Imaginative Freedom of Birches :: Robert Frost Birches Essays

Innovative Freedom of Birchesâ Â Â â â In Birches (Mountain Interval, 1916) Frost starts to test the intensity of his redemptive creative mind as it moves from its perky stage toward the verge of risky amazing quality. The development into amazing quality is a development into a domain of radical creative opportunity where (since recovery has succeeded excessively well) all prospects of commitment with the basic real factors of experience are broken down. In its balance, a redemptive cognizance spurs relationship between selves as we have found in The Generations of Men, or in any number of Frost's adoration sonnets. Be that as it may, in its extraordinary structures, redemptive cognizance can become pointless as it presses the creative man into most profound detachment. Birches starts by bringing out its center picture against the foundation of a hazily lush scene: At the point when I see birches twist to left and right Over the lines of straighter darker trees, I like to think some kid's been swinging them. Be that as it may, swinging doesn't twist them down to remain As ice storms do. The flexible, moldable nature of the birch tree catches the writer's consideration and commences his contemplation. Maybe little fellows don't twist birches down to remain, yet swing them they do and in this manner twist them immediately. Those straighter, darker trees, like the trees of Into My Own that barely show the breeze, stand unfavorably liberated from human control, threatening in their inertness to demonstrations of the will. The flexibility of the birches isn't absolute, be that as it may, and the writer is compelled to concede this reality into the nearness of his craving, similar to it or not. A definitive state of develop birch trees is crafted by target regular power, not human movement. However subsequent to surrendering the limits of creative mind's abstract world, the writer appears not to have contracted himself yet to have been discharged. Â â â Often you more likely than not seen them Stacked with ice a bright winter morning After a downpour. They click upon themselves As the breeze rises, and turn kaleidoscopic As the mix breaks and rages their polish. Before long the sun's glow makes them shed precious stone shells Breaking and avalanching on the snow outside layer - Such loads of split glass to clear away You'd think the inward arch of paradise had fallen. Entranced as he is by the demonstration of beauty before him, and respecting as be is of nature as it plays out the potter's specialty, splitting and crazing the polish of ice covering on the birch trees, it isn't at last the thing itself (the ice-covered trees) that intrigues the writer yet the unusual affiliation be is enticed to make: You'd think the internal arch of paradise had fallen.

Sociological concepts and perspectives from the media Essay

Sociological ideas and points of view from the media - Essay Example Writer and date: Jimmy Wales, 1 March 2011 Source: Guardian online paper at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/deface/01/copyright infringement training web-wiki-habits The focal issue in this article is the issue of individuals utilizing the web to discover and duplicate material from and making it look like their own in their scholarly works, at the end of the day, the issue of written falsification utilizing electronic sources. It is indicated that new online apparatuses are currently being utilized to identify such occurrences. The Internet is accused for cultivating â€Å"a reorder culture of uncritical plagiarism†. The issue is especially apparent among school and college understudies who duplicate material legitimately from locales, for example, Wikipedia. Two such instances of literary theft are referenced including unmistakable individuals. In the principal, the German protection serve Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was found to have appropriated portions of his PhD from the University of Bayreuth, and subsequently surrendered. In the second, Saif Gaddafi is referenced as perhaps at the same time having copied his PhD proposal at the London School of Economics. These cases were uncovered utilizing uncommonly made wikis on a site named PlagiPedia to deal with the huge scope cooperative exertion. They utilized Google Docs before however it was seen as just appropriate for little gathering coordinated effort. The principal case required fourteen days of exertion drove by the college â€Å"to recognize the particular segments from this proposal that were lifted directly from other sources†. More than 40,000 remarks and twelve hundred pages of subtleties of the allegations were arranged. The media and figuring teacher at the college commented how quick the denial choice had been reached. Comparative devices are likewise now accessible for uncovering copyright infringement in the media following the disclosing of a ‘churn engineâ₠¬â„¢ called churnalism.com by Britain’s Media Standards Trust. Official statements would now be able to be looked at to discover â€Å"the degree to which they have been reused, verbatim, in online news articles†. The potential outcomes achieved by the new online devices are compared to the upheavals as of now occurring in the Middle East where destinations, for example, Twitter and Facebook are assuming noteworthy jobs. While already there were regularly little boards of specialists checking for written falsification, it is currently conceivable to permit bigger shared endeavors, which are undeniably increasingly successful. In any case, as called attention to, while such locales can assist with starting activism, at last it is the system of individuals who truly know each other eye to eye that achieve the change. This articles features two focuses. Right off the bat, the straightforwardness with which individuals can written falsification utilizing online sources and also, the fresher joint effort apparatuses that currently make it conceivable to recognize issues of unoriginality. The primary shows a cutting edge type of abnormality whereby individuals can get simple access to data and furthermore figure they can without much of a stretch pull off it. The second shows the ground-breaking capability of online cooperation, which is a type of social communication. In the two cases, the Internet assumes the focal job as the vehicle of worldwide data and correspondence. The issue additionally features the need to reevaluate instructive practices and broad communications announcing forms. Either counterfeiting ought to be identified all the more promptly to get rid of the training or the earnestness of the issue ought to be viewed as loaning support for totally supplanting coursework with tests. Article 2: Youth Culture

Website Project Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Site Project - Essay Example As per the individuals engaged with the dissent walks, a great deal of these fights are attempting to make it simpler for illicit workers to become residents so they can partake in the social equality laws that were made the last time huge gatherings of ethnic individuals assembled. This serene, yet enticing reaction by such huge quantities of individuals on the city roads made the social liberties development of the 1950s and 1960s hang out in considerably more noteworthy detail as a huge period in US History. While looking, I found a student’s site that itemized a great deal of data about African American history, including a whole part committed solely to the Civil Rights Movement. In light of what had just been realized, the African American History site appeared to be all around explored and educated for this undertaking. Not at all like a considerable lot of different sites that I went to, this one really furnished me with a great part of the data I figure it is essential to know as far as the Civil Rights Movement just as the documentation to back it up. Not exclusively did the writer of the site give her name, affiliations, and other data fundamental for a total bibliographical passage, yet for each segment of the site, she showed when and why this segment was composed with the goal that her perusers would have a smart thought of her experience and ability level at that period in time. These are things that are not typically included as a piece of the site highlights, which consequently barred a few sites I discovered during my hunt that may have contained a similar data, yet were not also sorted out or reported. What's more, all through each paper inside the site, the writer made a point to keep her own bibliographic references as a feature of the page, with the goal that her data could be confirm ed from the first source or so I, as a peruser, could go get out more data about that

Film Pre-Production Essay Essay

When arranging a film creation a ton of things need thought, for instance cash is a significant component that will be expected to support the creation of the film, with the team/cast requiring installment for their work. Props need purchasing and relying upon the exchange of the film they might be very costly alongside the gear expected to record and alter the film and the setting of where you are going to film whether it be open or private property. And furthermore such things as convenience, food and travel costs should be paid for, so splitting the cash for a creation of a film assumes an enormous job in pre-creation alongside where the wellspring of the cash is originating from, and if the wellspring of the cash dispenses a spending you should get these assets inside the scope of the financial plan. Before creation of the film you have to think about the class, and what crowd the class of the film will apply to, for instance blood and gore films are by and large viewed by a more youthful crowd so you may need the storyline to be relatable to them with the cast being more youthful grown-ups and them leading lives more youthful individuals may live themselves (contemplating, party’s and so on.). Additionally the setting ought to be considered to apply to the class for instance if the class is science fiction you may need the setting eventually to be on a space transport, or be cutting edge. The time apportioned assumes a major job in preproduction, with things like altering after all the shooting has occurred requiring thought, so the recording can’t happen straight up to the cutoff time. Additionally things like time to shoot scenes should be arranged, alongside the accessibility of the cast all through the task. Lawful prerequisites are likewise a piece of pre-creation with music being utilized that isn’t copyrighted alongside all wellbeing and security laws staying unblemished, or whoever is placed in peril could sue the creation organization an enormous aggregate of cash deferring or halting the creation of the film. Area consents are additionally should have been allowed or again the proprietor of the area may sue if film there is discharged, and some other principles set by administrative bodies inside the creation of a film ought to likewise be followed. Material additionally assumes a significant job in the arranging of a film, with look into on the film being required ensuring the story hasn’t been done previously and on the off chance that it has, how you can make your creation stand apart more separately. Likewise there will be sure generics of the class you will need your film to follow so it tends to be recognized as that classification which is being focused on. Music that’s not copyright should be found or delivered, undoubtedly created in the event that you need the film to have its own signature tune like with numerous large blockbusters.

Free Tempest Essays: Treacheries and Rebellions :: Tempest essays

 Treacheries and Rebellions is The Tempestâ â The Tempest comprises of â€Å"a arrangement of disobedience, injustices, revolts and tricks against authority† however the general perspective on the sensational activity is considerably more mind boggling. Numerous different angles and subjects, for example, fantasy and the powerful (enchantment) additionally have a significant influence in forming the plot. Force battle is obvious from the earliest starting point, path back when Prospero’s sibling, Antonio, held onto his status as Duke of Milan and expelled him to a desolate spot and left for dead. â€Å"In scene 2.1, pg 141, Sebastian comments, â€Å"I recall/You supplanted your sibling Prospero.† And Antonio answers, â€Å"True;/And look how well my piece of clothing sit upon me,†. Antonio double-crossed Prospero, but he feels no regret for his slippery demonstration: ‘I feel not/This god in my bosom†, his heart isn't annoyed by what he did to Prospero. Another kin scheme in the play came in Act II when Sebastian is urged by Antonio to execute his sibling, Alonso, which would put him next in line for the royal position on the whole, they endeavored to slaughter Gonzalo, the Alonso’s dedicated counsel. Scene 2.1, pg â€Å"Draw together,/and when I back my hand do you the like/TO fall it (the blade) on Gonzalo.† Their detestable plot is hindered and designs destroyed as Ariel wakes the resting party (Alonso and Gonzalo). In any case, maybe the most conspicuous opposition against power originates from Caliban, the captive of Prospero who feels that the island is legitimately his, â€Å"The island’s mine by Sycorax my mother,†. He proceeds to express that Prospero â€Å"tak’st from me.† In request to recover or pick up his rulership, Caliban plots with Trinculo and Stephano to slaughter Prospero and assume control over the island. Act 3, scene I, pg 160 â€Å"Why, as I told thee, ‘tis a custom with him I’ thâ€℠¢ evening to rest. There thou mayst cerebrum him Having fisrt held onto his books; or with a log Batter his skull, or paunch him with a stake Or cut his weasand with thy knife.†  A significant factor in power battle is the deception of power, who is at last in control? Fantasy of power gets apparent from the beginning when the boatswain addresses the ruler in the tempest; â€Å"What thinks about the name of king?†¦if you can order there components to quiet, and work the tranquility of the present, we won't hand a rope moreâ€use your position.

Corporate governance - Free Essay Example

CHAPTER IV INSTITUTIONAL HOLDINGS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE As noted earlier, the need for corporate governance arises from the potential conflicts of interest among participants (stakeholders) in corporate structure. These are often referred as agency problems arise from two main sources. First, different participants have different goals and preferences. Second, the participants have imperfect information as to each others actions, knowledge and preferences. Berle and Means (1932) addressed these conflicts by examining the separation of ownership and control. They noted that this separation, in the absence of other corporate governance mechanisms, provide executives with the ability to act in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of shareholders. However, executives activities are potentially constrained by numerous factors that constitute and influence the governance of the corporations that they manage. These factors can be thought of as either internal control mechanisms (such as the board) or external control mechanisms (such as the market for corporate control). An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners. Although institutional investors are the predominant players in some countries financial markets and are therefore important in corporate governance, yet the ownership structures and other governance characteristics differ across markets. These differences are attributable in part to legal and regulatory systems and in part to the manner in which the markets have evolved. These characteristics will continue to vary across countries, leading to differences in the role and influences of institutional investors in corporate governance. Previous researchers have shown that because of the costs involved, only large shareholders have the incentive to provide extensive monitoring of management. Whether institutions as large shareholders should, or will, provide such monitoring depends in part on the constraints to which they are subjected, their objectives, and their preferences for liquidity. Keeping the above into consideration, it is pertinent to examine the intricacies of institutional holdings in the governance matters of Indian corporates. Many a time, institutional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The ongoing debate as to the institutional holdings and the corporate governance is very live or interactive in the academics these days too. The results of earlier studies are inconclusive as to the deterministic value of the one or the other. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score index has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark to rate sampled firms in terms of corporate governance. The institutional holdings in terms of equity investment has been expressed in percentages to total investment and comparatively, in terms of the relative composition of the institutional equity investment. This chapter makes a detailed analysis of the dynamics of corporate governance and the institutional holdings in the following three perspectives: 4.1) Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition 4.2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance (dependent variable) 4.3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable) The results obtained for the sampled in this regard are reported, in an analytical frame, here as under: 4.1.1) Status of Institutional Holdings: The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in table no. 4.1 given below: Table 4.1 Institutional Holdings in the Sampled Companies Institutional Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 61 30.5 53 26.5 46 23.0 46 23.0 47 23.5 5-10 34 17.0 31 15.5 30 15.0 26 13.0 27 13.5 10-15 30 15.0 34 17.0 22 11.0 25 12.5 22 11.0 15-26 37 18.5 40 20.0 43 21.5 43 21.5 42 21.0 26-50 36 18.0 38 19.0 54 27.0 55 27.5 55 27.5 Above 50 02 1.0 04 2.0 05 2.5 05 2.5 07 3.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the present table reveals that the proportions of institutional holdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with larger proportions of institutional holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions of holdings have been declining over the study period. As institutions have above 50 percent holdings in only 1 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 3.5 percent. Similarly, institutions have holdings from 26 to 50 percent in 18 percent companies in 2004 that rises to 27.5 percent companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies in which institutions have holdings from 15 to 26 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower institutional holdings also validates it. As institutions have less than 5 percent stake in 30.5 percent companies in 2004, which reduced to only 23.5 percent companies in 2008. Similarly, institutions have holdings up to 10 percent in 17 percent companies that reduced to 13.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that institutional investors have been increasing their stake in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. 4.1.2 Constituents of Institutional Holdings: As noted earlier, Institutional holdings have been further classified into three categories i.e., Mutual Fund, (Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies) and Foreign Institutional Investors. The results obtained for the sampled companies as regard to the status of Mutual Funds holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.2 given below: Table 4.2 (a) MF Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Mutual Fund Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 140 70.0 143 71.5 117 58.5 113 56.5 119 59.5 5-10 42 21.0 34 17.0 52 26.0 54 27.0 41 20.5 10-15 14 7.0 14 7.0 22 11.0 23 11.5 29 14.5 15-20 03 1.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 07 3.5 Above 20 01 0.5 02 1.0 02 1.0 03 1.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.2 (b) MF Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Mutual Funds Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 96 48.0 104 52.0 100 50.0 103 51.5 101 50.5 20-40 55 27.5 38 19.0 41 20.5 50 25.0 47 23.5 40-60 22 11.0 21 10.5 24 12.0 14 7.0 23 11.5 60-80 09 4.5 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 Above 80 18 9.0 19 9.5 16 8.0 17 8.5 12 6.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depict that mutual funds have increased their proportions of shareholdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of sampled companies with higher proportions of mutual funds holdings has been increasing over the study period. Similarly, the number of sampled companies with lower proportions of mutual funds holdings has been decreasing over the same period. As mutual funds have more than 20 percent holdings in 0.5 percent companies in 2004, which increased to 2 percent companies at the end of the study period. Similarly, Mutual Funds have holdings to the extent of 20 percent only in 1.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 3.5 percent companies in 2008. It is also observed that there were only 14 companies in 2004 in which mutual funds holdings were from 10 to 15 percent, which increased to more than double at the end of the study period. It is also validated by the observations of the companies in which mutual funds have lower stake. There were 70 percent companies in which mutual funds had less than 5 percent holdings and the proportion of companies with such holdings reduced to 59.5 percent in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that mutual fund companies have become more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in part (b) of the present table reveal out that there is no consistency in the investment pattern of mutual funds in the sampled companies over the study period. Mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings have remained more or less between zero and 20 percent in about 50 percent companies. On an average in 23 percent companies, mutual funds hold 20 to 40 percent shares. Mutual Funds reduced their holdings in 20 to 40 percent category in sampled companies over the study period. Where as there has not been major change in the number of companies with 40 to 60 percent mutual fund holdings. On the other hand, mutual funds have increased their stake from 60 to 80 percent in sampled companies over the study period. There are 9 companies with such holdings, which increased to 17 companies in 2008. But the number of sampled companies with mutual funds holdings more than 80 percent has gone down over the study period. As in 2004, there a re 9 percent companies that reduced to 6 percent at the end of the study period. Hence, no inference can be drawn about the investment behaviour of mutual funds in relation to the total institutional holdings in sampled companies over the study period. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and total institutional holdings in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.3 given below: Table 4.3 (a) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings Bank, FI and IC Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 127 63.5 135 67.5 142 71.0 139 69.5 141 70.5 5-10 36 18.0 28 14.0 27 13.5 34 17.0 29 14.5 10-15 19 9.5 24 12.0 19 9.5 18 9.0 18 9.0 15-20 09 4.5 08 4.0 07 3.5 04 2.0 08 4.0 Above 20 09 4.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 05 2.5 04 2.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.3 (b) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 70 35.0 90 45.0 103 51.5 99 49.5 99 49.5 20-40 34 17.0 34 17.0 41 20.5 41 20.5 34 17.0 40-60 29 14.5 30 15.0 16 8.0 23 11.5 37 18.5 60-80 21 10.5 13 6.5 17 8.5 15 7.5 08 4.0 Above 80 46 23.0 33 16.5 23 11.5 22 11.0 22 11.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table depicts that the proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies in the sampled companies have decreased over the years. The numbers of companies with lower proportions of these holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with higher proportions of holdings have been decreasing over the study period. As in 63.5 percent companies, Banks and others hold less than 5 percent shares in 2004 while in 2008, 70.5 percent companies have the same holdings reflecting that over the study period, the above category of institutional investors have shown less interest in the sampled companies. Similarly, Banks and others hold up to 10 percent of total shareholdings in 36 companies which reduced to 27 in the year 2006 and finally to 29 companies in the year 2008. Likewise, the number of companies with more than 20 percent holdings has reduced from 4.5 percent in 2004 to 2 percent in 2008. Thus, it is observed that Banks, FIs and ICs have withdrawn their substantial holdings in some companies while number of companies with marginal holdings has increased. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs are getting less interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table depict the results coherent with the results shown in part (a) as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their holdings in relation to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period as well. They have more than 80 percent holdings in 23 percent companies in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it was just in 11 percent companies. Similarly, these investors had 60 to 80 percent holdings in 21 companies in 2004, but in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings reduced to only 8 companies. The same is validated by the proportional increase in the number of companies with relatively lower holdings. Banks and others held to the limit of 20 percent shares in 70 companies in 2004 and in 2008, the number of companies with such holdings rose to 99. These investors have shown more interest in increasing their holdings from 40 percent to 60 percent in the sampled companies over the study period as they had such holdings in 14.5 percent companies in 2004 that increased to 18.5 percent in the last year of the study period. Thus, it is observed that the above-mentioned investors are gradually reducing their stakes to the lower levels in proportion to total institutional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that Banks, FIs and ICs have been loosing interest in the sampled companies. The results obtained for sampled companies as regard to the status of FII holdings in relation to the total shareholdings and to the total institutional investors in the sampled companies during the study period 2004-08 are summarized in part (a) and part (b) of the table no. 4.4 given below: Table 4.4 (a) FII Holdings in Relation To Total Shareholdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) Below 5 133 66.5 114 57.0 103 51.5 100 50.0 92 46.0 5-10 29 14.5 30 15.0 24 12.0 24 12.0 36 18.0 10-15 17 8.5 22 11.0 23 11.5 23 11.5 26 13.0 15-20 09 4.5 13 6.5 15 7.5 25 12.5 18 9.0 20-26 12 6.0 21 10.5 35 17.5 28 14.0 28 14.0 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 Table 4.4 (b) FII Holdings in Relation to Total Institutional Holdings FII Holdings (%) Number of Companies 2004 N (%) 2005 N (%) 2006 N (%) 2007 N (%) 2008 N (%) 0-20 115 57.5 83 41.5 74 37.0 69 34.5 62 31.0 20-40 20 10.0 35 17.5 33 16.5 28 14.0 39 19.5 40-60 29 14.5 36 18.0 33 16.5 34 17.0 43 21.5 60-80 23 11.5 25 12.5 35 17.5 40 20.0 33 16.5 Above 80 13 6.5 21 10.5 25 12.5 29 14.5 23 11.5 Total 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 The information inputs reported in the part (a) of the present table reveals that the proportions of FII holdings in relation to total shareholdings in the sampled companies have increased over the years. The numbers of companies with higher proportions of FII holdings have been increasing and the numbers of companies with smaller proportions have been decreasing over the study period. As FIIs have 20 to 26 percent holdings in only 6 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 14 percent. Similarly, FIIs have holdings from 15 to 20 percent in 9 companies in 2004 that got doubled to 18 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 10 to 15 percent. FIIs had such holdings in 17 companies only in 2004 but in the last year of the study period, it increased to 26 companies. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. In nutshell, the FIIs have been consistently increasing their stake in relation to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period. Hence, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. The information inputs reported in the part (b) of the present table also depict results consistent with the results shown for part (a). The proportion of FII holdings in relation to the institutional holdings in the sampled companies has also increased over the years. As institutions had above 80 percent holdings in only 6.5 percent companies in 2004, where as in the last year of the study period, it increased to 11.5 percent companies. Similarly, FIIs had holdings from 60 to 80 percent in 23 companies in 2004 that increased to 33 companies in 2008. The same trend follows for the companies with FII holdings from 40 to 60 percent. The decreasing number of companies with relatively lower FII holdings also validates it. As FIIs have less than 20 percent stake in 57.5 percent companies in 2004 which reduced to only 31 percent companies in 2008. Hence, it is inferred that FIIs have shown more interest in the sampled companies over the study period. Resume It can be observed from the result outputs of the first section that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies is consistently increasing with higher institutional holdings where as the number of companies are decreasing with lower proportions of institutional holdings. The mutual fund investors have also increased their holdings in relation to the total shareholdings over the study period. The number of companies with higher mutual fund holdings has been increasing over the years. Similarly, the number of companies with lower mutual fund holdings has been decreasing over the study period. But the results of observations of mutual fund holdings in relation to total institutional holdings state otherwise. Mutual funds have increased their proportions of holdings to the total shareholdings in the sampled companies over the study period but it is not so in relation to the total institutional h oldings. Therefore, the investment pattern of mutual funds is not clear. Where as Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have decreased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. There has been decline in the number of sampled companies with higher proportion of the Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Validating the same, the numbers of companies with lower proportion of above holdings have been increasing over the study period. The results are consistent for the proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs in relation to total institutional holdings as well. To the contrary, foreign institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the sampled companies over the years. The number of companies is increasing with higher FII holdings and the number of companies is decreasing with lower proportion of FII holdings. The results are similar in relation to the total institutional holdings as well. Hence, at the end of the section it is infer red on the basis of result outputs that institutional investors in total and foreign institutional investors are getting more interested in the sampled companies over the study period. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies are getting less interested in the same companies over the study period. And the results are inconclusive for the mutual funds. 4.2.1 Status of Corporate Governance Score in Sampled Companies: The Corporate Governance status of sampled companies is depicted in table 4.5. Total sampled of 200 companies has been divided into four quartiles of 50 companies each. The first quartile shows the company codes with highest corporate governance scores with in the range of 58 to 76 with the average score of 62.5. The second quartile shows the company codes with higher corporate governance scores with in the range of 52 to 58 with the average score of 54.3. The third quartile shows the company codes with lower corporate governance scores with in the range of 46 to 52 with the average score of 48.7. The fourth quartile shows the company codes with lowest corporate governance scores with in the range of 26 to 46 with the average score of 40.04. Table 4.5 Status of Corporate Governance in Sampled Companies Sampled Companies Number of Companies Sampled Company (Code) Range Average Governance Score Q1 50 2,5,6,11,13,15,21,26,27,28,29,37,39, 41,42,47,48,53,56,68,69,71,72,75,76,7778,79,84,86,88,91,93,96,97,98,102, 104,106,119,124,132,135,147,171,173180,189,194,198 58-76 62.5 Q2 50 10,17,18,30,31,33,34,36,38,45,46,52, 54,55,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,80,85, 100,101,103,108,117,118,121,125, 134,142,149,150,156,160,167,170, 175,177,179,183,184,185,186,187, 190,197 52-58 54.3 Q3 50 1,3,4,9,14,16,19,20,23,40,43,44,50, 59,66,70,73,74,82,83,92,94,99,105, 107,109,110,113,115,120,123,123, 127,129,130,137,139,151,152,154, 155,162,163,165,169,182,188,192, 196,200 46-52 48.7 Q4 50 7,8,12,22,24,25,32,35,49,51,81,87, 89,90,95,111,112,114,116,122,126, 128,131,133,136,138,140,141,143, 144,145,146,148,153,157,158,159, 161,164,166,168,172,174,176,178, 181,191,193,195,199 26-46 40.04 4.2.2 Relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.6 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) institutional holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to institutional holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.6 (a) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-10 95 47.84 84 47.44 76 46.74 72 47.06 74 47.42 10-25 64 53.50 70 52.79 62 52.21 63 51.44 60 51.53 25-50 39 56.51 42 56.43 57 56.32 60 56.37 59 55.80 Above50 02 50.50 04 56.00 05 55.00 05 52.60 07 54.43 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.6 (b) Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 47.18 46.98 46.64 46.64 47.05 b Value 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 SE 0.84 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 R2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 t-value 6.75* 6.73* 6.63* 6.63* 6.21* D/W 1.825 .825 1.868 1.84 1.78 Predictor: Institutional Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportions of institutional holdings (to the level of 50 percent) have higher corporate governance score in sampled companies over the study period. Similarly, the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies in which institutional holdings are from 25 to 50 percent have the average corporate governance score of 56.51 points in 2004, 56.32 points in 2006 and 55.80 points in 2008. These score points are highest in all the years. Where as lower governance scores are observed for lower proportions of institutional holdings. As the sampled companies in which institutional holdings are to the level of 10 percent have poor average governance scores. They are 47.84 score points in 2004, 46.74 score points in 2006 and 47.42 score points in 2008. Similarly, the sampled companies with 10 to 25 percent institutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores than the companies with lower holdings and lower governance scores than the companies with higher institutional holdings over the study period. It can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between institutional holdings and Corporate Governance. The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters also validate the above inference, as the degree of dependence between two variables is higher over the study period. All the values are also considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.2.3 Relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.7 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) mutual funds holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.7 (a) MF Holdings and Corporate Governance Mutual Fund Holdings Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (%) N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-5 140 50.5 143 51.0 117 50.9 113 50.6 119 50.3 5-10 42 51.8 34 50.9 52 52.0 54 52.5 41 53.6 10-15 14 55.2 14 54.2 22 51.4 23 52.4 29 52.0 Above15 04 57.8 09 54.8 09 54.0 10 51.0 11 52.6 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.7 (b) MF Holdings and Corporate Governance Mutual Fund Holdings (%) Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 49.32 50.07 50.32 50.48 50.27 b Value 0.27 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.14 SE 0.80 0.81 0.86 0.87 0.84 R2 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 t-value 3.97* 2.54* 1.78 1.49 1.98 D/W 1.96 1.92 1.90 1.85 1.85 Predictor: MF Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that larger proportions of mutual funds holdings have higher corporate governance score of sampled companies in first two years of the study period only. The sampled companies in which institutions have holdings more than 15 percent have highest average corporate governance score of 57.8 points in 2004. For the same category of mutual funds holdings, the average score is highest at 54.8 points in 2005. Similarly, the companies in which mutual funds have lowest holdings, the average corporate governance score is also lowest in these very years. Hence, it can be inferred that there is strong and positive relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance scores in these years. But same inference cannot be drawn for the other years of the study period. In 2006, the companies with mutual funds holdings of 5 to 10 percent have average governance score is 52 points, which declined to 51.4 points in the higher mutual fund holding category. Similarly, the average governance score of sampled companies are relatively lower in which mutual funds have holdings more than 15 percent in 2007 too. In last year of the study period also, the relationship between both the variables is not clear. Hence, it can be inferred that weak relationship exists between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance. The statistical significance of these observations through regression analysis is presented in the second part of the table. The regression parameters also show that weak relationship exists between mutual fund holdings and corporate governance as the degree of dependence is lower in all the years except for in 2004 and 2005. Similarly, values of only year 2004 and 2005 are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.2.4 Relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.8 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) (Banks, FIs and ICs) holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to (%) (Banks, FIs and ICs) holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.8 (a) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings and Corporate Governance Bank, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-5 127 49.8 135 49.7 142 49.9 139 49.7 141 49.8 5-10 36 53.5 28 54.1 27 55.4 34 54.6 29 53.9 10-15 19 55.2 24 55.9 19 54.4 18 55.2 18 58.1 Above15 18 53.8 13 54.5 12 54.8 09 57.0 12 53.4 Total 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.8 (b) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings and Corporate Governance Bank, FIs and IC Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 49.93 49.76 49.77 49.34 49.29 b Value 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.30 SE 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 R2 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 t-value 2.96* 3.39* 3.37* 4.33* 4.35* D/W 1.77 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.76 Predictor: Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings; Dependent Variable: Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings (to the level of 15 percent) have higher corporate governance score in sampled companies in all the years of the study period. The sampled companies in which institutional holdings are from 10 to 15 percent have the average corporate governance score of 55.2 points in 2004, 54.4 points in 2006 and 58.1 points in 2008. Similarly, the sampled companies with Banks, Ifs and ICs holdings of 5 to 10 percent have average governance score of 53.5 points in 2004, 55.4 points in 2006 and 53.9 in 2008. To validate it further, lower governance scores are observed for lower proportion of this category of institutional holdings in sampled companies. As the sampled companies in which Banks, FIs and ICs holdings are to the level of 5 percent have poorest average governance scores. They are 49.8 score points in 2004, 49.9 score points in 2006 and 49.8 score points in 2008. To the contrary, the sampled companies with largest proportions of institutional holdings have average governance score of sampled companies is 53.8 points in 2004, 54.8 points in 2006 and 53.4 points which is much greater than of companies with smallest institutional holdings. It can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs holdings and Corporate Governance. The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters draw the same inference as drawn above since the degree of dependence between two variables is higher in all the years of the study period. All the values are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.2.5 Relationship between FII holdings and corporate governance: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.9 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the (%) FII Holdings along with corporate governance score for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to FII Holdings and corporate governance score Table 4.9 (a) FII Holdings and Corporate Governance FII Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N Average N Average N Average N Average N Average 0-5 133 49.2 114 48.4 103 47.9 100 48.6 92 48.1 5-10 29 53.2 30 53.4 24 52.3 24 48.7 36 50.7 10-15 17 57.1 22 53.8 23 55.4 23 55.6 26 55.8 Above15 21 58.0 34 58.1 50 56.3 53 56.1 46 56.0 Total 200 200 200 200 200 Table 4.9 (b) FII Holdings and Corporate Governance FII Holdings (%) Corporate Governance Score 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant 49.11 48.63 48.11 48.28 48.57 b Value 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.36 SE 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.78 R2 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.13 t-value 5.98* 6.15* 6.46* 6.07* 5.47* D/W 1.81 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.80 Predictor: FII Holdings; Dependent Variable: Corporate Governance Score *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that the larger proportions of FII holdings have higher corporate governance score in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies in which FII holdings are above 15 percent have the average corporate governance score of 58 points in 2004, 56.3 points in 2006 and 56 points in 2008. These score points are highest in all the years. Similarly, the sampled companies in which FIIs have 10 to 15 percent holdings also have higher average governance scores. In 2004, the average governance score is 57.1 points for such category where as in 2006, it is 55.4 points and in the last year of the study period, it is 55.8 points. To validate it further, it is observed that the smaller proportion of FII holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. As the sampled companies in which FII holdings are to the level of 5 percent have poorest average governance scores. They are 49.2 score points in 2004, 47.9 score points in 2006 and 48.1 score points in 2008. Likewise, the sampled companies with 5 to 10 percent FII holdings have poorer average governance score of 53.2 points in 2004, 52.3 points in 2006 and 50.7 points in 2008. It can be inferred from the above results that there exists very strong and positive relationship between FII holdings and Corporate Governance. The statistical significance of these outcomes through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters also validate the inferences drawn above, as the degree of dependence is higher in all the years. All the values are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. Resume The result outputs of the second section state that very strong and positive relationship exists between institutional holdings and governance scores. The companies in which institutional investors have larger proportions of holdings have higher governance scores. Similarly, the corporates in which institutional investors have lower proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores. The result outputs for the relationship between first component of institutional holdings and corporate governance state that weak relationship exists between mutual funds holdings and governance score. There is poor evidence as to higher proportions of mutual funds holdings result in improved governance practices in corporates and lower proportions of the mutual funds holdings result in poor governance practices in companies. Whereas, the contrary results are observed for the second component of institutional holdings. Banks, FIs and ICs observe very strong and positive relationship wit h governance scores. The corporations with larger proportions of Banks, FIs and ICs have good governance practices and the companies with lower proportions show poor governance practices. The results observed for the third component are coherent with the results second component of institutional investors. Very strong and positive relationship is also observed between Foreign Institutional Investors and Corporate Governance. As the larger proportions of foreign institutional holdings show significantly higher governance scores and lower proportions of holdings show relatively poor governance scores. Hence, it is inferred that companies in which institutional investors have higher stake, observe better corporate governance practices than the companies with lower institutional stake. Likewise, the companies with higher stake of Banks, FIs, ICs and FIIs observe better governance practices than the companies with lower stake. But the alternate inference is drawn for mutual funds. 4.3.1 Relationship between corporate governance and institutional holdings: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.10 as under: Part (a) of the present study table reveals out the governance score along with the (%) institutional holdings for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to governance score and institutional holdings Table 4.10 (a) Corporate Governance and Institutional Holdings (%) Institutional Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Governance Score Range Aver -age Range Aver -age Range Aver -age Range Aver-age Range Aver-age 58-76 (62.5) 0.1-51.8 27.7 0.2-64.5 25.1 0.2-50.5 26.9 1.1-49.8 27.7 4-51.6 27.8 52-57 (54.3) .21-49.7 20.9 .04-53.7 15.2 .04-56.4 19.2 .03-53.4 19.7 .03-55.5 19.0 45-52 (48.7) .03-54.6 12.2 0.2-54.8 13.1 .01-55.5 16.1 .03-55.6 16.2 .06-58 16.8 26-45 (40.0) 0-29.6 6.36 0-43.0 8.1 0-44 9.6 0-33.1 9.4 0-36.4 9.3 Table 4.10 (b) Corporate Governance and Institutional Holdings Governance Score (%) Institutional Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant -17.44 -18.07 -17.48 -17.71 -17.02 b Value 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 SE 4.66 5.04 5.42 5.50 5.76 R2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 t-value 6.75* 6.73* 6.63* 6.63* 6.21* D/W 2.13 2.07 2.19 2.19 2.01 Predictor: Governance Score; Dependent Variable: Institutional Holdings *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table describe that sampled companies with higher governance score have larger proportions of institutional holdings and sampled companies with lower governance score have smaller proportions of institutional holdings over the study period. The sampled companies with highest average governance score of 62.5 score points have highest average institutional holdings over the study period. As it is 27.7 percent in 2004, 26.9 percent in 2006 and 27.8 percent in 2008. Similarly, sampled companies with higher average governance score of 54.3 score points have higher institutional holdings. It is 20.9 percent in 2004, 19.2 percent in 2006 and 19 percent at the end of the study period. To validate it more, it is observed that the sampled companies with lower average governance scores have lower average institutional holdings too. The sampled companies with the lowest average governance score of 40 points have lowest institutional hol dings of 6.36 percent in 2004, 9.6 percent in 2006 and 9.34 percent in 2008. Similarly, lower institutional holdings have been observed for the companies with lower average governance scores over the study period. Thus, it can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between Corporate Governance Score and Institutional Holdings. The statistical significance of these findings through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. It also depicts that Corporate Governance Score and Institutional Holdings are very strongly related in all the years as the degree of dependence in terms b value is higher in all the years. All the values are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.3.2 Relationship between corporate governance and mutual funds holdings: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.11 as under: Part (a) in the study table reveals out the governance score along with the (%) mutual funds holdings for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to governance score and mutual funds holdings Table 4.11 (a) Corporate Governance and MF Holdings (%) MF Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Governance Score Range Aver -age Range Aver-age Range Aver -age Range Aver-age Range Aver-age 58-76 (62.5) 0-22.0 4.7 .07-24.4 4.9 0-27.2 5.2 .17-20.8 5.1 0-20.9 5.8 52-57 (54.3) 0-16.0 4.4 0-16.2 4.6 0-16.3 5.8 0-17.6 6.6 0-22.9 6.5 45-52 (48.7) 0-18.6 3.6 0-18.1 4.0 0-19.6 5.0 0-22.1 4.6 0-32.1 4.4 26-45 (40.0) 0-9.6 1.5 0-12.6 2.2 0-12.9 3.2 0-20.3 3.6 0-16.2 3.5 Table 4.11 (b) Corporate Governance and MF Holdings Governance Score (%) MF Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant -2.99 -0.93 1.14 1.82 0.53 b Value 0.27 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.14 SE 1.67 1.94 2.09 2.16 2.33 R2 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 t-value 3.97* 2.54* 1.78 1.49 1.98 D/W 2.10 1.85 1.95 2.02 2.19 Predictor: Governance Score; Dependent Variable: MF Holdings *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table reveals out that conclusive results are not obtained as to the association between Corporate Governance and Mutual Funds holdings. Higher governance scores have higher mutual funds holdings in the sampled companies in first two years of the study period only. The sampled companies in which the average governance score is highest have the highest institutional holdings of 4.7 percent in 2004. For the same category of mutual funds holdings, the average institutional holding is highest at 4.9 percent in 2005. Similarly, the companies in which average governance score is lowest, the average institutional holdings are also lowest in these very years. Hence, it can be inferred that there is strong and positive relationship between corporate governance scores and mutual funds holdings in these years. But same inference cannot be drawn for the other years of the study period. In 2006, the companies with moderate average govern ance score of 54.3 points have the highest mutual fund holdings of 5.8 percent. For the same category, the mutual funds holdings are highest at 6.6 percent in 2007 and 6.5 percent in 2008. Hence, it can be inferred that there exists weak relationship between corporate governance and mutual funds holdings. The statistical significance of these observations through regression analysis is presented in the second part of the table. The regression parameters also validate the conclusion drawn on the basis of above table, as the value of b is lower in all the years over the study period except for in 2004 and 2005. Similarly, values of only year 2004 and 2005 are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.3.3 Relationship between corporate governance and Banks, FIs and ICs holdings: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.12 as under: Part (a) in the study table reveals out the governance score along with the (%) Banks, FIs and ICs holdings for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to governance score and Banks, FIs and ICs holdings Table 4.12 (a) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings and Corporate Governance Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Governance Score Range Aver-age Range Aver-age Range Aver-age Range Aver-age Range Aver -age 58-76 (62.5) .02-22.1 6.96 0.1-22.5 6.89 .03-21.2 6.41 .02-23.8 6.67 0-22.8 6.89 52-57 (54.3) 0-36.1 5.16 0-34.6 4.12 0-29.8 3.73 0-24.3 3.75 0-21.4 3.86 45-52 (48.7) 0-27.0 4.88 0-19.8 4.02 0-22.1 3.65 0-23.3 3.55 0-21.8 3.55 26-45 (40.0) 0-25.4 3.54 0-21.2 3.32 0-17.1 2.98 0-10.6 2.39 0-18.2 2.45 Table 4.12 (B) Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings and Corporate Governance Governance Score Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings (%) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant -2.57 -3.38 -3.08 -4.83 -4.83 b Value 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.30 SE 2.64 2.39 2.19 2.09 2.10 R2 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 t-value 2.96* 3.39* 3.37* 4.33* 4.35* D/W 1.97 2.00 1.97 1.94 1.99 Predictor: Governance Score; Dependent Variable: Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depicts that the higher corporate governance score have larger proportion of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings in the sampled companies over the study period. The sampled companies with highest average governance score of 62.5 score points have highest average holdings over the study period. As it is 6.96 percent in 2004, 6.89 percent in 2005 and 6.41 percent in 2006, 6.67 percent in 2007 and 6.89 percent in 2008. Similarly, sampled companies with higher average governance score of 54.3 score points have higher Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. It is 5.16 percent in 2004, 3.73 percent in 2006 and 3.86 percent at the end of the study period. To validate it more, it is observed that the sampled companies with lower average governance scores have lower average Banks, FIs and ICs holdings too. The sampled companies with the lowest average governance score of 40 points have lowest holdings of this category of institutional investors. It is 3.54 percent in 2004, 2.98 percent in 2006 and 2.45 percent in 2008. Similarly, lower institutional holdings have been observed for the companies with lower average governance scores over the study period. Thus, it can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between Corporate Governance Score and Banks, FIs and ICs Holdings. The statistical significance of these observations through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The parameters support the inferences drawn on the basis of part (a) of the present table, as the degree of dependence is higher in all the years. All the values are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. 4.3.4 Relationship between corporate governance and FII holdings: The results obtained in this regard are reported in an analytical frame in table no. 4.13 as under: Part (a) in the study table reveals out the governance score along with the (%) FII holdings for the study period 2004-08. Part (b) of the table depicts the regression parameters as regard to governance Score and FII holdings Table 4.13 (A) FII Holdings and Corporate Governance (%) FII Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Governance Score Range Aver -age Range Aver -age Range Aver-age Range Aver -age Range Aver -age 58-76 (62.5) 0-41.8 9.2 0-39.6 13.3 0-37.9 15.3 0.6-58 15.9 0-57 14.8 52-57 (54.3) 0-25.0 5.1 0-27.6 6.7 0-34.9 10 0-36.3 9.8 0-40 9.4 45-52 (48.7) 0-23.2 3.6 0-29.4 4.7 0-35.0 6.7 0-43.0 7.2 0-40 7.8 26-45 (40.0) 0-22.0 1.4 0-40.3 2.8 0-35.5 3.67 0-21.7 3.7 0-17 3.8 Table 4.13 (B) FII Holdings and Corporate Governance Governance Score (%) FII Holdings 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Constant -11.87 -13.76 -15.54 -14.68 -12.47 b Value 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.36 SE 2.84 3.40 3.85 3.99 3.97 R2 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.13 t-value 5.98* 6.15* 6.46* 6.07* 5.47* D/W 1.95 2.12 2.16 2.17 1.99 Predictor: Governance Score; Dependent Variable: FII Holdings *Significant at 5 percent level The information inputs reported in part (a) of the present table depicts that the sampled companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of FII holdings over the study period. The sampled companies with highest average governance score of 62.5 score points have highest average FII holdings over the study period. As it is 9.2 percent in 2004, 15.3 percent in 2006 and 14.8 percent in 2008. Similarly, sampled companies with higher average governance score of 54.3 score points have higher FII holdings too. It is 5.1 percent in 2004, 10 percent in 2006 and 9.4 percent at the end of the study period. To validate it more, it is observed that the sampled companies with lower average governance scores have lower average FII holdings too. The sampled companies with the lowest average governance score of 40 points have lowest FII holdings of 1.4 percent in 2004, 2.8 percent in 2005, 3.7 percent in 2006, 3.7 percent in 2007 and 3.8 percent in 2008. Similarly, lower institutiona l holdings have been observed for the companies with lower average governance scores over the study period. Thus, it can be inferred from the above results that there is very strong and positive relationship between Corporate Governance Score and FII Holdings. The statistical significance of these outcomes through regression analysis is reported in the part (b) of the present table. The regression parameters also support the inferences drawn on the basis of part (a) of the table. The degree of dependence in terms of b value is higher in all the years. All the values are considered significant (a=0.05) in terms of t-value over the study period. D/W value is near 2 in all the five years indicating the regression results are reliable. Resume The results of the third section describe that there is very strong and positive relationship between Corporate Governance Score and Institutional Holdings. The institutional investors have larger proportions of holdings in the companies with higher governance scores and smaller proportions of holdings in the companies with lower governance scores. But the results are mixed as to the relationship between corporate governance score and components of institutional holdings. As weak relationship exists between corporate governance score and mutual funds holdings. There is poor evidence as to companies with higher governance scores have higher proportions of mutual funds holdings and companies with lower governance scores have smaller proportions of mutual funds holdings. But on the other hand, very strong and positive relationship is observed between corporate governance score and Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies. The corporates with higher governance scores have h igher proportions of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings where as the corporates with lower governance scores have lower proportions of these holdings. Likewise, very strong and positive relationship exists between corporate governance score and foreign institutional holdings as well. The companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of FII holdings while lower proportions of FIIs are observed in the companies with poor governance scores. Hence, it can be inferred that companies with better governance practices attract larger investments from institutional investors than the companies with poor governance practices. Similarly, good governed companies witness higher stakes from Banks, FIs and ICs as well. Foreign institutional investors also have greater investments in better-governed companies. But the alternate inference is drawn with respect to mutual funds. Resume At the end of this chapter, on the basis of result outputs of first section, it is inferred that institutional investors have been consistently showing greater interest in the sampled companies over the study period. The same inference is drawn for foreign institutional investors, one of the components of institutional investors. To the contrary, Banks, FIs and ICs are gradually reducing their stake, inferring that they are loosing interest in the sampled companies over the study period. But the result outputs for mutual funds do not help draw any inference regarding investment behaviour of mutual funds in the sampled companies over the study period. The inferences can be drawn on the basis of results outputs of second section that companies in which institutional investors have higher stake, observe better corporate governance practices than the companies with lower institutional stake. Institutional investors have significant positive impact over the governance practices adopted by the corporates. As the institutions increase their stake in the corporates, the governance practices show material improvement. Likewise, the companies with higher stake of Banks, FIs, ICs and FIIs also observe better governance practices than the companies with lower stake. Their higher stake also positively influences the corporate governance practices of companies. As they increase their proportions of holdings in the companies, the governance scores improve significantly. Likewise, the foreign institutional investors also have positive impact over the governance practices of companies. Companies in which FIIs have larger proportions of holdings have better governance practices to the companies in which FIIs have smaller proportions. But to the contrary, mutual funds do not have any impact over the governance practices adopted by companies. The sampled companies with higher proportions of mutual funds holdings are not depicting better governance scores to the companies with smaller proportions of holdings. The alternate inference is drawn for mutual funds. It is inferred on the basis of result outputs of the third section that the companies with better governance practices attract larger investments from institutional investors than the companies with poor governance practices. The institutions give due consideration to the governance practices adopted by the companies while taking investment decision. Similarly, good governed companies witness higher stakes from Banks, FIs and ICs as well. They also have larger proportions of holdings in the companies with better governance practices to the companies with poor governance practices. Likewise, foreign institutional investors also have greater investments in better-governed companies. They also give due weightage to the governance practices of the companies and increase stake only in the companies with good governance and decrease stake in the companies with poor governance. But the alternate inference is drawn with respect to mutual funds. The governance practices adopted by the compan ies have hardly any impact over their investment decision. They have rather increased their proportions of holdings in the sampled companies with poor governance scores to the companies with better governance scores.

The Basic Facts of Descriptive Short Essay Samples

The Basic Facts of Descriptive Short Essay Samples Descriptive Short Essay Samples - What Is It? The coming of the essay has to be in the current tense and reveal what things to expect in the remainder of the short article. Before writing, you've got to understand the subject of your essay! Thus, there are several ways an essay can be written. The trick to writing a great effectiveA essay is to get the passion to write it. Next, employing an expert to compose an essay for you're able to help you better your academic outcome. As you begin writing more descriptive essays, be sure to paint a photo of your character. Regardless of whether you require healthcare essay helpor management essay writing help every kind of essay can be finished with expertise by the students. Writing a great descriptive essay is basically giving a thorough explanation of a specific feature or phenomenon. A thesis statement is an essential part of your essay. The structure of such essay is dependent upon the topic. Once you've got an outline, you can begin working on the essay itself. An outline is quite critical for a descriptive essay, as it enables you to abide by the plot and include all the vital information. Essay writing comes in various forms. If you would like to get started writing a descriptive essay, think about the focus of your writing first. You'll be amazed to understand that essay writers are likely to supply you your essay before the deadline. Writing a brief essay means you should write concisely so as to pack whatever you want to say into a concise paper. Most Noticeable Descriptive Short Essay Samples The essay reveals about the tradition and the way it's being celebrated from recent years. It is a good idea to look for the one which has a great reputation and offers high-quality papers at very affordable rates. You require a crystal clear focus and evidence to back up your claims. Therefore your choice may be limited to what you will probably finish. The New Fuss About Descriptive Short Essay Samples Ones to produce a brief coherent paragraph 4 marks. Without proper use of words, you won't be in a position to invoke the readers' emotions. Based on the duratio n of the story, this sections length will certainly vary. Rather than doing it in 1 paragraph, try it in a couple of pages. If there's a description of someone, it is normally short, within one paragraph, or spans across the full book. Personality traits can be hard to write for a character. Simply take a look back to your favourite book and think the way the characters were revealed to you. It's a genre of essay that allows the writer to supply descriptions of a particular object, person, or any subject issue. A Secret Weapon for Descriptive Short Essay Samples 5StarEssays academic writing professionals are all set to assist you. You may also read your essay to other individuals to receive their feedback. When it has to do with deciding upon a topic, don't be fearful of the ones that sound generic, as you can use creativity to bring it to life. With their help it is possible to decide what things to write about, learn the most frequent structure of the paper and understand what topics are definitely the most popular at this time. The previous comment ought to be well written out to refresh the full article because this is the last thing in the reader's mind. To help you recognize how to compose an excellent descriptive essay, we've got a complete blog post dedicated to it. Focus on how you're feeling about the specific topic or person and stick with it. Brainstorm about all of the details connected with the topic. Also, be sure you're a responsible writer by assuring that all the things which you are write won't hurt anyone or any individual related to what you're describing. Some individuals have short attention span so that you want to have the writing skills to create your point with only a few words. There are lots of topics that could be used for this type of essay as possible literally describe almost everything which you encounter on a daily basis. Whether or not you require descriptive writing examples of an individual, place, or emotion you want a great example to follow.