Essay on Hiv Free Essays

Home reading. As my qualification paper is devoted to the global health, I decided to analyze 4 newspaper articles from BBC, The Guardian and the NY Times concerning the cure for HIV/AIDS. In all the articles the topic of possible existence of the cure for HIV is discussed. We will write a custom essay sample on Essay on Hiv or any similar topic only for you Order Now They scientists from different world laboratories share their opinion on the right way of creation of this vaccine. It is extremely hard to find the appropriate therapy for patients, because the virus has a tendency to a very rapid mutation. So while the scientists are creating the drug for a patient according to his analyzes, the virus can change in a day and the treatment won’t be effective. Some scientists think that it’s necessary to create a cocktail of many steams of the HIV virus and then create one vaccine. But it will take a very long time and too much many. Moreover the reaction of the patient’s organism can be unpredictable. Other specialists presume that it’s important to pay attention to those patients who carry the neutralizing antibodies in their organisms. Because the cells that produce antibodies have to go through up to 100 mutations before they make neutralizing ones, Dr. Fauci said, a vaccine to induce that would require many shots, given month after month, to â€Å"push† the cells through those mutations. But the problem is that only 20 percent of the infected have the neutralizing antibodies in their organisms. There are two officially registrated cases when a patient didn’t have a virus in his blood after medical treatment. The first one was in Germany, when a patient with a destroyed immune system, induced by his cancer disease, was transplanted with a stem cell from a donor with a rare genetic mutation that resists HIV infection. The second case took place in the US with a new-born baby in a rural hospital, whose mother just received a positive HIV reaction. The treatment continued for 18 months from the first days of life of this little baby-girl. After the treatment the scientists were astonished not to find the signs of the virus in her blood. But unfortunately not everything is so easy because this kind of treatment doesn’t suit to adults. The virus in the adult’s organism has already made a mutation and after several years of being infected the virus will infect all the cells in the body and then hides in the DNA, where it will be impossible to cure. On the other hand, 80 percent of all the infected live in the African countries where the possibilities to be cured and appropriate drugs are extremely poor. To conclude my essay I would like to say that an HIV pandemic has become a serious problem of our world. No one is safe enough not be infected by the virus. Nowadays there’s still no single way of treatment that can heal every patient. But the only thing that the scientists wanted us to remember that HIV virus is easier to prevent than to cure. Scientists use the most sophisticated technologies for eliminating this disease all over the world, but many people still don’t know usual requirements for protecting their health. It’s necessary to understand that your momentary pleasure can worth you a long-life HIV treatment. Internet resources: ) http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/health-21653463 – Analysis: A cure for HIV? By James Gallagher. 2) http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/world-us-canada-21651225 – US HIV baby ‘cured’ by early drug treatment 3) http://www. nytimes. com/2013/04/04/health/aids-vaccine-path-suggested-by-study. html? ref=aids_r=1 – Possible Path to Vaccine for AIDS Is Suggested. By DONALD G. Mcneil Jr. 4) http://www. guardian. c o. uk/society/sarah-boseley-global-health/2012/jul/19/hiv-infection-infectiousdiseases? INTCMP=SRCH – A cure for Aids? How to cite Essay on Hiv, Essays

Ellis Island Essay Research Paper Ellis IslandEllis free essay sample

Ellis Island Essay, Research Paper Ellis Island Ellis Island has a long and exciting. History was the # 8220 ; Gateway to America # 8221 ; from 1892 until it closed in 1954, The island was called Gull Island by the Indians and Oyster Island by the Dutch people. Subsequently the English made it a topographic point for hanging felons and so the island became known as Gibbet Island. The Indians sold it to the Dutch East India Company for bangles. The company subsequently sold it to Mynheer Paauw who besides bought land along the New Jersey coastline. Samuel Ellis, a colonial merchandiser bought the island and it became at last Ellis Island. After the Revolution, the island was sold to New York State and in 1811, Fort Gibson was built on it to fix for the War of 1812. No contending took topographic point at Fort Gibson it was chiefly a weaponries storage garrison. When immigrants began coming into New York City, New York State processed them at an old garrison known as Castle Clinton ( one bet it was called palace Clinton because it was easy to acquire into ) on the Battery at the tip of Manhattan. We will write a custom essay sample on Ellis Island Essay Research Paper Ellis IslandEllis or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page When that it became excessively little for the big figure of immigrants geting in the state, they chose Ellis Island as the new in-migration centre. After doing new wooden edifices, it opened in 1892 but those edifices burned in 1897. New edifices were built in 1900 and it opened once more. Finally the control of in-migration was turned over to the Federal authorities. Ellis Island was the federal in-migration station ( The Gateway to America ) in the United States from 1892 to 1954. More than 12 million immigrants were processed here. Over clip, the in-migration station spread over 3 affiliated islands with loto edifices including a infirmary. It is estimated that over 40 per centum of all citizens can follow their lineage to those who came through Ellis Island. After go throughing a clump of in-migration Torahs in the 1920s it was used more for deporting foreigners. Immigrants were required to go through a series of medical and legal reviews before they could come in America. Those who did non go through these reviews were returned to their state on the boats that brought them here. Even though merely 2 per centum of those coming to America were turned off at Ellis Island that came out to over 250000 people whose hopes and dreams turned to cryings and messed up lives. Ellis Island has nt effected my life tramendusly but it did consequence it somewhat in ways of my ascendants might hold came through it. It was the Gateway to America, it was needed, and it was built. Ellis Island.

Profanity Essay Essays - Blasphemy, Censorship, Connotation

Profanity Essay Free Swiss Anti-Wrinkle Cream. You Won't Believe Your Eyes! Profanity Essay "Money doesn't talk, it swears." Many of the most brilliant minds throughout time have used profanity. Shakespeare's best works were revised and edited in order to remove the numerous curse words or obscene phrases he included. The harmless use of profanity in an informal setting should not be penalized, by the assignment of an essay. Profanity continuously to evolves, and has a very rich and interesting history. The system of assigning essays for the use of profanity is ineffective and counter productive. "When angry, count four; when very angry, swear." The evolution of profanity began in the sixteenth century, and it evolves with each generation. Profanity is recognized in many Shakespearean works, and has evolved into the profane language used today. Some cuss or curse words have somehow maintained their original meanings throughout hundreds of years, while many others have completely changed meaning or simply fallen from popular vocabulary. William Shakespeare, though it is not widely taught, used a rather vulgar and dirty vocabulary in his writings. His works included subjects that some people wish they had not. "That includes a fair helping of sex, violence, crime, horror, politics, religion, anti-authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, sexism, jealousy, profanity, satire, and controversy of all kinds" (Macrone 6). In Shakespeare's time, religious and moral curses were more offensive than biological curses. Most original, prior to being censored, Shakespearean works contain offensive profanity, mostly religious, which is probably one of many reasons that his works were and continue to be so popular. "Shakespeare pushed a lot of buttons in his day- which is one reason he was so phenomenally popular. Despite what they tell you, people like having their buttons pushed" (Macrone 6). His works contained many profane words or phrases and as a result, were censored to protect the innocent minds of the teenagers who are now required to read them, and also because they were blasphemous and offensive. Almost all of the profanity was removed, and that that was not had just reason for being there. Some of the Bard's censored oaths are; "God's blessing on your beard" Love's Labors Lost, II.i.203 This was a very rude curse because a man's facial hair was a point of pride for him. And "to play with someone's beard" was to insult him. "God's body" 1 Henry IV, II.i.26 Swearing by Christ's body (or any part thereof,) was off limits in civil discourse. "God's Bod(y)kins, man" Hamlet, II.ii.529 The word bod(y)kin means "little body" or "dear body," but adding the cute little suffix does not make this curse any more acceptable. "By God's [blest] mother!" 2 Henry VI, II.i; 3 Henry VI, III.ii; Henry VIII, V.i Swearing by the virgin was almost as rude as swearing by her son, especially when addressing a catholic cathedral as Gloucester did in 2 Henry VI, II.i Perhaps the two worst of these Shakespearean swears were "'zounds" and "'sblood." "'Zounds" had twenty-three occurrences. Ten of them were in 1 Henry IV. The rest appear in Titus (once), Richard III (four times), Romeo and Juliet (twice), and Othello (six times). Lago and Falstaff were the worst offenders. 'Zounds has evolved into somewhat of a silly and meaningless word, but was originally horribly offensive. This oath, short for "God's wounds," was extremely offensive because references to the wounds or blood of Christ were thought especially outrageous, as they touched directly on the crucifixion. "'Sblood" had twelve occurrences in all. There were eight times in 1 Henry IV (with Falstaff accounting for six), plus once in Henry V, twice in Hamlet, and once in Othello. 'Sblood occurs less than 'zounds, but is equally offensive and means basically the same thing. Several other words came from Great Britain, but were not included in Shakespeare's works. Today the expression "Gadzooks!" is not particularly offensive to most. Of course, most don't know what it originally meant. Gadzooks was originally slang for "God's hooks," and was equally offensive to 'zounds and 'sblood as it also referred to the crucifixion. An interesting note is that there is an American store called Gadzooks, which is a pop-culture vendor to America's youth. Some of Gadzooks' shoppers would be very offended if they knew the true meaning of the store's name. Another word from this region is a Cockney expression, "Gorblimey," which is a word used to swear to the truth, and is a shortened form of "God blind me." Also, in England, words such as "bloody," "blimey," "blinkin'," beginning with the letters "BL" are taken offense to because they, once again, refer to the blood of Christ and the crucifixion. The military has an interesting technique for swearing without offending

20 Cause and Effect Essay Topics How to Write about the Pork in the Middle East

20 Cause and Effect Essay Topics How to Write about the Pork in the Middle East Writing a cause and effect essay is a great opportunity to explore both causes and effects of specific things in the world. When writing about pork in the Middle East, it is particularly interesting to explore what caused people historically to avoid eating pork and what causes people today in modern societies to avoid it too. Equally interesting is exploring the impact that abstaining from pork has had on many societies, particularly in terms of their economy and their health care systems. There are many different beliefs pertaining to pork in the Middle East due to the fact that there are so many religions in the same geographic region. What these religions all seem to have in common, however, is the fact that they tend to avoid pork and pork product. In some countries visitors cannot find pork on the menu or in stores while in other countries the other believers will abstain from pork but still sell it to tourists.   There are historical reasons why people change from the consum ption of pork to the consumption of chickens but the taboo of pork consumption can be traced back to the explosion of certain religions in the Middle East. In any case, below are 20 topics you might use: The Economic Impact of Pork Avoidance: How Pigs are no Longer Farmed The Impact Religious Rules Have on Farming Practices: Why There Are No Pig Farms in the Middle East The Impact Religious Rules has on Sales: Why Buying Pork in Muslim Countries is Prohibited International Relations: Why Tourists Can Buy Pork in Israeli Cities Health Benefits Associated with Abstaining from Pork The Origins of the Taboo against Eating Pork Jewish Origins against Pork Consumption Muslim Origins against Pork Consumption Nomadic Tribes and Their Turn against Pork: Why Traveling with Chickens Is Easier Religion’s Influence on Dietary Consumptions: How Faith Dictates Eating Habits Tracing the Religious Impact on Food: Pork in the Middle East The Effects of Eating Tainted Pork The Causes of Trichinosis The Effects of Dietary Changes in Religion The Effects of Modern Exchanges on Religious Beliefs: How Travel can Influence Change Historic Causes behind Pork Consumption in the Middle East How New Animals Caused Pork Consumption to Drop in the Middle East The Effects of Chicken Protein versus Pork Protein: Understanding Pork in the Middle East The Effects of Religious Restrictions on Travel: Why People Avoid the Middle East The Effects of Religious Texts on Modern Habits: Avoiding Pork in the Middle East Below you can see an example cause and effect essay on one of the topics from that list, giving you a better idea of what your paper  writing should look like in terms of structure. Cause and Effect Essay Sample: The Origins of the Taboo against Eating Pork Today in the Middle East you will find many things on the menu but pork is not likely to be one of them. Both Judaism and Islam restrict pork consumption and the consumption of any pork products. It is for this reason that finding pork related items on your menu will be quite difficult.   For both Judaism and Islam the origins related to the taboo of pork consumption can be traced to the respective holy books used by both religions.   Most interestingly enough is that both of these religions, though considered enemies with conflicting beliefs, have religious laws which explicitly say not to touch dead pigs and not to eat pig meat. For Muslims, the abstinence from pork relates back to the Quran.   In Chapter 2 of the Quran the Muslim God prohibits the consumption of pork. The Quran is the holy book referred to when searching for guidance on behavior.   The guidance pertaining to what foods can and cannot be consumed states that individuals should not touch the dead meat or blood of pigs nor should they consume the flesh of pigs.   Also in the Quran has verses which describe pig as unclean and impure. The description of something as unclean or impure brings with it the implicit understanding that it should not be consumed or touched. It is expressly stated that the consumption of pig in any form is forbidden. Only in life-or-death situation is this allowed. The Jewish faith refers to the Torah as their holy book. In this book the Jewish god dictates what foods are forbidden to eat.   Foods which are not kosher cannot be consumed by Believers. Kosher foods are defined by foods which have been prepared based upon Jewish practice and blessed by a Jewish leader. It is in the book of Deuteronomy in chapter 14 that the Jewish god specifically states that pigs are unclean and that all the world should not touch the dead body of a pig nor should they eat the flesh of the pig.   This taboo on the consumption of pork remains a popular religious belief today, wherein dietary restrictions remain in place with regard to pork and pork products. What is perhaps most interesting about the taboo, though quite old in its origins, is something which today remains quite relevant. Pork today is something which is considered dirty because of the things a pig might eat (garbage, dead or decaying remains) and the rolling in the mud pigs quite often do. In both situations the pig is open to harmful bacteria which can cause serious damage to a human if consumed. The most dangerous aspect to this is that even if the pork is prepared properly, it can still bring be a host of health problems. The most serious of these is trichinosis, wherein worms get inside the pig and then transfer to those who eat the pig. It is for this reason that people of both faiths will continue to support the avoidance of pork entirely, as abstinence from the pork is the only way to really avoid such health concerns not associated with other animals or their consumption. References: Edwards, Brian T.  After The American Century. Print. Gregg, Gary S.  The Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Khan, Muhammad Moinuddin.  Business And Trade In Islam. New Delhi: Pentagon Press, 2009. Print. Maqsood, Ruqaiyyah Waris.  What Every Christian Should Know About Islam. New York: Kube Pub., 2009. Print. Rizvi, Sayyid Saeed Akhtar and Tanzim Raza Qureshi.  Divine Command And Pork. New Delhi, India: Islamic Wonders Bureau, 2007. Print. Rubin, Barry M.  The Middle East. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2011. Print. Stauth, Georg and Sami Zubaida.  Mass Culture, Popular Culture, And Social Life In The Middle East. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 1987. Print.

Sombrero Case study Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Sombrero Case study - Assignment Example The total monthly fix expenditures for the entire business venture is six thousands seven hundred UAE Dirham (UAEDh 6,700). The total operating expense is ten thousands three hundred UAE Dirham (UAEDh 10,300). The entire expenditure is seventeen thousands UAE Dirham (UAEDh 17,000). Without any marketing budget mentioned, the only drawing power of the SOMBRERO venture is its price. Without any comparative data about any competition that is mentioned in the study, the only indication for the competitiveness of the SOMBRERO fruit drink price is its raw material cost versus price ratio which is about four hundred percentile (400%). However, including the other direct operation cost the cost to price percentile would be at fifty nine percentile (59%). The small revenue as compared to the cost would indicate that it is competitive. Fruit Drinks do not have any cultural sensitivity that is why no matter the race or even the origin of any potential customer its acceptability would always be high. The trend amongst young adults particularly those attending college is to live healthy. This would include drinking less carbonated drinks and reverting back to fruit drinks. This translates to a steady stream of customers from the University during school days which could increase the potential sales at that time. A steadier income that will be provided by mall visitors three hundred thousand potential customers is much more promising. Considering that the Mall is the only one of its kind within the area there will be no competition as far as Mall market share is concerned. The only issue now is the visibility of the SOMBRERO booth. It should be noted that the booth is located in the food court of the Mall this will provide a common area where solid foods will be served. Solid foods or main courses has a requisite of a liquid intake this would make the SOMBRERO booth’s location essential. There will always be a demand for food every day from

Leaders of Quantum Healthcare Organizations Essay

Leaders of Quantum Healthcare Organizations - Essay Example Unlike other types of leaders, a quantum leader is more concerned with bringing change rather than controlling. A quantum leader brings change by using reality in the best innovative and creative means available. To ensure that the climate of change suitably works in the hospital system, the quantum leader must be a critical thinker, a successful planner, and most importantly plays the role of a mediator (Montgomery, 2011). The quantum leader is the chief decision maker and problem solver of the health organization. It is through environmental analysis that the quantum leader identifies the immediate and long-term needs of a health organization. As a nurse educator in the coronary critical care unit, possessing quantum leadership qualities means a lot in terms of making quick, sound and well-informed decisions on patient’s care (Dargahi, 2013). Saving life requires a leader who is swift in action rather than that who is best at instructing. The ability to make quick life-saving decisions, perform thorough physical assessments, communicate clearly to the health care team and advocate for the patient’s rights are all responsibilities a coronary critical care nurse shoulders. It is worth mentioning that quantum leadership can be cultivated right from the first year of study and be applied long after graduation. Quantum leadership helps a critical care nurse to make appropriate and continuous decisions on patient care. Montgomery, K. L. (2011). Leadership redefined: educating the Doctorate of Nursing Practice nurse leader through innovation. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 248-251.

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance

Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance CHAPTER IV 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 (s uch 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 ar e 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, i t 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 i ncreasing 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 ho ldings. 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 inferr ed 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 i nstitutional 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 Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance CHAPTER IV 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 (s uch 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 ar e 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, i t 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 i ncreasing 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 ho ldings. 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 inferr ed 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 i nstitutional 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