1. IntroductionThe reason of holding corporate cash is explained by four motives in economics and finance literature: the transaction motive, the precautionary motive, the tax motive and the agency motive (Bates, Khale, and Stulz, 2009). Keynes (1936) determines two main benefits for holding cash. First, the firm reduces transaction costs to raise funds and also it does not have to liquidate assets in order to make payments. This is called transaction cost motive (Opler, Pinkowitz, Stulz and Williamson, 1999). According to precautionary motive, in case of cash flow shortfalls a firm might not invest in profitable projects if it does not have liquid assets. As a result, a firm holds cash in order to diminish the costs of financial distress (Opler et al., 1999). Third, Foley, Hartzell, Titman and Twite (2007) report that the firms which incur tax consequences related with repatriating foreign earnings hold more cash. This is explained by tax motive (Bates et al., 2009).It is assumed that when agency problems between managers and shareholders are greater, cash is worth less (Pinkowitz, Stulz and Williamson, 2006). In his free cash flow theory, Jensen (1986) states that managers have an incentive to hold large amount of cash for their own objectives rather than shareholders'. By doing so, they increase the assets under their control and gain optional power over the firm's investment decisions (Ferreira and Vilela, 2004). However, it is known that when managers have ownership, they aim to maximise firm value rather than using the firm's resources for their own benefits. Thus, managerial ownership aligns the interests of managers and shareholders and this is called as managerial alignment effect. In addition, when managerial ownership continues to increase managers can not be monitored by shareholders and it is resulted in entrenchment of managers. In this case, managers use the firm's resources for their own private benefits rather than the shareholders'. This is called as managerial entrenchment effect. Following the alignment and entrenchment effects, this study examines whether managerial ownership is effective on cash holding decisions of Turkish firms. To examine the impact of managerial alignment and managerial entrenchment on the cash holdings, the ownership level by managers (MO) and quadratic form of this variable (MO2) are used, respectively. Quadratic form of managerial ownership is a proxy for high level of ownership and thus managerial entrenchment in line with the existing literature (Marchica, 2005). When cash holding ratio is used as a dependent variable, a negative coefficient for MO and a positive coefficient for MO2 are expected. Since high cash holdings cause agency problems of free cash flow (Dittmar et al., 2003), managers should choose less level of cash holdings to behave in line with shareholders' interests. Thus, a negative coefficient for MO variable is expected. In addition, at higher levels of managerial ownership, managers might hold higher level of cash for their own private benefits at the expense of shareholders'. Therefore, a positive coefficient for MO2 variable is expected.So far several studies have already analysed the firm specific characteristics that determine the cash holding preferences of firms. Ozkan and Ozkan (2004) examine the impact of managerial ownership besides firm specific characteristics on cash holding preferences of UK firms for the period between 1984 and 1999. Furthermore, although Uyar and Kuzey (2014) have examined the firm specific characteristics that affect cash holding choices of Turkish firms, they have not investigated whether managerial ownership is effective on this choice. As an emerging market Turkish market has different characteristics. Emerging markets have weaker regulatory environment, weak corporate governance and thus low information disclosure level which results in information asymmetry problem between managers and shareholders. As a result, the firms operate in emerging markets come across with costly external financing (Uyar and Kuzey, 2014). …