The Effect of Institutional Ownership on the Chief Executive Officer Tenure-Firm Risk Relationship

Main Article Content

Duangnapa Sukhahuta


The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) tenure and firm risk. The second objective is to examine the effect of institutional ownership on the relationship between CEO tenure and firm risk. The data were 313 firms which were collected from the stock exchange of Thailand. The result of the study showed that CEO tenure had a significantly negative association with firm risk at a level 0.01. When CEOs have long tenure in a firm, they gain more power. They make a decision to invest in a project that is not too risky because it will affect their position, even though that project can make shareholder maximization. This result is consistent with the Agency theory.

This study was also testing the Sub-group analysis and divided the samples into two groups according to high and low institutional ownership. The result showed that the relationship between CEO tenure and firm risk of each group was still negative. To test the moderation effect, this study used institutional ownership as a moderator, and used the interaction term between CEO tenure and institutional ownership to test in a model. The result showed that the interaction term between CEO tenure and institutional ownership was positively significant to firm risk at a level 0.05. The influence of the institutional ownership creates a reversible relationship between CEO tenure and firm risk. It showed that the institutional ownership acted as a moderator which created a good corporate governance for the organization.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Research Articles


Almazan, A., Hartzell, J., & Starks, L. (2005). Active institutional shareholders and costs of monitoring: Evidence from executive compensation. Financial Management, 34(4), 5-34.
Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 72-87.
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. (1991). Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 205-214.
Beatty, R. P., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Managerial incentives, monitoring, and risk bearing: A study of executive compensation, ownership and board structure in initial public offerings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 313-335.
Berger, P. G., Ofek, E., & Yermack, D. L. (1997). Managerial entrenchment and capital structure decisions. The Journal of Finance, 52(4), 1411-1438.
Chen, D., & Zheng, Y. (2014). CEO tenure and risk-taking. Global Business and Finance Review, 19(1), 1-27.
Chen, T. (2015). Institutions, board structure, and corporate performance: Evidence from Chinese firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32(c), 217-237.
Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2006). Managerial incentives and risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(2), 431-468.
Cremers, K. J. M., & Nair, V. B. (2005). Governance mechanisms and equity prices. The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2859-2894.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Strategic risk behavior and its temporalities: Between risk propensity and decision context. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 515-534.
Grimm, C., & Smith, K. (1991). Management and organizational change: A note on the railroad industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12(7), 557-562.
Guay, W. R. (1999). The sensitivity of CEO wealth to equity risk: An analysis of the magnitude and determinants. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(1), 43–71.
Guo, L., Jalal, A., & Khaksari, S. (2015). Bank executive compensation structure, risk taking and the financial crisis. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 45(3), 609-639.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms ‘competitive moves’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 659-684.
Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. (2003). Institutional investors and executive compensation. The Journal of Finance, 58(6), 2351-2374.
Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 74–91.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Kim, K. H., & Buchanan, R. (2008). CEO duality leadership and firm risk-taking propensity. Journal of Applied Business Research, 24(1), 27-41.
Meijer, M. (2017). CEO compensation and risk-taking: Evidence from the US banking industry (Master dissertation, Tilburg University). Retrieved June 14, 2019, from
Saleh, M. W. A., Shurafa, R., Shukeri, S. N., Nour, A. I., & Maigosh, Z. S. (2020). The effect of board multiple directorships and CEO characteristics on firm performance: Evidence from Palestine. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), 637-654.
Schrand, C. M., & Unal, H. (1998). Hedging and coordinated risk management: Evidence from thrift conversions. The Journal of Finance, 53(3), 979–1013.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2008). Kot . sipčhet / sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihāsipʻet Kānkamnot bot niyām nai prakāt kīeokap kānʻō̜k læ sanœ̄ khāi laksap. [KJ. 17/2551 Definitions in announcements about securities issuance and offering]. Retrieved December 18, 2019, from
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2012). Kot . kao / sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihāsiphā Kānkamnot bot niyām phū longthun sathāban læ phū longthun rāi yai. [KJ. 9/2555 Definition of institutional investors and high net-worth investors]. Retrieved December 18, 2019, from
Sheikh, S. (2019). CEO inside debt, market competition and corporate risk taking. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 15(4), 636-657.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1989). Management entrenchment: The case of manager-specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25(1), 123–139.
Suwan, S. (2019). Kānkam kap dūlǣ kitčhakān thī dī læ satsūan khō̜ng phūthư̄ hun nak longthun sathāban thī mī tō̜ phonlakā rō̜dam nœ̄n ngān khō̜ng bō̜risat čhotthabīan nai Talāt Laksap hǣng Prathēt Thai [Good corporate governance and the proportion of shareholders, institutional investors on the performance of the listed companies on the stock exchange of Thailand] (Independent study, Sripatum University). Retrieved November 18, 2020, from
Tiwari, A. K., & Ahamed, N. (2018). Executive tenure and firm performance: An empirical examination of Indian corporate landscape. Advances in Decision Sciences, 22(1), 321-350.
Velte, P. (2020). Does CEO power moderate the link between ESG performance and financial performance? Management Research Review, 43(5), 497-520.
Wahal, S., & McConnell, J. J. (2000). Do institutional investors exacerbate managerial myopia? Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(3), 307-329.