# Introduction orporate governance as a subject has gained strong rise globally both in scientific and cultural community as well as in organization level. The separation of ownership and control is exactly what creates the necessity for corporate and business governance, which include mechanisms to ensure advisable decision making and earnings maximization. Ownership structure is an important aspect of corporate governance system. Berle and Means 1932 call focus on the prevalence of broadly held corporations in the United States in which ownership of capital is dispersed among small shareholders, but still control is concentrated in the hands of professionals. Jensen and Meckling (1976) or Grossman and Hart (1980) indicated that the modern field of corporate and business finance is rolling out around the round the same image of a broadly held corporation. Looking back at the evolutionary background of the corporation as known today one could detect at least three major defining trends. First was the artificial creation of the corporate entity by the legal practice, followed launch of limited liability, the popularity of the corporations' to spend money on and hold stock of another firm, and lastly, the switch from democratic to plutocratic voting rights leaving one vote per shareholder to one vote per share and thence to even more skewed differential voting rights. The next was the introduction of the publicly traded (bought and sold) corporation representing a paradigm change in the manner business could be scaled up, where owners of the slice of the organization (represented by the percentage of shares hold) neither got claims to the property (net of liabilities) with their company in kind nor the compulsion to be permanently connected with their shareholdings; they could leave by selling their stocks disposing them off or otherwise. The developments of the organization board itself and its role, accountability and responsibility is the third defining component in modern corporate governance. However, the board is 'elected' by the shareholders but once so elected the board is practically its own arbiter in all matters associated with the company. With the demise of the lively, small time entrepreneurial investor-manager and the ascent of the generally unaggressive absentee shareholders in the organization format of business generally, professional management took over that function subject to the guidance and oversight of the board. The focus of this study is to analyze the trend of ownership structure for the period 2001-2014. # II. # Literature Review Ownership structure has important implications for corporate governance and protection of minority shareholders' interest. Concentrated ownership structures and affiliation of companies with business groups is a common feature of Asian economies (Claessens and Fan, 2002). Influential legal scholars like Adolf Berle (1931), Merrick Dodd (1932), Lynn Stout (2002Stout ( , 2012)), Lucian Bebchuk (2005Bebchuk ( , 2006)), Stephen Bainbridge (2002Bainbridge ( , 2005) ) and Leo Strine, Jr. (2006), have been debating the pros and cons of higher shareholder engagement in corporate and business decision making but as of now the absentee shareholders in many jurisdictions need to be satisfied largely using their (theoretical) right of having a say in the election of the directors to the board and thereafter expecting their interests would be reasonably protected. Shareholder primacy is influenced by the ownership structures of the organization. Within the confines of the modern corporation, both accountability and responsibility are heavily influenced by ownership structure. Ownership structure can also settle/interviene firm strategy and behavior (Wright, et al, 1996) and can influence boardroom dynamics and stakeholder management (Goodstein and Boecker, 1991), executive compensation (David, Kochhar and Levitas, 1998;Balasubramanian, et al, 2013), and R&D investment (Baysinger, Kosnik and Turk, 1991). Knowledge of ownership patterns and trends can thus lead us to more nuanced knowledge of organizational behavior and its own predictability. # a) Ownership Trends around the World Research on firm ownership has often been controlled by studies centered on the United States and the United Kingdom both with dispersed and concentrated ownership structures. Earlier studies by La Porta, et al (1999) of other economies and recently by Aguilera et al (2011) of companies in emerging marketplaces have found concentrated ownership as a general pattern in most other world economies. The La Porta research which included companies from 27 developed countries found that only 30% of the companies showed dispersed ownership. Japan, in effect qualified as concentrated ownership geography because of predominant inter-corporate holdings even after they returned dispersed ownership because of direct ownership not being higher than 20% which was made the study cut-off criterion. Significant ownership concentration, either in the form of holdings by corporate bodies, individuals or the state in their study of corporations in South America was found by Aguilera et al (2011). # b) Classification of Shareholders Data in this study is analysed under two major categories of shareholders namely (i) Promoters, (ii) Non Promoters Holding sub divided into two other categories namely (iii) Non Promoters Institutional Holding, (iii) Non Promoters Non-Institutional Holding. # i. Promoters Holding Holdings into various categories provide insight into control in the company. Promoters are the entities that floated the company and to a large extent have seats on Board of Directors or the Management. Relatives of the Promoters who hold shares also fall under this class and are termed the Promoter Group. Promoter Holdings show the extent of control Promoters have over running of the business. # ii. Non Promoters Shareholders other than promoters are known as public shareholders. Public shareholding pattern consists of institutional and non-institutional investors. iii. Non Promoters' Institutional Holding Institutional investors include the pension funds, money managers, mutual funds, insurance companies, investment banks and commercial trusts. They buy large quantities of shares leaving high impact on the stock market's movements. They are considered knowledgeable and experienced. Hence, their footprints are generally followed by small investors. iv. Non Promoters' Non Institutional Holding Non institutional investors are those who carry their investments through a broker, bank, and real estate agent and so on. They are generally common people or organizations managing money on their own. III. # Methodology a) Results In the research study, the long term trend is analyzed of the selected variables related Ownership structure. The descriptive analysis of the variables is done and represented. In descriptive analysis of the variables, the measure of central tendency (mean), distribution, minimum and maximum values are estimated for each variable and are represented in the tables below. In the research study, it is also found that among the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index, 42percent of firms in BSE 100 index are having average promoters holding of more than 50 percent, 23 percent of the firms are having average promoters holding in the range of 40 -50 percent of holding, 16percent of the firms are found to have average promoters holding of 30 -40 percent of holding, 16 percent of firms are found to have average promoters holding in the range of 20 -30 percent of holding, 0percent of the firms are found to have average promoters holding of 10 -20 percent of holding and 3 percent of the firms are having the average promoters holding less than less than 10 percent of holding. The Frequency Distribution is also shown with the help of Graph shown in Figure 1. ii. In the research study, the trends of non-promoter's holding in the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index is analyzed and it is found that Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. is having the highest non promoters holding of (100 percent) in last 15 In the research study, it is also found that among the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index, 57percent of firms in BSE 100 index are having average non-promoters holding of more than 50 percent of holding, 22 percent of the firms are having average non-promoters holding in the range of 40 -50 percent of holding, 11 percent of the firms are found to have average non-promoters holding of 30 -40 percent of holding, 7percent of the firms are found to have average non-promoters holding of 20-30 percent of holding, 3percent of firms are found to have average non-promoters holding in the range of 10 -20 percent of holding and there is no holding of average nonpromoters holding less than 10percent of holding. The Frequency Distribution is also shown with the help of Graph shown in Figure 2 In the research study, the trends of nonpromoter's institutional holding in the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index is analyzed and it is found that I D B I Bank Ltd. is having the highest average Non Promoters Institutional Holding of (77.097 percent) in last 15 In the research study, it is also found that among the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index, only 1percent of firms in BSE 100 index are having average non-promoters institutional holding of more than 50 percent of holding, 8 percent of the firms are having average non-promoters institutional holding in the range of 40 -50 percent of holding, 29 percent of the firms are found to have average non-promoters institutional holding of 30 -40 percent of holding, 35 percent of firms are found to have average nonpromoters institutional holding in the range of 20 -30 percent of holding, 23 percent of firms are found to have average non-promoters institutional holding in the range of 10 -20 percent of holding and 4 percent of the firms are having the average non promoters institutional holding less than 10 percent of holding. The Frequency Distribution is also shown with the help of Graph shown in Figure 3. # iv. Non Promoters Non Institutional Holding # Company Mean min max In the research study, the trends of nonpromoter's non institutional holding in the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index is analyzed and it is found that M R F Ltd. (58.06 percent), is having the highest average non promoters non institutional holding of (58.06 percent) in last 15 In the research study, it is also found that among the 100 companies selected for the study in BSE 100 index, only 1 percent of firms in BSE 100 Index are having average non-promoters non institutional holding of more than 50 percent of holding, 10 percent of the firms are having average non-promoters non institutional holding in the range of 40 -50 percent of holding, 18 percent of the firms are found to have average nonpromoters non institutional holding of 30 -40 percent of holding, 42 percent of firms are found to have average non-promoters non institutional holding in the range of 20 -30 percent of holding, 24 percent of firms are found to have average non-promoters non institutional holding in the range of 10 -20 percent of holding and 5 percent of the firms are having the average non promoters non institutional holding less than 10 percent of holding. # Conclusion In this study, there is empirical confirmation of the predominance of concentrated ownership and control in corporate India. Out of the BSE 100-Index companies the number of dominant ownership entities (promoters), nearly 42percent of firms are having more than 50 percent of shareholding which indicates that there is concentration of ownership in the hands of promoters. Such entrenchment and control offers immense potential to the owners/controllers for tunneling and personal enrichment at the expense of absentee shareholders. However, only 1 percent of firms are having more than 50 percent of average non promoters institutional holding as well as average non promoters non institutional holding. 35 percent of firms are found to have average non promoters institutional holding in the range of 20 -30 percent of shareholding. In case of average non promoters non institutional holding it is found that 42 percent of firms are having 20-30% of shareholding. It indicates that institutional as well as retail shareholders don't have the majority powers. In line with the trends in other developed markets, noninstitutional retail shareholdings are on the declining mode in the country. In the BSE 100-Index companies, much of these holdings were picked up by the promoters to boost their entrenchment and as a defense against hostile takeovers. ![Trends in BSE 100-Index Companies from 2000 -2014: Evidence and Implications](image-2.png "Ownership") 1Ownership Trends in BSE 100-Index Companies from 2000 -2014: Evidence and ImplicationsYear 201654Volume XVI Issue II Version IA time series analysis of ownership structures in corporate India for the period 2000-2014 is presented in this section. The research design of the study is descriptive. In the research study the secondary data of different variables related to ownership structure in the Index BSE-100 in Indian stock marketwas extracted from the Prowess databases from CMIE related to the years ended 31 March 2000 to 2014. The descriptive analysis of the variables is done and represented. In descriptive analysis of the variables, the measure of central( E )tendency (mean, median), distribution, minimum and maximum values are estimated. While the focus of this-Global Journal of Human Social Sciencei. Promoters Holdingpaper is the publicly traded companies, it would be helpful also to recognise the phenomenal growth in the overall corporate sector in the last 15 years to show the trend of ownership structure in India.Table 1.1 : Average promoters holding of the firms in BSE 100 Index for the period 2000-2014CompanyMeanminmaxMangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.85.151468.2288.58Steel Authority Of India Ltd.84.988680.0085.82Godrej Industries Ltd.80.291468.2288.61Bharat Electronics Ltd.75.800075.0275.86Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd.75.204368.9484.11ss-Year 2016 Bharat Forge Ltd. Bhushan Steel Ltd.60.0207 35.126253.25 28.7865.68 56.84Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Bosch Ltd.59.8079 34.532941.78 28.82100.00 43.00Atul Ltd. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.59.6336 32.608649.38 32.2766.80 36.94Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd.59.2379 31.385040.33 29.3673.32 35.00Ramco Cements Ltd. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.58.6779 31.373657.38 5.2465.68 35.08Tata Elxsi Ltd. Pidilite Industries Ltd.58.5821 28.854354.89 28.1261.85 29.94Max India Ltd. Essar Oil Ltd.58.3329 28.266448.36 9.4666.22 79.88Century Textiles &Inds. Ltd. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.57.5621 27.049354.63 25.9059.45 28.49L I C Housing Finance Ltd. Dabur India Ltd.57.3129 26.803634.92 21.4765.30 31.36Tata Motors Ltd. Tata Communications Ltd.57.2657 25.259344.41 15.0974.65 48.8750.00% Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Crompton Greaves Ltd. 40.00% J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Bharat Electronics Ltd. 30.00% 20.00% E I D-Parry (India) Ltd. Godrej Industries Ltd. 10.00% C E S C Ltd. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. 0.00% Rallis India Ltd. Crisil Ltd. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [Merged] Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. less than 10% Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.10 -20%20 -30%30 -40%57.0479 24.7950 56.4579 24.1957 56.4550 19.7071 54.0764 15.0014 40 -50% 52.1979 52.2207 than 50% 52.3143 more 53.7821 14.848647.56 15.89 53.42 24.13 51.45 11.39 47.43 14.14 48.93 32.30 34.29 27.54 11.4261.64 31.06 60.44 24.98 61.26 31.78 65.80 19.99 54.80 67.51 67.96 60.00 31.78Asian Paints Ltd.52.090747.2157.54Reliance Industries Ltd.51.449344.9256.76Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.51.328639.8860.12Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.50.807146.4955.95J S W Steel Ltd.CompanyMean 50.6850min 34.11max 61.95Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. State Bank Of India100.0000 50.5921100.00 32.40100.00 100.00Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Britannia Industries Ltd.98.2050 50.436495.87 49.04100.00 56.28Federal Bank Ltd. Exide Industries Ltd.97.0386 50.137984.69 43.93100.00 54.01I F C I Ltd. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd.92.0671 49.000044.47 49.00100.00 49.00M R F Ltd. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.73.6350 48.940072.67 48.8974.80 48.99Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Bajaj Finance Ltd.72.7000 48.907169.30 37.9380.85 58.49Voltas Ltd. Bata India Ltd.72.4700 48.632969.39 47.0479.96 48.99Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.72.4621 48.612969.38 45.5878.56 50.76Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Ashok Leyland Ltd.71.6621 48.315064.15 45.2477.91 50.41Satyam Computer Services Ltd. [Merged] Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.71.0400 48.071446.20 25.0086.96 51.17N C C Ltd. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd.70.9300 47.970051.78 47.9480.41 48.00A C C Ltd. Hero Motocorp Ltd.70.8507 47.338649.70 45.04100.00 60.08Trent Ltd. Reliance Capital Ltd.70.5700 47.323667.39 37.1274.82 51.84Infosys Ltd. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.70.0500 47.062164.31 36.3980.50 56.26Tata Chemicals Ltd. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.70.0293 47.016468.40 32.7572.93 48.58Tata Steel Ltd. Lupin Ltd.69.7736 46.782965.67 32.7873.77 53.25Grasim Industries Ltd. SesaSterlite Ltd.69.3929 46.770760.05 36.6479.61 49.00Tata Global Beverages Ltd. Cummins India Ltd.67.3079 46.760763.24 41.9771.39 49.00Bajaj Holdings &Invst. Ltd. S K F India Ltd.66.8607 46.535059.56 46.0471.42 49.19Escorts Ltd. Titan Company Ltd.66.8493 46.532158.02 44.9373.22 47.34Tata Power Co. Ltd. B E M L Ltd.66.6050 42.365764.31 38.7667.95 45.97H D F C Bank Ltd. A B B India Ltd.66.3186 41.429355.13 25.0078.00 49.00Hindalco Industries Ltd. Oriental Bank Of Commerce65.7486 41.358653.74 33.5278.61 48.91Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Siemens Ltd.65.0507 41.018627.73 25.0072.32 48.99Finolex Cables Ltd. I D B I Bank Ltd.64.4823 40.017960.16 23.5071.99 47.33Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. Sanofi India Ltd.64.1429 39.608655.61 39.6074.24 39.62Raymond Ltd. Nestle India Ltd.62.8921 39.435057.18 37.2471.58 48.77Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.62.1557 38.236462.15 33.7962.16 45.07BalrampurChini Mills Ltd. Thermax Ltd.61.0550 37.907152.92 36.4768.18 38.02Arvind Ltd. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.60.8800 36.657148.78 25.4484.59 51.72Cipla Ltd. Shree Cement Ltd.60.6993 36.500059.03 34.4463.11 43.54 (97.04 percent). The companies with lowest percentageof non-promoters holding are Mangalore Refinery &Petrochemicals Ltd. (14.85 percent), Steel Authority OfIndia Ltd. (15.0014 percent). and Godrej Industries Ltd.(19.7 percent).The frequency distribution is shown belowin Table 1.4.Average Non Promoters HoldingFrequencyPercentless than 10%00.00%10 -20%33.00%20 -30%77.00%30 -40%1111.00%40 -50%2222.00%more than 50%5757.00%Total100100.00% 1559Volume XVI Issue II Version IE )(60.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00%less10 -20 -30 -40 -morethan20%30%40%50%than10%50%© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) Average Non Promoters Institutional HoldingFrequencyPercentless than 10%44.00%10 -20%2323.00%20 -30%3535.00%30 -40%2929.00%40 -50%88.00%more than 50%11.00%Total100100.00%61Volume XVI Issue II Version IE )( 16Year 201662Volume XVI Issue II Version I0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%( E )less10 -20 -30 -40 -moreGlobal Journal of Human Social ScienceM R F Ltd. Federal Bank Ltd. Tata Elxsi Ltd. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Finolex Cables Ltd. Trent Ltd.than 10%20%30%58.0586 47.7364 47.1929 46.0314 45.2679 45.2238 44.8800 40%50%46.28 29.22 34.17 41.56 37.64 39.04 30.93 than 50%60.75 73.14 61.78 55.91 53.98 48.75 72.84I F C I Ltd.44.340726.3357.60Atul Ltd.42.272132.4952.10Bajaj Holdings &Invst. Ltd.41.790733.4451.75Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.41.270029.4058.59N C C Ltd.38.222120.2361.48Bajaj Finance Ltd.36.101419.1153.68Arvind Ltd.35.408619.0362.48Escorts Ltd.34.992925.6348.97Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.34.807118.4448.87s - 17Century Textiles &Inds. Ltd.34.522930.3138.31Amara Raja Batteries Ltd.34.222121.3446.30Tata Chemicals Ltd.33.947924.0244.37A C C Ltd.32.300716.8471.03Voltas Ltd.31.643621.5351.43J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd.31.455021.5239.98Bharat Forge Ltd.31.232122.7838.33Cipla Ltd.31.181427.3539.72Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.30.552918.7242.57Titan Company Ltd.30.330022.8437.08Tata Steel Ltd.30.287923.3440.97Max India Ltd.30.28218.3747.47Rallis India Ltd.30.039322.7842.60Raymond Ltd.29.687923.1740.73Ramco Cements Ltd.29.414320.8035.11H D F C Bank Ltd.29.387116.4049.76Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.29.312111.3762.29Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. Bhushan Steel Ltd.29.2500 28.977722.05 23.0339.31 32.8763Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Tata Global Beverages Ltd. BalrampurChini Mills Ltd. J S W Steel Ltd. E I D-Parry (India) Ltd. Reliance Capital Ltd. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Crisil Ltd. Grasim Industries Ltd. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Bata India Ltd. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. [Merged] Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd.28.7621 28.4807 28.1643 27.9286 27.9021 27.8529 27.3021 27.1771 26.7986 26.7021 26.5429 25.9562 25.465022.99 20.86 20.10 17.37 21.41 14.43 13.82 13.78 20.04 12.89 16.85 10.58 14.3834.87 41.94 36.69 38.27 35.13 49.94 37.48 43.56 41.36 47.69 37.20 65.64 44.37Volume XVI Issue II Version IPiramal Enterprises Ltd.24.739315.9434.50E )Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.24.470715.0527.49(Shree Cement Ltd.24.220020.3033.47Tata Power Co. Ltd.23.267116.0133.51Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [Merged]23.048613.8033.58Infosys Ltd.22.981412.2036.14Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd.22.902912.3345.38Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.22.656415.5153.21S K F India Ltd.22.603613.9334.28Reliance Industries Ltd.22.496417.7125.72Essar Oil Ltd.22.27074.8574.62Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.21.982114.5534.06Crompton Greaves Ltd.21.970714.6435.46Tata Motors Ltd.21.91007.5344.10Asian Paints Ltd.21.904319.8824.70SesaSterlite Ltd.21.885711.2234.74Britannia Industries Ltd.21.419318.9424.63Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd.21.106414.7725.81C E S C Ltd.21.09578.3343.80Bajaj Electricals Ltd.20.687914.1830.79Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.20.56509.0759.56L I C Housing Finance Ltd.20.310012.2534.24Nestle India Ltd.20.042118.2325.26Exide Industries Ltd.19.873612.8222.84Lupin Ltd.19.47009.0231.47Hindustan Unilever Ltd.19.457114.5323.58Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.19.433613.5425.07Siemens Ltd.19.222112.0127.55 Average Non Promoters Non Institutional HoldingFrequencyPercentless than 10%55.00%10 -20%2424.00%20 -30%4242.00%30 -40%1818.00%40 -50%1010.00%more than 50%11.00%Total100100.00% 18Year 201664E )(Global Journal of Human Social Science -s © 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) Ownership Trends in BSE 100-Index Companies from 2000 -2014: Evidence and Implications © 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) Ownership Trends in BSE 100-Index Companies from 2000 -2014: Evidence and Implications * Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets RAguilera LKabbach De Castro JLee JYou Capitalisms and Capitalism in the 21 st Century GMorgan RWhitley Oxford Oxford University Press 2011 * Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of corporate Governance StephenMBainbridge 2002 University of California School of Law Research Paper no. 02-06 * Director Primacy and Shareholder Disempowerment, University of California StephenMBainbridge Los Angeles School of Law. Law & Economics Research Paper 2005 * Corporate Governance Issues in Executive Compensation -The Indian Experience NBalasubramanian SKBarua DKarthik 2013. 2008 -2012 Research Paper, National Stock Exchange of India, Mumbai; Bangalore Indian Institute of Management Bangalore -Centre for Corporate Governance and Citizenship * Effects of Board and Ownership Structure on BDBaysinger RDKosnik TATurk Corporate R&D Strategy. Academy Of Management Journal 34 1 1991 * The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power LABebchuk Harvard Law Review 118 2005 * Letting Shareholders Set the Rules LABebchuk Harvard Law Review 119 2006 * The Modern Corporation and Private Property: the 1967 revision ABerle GMeans 1932 Brace & World, Inc Harcourt; New York * Corporate Governance in Asia: A Survey SClaessens PHJoseph International Review of Finance 3 2 2002 * Research Notes-The Effect of Institutional Investors on the Level and Mix of CEO Compensation PDavid RKochhar ELevitas Academy Of Management Journal 41 2 1998 * For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees? EMDodd Harvard Law Review 45 1932 * Turbulence at the Top: A New Perspective on Governance Structure Changes and Strategic Change JGoodstein WBoeker Academy Of Management Journal 34 2 1991 * One share-one vote and the market for corporate control SGrossman HOliver Journal of Financial 20 1988 * Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure MJensen MWilliam Journal of Financial Economics 3 1976 * Corporate Ownership around the World LaPorta RLopez-De-Silanes FShleifer A Journal of Finance 54 1999 * Bad and Not So Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy LAStout Southern California Law Review 75 2002 * Towards a True Corporate Republic: A Traditionalist Response to Lucian's Solution for Improving Corporate America StrineJr ELeo Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper 541 2006 * Impact of Corporate Insider, Blockholder and Institutional Equity Ownership on Firm Risk Taking PWright SPFerris ASarin VAwasthi Academy Of Management Journal 39 1996