Board composition, CEO duality and performance among Malaysian listed companies

By S. Abdullah. 2004

519 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bf15cebf811156741905940ad5e5debddd78f739

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

Citations in the corpus

Board structure and ownership in Malaysia: the case of distressed listed companies (2006, result): “This evidence is consistent with previous studies in Malaysia ( Abdullah, 2004”
Board Independence, CEO Duality and Accrual Management: Malaysian Evidence (2008, background): “…tool for the board (Fama and Jensen, 1983), while proponents of the managerial hegemony theory argue that the capability of outside directors to fulfil their monitoring and overseeing role, when the management dominates and controls the board of directors, is questionable (Abdullah, 2004).”
The Effects of Market Competition, Capital Structure, and CEO Duality on Firm Performance: A Mediation Analysis by Incorporating the GMM Model Technique (2020, background): “Some studies even failed to produce any significant relationship between CEO duality and firm performance [32,33].”
Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence from New Zealand (2011, methodology): “, 1998; Weir & Laing, 1999, Abdullah, 2004) have found no significant difference between the firms with CEO duality and those without. In a recent meta-analysis, Rhoades et al. (2001) provided support for the contingency view that context of the study moderates the relationship between CEO duality a”
Corporate governance and firm performance in emerging markets: Evidence from Turkey (2019, background): “…(2011); Chiang and He (2010); Bektas and Kaymak (2009); Jackling and Johl (2009); Singh and Gaur (2009); Setia-Atmaja (2009); Bhagat and Bolton (2008); Mura (2007); El Mehdi (2007); KyereboahColeman and Biekpe (2006); Anderson and Reeb (2004); Abdullah (2004); Bhagat and Black (2002) 11.”
Board Structure and Corporate Performance in Malaysia (2009, background): “, 2001, Abdullah, S.N., 2004). Dehaene et al. (2001) used return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA) as proxies for corporate performance in Belgian companies and Chen et al. (2005) utilised the market-to-book ratio in their research on firms in Hong Kong. Judge et al. (2003) used a series of”
The Impact of Board Structure on Corporate Financial Performance in Nigeria (2010, methodology): “Some examples of these measures include market value added (MVA), economic value added (EVA), cash flow growth, earnings per share (EPS) growth, asset growth, dividend growth, and sales growth (Coles, McWilliams and Sen, 2001; Abdullah, 2004). In their study, Dehaene, De Vuyst and Ooghe (2001) used ”
Are OECD-prescribed “good corporate governance practices” really good in an emerging economy? (2011, unknown): “Malaysia, Korea, and China require both (Abdullah, 2004; Dahya & McConnell, 2005; Lin, 2004; Peng, 2004).”
East Meets West? Board Characteristics in an Emerging Market: Evidence from Turkish Banks (2008, methodology): “For example, Kiel and Nicholson (2003) find a positive and significant correlation between Tobin’s Q and duality in their correlation analysis, nevertheless, like Abdullah (2004) and Weir and Liang (2000), they did not observe any significant relationship between these variables in the regression an”