VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY NGUYỄN TIẾN THÔNG OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, BOARD CHARACTERISTICS AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN VIETNAM PhD THESIS HO CHI MINH CITY, 2016 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY NGUYỄN TIẾN THÔNG OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, BOARD CHARACTERISTICS AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN VIETNAM Subject: Business Administration Code: 62340501 Independent Examiner 1: Independent Examiner 2: Examiner 1: PhD Dương Như Hùng Examiner 2: Assoc Prof.PhD Nguyễn Minh Kiều Examiner 3: ADVISORS PhD Nguyễn Thu Hiền Assoc Prof.PhD Piman Limpaphayom STATUTORY DECLARATION I declare that I have developed and written the enclosed Dissertation complexly by myself, and have not used sources or means without declaration in the text Any thoughts from others or literal quotations are clearly marked The Dissertation was not used in the same or in a similar version to achieve an academic grading or is being published elsewhere Author, Signature Nguyễn Tiến Thông i ABSTRACT In recent years, corporate governance research received increasing attention because of scandals involving manipulation of corporate power and even alleged criminal activities Good corporate governance would contribute to the sustainable development of the economy through the promotion of enterprise capacity and increasing access to capital from outside the enterprise Better corporate governance could lead to better corporate performance and impede expropriation of controlling shareholders from minority shareholders Vietnam’s Government recently implies the important role of State Capital Investment Corporation in equitization However, the role of State-Owned Holding Company (SOHC) is not taken into consideration in recent global corporate governance studies, especially in weak regulatory environment like Vietnam Applying quantitative method on panel data of listed companies in Vietnam during 2009-2013, this study found that SOHCs have positive impacts on firm performance which is a contribution to both theory and practice in corporate governance research Furthermore, there was no study related to the role of Board Ownership Deviation over the world and this kind of ownership is found to have positive impact on firm performance in Vietnam This finding consolidates the principal-principal agency theory as well as contributes a new understanding about Board members relationships This study, further, found the relationships between State Ownership, Institutional Ownership, Institutional Ownership Deviation, Foreign Ownership, Independent Directors, Non-executive Directors and firm performance which is an effective reference to policy makers, investors and relevant stakeholders to figure an enthusiastic corporate governance for Vietnam ii ACKNOWLEDMENTS I am grateful to my advisors, Dr Nguyen Thu Hien and Dr Piman Limpaphayom for their thoughtful guidance and insightful comments throughout my working Corporate Governance is a new research direction and their knowledge and experience are useful resources for my first step in this field I would like to say thank to other teachers of University of Technology, The School of Industrial Management, my colleagues and my friends with their supports and encouragement during my efforts for this study iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES viii ABBREVIATIONS ix CHAPTER 1.1 INTRODUCTION Overview 1.1.1 Corporate Governance Systems 1.1.2 Corporate Governance Mechanisms 1.1.3 Corporate Governance and Firm Performance 1.1.4 State-owned Holding Company 1.1.5 Internal Governance Mechanisms Studies in Vietnam 1.2 Research Gaps 12 1.3 Research Objectives and Scopes 15 1.4 Research Methodology 16 1.5 Research Significance 17 1.6 Research Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications 18 1.7 Research Structure 19 CHAPTER 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 20 Literature Review 20 2.1.1 Agency Theory 20 2.1.2 Agency Conflicts and Potential Conflicts 23 2.1.3 Stakeholder Theory 24 2.1.4 Corporate Governance 25 2.1.5 Corporate Governance Models 30 2.1.6 Ownership Structure 39 2.1.7 Board Characteristics 46 2.1.8 Firm Performance 47 2.1.9 State-owned Enterprises 47 2.1.10 Corporate governance of State Owned Enterprises 49 2.1.11 State-Owned Holding Company 50 2.1.12 Temasek Holdings 52 iv 2.1.13 Board Ownership Deviation 54 2.1.14 Institutional Ownership Deviation 55 2.1.15 Corporate Governance of Vietnam 55 2.2 Previous Studies 63 2.3 Impacts of IGMs on Firm Performance 68 2.3.1 Ownership structure 68 2.3.2 The Board Characteristics 74 2.4 Conclusion .76 CHAPTER DATA, MODEL AND METHODOLOGY .78 3.1 Data 78 3.2 Research Model 79 3.2.1 Research Model 80 3.2.2 Research Variables 83 3.3 Methodology 89 3.3.1 Pooled Cross Section (POLS) 90 3.3.2 Fixed Effects (FE) 90 3.3.3 Random Effects (RE) 91 3.3.4 Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier (LM) Test 91 3.3.5 Hausman Test 91 3.4 Conclusion .91 CHAPTER RESULTS 92 4.1 Data Description 92 4.2 Correlation Analysis of Variables 95 4.3 Performance Comparison between SOHC and non-SOHC companies 95 4.4 Regression Results 96 4.4.1 Market performance - Tobin’s Q Regressions 98 4.4.2 Market performance - MB Regressions 103 4.4.3 Operating performance - ROE Regressions 108 4.4.4 Operating performance - ROA Regressions 113 4.4.5 Market investment performance - Annual Return Regressions 118 4.5 Robustness Checks .122 v 4.6 Conclusion .124 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 126 5.1 Introduction 126 5.2 Summary of Main Findings 126 5.3 Implications for Theory 133 5.4 Implications for Practice 136 5.5 Limitations and future research .138 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 140 REFERENCES 141 APPENDIX 160 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Model of Corporate Participants .31 Figure 2.2 Vietnamese Companies by Categories Statistics Office (01/01/2012) .59 Figure 3.1 Research Model 80 Figure 3.2 Research Model with Variables 81 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Previous Studies in Vietnamese Market 10 Table 2.1 Corporate Governance Definitions 26 Table 2.2 Corporate Governance Models Comparison 38 Table 2.3 Ownership Concentration of Ten Largest Firms 43 Table 2.4 Separation of cash-flow and voting rights in East Asian corporations (largest control holder) .44 Table 2.5 Differences In Governance Between Private and SOEs Sectors 49 Table 2.6 Vietnamese Companies by Categories 59 Table 2.7 Ownership Structure of Vietnamese Companies 60 Table 2.8 Vietnamese Corporate Governance Score 61 Table 2.9 Corporate Governance Comparison 61 Table 3.1 Hypotheses 82 Table 3.2 Independent Variables and Definitions 83 Table 3.3 Performance Measurements 86 Table 3.4 Control Variables 88 Table 3.5 ICB Industries 89 Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 92 Table 4.2 Significant Correlation Matrix 95 Table 4.3 Mean performance measures of SOHC vs others 96 Table 4.5 Tobin’s Q Regressions 98 Table 4.6 MB Regressions 103 Table 4.7 ROE Regressions 108 Table 4.8 ROA Regressions 113 Table 4.9 Annual Return Regressions 118 Table 4.4 Robustness Check by Industry-Adjusted-Tobin’s Q 123 viii hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE soe scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 2147008 1482503 0795197 2188345 2411382 -.1148127 509417 -.1837405 -.3585825 0300592 012376 0654906 -.1296907 -.3771793 -.9234727 -1.207537 -.5741633 -.4019072 (b-B) Difference -.0289603 0650741 -.0043432 1372358 3608318 -.0425293 1699545 -.1407138 -.0786839 0411507 -.0065763 0011643 -.0038221 -.1177804 -.9445601 -1.247341 -.6193949 -.45211 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .2436611 0831761 0838629 0815987 -.1196935 -.0722834 3394625 -.0430267 -.2798986 -.0110915 0189523 0643263 -.1258686 -.2593989 0210874 039804 0452316 0502028 3097611 6441974 175982 2838632 6473969 2045604 3003225 1375876 1752711 0540671 0241082 0552986 0877979 2329993 0206071 0275933 0289818 0324884 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(18) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 17.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.4841 4.4.3a xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects tobin[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var tobin e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 1678255 0491954 0730436 4096651 2218003 2702658 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 785.84 0.0000 209 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE bod soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0982447 -.000997 -.2316578 0496698 2576524 -.3877088 1561514 2065248 -.08792 -.1334762 -.0381136 0189402 0018867 0288621 -.0078564 -.2062199 -.4692884 -.4377586 -.3527619 (b-B) Difference 0689432 0606367 3392578 -.0133186 2286618 -.1474922 2529514 2594119 -.0701747 -.075963 -.0351852 0075336 -.0218875 0087729 -.0359571 -.2036764 -.4625168 -.4307723 -.3447034 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0293015 -.0616337 -.5709157 0629883 0289905 -.2402165 -.0968001 -.052887 -.0177453 -.0575132 -.0029285 0114067 0237742 0200892 0281007 -.0025435 -.0067716 -.0069863 -.0080584 071863 0399403 2825741 0694643 114216 1864198 0632558 1097341 0399185 0518654 0154141 0071144 0147252 0416893 0921329 0079104 0116814 0122852 0139312 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 18.87 Prob>chi2 = 0.4653 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.3b xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects mb[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var mb e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 5294946 1434664 2066625 7276638 3787697 4546015 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 767.88 0.0000 210 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE bod soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 3233976 -.0046305 -.2657178 1347723 2441783 -.1740133 2543015 5302457 -.1284222 -.2341869 -.0833468 0355255 0668513 -.1050057 2054496 -.4217268 -.9541365 -.8996356 -.7467811 (b-B) Difference 1948985 0657104 4395944 0463746 1893332 1017964 3972285 4067227 -.0762958 -.1605339 -.0660023 0240428 0256701 011327 -.0984728 -.447525 -.9871179 -.9333286 -.7852203 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .1284991 -.0703408 -.7053122 0883977 0548451 -.2758097 -.142927 123523 -.0521264 -.073653 -.0173445 0114826 0411812 -.1163326 3039224 0257982 0329814 033693 0384392 1236427 0686147 4841573 119193 1966232 3220935 1089108 1886507 0689323 08952 0266279 0122781 0254735 0712303 1580711 0135878 0200097 0210438 0238562 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 16.92 Prob>chi2 = 0.5956 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.3c xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roe[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roe e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0175598 0082237 0061946 1325132 0906846 0787056 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 366.53 0.0000 211 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE bod soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0559941 0176223 -.0650261 0459992 0227433 0355397 0348185 -.0458556 0179237 -.0851105 -.0163358 -.0005166 0055929 1022113 -.271875 -.0476972 -.0940501 -.1343718 -.1372694 (b-B) Difference -.0065268 0461748 -.0203129 0081743 0309766 1050302 1084759 044727 -.0175681 -.0728139 -.0121846 0026299 -.0048083 0032801 -.0613575 -.0284973 -.0654265 -.1039375 -.1034813 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .062521 -.0285525 -.0447132 0378249 -.0082332 -.0694905 -.0736574 -.0905825 0354918 -.0122965 -.0041513 -.0031465 0104012 0989312 -.2105175 -.0191999 -.0286235 -.0304343 -.0337882 0328934 0179059 1216199 0305943 0527028 0901024 0292892 0497417 0191873 024787 0074358 003385 007116 0171813 0405759 002994 0046468 0049255 0056472 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 51.24 Prob>chi2 = 0.0001 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.3d xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roa[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roa e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0059544 0020036 0020623 0771647 044762 045412 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 521.38 0.0000 212 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE bod soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0193795 0039534 -.0384163 026471 0200186 -.0097181 013853 -.0218031 -.0046524 -.0474748 -.0040563 0010469 0035613 0581371 -.2597449 -.0259474 -.0459389 -.0596338 -.0654191 (b-B) Difference 0019092 025562 0013713 0026319 0232537 0445328 0616454 0272896 -.0188646 -.0334263 -.0037185 0013509 0012197 0013142 -.1542711 -.0149087 -.0295552 -.0425554 -.0463477 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0174703 -.0216086 -.0397876 0238391 -.0032351 -.0542509 -.0477924 -.0490927 0142122 -.0140485 -.0003378 -.0003039 0023416 0568229 -.1054738 -.0110387 -.0163837 -.0170785 -.0190715 0152947 0084321 0586657 0145731 0243915 0403835 013519 0233241 0086461 0112114 0033382 0015314 0031491 008452 019319 0014133 0022456 002379 0027324 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 62.81 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.3e xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects annualr[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var annualr e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 3793109 2125393 6158822 4610198 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 0.00 1.0000 213 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE bod soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 1394568 0980153 -.0018956 0663186 0750552 355548 -.1407002 5201166 -.186747 -.3506375 0289024 0119271 0662125 -.1274518 -.3805474 -.9223824 -1.206718 -.5741323 -.4010226 (b-B) Difference -.0063896 -.0174136 0676278 -.0060628 1408983 3412621 -.0457088 1707209 -.1415202 -.0820845 0422841 -.0070325 0011168 -.003744 -.1185878 -.9446966 -1.247453 -.6194692 -.4522338 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .1458464 1154289 -.0695234 0723814 -.065843 0142859 -.0949914 3493957 -.0452269 -.268553 -.0133817 0189596 0650956 -.1237078 -.2619596 0223142 0407352 0453369 0512112 2099578 1086028 6631252 1757374 3419869 6582334 1921137 3027032 1369365 1747284 0539619 0240623 0559123 0881816 2334304 020616 02763 0291469 0327277 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 18.80 Prob>chi2 = 0.4697 4.4.4a xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects tobin[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var tobin e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 1678255 0489883 0717456 4096651 221333 2678538 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 776.86 0.0000 214 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE ins soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 3130066 -.0544493 -.2195612 0483892 3708336 -.4008809 -.0505703 1698637 -.0912623 -.1252725 -.0359757 018084 0032478 0286475 -.0097975 -.207173 -.4698402 -.4373135 -.3535716 (b-B) Difference 3237699 -.0219159 3288261 0169798 3133462 -.1616034 -.0022345 25835 -.0758145 -.0661252 -.0329049 0067938 -.0236724 0096621 -.0407944 -.2047707 -.4632158 -.4309527 -.3464449 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E -.0107632 -.0325334 -.5483873 0314093 0574874 -.2392775 -.0483358 -.0884863 -.0154478 -.0591472 -.0030709 0112902 0269202 0189854 0309969 -.0024022 -.0066244 -.0063607 -.0071267 0942115 0393414 2764734 0701878 086763 1829478 0810271 1088702 0402602 0528234 0155378 0071419 0144877 0414773 0919396 0079332 0116777 0122275 0138781 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 18.08 Prob>chi2 = 0.5171 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.4b xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects mb[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var mb e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 5294946 1429565 2054917 7276638 3780959 4533119 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 767.35 0.0000 215 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE ins soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 6125196 -.0975942 -.1690679 1435819 5765632 -.2710048 -.1245174 4375468 -.1294284 -.2208199 -.0788088 0341802 0645422 -.1097023 1945493 -.424065 -.9549516 -.8973556 -.7468905 (b-B) Difference 4983564 -.0459852 4325544 1085616 3791927 032455 019789 401623 -.0783711 -.1569346 -.0609987 0229972 0211758 012462 -.1059318 -.4499138 -.9885278 -.9331543 -.7875791 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .1141633 -.051609 -.6016224 0350202 1973705 -.3034598 -.1443064 0359238 -.0510573 -.0638853 -.0178101 0111829 0433664 -.1221643 3004811 0258487 0335762 0357987 0406886 1617681 0675743 4733502 1202733 1492898 3151632 1393964 1868281 0693104 0909043 0267586 0122913 0249889 0708784 1575474 0136361 0200109 0209516 0237702 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 15.84 Prob>chi2 = 0.6677 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.4c xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roe[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roe e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0175598 0082093 0062355 1325132 0906051 078965 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 372.77 0.0000 216 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE ins soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 1043896 0018568 -.0480655 0475764 0801335 0185327 -.02957 -.0617943 0177892 -.0828504 -.0155601 -.0007436 0051661 1013823 -.2737803 -.0480989 -.0941872 -.1339738 -.1372782 (b-B) Difference 0790205 02012 -.0250115 0117427 0372428 1112488 0399981 0454422 -.0214158 -.0672416 -.0119505 0024212 -.0051968 0036048 -.0637166 -.0286067 -.0655401 -.1041245 -.1040045 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0253691 -.0182632 -.023054 0358337 0428907 -.0927161 -.0695681 -.1072365 0392051 -.0156088 -.0036096 -.0031648 0103629 0977775 -.2100637 -.0194922 -.0286471 -.0298493 -.0332737 0431386 0181048 1191403 0308576 0411305 0882455 0383571 0493134 0192643 0251405 0074624 0033863 006982 0171112 0404558 0030294 0046652 0049216 0056446 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 47.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.0003 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.4d xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roa[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roa e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0059544 0019993 0020526 0771647 0447132 0453061 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 522.40 0.0000 217 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE ins soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0484957 -.0039593 -.0342283 0266314 0410705 -.0140168 -.0173602 -.0281476 -.0049947 -.0462889 -.0037138 0009247 0036146 0579682 -.2602708 -.0261101 -.046016 -.0595202 -.0654978 (b-B) Difference 0503983 0105771 -.0013216 0059777 0307609 0461636 0196331 0276947 -.0206602 -.0307958 -.0034823 0012281 001009 0014803 -.1552337 -.0150136 -.0296341 -.0426296 -.0466485 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E -.0019026 -.0145364 -.0329068 0206537 0103096 -.0601804 -.0369934 -.0558423 0156654 -.0154931 -.0002315 -.0003033 0026056 0564879 -.1050372 -.0110964 -.0163819 -.0168906 -.0188493 02009 0083957 0574539 0147243 0187139 039616 0174765 0231388 0087126 0114184 0033625 0015363 0030949 0084164 0192768 0014304 0022537 0023759 0027299 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 59.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.4e xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects annualr[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var annualr e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 3793109 2123815 6158822 4608487 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 0.00 1.0000 218 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE ins soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 3077387 0492662 0338511 0687581 2225809 3193202 -.3355383 4772224 -.1882242 -.34345 0311201 0111932 0659253 -.1290607 -.3847772 -.923474 -1.207174 -.5732341 -.4013366 (b-B) Difference 0550072 -.0380879 0666987 -.0044142 1452969 3442641 -.0961522 1711554 -.1461477 -.0773547 0428804 -.0072226 -.0006793 -.0034578 -.1216665 -.9448087 -1.24756 -.6196125 -.4525937 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .2527315 0873541 -.0328476 0731724 077284 -.0249438 -.2393861 306067 -.0420765 -.2660954 -.0117603 0184158 0666046 -.1256029 -.2631107 0213346 0403863 0463784 0512571 2733281 1173876 6517115 1759931 2866763 6482663 2652969 3012575 1370046 1756769 0539908 0240852 0553709 0878761 2330717 0205825 0276083 0290316 0326508 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 19.36 Prob>chi2 = 0.4341 4.4.5a xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects tobin[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var tobin e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 1678255 0491743 0727569 4096651 2217527 269735 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 780.93 0.0000 219 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE contrdr soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0804882 002389 -.2432272 0506594 3539438 -.3985945 1661478 1978755 -.0893557 -.1221752 -.0395387 0210181 -.0012368 0266674 -.0125626 -.2077359 -.4710284 -.4388765 -.3529812 (b-B) Difference 0111234 0714834 3477817 -.0027249 2784602 -.1779779 2638291 2579051 -.0658614 -.0815448 -.0344243 0077873 -.0235986 0085974 -.0359521 -.204374 -.463019 -.4307004 -.3446039 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0693648 -.0690943 -.5910089 0533843 0754835 -.2206167 -.0976813 -.0600296 -.0234943 -.0406304 -.0051144 0132308 0223619 01807 0233895 -.0033619 -.0080093 -.0081761 -.0083773 0457641 0409695 2824723 070312 0848879 1842614 0612781 1084042 0400806 0523571 0154112 0071567 0142219 0415365 0919184 0079204 0117156 0122799 0138841 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 20.80 Prob>chi2 = 0.3478 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.5b xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects mb[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var mb e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 5294946 1433956 2050807 7276638 3786761 4528583 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 758.66 0.0000 220 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE contrdr soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 2314115 0087369 -.276202 1411495 5556416 -.2275396 291068 4988366 -.1308226 -.2025339 -.0873334 0416025 056319 -.1126505 189702 -.4262332 -.9590565 -.9024099 -.7469513 (b-B) Difference 073389 0903499 459592 071555 3439634 0304199 4217223 4060397 -.0679442 -.1663658 -.0651602 0258118 0206019 0109479 -.0977641 -.4500689 -.9894944 -.9342059 -.7855268 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .1580225 -.081613 -.735794 0695946 2116782 -.2579595 -.1306544 0927969 -.0628784 -.0361681 -.0221732 0157907 0357171 -.1235984 2874661 0238357 0304379 031796 0385756 0788331 0703765 4840408 1206569 146449 3182282 105509 1864061 0691874 090348 0266119 0123458 0245836 0709697 1577245 0135519 020033 0210022 0237463 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 20.37 Prob>chi2 = 0.3725 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.5c xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roe[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roe e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0175598 0082359 0060539 1325132 0907516 0778065 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 355.01 0.0000 4.4.5d 221 xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects roa[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var roa e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 0059544 0020052 0020381 0771647 0447795 0451457 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 513.75 0.0000 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE contrdr soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year 0005177 0056386 -.0280582 028095 0364918 -.0199686 0175931 -.0248546 -.0038704 -.0477862 -.0040148 0011075 0028304 0575116 -.2607904 -.0260248 -.0459122 -.0594396 -.0652097 -.0111394 0276941 0020335 0042961 020138 0405007 0638577 0265193 -.0176496 -.0364437 -.0032933 0010634 0012922 0012679 -.1542376 -.0147662 -.0292963 -.0422495 -.0461779 (b-B) Difference 0116571 -.0220554 -.0300917 0237989 0163538 -.0604693 -.0462646 -.0513739 0137792 -.0113425 -.0007215 0000441 0015382 0562438 -.1065528 -.0112586 -.016616 -.0171901 -.0190318 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0098725 0086762 0587199 0147827 0183996 0401293 0131491 0231286 0087269 0113813 0033553 0015472 0030598 0084274 0193174 0014236 0022598 0023858 0027295 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 63.25 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 4.4.5e 222 xttest0 Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects annualr[id,t] = Xb + u[id] + e[id,t] Estimated results: Var annualr e u Test: sd = sqrt(Var) 3793109 2125683 6158822 4610513 Var(u) = chibar2(01) = Prob > chibar2 = 0.00 1.0000 hausman FE RE Coefficients (b) (B) FE RE contrdr soe20 scicown family deviation sb nsoeins foreign nonexer indepdr dual bsize sbsize size lev 2010bn.year 2011.year 2012.year 2013.year -.0742879 1153099 1368459 0852619 1807941 2406255 -.1048051 4913236 -.1757101 -.3657831 0308395 010589 0603693 -.1329307 -.3886658 -.9218134 -1.204647 -.5706281 -.3982317 -.0542032 -.0098211 0601778 -.0004116 1070969 3424875 -.0365414 1677319 -.1358142 -.0976185 0444239 -.008819 003941 -.0038489 -.119513 -.9438462 -1.246038 -.6180428 -.4514163 (b-B) Difference -.0200846 125131 0766681 0856734 0736971 -.101862 -.0682638 3235917 -.0398959 -.2681646 -.0135843 019408 0564283 -.1290819 -.2691528 0220328 041391 0474146 0531846 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .1397825 1089042 6626859 1763425 2849554 6525423 1877603 3010655 1373393 176465 0540521 0242432 0552138 0878919 2332267 0207352 0278487 0293197 0327368 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(19) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 18.36 Prob>chi2 = 0.4985 223 ... belonged to board characteristics Corporate performance is studied via market performance including Tobin’s Q and Market to Book Ratio, operating performance including ROE and ROA and investment performance. .. role of Board Ownership Deviation over the world and this kind of ownership is found to have positive impact on firm performance in Vietnam This finding consolidates the principal-principal agency... governance in Vietnam, as reviewed, examined the relationship between internal corporate governance aspects, including board 10 characteristics and ownership structure, and corporate performance