{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021796565389696168, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011889035667107, 'mean_word_length': 5.558441558441558, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study on Listed Mid-Cap Indian Companies

The inverse relationship between the diffused ownership structure and firm performance remains a debatable issue since the seminal thesis of Berle and Means (1932). Studies by Demsetz and Villalonga (2001) and others did not find any systematic relationship between ownership structure and firm performance treating the former as endogenous variable. Cho (1998) found performance (Tobin's Q) affected ownership structure but not the vice versa. In the backdrop, we have examined the relationship between performance and ownership structure of a sample of 98 mid-cap companies listed in the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India as mid-cap sector is considered high growth sector of the economy. In India the shareholders are broadly divided into two categories - promoter shareholders and non-promoter shareholders. Promoter shareholders are those who are in overall control over the affairs of the company irrespective of their percentage/fraction of shareholding. Our results suggest that promoter's shareholding (measure of concentration) is statistically significant in explaining performance. When concentration is treated as endogenous, the same is also found to be dependent on performance. The ownership of high growth sector of the economy continues to remain concentrated even in post-1992 economic liberalization impacting performance amid the general perception that substantial diffuseness has occurred.