Abstract

This article tests the separation of ownership and control in South African-listed companies that leads to the divergence of interest between shareholders and directors. Where listed companies are owned by so many shareholders that their diffused shareholding results in negligible control over the directors who manage the assets of the company, it is likely that the directors will manage and direct the company to maximise their self-interest to the detriment of the interest of the shareholders. The separation of ownership and control and the maximisation of self-interest are central themes in the agency theory. Researching their validity in a South African context where the market is less liquid and the stock exchange is significantly smaller can add a valuable contribution to the continuing debate on corporate governance in the country. The article analyses 186 listed South African companies using data extracted over four years to test whether there is separation of ownership and control and whether such separation leads to the maximisation of self-interest. Data were extracted for the years 2005 and 2006, using the shareholding in 2006 to determine control, and for the years 2009 and 2010, using the shareholding in 2010 to determine control. Directors’ remuneration as a percentage of assets was used as a proxy for the maximisation of directors’ interest, and profit attributable to shareholders as a percentage of assets was used as a proxy for the maximisation of shareholders’ interest. These proxies were used to test the impact of control during the two controlling periods, namely 2006 and 2010.The article finds that the majority of listed companies in South Africa are controlled by a dominant shareholder. However, there are still a significant number of companies where the directors have de facto control. Contrary to the expectation that companies controlled by directors will aim to maximise directors’ remuneration, or companies controlled by shareholders will aim to maximise profit attributable to shareholders, this article finds the opposite to be true. This is possibly an indication that the controlling parties might consider factors other than their direct financial self-interest, or that there is an inherent cost associated with control.

Highlights

  • This article aims to determine whether there is separation of ownership and control in South African-listed companies and, if there is, whether the controlling party acts to maximise his/her self-interest to the detriment of the other party

  • The seminal work of Berle and Means (1933:95) was based on 200 large nonfinancial corporations listed in New York in the United States of America (USA), and successfully focused attention on the separation of ownership and control in modern corporations and the maximisation of selfinterest

  • According to Cheffins and Bank (2009:443) the contribution of the Berle and Means thesis is that ‘separation of ownership and control was a hallmark of large U.S corporations, and their characterization of matters ... had a profound and enduring influence on debates about corporate governance’

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This article aims to determine whether there is separation of ownership and control in South African-listed companies and, if there is, whether the controlling party acts to maximise his/her self-interest to the detriment of the other party. This article focuses on testing the assumption that firstly there is a split between the owners as shareholders and directors as managers (separation of ownership and control) of a company, and secondly the reliance on the neo-classical economic assumption that the parties will maximise their self-interest leading to goal divergence. As the separation of ownership and control and the maximisation of self-interest are central agency theory themes, researching their validity in a South African context, where the market is less liquid and the stock exchange is smaller, can add a valuable contribution to the continuing debate on corporate governance in the country.

Separation of ownership and control
Findings
The role of shareholders
The role of directors
Goal divergence between shareholders and directors
Research questions
Research method
Results
Second research question
Independent t-test for the 2006 controlling period
Independent t-test for the 2010 controlling period
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call