percent category in sampled companies over the study period. Where as there has not been major change in the number of companies with 40 to 60 percent mutual fund holdings. On the other hand, mutual funds have increased their stake from 60 to 80 percent in sampled companies over the study period. There are 9 companies with such holdings, which increased to 17 companies in 2008. But the number of sampled companies with mutual funds holdings more than 80 percent has gone down over the study period. As in 2004, there ar e 9 percent companies that reduced to 6 percent at the end of the study period. Hence, no inference can be drawn about the investment behaviour of mutual funds in relation to the total institutional holdings in sampled companies over the study period. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and total institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.3 given below: Table 4.3 (a) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Bank, FI and IC Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 127 63.5 135 67.5 142 71.0 139 69.5 141 70.5 5-10 36 18.0 28 14.0 27 13.5 34 17.0 29 14.5 10-15 19 9.5 24 12.0 19 9.5 18 9.0 18 9.0 15-20 09 4.5 08 4.0 07 3.5 04 2.0 08 4.0 Above 20 09 4.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.3 (b) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 70 35.0 90 45.0 103 51.5 99 49.5 99 49.5 20-40 34 17.0 34 17.0 41 20.5 41 20.5 34 17.0 40-60 29 14.5 30 15.0 16 8.0 23 11.5 37 18.5 60-80 21 10.5 13 6.5 17 8.5 15 7.5 08 4.0 Above 80 46 23.0 33 16.5 23 11.5 22 11.0 22 11.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table depicts that the proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies in the sampled companies have decreased over the years. The numbers of companies with lower proportions of these holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with higher proportions of holdings have been decreasing over the study period. As in 63.5 percent companies, Banks and others hold less than 5 percent shares in 2004 while in 2008, 70.5 percent companies have the same holdings reflecting that over the study period, the above category of institutional investors have shown less interest in the sampled companies. Similarly, Banks and others hold up to 10 percent of total shareholdings in 36 companies which reduced to 27 in the year 2006 and finally to 29 companies in the year 2008. Likewise, the number of companies with more than 20 percent holdings has reduced from 4.5 percent in 2004 to 2 percent in 2008. Thus, i t is observed that Banks, FIs and ICs have withdrawn their substantial holdings in some companies while number of companies with marginal holdings has increased. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs are getting less interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table depict the results coherent with the results shown in part (a) as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their holdings in relation to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period as well. They have more than 80 percent holdings in 23 percent companies in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it was just in 11 percent companies. Similarly, these investors had 60 to 80 percent holdings in 21 companies in 2004, but in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings reduced to only 8 companies. The same is validated by the proportional increase in the number of companies with relatively lower holdings. Banks and others held to the limit of 20 percent shares in 70 companies in 2004 and in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings rose to 99. These investors have shown more interest in increasing their holdings from 40 percent to 60 percent in the sampled companies over the study period as they had such holdings in 14.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 18.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that the above-mentioned investors are gradually reducing their stakes to the lower levels in proportion to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs have been loosing interest in the sampled companies. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of FII holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.4 given below: Table 4.4 (a) FII Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 133 66.5 114 57.0 103 51.5 100 50.0 92 46.0 5-10 29 14.5 30 15.0 24 12.0 24 12.0 36 18.0 10-15 17 8.5 22 11.0 23 11.5 23 11.5 26 13.0 15-20 09 4.5 13 6.5 15 7.5 25 12.5 18 9.0 20-26 12 6.0 21 10.5 35 17.5 28 14.0 28 14.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.4 (b) FII Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 115 57.5 83 41.5 74 37.0 69 34.5 62 31.0 20-40 20 10.0 35 17.5 33 16.5 28 14.0 39 19.5 40-60 29 14.5 36 18.0 33 16.5 34 17.0 43 21.5 60-80 23 11.5 25 12.5 35 17.5 40 20.0 33 16.5 Above 80 13 6.5 21 10.5 25 12.5 29 14.5 23 11.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table reveals that the proportions of FII holdings in relation to total shareholdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with higher proportions of FII holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions have been decreasing over the study period. As FIIs have 20 to 26 percent holdings in only 6 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 14 percent. Similarly, FIIs have holdings from 15 to 20 percent in 9 companies in 2004 that got doubled to 18 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 10 to 15 percent. FIIs had such holdings in 17 companies only in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it increased to 26 companies. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. In nutshell, the FIIs have been consistently i ncreasing their stake in relation to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table also depict results consistent with the results shown for part (a). The proportion of FII holdings in relation to the institutional holdings in the sampled companies has also increased over the years. As institutions had above 80 percent holdings in only 6.5 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 11.5 percent companies. Similarly, FIIs had holdings from 60 to 80 percent in 23 companies in 2004 that increased to 33 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 40 to 60 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. As FIIs have less than 20 percent stake in 57.5 percent companies in 2004 which reduced to only 31 percent companies in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that FIIs have shown more interest in the sampled companies over the study period. Resume It can be observed from the result outputs of the first section that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies is consistently increasing with higher institutional holdings where as the number of companies are decreasing with lower proportions of institutional holdings. The mutual fund investors have also increased their holdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of companies with higher mutual fund holdings has been increasing over the years. Similarly, the number of companies with lower mutual fund holdings has been decreasing over the study period. But the results of observations of mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings state otherwise. Mutual funds have increased their proportions of holdings to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period but it is not so in relation to the total institutional ho ldings. Therefore, the investment pattern of mutual funds is not clear. Where as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. There has been decline in the number of sampled companies with higher proportion of the Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Validating the same, the numbers of companies with lower proportion of above holdings have been increasing over the study period. The results are consistent for the proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs in relation to total institutional holdings as well. To the contrary, foreign institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the years. The number of companies is increasing with higher FII holdings and the number of companies is decreasing with lower proportion of FII holdings. The results are similar in relation to the total institutional holdings as well. Hence, at the end of the section it is inferr ed on the basis of result outputs that institutional investors in total and foreign institutional investors are getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies are getting less interested in the same companies over the study period. And the results are inconclusive for the mutual funds. 4.2.1 Status of Corporate Governance Score in Sampled Companies: The Corporate Governance status of sampled companies is depicted in table 4.5. Total sampled of 200 companies has been divided into four quartiles of 50 companies each. The first quartile shows the company codes with highest corporate governance scores with in the range of 58 to 76 with the average score of 62.5. The second quartile shows the company codes with higher corporate governance scores with in the range of 52 to 58 with the average score of 54.3. The third quartile shows the company codes with lower corporate governance scores with in the range of 46 to 52 with the average score of 48.7. The fourth quartile shows the company codes with lowest corporate governance scores with in the range of 26 to 46 with the average score of 40.04. Table 4.5 Status of Corporate Governance in Sampled Companies Sampled Companies Number of Companies Sampled Company (Code) Range Average Governance Score Q1 50 2,5,6,11,13,15,21,26,27,28,29,37,39, 41,42,47,48,53,56,68,69,71,72,75,76,7778,79,84,86,88,91,93,96,97,98,102, 104,106,119,124,132,135,147,171,173180,189,194,198 58-76 62.5 Q2 50 10,17,18,30,31,33,34,36,38,45,46,52, 54,55,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,80,85, 100,101,103,108,117,118,121,125, 134,142,149,150,156,160,167,170, 175,177,179,183,184,185,186,187, 190,197 52-58 54.3 Q3 50 1,3,4,9,14,16,19,20,23,40,43,44,50, 59,66,70,73,74,82,83,92,94,99,105, 107,109,110,113,115,120,123,123, 127,129,130,137,139,151,152,154, 155,162,163,165,169,182,188,192, 196,200 46-52 48.7 Q4 50 7,8,12,22,24,25,32,35,49,51,81,87, 89,90,95,111,112,114,116,122,126, 128,131,133,136,138,140,141,143, 144,145,146,148,153,157,158,159, 161,164,166,168,172,174,176,178, 181,191,193,195,199 26-46 40.04 4.2.2 Relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.6 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) institutional holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to institutional holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.6 (a) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-10 95 47.84 84 47.44 76 46.74 72 47.06 74 47.42 10-25 64 53.50 70 52.79 62 52.21 63 51.44 60 51.53 25-50 39 56.51 42 56.43 57 56.32 60 56.37 59 55.80 Above50 02 50.50 04 56.00 05 55.00 05 52.60 07 54.43 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.6 (b) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 47.18 46.98 46.64 46.64 47.05 b Value 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 SE 0.84 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 R2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 t-value 6.75* 6.73* 6.63* 6.63* 6.21* D/W 1.825 .825 1.868 1.84 1.78 Predictor: Institutional Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportions of institutional holdings (to the level of 50 percent) have higher corporate governance score in sampled companies over the study period. Similarly, the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies in which institutional holdings are from 25 to 50 percent have the average corporate governance score of 56.51 points in 2004, 56.32 points in 2006 and 55.80 points in 2008. These score points are highest in all the years. Where as lower governance scores are observed for lower proportions of institutional holdings. As the sampled companies in which institutional holdings are to the level of 10 percent have poor average governance scores. They are 47.84 score points in 2004, 46.74 score points in 2006 and 47.42 score points in 2008. Similarly, the sampled companies with 10 to 25 percent i nstitutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores than the companies with lower holdings and lower governance scores than the companies with higher institutional holdings over the study period. It can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between institutional holdings and Corporate Governance. The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters also validate the above inference, as the degree of dependence between two variables is higher over the study period. All the values are also considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.2.3 Relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.7 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) mutual funds holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.7 (a) MF Holdings and Corporate Governance Mutual Fund Holdings Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (%) N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-5 140 50.5 143 51.0 117 50.9 113 50.6 119 50.3 5-10 42 51.8 34 50.9 52 52.0 54 52.5 41 53.6 10-15 14 55.2 14 54.2 22 51.4 23 Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance CHAPTER IV As noted earlier, the need for corporate governance arises from the potential conflicts of interest among participants (stakeholders) in corporate structure. These are often referred as agency problems arise from two main sources. First, different participants have different goals and preferences. Second, the participants have imperfect information as to each others actions, knowledge and preferences. Berle and Means (1932) addressed these conflicts by examining the separation of ownership and control. They noted that this separation, in the absence of other corporate governance mechanisms, provide executives with the ability to act in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of shareholders. However, executives activities are potentially constrained by numerous factors that constitute and influence the governance of the corporations that they manage. These factors can be thought of as either internal control mechanisms (such as the board) or external control mechanisms (s uch as the market for corporate control). An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners. Although institutional investors are the predominant players in some countries financial markets and are therefore important in corporate governance, yet the ownership  structures and other governance characteristics differ across markets. These differences are attributable in part to legal and regulatory systems and in part to the manner in which the markets have evolved. These characteristics will continue to vary across countries, leading to differences in the role and influences of institutional investors in corporate governance. Previous researchers have shown that because of the costs involved, only large shareholders have the incentive to provide extensive monitoring of management. Whether institutions as large shareholders should, or will, provide such monitoring depends in part on the constraints to which they are subjected, their objectives, and their preferences for liquidity. Keeping the above into consideration, it is pertinent to examine the intricacies of institutional holdings in the governance matters of Indian corporates. Many a time, institutional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The ongoing debate as to the institutional holdings and the corporate governance is very live or interactive in the academics these days too. The results of earlier studies are inconclusive as to the deterministic value of the one or the other. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score index has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark to rate sampled firms in terms of corporate governance. The institutional holdings in terms of equity investment has been expressed in percentages to total investment and comparatively, in terms of the relative composition of the institutional equity investment. This chapter makes a detailed analysis of the dynamics of corporate governance and the institutional holdings in the following three perspectives: 4.1) Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition 4.2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance (dependent variable) 4.3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable) The results obtained for the sampled in this regard are reported, in an analytical frame, here as under: 4.1.1) Status of Institutional Holdings: The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in table no. 4.1 given below: Table 4.1 Institutional Holdings in the Sampled Companies Institutional Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 61 30.5 53 26.5 46 23.0 46 23.0 47 23.5 5-10 34 17.0 31 15.5 30 15.0 26 13.0 27 13.5 10-15 30 15.0 34 17.0 22 11.0 25 12.5 22 11.0 15-26 37 18.5 40 20.0 43 21.5 43 21.5 42 21.0 26-50 36 18.0 38 19.0 54 27.0 55 27.5 55 27.5 Above 50 02 1.0 04 2.0 05 2.5 05 2.5 07 3.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the present table reveals that the proportions of institutional holdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with larger proportions of institutional holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions of holdings have been declining over the study period. As institutions have above 50 percent holdings in only 1 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 3.5 percent. Similarly, institutions have holdings from 26 to 50 percent in 18 percent companies in 2004 that rises to 27.5 percent companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies in which institutions have holdings from 15 to 26 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower institutional holdings also validates it. As institutions have less than 5 percent stake in 30.5 percent companies in 2004, which reduced to only 23.5 percent companies in 2008. Similarly, institutions have holdings up to 10 percent in 17 percent companies that reduced to 13.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that institutional investors have been increasing their stake in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. 4.1.2 Constituents of Institutional Holdings: As noted earlier, Institutional holdings have been further classified into three categories i.e., Mutual Fund, (Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies) and Foreign Institutional Investors. The results obtained for the sampled companies as regard to the status of Mutual Funds holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.2 given below: Table 4.2 (a) MF Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Mutual Fund Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 140 70.0 143 71.5 117 58.5 113 56.5 119 59.5 5-10 42 21.0 34 17.0 52 26.0 54 27.0 41 20.5 10-15 14 7.0 14 7.0 22 11.0 23 11.5 29 14.5 15-20 03 1.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 Above 20 01 0.5 02 1.0 02 1.0 03 1.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.2 (b) MF Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Mutual Funds Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 96 48.0 104 52.0 100 50.0 103 51.5 101 50.5 20-40 55 27.5 38 19.0 41 20.5 50 25.0 47 23.5 40-60 22 11.0 21 10.5 24 12.0 14 7.0 23 11.5 60-80 09 4.5 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 Above 80 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 12 6.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depict that mutual funds have increased their proportions of shareholdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of sampled companies with higher proportions of mutual funds holdings has been increasing over the study period. Similarly, the number of sampled companies with lower proportions of mutual funds holdings has been decreasing over the same period. As mutual funds have more than 20 percent holdings in 0.5 percent companies in 2004, which increased to 2 percent companies at the end of the study period. Similarly, Mutual Funds have holdings to the extent of 20 percent only in 1.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 3.5 percent companies in 2008. It is also observed that there were only 14 companies in 2004 in which mutual funds holdings were from 10 to 15 percent, which increased to more than double at the end of the study period. It is also validated by the observations of the companies in which mutual funds have lower stake. There were 70 percent companies in which mutual funds had less than 5 percent holdings and the proportion of companies with such holdings reduced to 59.5 percent in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that mutual fund companies have become more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in part (b) of the present table reveal out that there is no consistency in the investment pattern of mutual funds in the sampled companies over the study period. Mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings have remained more or less between zero and 20 percent in about 50 percent companies. On an average in 23 percent companies, mutual funds hold 20 to 40 percent shares. Mutual Funds reduced their holdings in 20 to 40 percent category in sampled companies over the study period. Where as there has not been major change in the number of companies with 40 to 60 percent mutual fund holdings. On the other hand, mutual funds have increased their stake from 60 to 80 percent in sampled companies over the study period. There are 9 companies with such holdings, which increased to 17 companies in 2008. But the number of sampled companies with mutual funds holdings more than 80 percent has gone down over the study period. As in 2004, there ar e 9 percent companies that reduced to 6 percent at the end of the study period. Hence, no inference can be drawn about the investment behaviour of mutual funds in relation to the total institutional holdings in sampled companies over the study period. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and total institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.3 given below: Table 4.3 (a) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Bank, FI and IC Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 127 63.5 135 67.5 142 71.0 139 69.5 141 70.5 5-10 36 18.0 28 14.0 27 13.5 34 17.0 29 14.5 10-15 19 9.5 24 12.0 19 9.5 18 9.0 18 9.0 15-20 09 4.5 08 4.0 07 3.5 04 2.0 08 4.0 Above 20 09 4.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.3 (b) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 70 35.0 90 45.0 103 51.5 99 49.5 99 49.5 20-40 34 17.0 34 17.0 41 20.5 41 20.5 34 17.0 40-60 29 14.5 30 15.0 16 8.0 23 11.5 37 18.5 60-80 21 10.5 13 6.5 17 8.5 15 7.5 08 4.0 Above 80 46 23.0 33 16.5 23 11.5 22 11.0 22 11.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table depicts that the proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies in the sampled companies have decreased over the years. The numbers of companies with lower proportions of these holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with higher proportions of holdings have been decreasing over the study period. As in 63.5 percent companies, Banks and others hold less than 5 percent shares in 2004 while in 2008, 70.5 percent companies have the same holdings reflecting that over the study period, the above category of institutional investors have shown less interest in the sampled companies. Similarly, Banks and others hold up to 10 percent of total shareholdings in 36 companies which reduced to 27 in the year 2006 and finally to 29 companies in the year 2008. Likewise, the number of companies with more than 20 percent holdings has reduced from 4.5 percent in 2004 to 2 percent in 2008. Thus, i t is observed that Banks, FIs and ICs have withdrawn their substantial holdings in some companies while number of companies with marginal holdings has increased. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs are getting less interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table depict the results coherent with the results shown in part (a) as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their holdings in relation to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period as well. They have more than 80 percent holdings in 23 percent companies in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it was just in 11 percent companies. Similarly, these investors had 60 to 80 percent holdings in 21 companies in 2004, but in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings reduced to only 8 companies. The same is validated by the proportional increase in the number of companies with relatively lower holdings. Banks and others held to the limit of 20 percent shares in 70 companies in 2004 and in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings rose to 99. These investors have shown more interest in increasing their holdings from 40 percent to 60 percent in the sampled companies over the study period as they had such holdings in 14.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 18.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that the above-mentioned investors are gradually reducing their stakes to the lower levels in proportion to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs have been loosing interest in the sampled companies. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of FII holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.4 given below: Table 4.4 (a) FII Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 133 66.5 114 57.0 103 51.5 100 50.0 92 46.0 5-10 29 14.5 30 15.0 24 12.0 24 12.0 36 18.0 10-15 17 8.5 22 11.0 23 11.5 23 11.5 26 13.0 15-20 09 4.5 13 6.5 15 7.5 25 12.5 18 9.0 20-26 12 6.0 21 10.5 35 17.5 28 14.0 28 14.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.4 (b) FII Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 115 57.5 83 41.5 74 37.0 69 34.5 62 31.0 20-40 20 10.0 35 17.5 33 16.5 28 14.0 39 19.5 40-60 29 14.5 36 18.0 33 16.5 34 17.0 43 21.5 60-80 23 11.5 25 12.5 35 17.5 40 20.0 33 16.5 Above 80 13 6.5 21 10.5 25 12.5 29 14.5 23 11.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table reveals that the proportions of FII holdings in relation to total shareholdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with higher proportions of FII holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions have been decreasing over the study period. As FIIs have 20 to 26 percent holdings in only 6 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 14 percent. Similarly, FIIs have holdings from 15 to 20 percent in 9 companies in 2004 that got doubled to 18 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 10 to 15 percent. FIIs had such holdings in 17 companies only in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it increased to 26 companies. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. In nutshell, the FIIs have been consistently i ncreasing their stake in relation to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table also depict results consistent with the results shown for part (a). The proportion of FII holdings in relation to the institutional holdings in the sampled companies has also increased over the years. As institutions had above 80 percent holdings in only 6.5 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 11.5 percent companies. Similarly, FIIs had holdings from 60 to 80 percent in 23 companies in 2004 that increased to 33 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 40 to 60 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. As FIIs have less than 20 percent stake in 57.5 percent companies in 2004 which reduced to only 31 percent companies in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that FIIs have shown more interest in the sampled companies over the study period. Resume It can be observed from the result outputs of the first section that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies is consistently increasing with higher institutional holdings where as the number of companies are decreasing with lower proportions of institutional holdings. The mutual fund investors have also increased their holdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of companies with higher mutual fund holdings has been increasing over the years. Similarly, the number of companies with lower mutual fund holdings has been decreasing over the study period. But the results of observations of mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings state otherwise. Mutual funds have increased their proportions of holdings to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period but it is not so in relation to the total institutional ho ldings. Therefore, the investment pattern of mutual funds is not clear. Where as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. There has been decline in the number of sampled companies with higher proportion of the Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Validating the same, the numbers of companies with lower proportion of above holdings have been increasing over the study period. The results are consistent for the proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs in relation to total institutional holdings as well. To the contrary, foreign institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the years. The number of companies is increasing with higher FII holdings and the number of companies is decreasing with lower proportion of FII holdings. The results are similar in relation to the total institutional holdings as well. Hence, at the end of the section it is inferr ed on the basis of result outputs that institutional investors in total and foreign institutional investors are getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies are getting less interested in the same companies over the study period. And the results are inconclusive for the mutual funds. 4.2.1 Status of Corporate Governance Score in Sampled Companies: The Corporate Governance status of sampled companies is depicted in table 4.5. Total sampled of 200 companies has been divided into four quartiles of 50 companies each. The first quartile shows the company codes with highest corporate governance scores with in the range of 58 to 76 with the average score of 62.5. The second quartile shows the company codes with higher corporate governance scores with in the range of 52 to 58 with the average score of 54.3. The third quartile shows the company codes with lower corporate governance scores with in the range of 46 to 52 with the average score of 48.7. The fourth quartile shows the company codes with lowest corporate governance scores with in the range of 26 to 46 with the average score of 40.04. Table 4.5 Status of Corporate Governance in Sampled Companies Sampled Companies Number of Companies Sampled Company (Code) Range Average Governance Score Q1 50 2,5,6,11,13,15,21,26,27,28,29,37,39, 41,42,47,48,53,56,68,69,71,72,75,76,7778,79,84,86,88,91,93,96,97,98,102, 104,106,119,124,132,135,147,171,173180,189,194,198 58-76 62.5 Q2 50 10,17,18,30,31,33,34,36,38,45,46,52, 54,55,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,80,85, 100,101,103,108,117,118,121,125, 134,142,149,150,156,160,167,170, 175,177,179,183,184,185,186,187, 190,197 52-58 54.3 Q3 50 1,3,4,9,14,16,19,20,23,40,43,44,50, 59,66,70,73,74,82,83,92,94,99,105, 107,109,110,113,115,120,123,123, 127,129,130,137,139,151,152,154, 155,162,163,165,169,182,188,192, 196,200 46-52 48.7 Q4 50 7,8,12,22,24,25,32,35,49,51,81,87, 89,90,95,111,112,114,116,122,126, 128,131,133,136,138,140,141,143, 144,145,146,148,153,157,158,159, 161,164,166,168,172,174,176,178, 181,191,193,195,199 26-46 40.04 4.2.2 Relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.6 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) institutional holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to institutional holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.6 (a) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-10 95 47.84 84 47.44 76 46.74 72 47.06 74 47.42 10-25 64 53.50 70 52.79 62 52.21 63 51.44 60 51.53 25-50 39 56.51 42 56.43 57 56.32 60 56.37 59 55.80 Above50 02 50.50 04 56.00 05 55.00 05 52.60 07 54.43 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.6 (b) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 47.18 46.98 46.64 46.64 47.05 b Value 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 SE 0.84 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 R2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 t-value 6.75* 6.73* 6.63* 6.63* 6.21* D/W 1.825 .825 1.868 1.84 1.78 Predictor: Institutional Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportions of institutional holdings (to the level of 50 percent) have higher corporate governance score in sampled companies over the study period. Similarly, the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies in which institutional holdings are from 25 to 50 percent have the average corporate governance score of 56.51 points in 2004, 56.32 points in 2006 and 55.80 points in 2008. These score points are highest in all the years. Where as lower governance scores are observed for lower proportions of institutional holdings. As the sampled companies in which institutional holdings are to the level of 10 percent have poor average governance scores. They are 47.84 score points in 2004, 46.74 score points in 2006 and 47.42 score points in 2008. Similarly, the sampled companies with 10 to 25 percent i nstitutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores than the companies with lower holdings and lower governance scores than the companies with higher institutional holdings over the study period. It can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between institutional holdings and Corporate Governance. The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters also validate the above inference, as the degree of dependence between two variables is higher over the study period. All the values are also considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.2.3 Relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.7 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) mutual funds holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.7 (a) MF Holdings and Corporate Governance Mutual Fund Holdings Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (%) N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-5 140 50.5 143 51.0 117 50.9 113 50.6 119 50.3 5-10 42 51.8 34 50.9 52 52.0 54 52.5 41 53.6 10-15 14 55.2 14 54.2 22 51.4 23

Growing Up With Terrorists :: Living With Terrorism

On September 11, 2001, I walked downstairs to have my breakfast and turned on the T.V. since I was alone. Coincidentally, I turned to the right channel at the right time when the news was informing the nation about an event that would change our lives and leave a mark in history. Everyday, things affect us in ways we have never experienced, teaching us new lessons and information which help us grow as individuals, or in this case, also as a nation. Events that affect us personally tend to change our perspective on life and introduce us even more into the "adult" world. I had just been informed that our own American commercial airlines had been hijacked and run into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon. Later, on my way to school, they announced that the second of the twin towers had finally collapsed. We continued watching the news and discussing the current and upcoming events in each of our classes, and finally, as time went by, the story unfolded revealing who was behind it all and why they did it. In history, our teacher taped a T.V. special on the background of Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, and their relations with America. Before I watched the special, I had never heard the name Bin Laden before in my life, and I did not really know anything about the Taliban either, except it was some group in the Middle East. I felt very naà ¯ve that it was possible that I did not know of something this big and important, and now I had a million questions to ask. Perhaps it is because I do not read the newspaper daily and rarely watch the news that this would come as such a shock to me. I have been relying on my friends, parents, and teachers for information on current events going on in the world, so I never felt the need to actually search for information myself because it had always been handed to me. I had no idea that I had been missing out on so many important details about our world, and now all the things that I had been missing out on were instantly making more headlines, and I was overwhelmed.

Racism in Cry, the Beloved Country by Alan Paton :: Cry, The Beloved Country Essays

Is Alan Paton racist in his portrayal of the natives? Yes, Alan Paton is racist in his portrayal of the natives as evidenced by the text below: Part I Page 10 Then she and put her head on it, with the patient suffering of black women, with suffering of oxen, with suffering of any that are mute. Pg 13, already full of the humbler people of his race., some with strange assortments of european garments. Pg 22 White Johannesburg was afraid of black crime. OLD COUPLE ROBBED AND BEATEWN IN LONELY HOUSE - FOUR NATIVES ARRESTED. Pg. 35 Who is nothing but a white man's dog. Pg. 44-45 These things are so bad, said Msimangu... it is true that they are often bad women, but hta is theone crime we dare not speak of. Pg. 58 God have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us. White man have mercy upon us. Pg. 59 The white men come to Shanty town. They come and wonder what they can do, there are so many of us. What will the poor devils do in the rain? Pg. 72 Murder in ParkwoldASSAILENT THOUGHT TO BE NATIVES. Pg. 75 I say we shall always have native crime **** until the native people of this counrty have worthy purposes to inspire and worthy goals to work for. Pg. 77 We went to Zoo lake dear. But its quite impossible. I really don't see why they can't have separate days for natives. Where can these poor creatues go? Pg. 78-79 and others say there is a danger for better paid laor will not , but will also read more, think more, ask more, and will not be content to be forever voiceless and inferior. Pg. 79 Who knows how we shall fashion such a land? We fear not only the loss of our possessions , but the loss of our whiteness. Pg. 86 Soe he introduced Kumalo to the European Superintendent, who called him Mr. Kumalo Pg. 123 He loooked l ike a man used to great matters, much greater htan the case of a black boy Part II Pg. 150 God knows what's comign to the country, I don't. I'm not a nigger hater...Pg. 154 The truth is that our christian ...he created white and black, and gives divine approval to any human that is deisnged to keep black men from advancement. Pg. 158 but at the door of the People, which means at the door of the white people. Pg.

Managing a Foreign Subsidiary

Outline 1. Introduction The objective of the research is to manage the subsidiary of Metersbonwe in Brazil and Russia. Metersbonwe is a Chinese local clothing brand. Metersbonwe was founded in 1994, and it specializes in casual wear. The reasons why I choose this brand is that I’m a young man, and I think the design of Metersbonwe is very suitable for the young people. Also, Metersbonwe is a popular brand with low price, so, the developing country like Russia and Brazil could adapt the price.However, to manage a subsidiary in a foreign country is full of challenge, and the one of the important factor to make it success is The Five Dimensions of National Culture. Power Distance (PDI): the extent to the power distribution is unequally in the less powerful member. Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV): the extent to the individuals integrates into the group. Masculinity Femininity (MAS): the degree of the sexism in the culture. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI): how this culture trea t the uncertainty and ambiguity.Long-Term Orientation (LTO): the Long-term cultures value thrift and perseverance, but, the short-term cultures value tradition, the fulfillment of social obligations and protecting honors. The other factor is the leadership style. There 3 different leadership styles is Authoritarian Style, Democratic Style, Laissez-Faire Style respectively. I think my leadership style is Democratic Style, because I will not be authoritarian to make the company all listen to me, A man's wisdom is limited, so, I need group’s wisdom to help the company become stronger.I will also not be Laissez-Faire Style, as a subsidiary company’s leader, I have a responsibility to carry the company. The research is anticipated to manage Metersbonwe in Russia and Brazil. The most important elements to manage the subsidiary in Russia and Brazil are local culture, people’s cloth wearing habit and the weather. 2. Methods The only data collection method used in the re search is Internet research, because, it’s limited by the source around.But the amount of the information on the internet was plenty, also, is easy to get the useful information on the internet, although the data collect by internet research may have less authenticity and accuracy, it is enough for this research. The internet research provided lot background knowledge, relatively official information about the company, many culture conventions in the Russia and Brazil and the Unilever’s business model in Russia and Brazil to locate the research, the internet research method helps a lot in this research. . Findings 2. 1. Examine the cultural conventions influencing business In Russia and Brazil Russia: Normal business hours are 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. Mondays to Fridays, and It is not unusual for Russians to renegotiate a contract. Brazil: Schedule the business meeting at least 2 weeks. Use casual conversation to start a business meeting or negotiation. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 4. 2. Determine Unilever’s business model in Russia and Brazil Russia: * Focused on special development program * Building leadership in large categories Using employees from 11 different nationalities Brazil: * have a local structure * top notch infrastructure * 10 major categories to sustained market leadership 2. Discussion 3. 2. Interpret the findings in light of thesis statement 3. 3. 1. Advantage for Metersbowe in Russia Diversity staff to build up the company’s culture exchange 3. 3. 2. Disadvantage for Metersbonwe in Russia Need long time to reconcile the cross culture staff 3. 3. 3. Advantage for Metersbonwe in Brazil Is not emphasize the culture convention . 3. 4. Disadvantage for Metersbonwe in Brazil 3. 3. Assess the effectiveness of the research * Not enough information to locate the Unilever’s business model in Russia and Brazil * Only internet research to fulfill the report, no other reliable source of data 3. Conclusions 4. 4. Identify and justify the Metersbonwe in Brazil * the country I choose to manage Metersbonwe is Brazil * Metersbonwe as a new brand access in Brazil clothing market 4. 5. Suggestion * More source of data provide * Confirm the accuracy of the data