CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF BANKS: A STUDY OF LISTED BANKS IN NIGERIA

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF BANKS: A STUDY OF LISTED BANKS IN NIGERIA
Views: 28
📖 Total Words in Document: 62,448
🔤 Total Characters in Document: 301,250
📄 Estimated Document Pages: 125
⏱️ Reading Time: 5 Hours 13 Mins

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background to the Study

Corporate governance refers to the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. It involves balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders, including shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government, and the community. Corporate governance provides the framework for attaining a company’s objectives, encompassing practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure. The key principles of corporate governance include: (a) fairness (protecting shareholders’ rights and treating all shareholders equitably), (b) accountability (holding the board and management accountable to shareholders), (c) transparency (disclosing material information in a timely and accurate manner), and (d) responsibility (ensuring the company operates in a responsible manner towards stakeholders) (OECD, 2015; Tricker, 2019).

The banking industry has unique corporate governance challenges due to the nature of banking operations. Banks are highly leveraged, with a significant proportion of their funding coming from depositors (who are creditors). Banks are also subject to extensive regulation (capital adequacy, liquidity, risk management) and are systemically important (the failure of a large bank can trigger a financial crisis). Poor corporate governance in banks has been linked to excessive risk-taking, insider lending, fraud, and bank failures. The global financial crisis of 2008 highlighted the importance of corporate governance in banks, leading to enhanced regulatory requirements (Basel III, stress testing, risk committees, independent board members) (CBN, 2014; Adams, 2012).

In Nigeria, the banking industry has experienced several crises linked to poor corporate governance. The 2009 banking crisis led to the intervention of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), which removed the managing directors of eight banks, injected billions of Naira into distressed banks, and established the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to absorb toxic assets (non-performing loans). The crisis was attributed to: (a) poor board oversight (directors failing to challenge management), (b) excessive risk-taking (high exposure to oil and gas, capital market, and insider loans), (c) lack of transparency (concealing non-performing loans), (d) weak internal controls, (e) insider abuse (loans to directors and their companies), (f) non-compliance with regulations, and (g) inadequate risk management systems (CBN, 2010; Soludo, 2008).

Following the crisis, the CBN issued a revised Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and Discount Houses in 2014, which strengthened governance requirements for banks. Key provisions include: (a) separation of the roles of Chairman and Managing Director/CEO (no single person can hold both positions), (b) requirement that the majority of board members be non-executive directors, (c) minimum number of independent directors (at least two or 20% of board members, whichever is higher), (d) establishment of board committees: Board Credit Committee, Board Risk Management Committee, Board Audit Committee, Board Governance and Nominating Committee, (e) mandatory director training on banking and corporate governance, (f) enhanced disclosure requirements (related-party transactions, director shareholdings, board evaluation), and (g) prohibition of insider loans (loans to directors and their related parties without board approval) (CBN, 2014).

The Code also requires banks to have a strong risk management framework, including a Chief Risk Officer (CRO) reporting to the Board Risk Management Committee. Banks must conduct stress tests, maintain adequate capital buffers, and have recovery and resolution plans. The CBN also conducts regular examinations (on-site and off-site) to assess compliance with governance and prudential requirements (CBN, 2014; FRCN, 2018).

The financial performance of banks is typically measured using financial ratios: (a) profitability ratios – Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Net Interest Margin (NIM), Profit Margin, (b) liquidity ratios – Loan-to-Deposit Ratio, Current Ratio, Cash Reserve Ratio, (c) solvency ratios – Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR), Debt-to-Equity Ratio, (d) asset quality – Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratio, Loan Loss Provision coverage, and (e) efficiency ratios – Cost-to-Income Ratio (Brigham and Ehrhardt, 2017; Rose and Hudgins, 2018).

The relationship between corporate governance and financial performance has been extensively studied, with mixed results. The theoretical predictions are conflicting:

Agency Theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976): Good corporate governance reduces agency costs (conflicts of interest between managers and shareholders) by aligning the interests of managers with shareholders. Strong governance (independent board, separation of CEO and Chairman, active audit committee) leads to better monitoring, reduced managerial opportunism (excessive risk-taking, perquisites, empire building), and improved financial performance. Agency theory predicts a positive relationship between corporate governance and financial performance (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

Stewardship Theory (Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson, 1997): Managers are inherently trustworthy and motivated to act in the best interests of shareholders (stewards). Excessive governance (tight controls, extensive monitoring) may be counterproductive, demotivating managers and reducing performance. Stewardship theory predicts that the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance may be non-linear (moderate governance is best) (Davis et al., 1997).

Resource Dependence Theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978): The board provides access to resources (networks, expertise, legitimacy). Diverse boards (with independent directors, women directors, directors with financial expertise) bring valuable resources that enhance performance. Resource dependence theory predicts a positive relationship between board diversity and financial performance (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

Institutional Theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983): Banks adopt governance practices to gain legitimacy and conform to regulatory and social pressures (isomorphism). Adoption of governance practices may be symbolic (ceremonial) rather than substantive, with no impact on performance. Institutional theory predicts that the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance may be weak or non-existent (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984): Banks have responsibilities to multiple stakeholders (shareholders, depositors, employees, regulators, community). Good governance balances stakeholder interests, leading to long-term sustainability. Stakeholder theory predicts a positive relationship between corporate governance and long-term (but not necessarily short-term) financial performance (Freeman, 1984).

Empirical studies on the relationship between corporate governance and bank performance have produced mixed results. Some studies have found that board independence (proportion of independent directors) is positively associated with bank profitability (ROA, ROE). Other studies have found no significant relationship or a negative relationship (too many independent directors may reduce board cohesion and decision speed). The separation of CEO and Chairman (duality) is generally found to be positively associated with performance (separation is better). Board size has an inverted U-shaped relationship with performance (moderate board size is best; too small or too large reduces performance) (Adams and Mehran, 2003; de Andres and Vallelado, 2008).

In Nigeria, studies on corporate governance and bank performance have also produced mixed results. Some studies have found that board independence, audit committee independence, and separation of CEO and Chairman are positively associated with bank profitability. Other studies have found that board size is negatively associated with profitability (larger boards are less effective). The mixed results may be due to differences in sample size, time period, measurement of governance variables, measurement of performance (accounting-based vs. market-based), and econometric methods (Okafor and Udeh, 2020; Adebayo and Oyedokun, 2019).

The Nigerian banking industry has undergone significant changes in corporate governance since the 2009 crisis. The CBN’s Code of Corporate Governance (2014) has been implemented, and banks have appointed independent directors, established board committees, and strengthened risk management. However, compliance varies, and some banks continue to face governance challenges (insider loans, weak risk management, non-compliance with disclosures). The impact of these governance reforms on financial performance is an empirical question that this study addresses (CBN, 2020; PenCom, 2018).

The key corporate governance variables examined in this study include:

Board Size: The total number of directors on the board. Larger boards bring more expertise and networks but may suffer from slower decision-making and coordination problems.

Board Independence: The proportion of non-executive directors (NEDs) and independent directors (IDs) on the board. Independent directors are those with no material relationship with the bank (other than directorship). Higher independence is expected to improve monitoring.

CEO Duality: Whether the same person holds the positions of Chairman and CEO. Separation is expected to improve monitoring (the Chairman leads the board, the CEO leads management).

Board Committees: The presence and composition of board committees: Audit Committee, Risk Management Committee, Credit Committee, Governance and Nominating Committee. Active committees (regular meetings, independent members) improve oversight.

Board Meetings: The frequency of board meetings. More meetings may indicate active oversight, but too many meetings may be inefficient.

Director Expertise: The proportion of directors with financial expertise (accounting, banking, finance). Financial expertise improves board oversight of complex bank operations.

Gender Diversity: The proportion of women on the board. Gender diversity brings diverse perspectives and may improve decision-making.

Related-Party Transactions: Disclosure and approval of transactions with directors, their families, and related companies. Weak controls on related-party transactions are associated with insider abuse and poor performance.

Risk Management Committee: The existence and composition of the Board Risk Management Committee. Strong risk oversight is expected to reduce risk-taking and improve performance (CBN, 2014).

Finally, this study focuses on listed banks in Nigeria because they are publicly traded, have available data on corporate governance (from annual reports and corporate governance reports), and are subject to CBN and NGX governance requirements. By examining the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance, the study can provide insights for bank management, boards, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders.

1.1 Statement of Research Problem

Listed banks in Nigeria operate in a highly regulated, competitive, and systemically important industry. The financial performance of these banks is critical for depositor protection, investor confidence, financial stability, and economic growth. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has issued comprehensive corporate governance codes (2014) to strengthen governance practices in banks, including requirements for board independence, separation of CEO and Chairman, board committees, risk management, and disclosure. Despite these reforms, concerns remain about the corporate governance and financial performance of Nigerian banks. Specific problems include:

  1. Persistent governance failures: Despite regulatory reforms, some banks continue to face governance challenges: (a) insider loans (loans to directors and their related parties) without proper approval, (b) weak board oversight (directors not challenging management), (c) inadequate risk management (excessive risk-taking, high non-performing loans), (d) lack of transparency (incomplete disclosures), (e) non-compliance with CBN regulations, and (f) boardroom conflicts.
  2. Mixed empirical evidence: Existing studies on the relationship between corporate governance and bank performance in Nigeria have produced mixed results. Some studies find a positive relationship (good governance improves performance), others find no significant relationship, and others find a negative relationship (e.g., too much governance reduces performance). The mixed results create uncertainty for bank management, boards, and regulators.
  3. Endogeneity concerns: Corporate governance may be endogenous; banks with better performance may be able to attract better directors (reverse causality), or unobserved factors (e.g., management quality, corporate culture) may affect both governance and performance. Many prior studies have not adequately addressed endogeneity, potentially producing biased results.
  4. Measurement issues: Governance is multidimensional; different measures (board size, independence, duality, committees, meetings, expertise, gender diversity) may have different effects on performance. Some prior studies have used limited governance measures or composite indices that may mask individual effects.
  5. Time period and sample limitations: Many prior studies have used short time periods or small samples, limiting generalizability. The post-2014 reform period (after the CBN Code) has not been extensively studied.
  6. Impact of the 2009 banking crisis: The 2009 banking crisis led to significant governance reforms. The impact of these reforms on financial performance has not been fully assessed. Are banks with better governance (post-reform) performing better than banks with weaker governance?
  7. Variation across banks: Governance practices vary significantly across Nigerian banks. Some banks (e.g., large, well-capitalised, internationally active) have adopted best practices (independent directors, active committees, strong risk management). Other banks have weaker governance. The determinants of these variations and their impact on performance are not well understood.
  8. Regulatory enforcement: The CBN enforces governance requirements through on-site examinations and sanctions. However, enforcement varies, and some banks may be “compliant on paper” (ceremonial adoption) but not in practice. The relationship between regulatory enforcement and actual governance practices is unclear.
  9. Stakeholder concerns: Investors, depositors, creditors, and regulators need to know which governance practices are most strongly associated with financial performance to make informed decisions. Without robust evidence, stakeholders may overemphasise less important governance practices or ignore important ones.
  10. Lack of recent empirical research: Most empirical studies on corporate governance and bank performance in Nigeria were conducted before or shortly after the 2014 CBN Code. There is a lack of recent, systematic, empirical research covering the post-2014 period.

This study addresses these problems by empirically investigating the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria, using a comprehensive set of governance variables, panel data econometric methods (to address endogeneity), and a sample of all listed banks over a recent period (2015-2023).

1.2 Objectives of Study

The specific objectives of this study are:

  1. To examine the corporate governance practices (board size, board independence, CEO duality, board committees, board meetings, director expertise, gender diversity, related-party disclosure, risk management committee) of listed banks in Nigeria.
  2. To assess the financial performance (Return on Assets ROA, Return on Equity ROE, Net Interest Margin NIM, Non-Performing Loan NPL ratio, Cost-to-Income ratio) of listed banks in Nigeria.
  3. To determine the relationship between board size and the financial performance (ROA, ROE) of listed banks in Nigeria.
  4. To determine the relationship between board independence (proportion of independent directors) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria.
  5. To determine the relationship between CEO duality (whether the CEO and Chairman roles are separated) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria.
  6. To determine the relationship between board committees (Audit Committee, Risk Management Committee, Credit Committee) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria.
  7. To determine the relationship between director expertise (proportion of directors with financial/accounting expertise) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria.
  8. To propose recommendations for bank management, boards, regulators (CBN, SEC, NGX), and investors on strengthening corporate governance to enhance financial performance.

1.3 Research Questions

The following research questions guide this study:

  1. What are the corporate governance practices (board size, board independence, CEO duality, board committees, board meetings, director expertise, gender diversity, related-party disclosure, risk management committee) of listed banks in Nigeria?
  2. What is the financial performance (ROA, ROE, NIM, NPL ratio, Cost-to-Income ratio) of listed banks in Nigeria?
  3. What is the relationship between board size and the financial performance (ROA, ROE) of listed banks in Nigeria?
  4. What is the relationship between board independence (proportion of independent directors) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria?
  5. What is the relationship between CEO duality (separation of CEO and Chairman roles) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria?
  6. What is the relationship between board committees (Audit Committee, Risk Management Committee, Credit Committee) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria?
  7. What is the relationship between director expertise (proportion of directors with financial/accounting expertise) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria?
  8. What is the relationship between gender diversity (proportion of women on the board) and the financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria?

1.4 Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are formulated in null (H₀) and alternative (H₁) forms:

Hypothesis One (Board Size)

  • H₀: Board size has no significant effect on the Return on Assets (ROA) of listed banks in Nigeria.
  • H₁: Board size has a significant effect on the Return on Assets (ROA) of listed banks in Nigeria.

Hypothesis Two (Board Independence)

  • H₀: Board independence (proportion of independent directors) has no significant effect on the Return on Equity (ROE) of listed banks in Nigeria.
  • H₁: Board independence (proportion of independent directors) has a significant effect on the Return on Equity (ROE) of listed banks in Nigeria.

Hypothesis Three (CEO Duality)

  • H₀: CEO duality (when the CEO and Chairman roles are combined) has no significant effect on the Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratio of listed banks in Nigeria.
  • H₁: CEO duality (when the CEO and Chairman roles are combined) has a significant effect on the Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratio of listed banks in Nigeria.

Hypothesis Four (Audit Committee Independence)

  • H₀: Audit committee independence (proportion of independent directors on the audit committee) has no significant effect on the Cost-to-Income ratio of listed banks in Nigeria.
  • H₁: Audit committee independence (proportion of independent directors on the audit committee) has a significant effect on the Cost-to-Income ratio of listed banks in Nigeria.

Hypothesis Five (Risk Management Committee)

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several stakeholders:

Bank Management and Boards: The findings will help bank boards and management understand which governance practices are most strongly associated with financial performance. Banks can use the findings to: (a) optimise board size (not too small, not too large), (b) ensure adequate board independence, (c) separate CEO and Chairman roles, (d) strengthen board committees (Audit, Risk, Credit), (e) appoint directors with financial expertise, (f) increase gender diversity, and (g) improve related-party disclosure. Improved governance will enhance financial performance, reduce risk, and increase shareholder value.

Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) : The findings will inform CBN’s regulatory and supervisory policies. CBN can: (a) assess the effectiveness of the 2014 Code of Corporate Governance, (b) identify governance practices that need strengthening, (c) design targeted regulations (e.g., minimum board independence thresholds), (d) enhance enforcement (sanctions for non-compliance), and (e) develop guidance on best practices for banks.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) : The findings will inform SEC and NGX listing requirements and corporate governance codes for listed companies. SEC and NGX can: (a) update governance requirements for banks (and other listed companies), (b) strengthen disclosure requirements (board composition, director expertise, committee activities), (c) promote shareholder activism (proxy voting, AGM participation), and (d) enhance investor protection.

Investors and Shareholders: The findings will help investors (institutional and retail) assess the governance quality of banks and incorporate governance factors into investment decisions (ESG integration). Investors can: (a) prefer banks with strong governance (higher expected performance, lower risk), (b) engage with bank boards (shareholder resolutions, AGM questions), (c) vote against directors of poorly governed banks, and (d) advocate for governance reforms.

Depositors and Creditors: The findings will help depositors and creditors (bondholders, other lenders) assess the safety of their funds. Banks with strong governance (independent boards, risk committees, low related-party loans) are less likely to fail, protecting depositors. Creditors may offer better terms (lower interest rates) to well-governed banks.

Auditors: The findings will help external auditors assess governance risk as part of their audit risk assessment. Banks with weak governance are higher risk (material misstatements, fraud), requiring more extensive audit procedures.

Academics and Researchers: The study contributes to the literature on corporate governance and bank performance in emerging markets (Nigeria). The study provides empirical evidence on the relationship between specific governance variables (board size, independence, duality, committees, expertise, diversity) and multiple performance measures (ROA, ROE, NIM, NPL, Cost-to-Income).

The Nigerian Economy: Strong corporate governance in banks enhances financial stability, reduces the likelihood of banking crises, protects depositors’ funds, promotes investor confidence, and supports economic growth. Improved governance also reduces the fiscal burden of bank bailouts (e.g., AMCON interventions).

1.6 Justification of Study

This study is justified on several grounds:

Theoretical Justification: The study tests competing theoretical predictions (Agency Theory, Stewardship Theory, Resource Dependence Theory, Institutional Theory, Stakeholder Theory) in the Nigerian banking context. The findings will contribute to theory development and refinement.

Empirical Justification: There is limited recent empirical research on the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria, particularly after the 2014 CBN Code of Corporate Governance. This study fills a significant gap in the literature.

Regulatory Justification: The CBN, SEC, and NGX have issued corporate governance codes and guidelines. This study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these reforms, informing future regulatory policy.

Practical Justification: Bank boards and management need evidence on which governance practices are most strongly associated with performance to allocate resources effectively (e.g., recruiting independent directors, establishing risk committees). This study provides practical guidance.

Methodological Justification: The study uses robust econometric methods (panel data regression with fixed effects/random effects, instrumental variables to address endogeneity) to provide reliable estimates. Many prior studies used simpler methods (OLS) that may produce biased results.

Stakeholder Justification: Investors, depositors, creditors, and regulators need information on governance-performance relationships to make informed decisions. This study provides evidence to support those decisions.

1.7 Scope and Limitation of Study

Scope of the Study

This study focuses on the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria. The scope is limited to:

Entities: All deposit money banks (DMBs) listed on the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX). The study includes commercial banks (not merchant banks, microfinance banks, or development banks). The sample includes Tier 1 banks (e.g., Access Bank, First Bank, UBA, GTCO, Zenith Bank) and Tier 2 banks (e.g., Fidelity Bank, Sterling Bank, Union Bank, Wema Bank, Unity Bank) that have published financial statements and corporate governance reports for the study period.

Time Period: The study covers the period 2015-2023 (9 years), following the implementation of the CBN Code of Corporate Governance for Banks (2014). This period excludes the 2009 banking crisis (pre-reform) and focuses on the post-reform era. The period includes pre-COVID-19 (2015-2019), COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and post-COVID-19 (2022-2023) periods, allowing analysis of governance-performance relationships during different economic conditions.

Corporate Governance Variables:

  • Board Size (number of directors)
  • Board Independence (proportion of independent directors)
  • CEO Duality (dummy: 1 if CEO and Chairman are same person, 0 otherwise)
  • Board Committees: Audit Committee (size, independence, meetings), Risk Management Committee (presence, independence, meetings), Credit Committee (presence, independence)
  • Board Meetings (number of meetings per year)
  • Director Expertise (proportion of directors with financial/accounting expertise)
  • Gender Diversity (proportion of women on the board)
  • Related-Party Transactions (disclosure of related-party loans)

Financial Performance Variables:

  • Return on Assets (ROA) = Net Profit ÷ Total Assets
  • Return on Equity (ROE) = Net Profit ÷ Shareholders’ Equity
  • Net Interest Margin (NIM) = Net Interest Income ÷ Average Interest-Earning Assets
  • Non-Performing Loan (NPL) Ratio = Non-Performing Loans ÷ Total Loans
  • Cost-to-Income Ratio = Operating Expenses ÷ Operating Income
  • Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) = Capital ÷ Risk-Weighted Assets (CBN requirement)

Control Variables:

  • Bank Size (log of total assets)
  • Bank Age (years since incorporation)
  • Leverage (Total Liabilities ÷ Total Assets)
  • Loan Growth (annual growth in loan portfolio)
  • GDP Growth Rate (macroeconomic control)
  • Inflation Rate (macroeconomic control)

Limitations of the Study

This study acknowledges several limitations:

  1. Endogeneity: Corporate governance may be endogenous (reverse causality). Banks with better financial performance may be able to attract better directors (causality from performance to governance). Unobserved factors (management quality, corporate culture, bank reputation) may affect both governance and performance (omitted variable bias). The study will use instrumental variables and system GMM to address endogeneity, but perfect identification is challenging.
  2. Measurement of Governance: Governance is multidimensional, and there is no single, universally accepted measure. The study uses publicly disclosed governance variables (from annual reports and corporate governance reports). However, “compliance on paper” may not reflect actual governance practices (ceremonial adoption). Some governance practices (e.g., board effectiveness, director engagement) are difficult to measure quantitatively.
  3. Sample Size: The number of listed banks in Nigeria is limited (currently 12-15 banks). The sample size (N=12-15, T=9) may reduce statistical power, particularly for subgroup analyses (e.g., Tier 1 vs. Tier 2). The study will use panel data methods to increase degrees of freedom.
  4. Time Period: The post-2014 period is relatively short (9 years). The long-term effects of governance on performance (e.g., on risk management, loan quality) may not be fully captured.
  5. Generalizability: Findings may not be generalizable to unlisted banks (private banks), non-bank financial institutions (insurance, pension funds), or banks in other countries (different regulatory environments, ownership structures).
  6. Data Availability: Some governance variables (e.g., committee meeting attendance, director qualifications, board evaluation results) are not publicly disclosed. The study relies on disclosed data, which may be incomplete.
  7. Performance Measures: The study uses accounting-based performance measures (ROA, ROE, NIM, NPL, Cost-to-Income). Market-based measures (Tobin’s Q, share price returns) are also relevant but may not be available for all banks (some banks are thinly traded).
  8. COVID-19 Impact: The COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) affected bank performance (loan losses, reduced interest income, increased provisions). The study includes year dummies to control for pandemic effects, but the interaction between governance and pandemic impact may not be fully captured.

Despite these limitations, the study aims to provide robust, meaningful insights into the relationship between corporate governance and financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria.

1.8 Summary of Research Methodology

This study adopts a quantitative, longitudinal, correlational research design. The methodology is summarised as follows:

Research Design: Ex-post facto research design (using secondary data). The study examines the relationship between corporate governance variables (independent variables) and financial performance variables (dependent variables) over time.

Population: All deposit money banks (DMBs) listed on the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX). As at December 2023, there are approximately 12-15 listed banks.

Sample: All listed banks that have published complete annual reports (including corporate governance reports) for the period 2015-2023. The sample will include Tier 1 and Tier 2 banks. The sample size will be approximately 12 banks × 9 years = 108 bank-year observations.

Sampling Technique: Census sampling (all listed banks included, subject to data availability).

Sources of Data: Secondary data from:

Data Collection: Data will be extracted from published annual reports for the period 2015-2023. Governance variables (board size, independence, duality, committees, meetings, expertise, gender diversity) will be manually coded from corporate governance reports. Financial performance variables (ROA, ROE, NIM, NPL, Cost-to-Income, CAR) will be extracted from financial statements.

Data Analysis:

  • Descriptive Statistics: Mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, maximum for all variables.
  • Correlation Analysis: Pearson correlation matrix to examine bivariate relationships.
  • Panel Data Regression: The study will use panel data (pooled cross-sectional and time series) to control for unobserved bank heterogeneity. The choice between fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) will be determined by the Hausman test. The model:

Performanceᵢₜ = β₀ + β₁(Governanceᵢₜ) + β₂(Controlᵢₜ) + εᵢₜ

Where:

  • Performanceᵢₜ = financial performance of bank i in year t (ROA, ROE, NIM, NPL, Cost-to-Income)
  • Governanceᵢₜ = vector of governance variables (board size, independence, duality, committees, etc.)
  • Controlᵢₜ = vector of control variables (bank size, age, leverage, loan growth, GDP growth, inflation)
  • εᵢₜ = error term
  • Endogeneity: To address endogeneity (reverse causality, omitted variable bias), the study will use:
    • Lagged governance variables (governance in year t-1 affecting performance in year t)
    • Instrumental variables (IV) regression with two-stage least squares (2SLS)
    • System GMM (Generalised Method of Moments) for dynamic panel models
  • Diagnostic Tests: Multicollinearity (VIF), Heteroscedasticity (Breusch-Pagan), Autocorrelation (Wooldridge), Normality of residuals (Jarque-Bera).

Software: STATA (or EViews, R) for statistical analysis.

1.9 Sources of Data

The primary sources of data for this study are:

Bank Annual Reports: The annual reports of listed banks contain:

Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) : The NGX maintains a database of listed company filings, including annual reports, quarterly reports, and corporate actions. NGX also publishes listing rules and corporate governance requirements.

Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) : CBN publications include:

  • Annual Reports and Statement of Accounts
  • Banking Supervision Annual Reports
  • Prudential Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks
  • Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and Discount Houses
  • Monetary Policy Reports

Financial Databases: Bloomberg, Reuters, Thompson Reuters, and other financial databases may provide bank financial data (ROA, ROE, NIM) and governance data (board composition). However, manual extraction from annual reports may be more reliable for governance variables.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) : NBS provides macroeconomic data: GDP growth rate, inflation rate (CPI), unemployment rate, interest rates.

World Bank and IMF: World Bank Development Indicators and IMF country reports provide additional macroeconomic data for Nigeria.

Bank Websites: Banks publish annual reports and investor presentations on their websites (Investor Relations section).

Data Extraction: Data will be extracted manually from PDF annual reports into an Excel spreadsheet, then imported into STATA for analysis. A data extraction template will be developed to ensure consistency (variable definitions, units, time periods).

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature relevant to corporate governance and financial performance of listed banks in Nigeria. The review covers the concept of corporate governance, historical overview of corporate governance, corporate governance and banks, elements of corporate governance in banks (including regulation and supervision as elements), and corporate governance mechanisms (shareholders and debt holders). The chapter provides the theoretical and conceptual foundation for understanding how corporate governance affects the financial performance of banks.

2.1 What is Corporate Governance?

Corporate governance refers to the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. It involves balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders, including shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government, and the community. Corporate governance provides the framework for attaining a company’s objectives, encompassing practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure. The key principles of corporate governance are: (a) fairness – protecting shareholders’ rights and treating all shareholders equitably, (b) accountability – holding the board and management accountable to shareholders, (c) transparency – disclosing material information in a timely and accurate manner, and (d) responsibility – ensuring the company operates in a responsible manner towards stakeholders (OECD, 2015; Tricker, 2019).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles of Corporate Governance (2015) provide an international benchmark for corporate governance. The six principles are:

  1. Ensuring the basis for an effective corporate governance framework: The corporate governance framework should promote transparent and fair markets, and be consistent with the rule of law.
  2. The rights and equitable treatment of shareholders: Shareholders should have the right to participate in, and be sufficiently informed about, decisions concerning fundamental corporate changes (e.g., amendments to the articles, authorising additional shares, major asset sales, mergers).
  3. The role of stakeholders: The corporate governance framework should recognise the rights of stakeholders and encourage active cooperation between corporations and stakeholders (employees, creditors, suppliers, local communities) in creating wealth and sustainable enterprise.
  4. Disclosure and transparency: The corporate governance framework should ensure that timely and accurate disclosure is made on all material matters regarding the corporation, including the financial situation, performance, ownership, and governance.
  5. The responsibilities of the board: The board should provide strategic guidance to the company, effectively monitor management, and be accountable to the company and shareholders.
  6. Institutional investors and capital markets: The corporate governance framework should promote the active participation of institutional investors in corporate governance (e.g., voting at AGMs, engaging with boards) (OECD, 2015).

In Nigeria, corporate governance is regulated by several bodies: (a) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – issues the Code of Corporate Governance for Public Companies, (b) the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) – oversees corporate governance codes and enforcement, (c) the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) – issues the Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and Discount Houses, (d) the National Pension Commission (PenCom) – issues governance guidelines for pension fund operators, (e) the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) – requires listed companies to comply with its listing rules on governance, and (f) the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) – enforces compliance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) on governance matters (FRCN, 2018; CBN, 2014).

2.2 Historical Overview of Corporate Governance

The concept of corporate governance has evolved significantly over time. The modern history of corporate governance can be traced to the separation of ownership and control in large corporations (Berle and Means, 1932). Berle and Means argued that the separation of ownership (shareholders) from control (managers) created agency problems, as managers may pursue their own interests rather than shareholder interests. This separation gave rise to the need for governance mechanisms to align manager and shareholder interests.

The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of corporate governance as a formal field of study, with the development of agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). The 1990s witnessed major corporate governance reforms following corporate scandals and failures. The Cadbury Report (1992) in the United Kingdom established the first formal code of corporate governance, recommending separation of CEO and Chairman roles, independent directors, and audit committees. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) in the United States was enacted following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, introducing requirements for CEO/CFO certification of financial statements, enhanced auditor independence, and internal control reporting (Section 404).

The global financial crisis of 2008 highlighted governance failures in the banking industry. Banks with weak governance (excessive risk-taking, poor board oversight, inadequate risk management, high CEO pay) were more likely to fail or require government bailouts. This led to enhanced governance requirements for banks under Basel III, including risk committees, compensation committees, and stress testing (BCBS, 2010; Adams, 2012).

In Nigeria, corporate governance reforms have been driven by banking crises. The 2009 banking crisis led to the intervention of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), which removed the managing directors of eight banks. The CBN issued a revised Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and Discount Houses in 2014, which strengthened governance requirements for banks: (a) separation of CEO and Chairman roles, (b) majority of non-executive directors, (c) minimum number of independent directors, (d) mandatory board committees (Audit, Risk, Credit, Governance), (e) enhanced disclosure of related-party transactions, and (f) prohibition of insider loans (CBN, 2014).

The Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) issued the Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance (NCCG) in 2018, which applies to all public companies (including banks). The NCCG adopts a “comply or explain” approach and covers: (a) board composition (independence, diversity, skills), (b) board committees, (c) risk management, (d) internal control, (e) audit and assurance, (f) stakeholder relations, (g) transparency and disclosure, and (h) shareholder engagement (FRCN, 2018).

2.3 Corporate Governance and Banks

Banks have unique corporate governance characteristics that distinguish them from non-financial firms:

High Leverage: Banks are highly leveraged, with debt (deposits) constituting a significant proportion of their funding. Depositors are creditors who do not have the same monitoring capacity as shareholders (or bondholders). This creates a moral hazard problem: banks may take excessive risks because depositors (insured by NDIC) do not monitor risk-taking (Macey and O’Hara, 2003).

Systemic Importance: The failure of a large bank can trigger a financial crisis (contagion). Regulators impose stricter governance requirements on banks (capital adequacy, liquidity, stress testing, resolution plans) to reduce systemic risk. Banks are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by central banks, deposit insurance agencies, and other financial regulators (BCBS, 2010).

Regulatory Oversight: Bank governance is not solely a matter for shareholders and boards; regulators have a direct interest in bank governance because bank failures impose costs on taxpayers (bailouts) and the economy (recession). Regulators set governance standards, conduct examinations, and can remove directors and managers for governance failures (CBN, 2014).

Complexity: Banks have complex organisational structures (subsidiaries, special purpose vehicles), complex financial instruments (derivatives, structured products), and diverse risks (credit risk, market risk, operational risk, liquidity risk, reputational risk). Governance of banks requires specialised expertise (risk management, finance, accounting) on the board.

Information Asymmetry: Bank assets (loans) are not traded in liquid markets, and their value is difficult to assess (opaque). This creates information asymmetry between bank insiders (managers, directors) and outsiders (shareholders, depositors, regulators). Governance mechanisms (independent directors, risk committees, disclosure) are needed to reduce information asymmetry (Macey and O’Hara, 2003).

Related-Party Transactions (Insider Lending) : Banks are vulnerable to insider lending (loans to directors, their families, and their companies). Weak governance (lack of independent directors, weak loan approval processes) enables insider abuse, which has been a major cause of bank failures in Nigeria (CBN, 2010).

Moral Hazard from Deposit Insurance: Deposit insurance (provided by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation – NDIC) protects depositors from bank failure, but reduces depositors’ incentive to monitor bank risk-taking. This increases the importance of governance mechanisms (board oversight, risk management, regulation) to control risk-taking (Macey and O’Hara, 2003).

2.4 Elements of Corporate Governance in Banks

The key elements of corporate governance in banks include:

Board of Directors: The board is responsible for strategic direction, oversight of management, risk management, internal control, and accountability. Key board characteristics include: size (number of directors), composition (proportion of independent directors), diversity (gender, ethnicity, skills), meeting frequency, and committee structure (CBN, 2014; Adams and Mehran, 2003).

Board Committees: Board committees focus on specific governance functions: (a) Audit Committee – oversees financial reporting, internal control, external audit, and compliance, (b) Risk Management Committee – oversees risk management policies, limits, and exposures, (c) Credit Committee – approves large loans and monitors loan portfolio quality, (d) Governance and Nominating Committee – oversees board composition, director nominations, board evaluation, and governance policies, and (e) Remuneration/Compensation Committee – oversees executive compensation (salaries, bonuses, share options) (CBN, 2014).

Risk Management Framework: Banks must have a robust risk management framework, including: (a) a Chief Risk Officer (CRO) reporting to the board, (b) risk policies and limits (credit, market, operational, liquidity, reputational), (c) stress testing and scenario analysis, (d) risk monitoring and reporting, and (e) a risk culture that promotes prudent risk-taking (BCBS, 2010).

Internal Control and Internal Audit: Banks must have strong internal controls (segregation of duties, authorisation limits, reconciliations, access controls) and an internal audit function that is independent, well-resourced, and reports directly to the board audit committee. Internal audit assesses the effectiveness of internal controls and compliance with policies and regulations.

External Audit: Banks must appoint external auditors (independent accounting firms) to audit their financial statements and express an opinion on whether they present a true and fair view. External auditors also report on internal controls (in some jurisdictions) and communicate with the board audit committee (CBN, 2014).

Compliance: Banks must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and codes, including: (a) banking laws (CBN Act, BOFIA), (b) anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) regulations, (c) data protection laws, (d) consumer protection laws, (e) tax laws, and (f) corporate governance codes (CBN, FRCN, SEC). Compliance functions (Chief Compliance Officer) must be independent and report to the board.

Disclosure and Transparency: Banks must disclose material information to shareholders, depositors, regulators, and the public, including: (a) financial statements (quarterly, annually), (b) governance report (board composition, committees, policies), (c) risk management report (credit, market, operational, liquidity risks), (d) related-party transactions (loans to directors, etc.), (e) executive compensation, (f) shareholding of directors, and (g) audit committee report (CBN, 2014; FRCN, 2018).

Shareholder Rights and Engagement: Banks must respect shareholder rights: (a) right to vote at Annual General Meetings (AGMs), (b) right to receive dividends, (c) right to receive timely and accurate information, (d) right to participate in major decisions (mergers, acquisitions, capital increases), and (e) right to sue for misconduct. Banks should engage with shareholders (investor relations, AGM, proxy voting) and consider their views (OECD, 2015).

2.4.1 Regulation and Supervision as Elements of Corporate Governance in Banks

Regulation and supervision are critical elements of corporate governance in banks, distinguishing them from non-financial firms. Bank governance is not solely a matter for shareholders and boards; regulators have a direct interest because bank failures impose costs on taxpayers and the economy.

Prudential Regulation: Regulators (CBN) set prudential requirements for banks: (a) capital adequacy (minimum capital ratios – CAR), (b) liquidity requirements (Liquidity Ratio, Loan-to-Deposit Ratio), (c) large exposure limits (maximum loan to a single borrower), (d) asset classification and provisioning (loan loss provisioning for non-performing loans), (e) related-party lending limits (restrictions on loans to directors and their companies), (f) investment limits (maximum exposure to certain asset classes), and (g) dividend distribution limits (approval required). These prudential requirements reduce risk and promote sound governance.

Licensing and Approval: Regulators approve the establishment of banks, the appointment of directors and senior management (fit and proper test), the acquisition of significant shareholdings, and major transactions (mergers, acquisitions, capital increases). This ensures that only qualified individuals and entities control banks.

On-Site and Off-Site Supervision: Regulators conduct on-site examinations (inspections) and off-site monitoring (analysis of financial returns) to assess bank compliance with prudential requirements and governance standards. On-site examinations review: (a) board effectiveness, (b) risk management, (c) internal controls, (d) asset quality, (e) related-party transactions, (f) compliance with laws and regulations, and (g) financial reporting (CBN, 2014).

Enforcement: Regulators have enforcement powers to address governance failures: (a) issue warnings and directives, (b) impose fines and penalties, (c) suspend or remove directors and senior management, (d) restrict dividends, (e) prohibit certain activities (e.g., new lending, branch expansion), (f) appoint supervisory board members, (g) intervene in management (take control), and (h) revoke banking licenses. In Nigeria, the CBN removed the managing directors of eight banks during the 2009 crisis, demonstrating the importance of regulatory enforcement (CBN, 2010).

Resolution and Recovery Plans: Banks must prepare recovery plans (actions to restore financial health) and resolution plans (orderly wind-down in case of failure). Regulators review these plans and may require changes. Recovery and resolution planning is a governance responsibility of the board.

Cross-Border Coordination: For banks with international operations, regulators coordinate with foreign regulators (home-host supervision) to ensure consistent governance standards. Nigerian banks with subsidiaries in other African countries must comply with both Nigerian and host country governance requirements.

Deposit Insurance: The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) insures deposits (up to a limit) and oversees bank governance as part of its risk management framework. NDIC conducts examinations and can recommend governance improvements to the CBN.

Relationship between Regulation and Internal Governance: Regulation complements (rather than substitutes for) internal governance. Strong internal governance (independent board, risk committee, internal audit) reduces the likelihood of regulatory violations and financial distress. Weak internal governance attracts regulatory scrutiny and enforcement. Regulators encourage banks to adopt best-practice governance (e.g., CBN Code of Corporate Governance) and monitor compliance (CBN, 2014).

2.5 Corporate Governance Mechanisms

Corporate governance mechanisms are the tools and processes that align the interests of managers (agents) with the interests of shareholders (principals) and other stakeholders. These mechanisms can be classified as internal (board of directors, committees, internal audit, risk management) and external (regulation, supervision, market discipline, shareholder activism). The key mechanisms are:

2.5.1 Shareholders

Shareholders are the owners of the bank. They have rights to: (a) vote at AGMs on important matters (election of directors, executive compensation, mergers, acquisitions, amendments to articles), (b) receive dividends, (c) receive timely and accurate information (financial statements, corporate governance reports), (d) transfer their shares, (e) sue the company for misconduct, and (f) participate in shareholder meetings (in person or by proxy) (OECD, 2015).

Shareholder Activism: Shareholders (especially institutional investors – pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies) can influence bank governance through: (a) voting against management proposals (say on pay, director elections), (b) filing shareholder resolutions (e.g., on climate risk, gender diversity), (c) engaging with boards (meetings, letters), (d) proxy contests (nominating alternative directors), (e) litigation (derivative lawsuits), and (f) selling shares (exit). Shareholder activism is less developed in Nigeria than in developed markets, but is growing (FRCN, 2018).

Concentrated vs. Dispersed Ownership: Nigerian banks have concentrated ownership, with a few large shareholders (founders, families, institutional investors, government) holding significant stakes. Concentrated ownership may improve monitoring (large shareholders have incentives to monitor management) but may also lead to expropriation of minority shareholders (tunnelling, related-party transactions). Dispersed ownership (many small shareholders) may lead to free-rider problems (no shareholder has incentive to monitor) (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

Minority Shareholder Protection: Minority shareholders (small shareholders) are vulnerable to expropriation by majority shareholders (e.g., related-party loans at favourable terms, asset sales at low prices). Governance mechanisms to protect minority shareholders include: (a) independent directors, (b) approval of related-party transactions by independent directors, (c) disclosure of related-party transactions, (d) cumulative voting for directors, (e) tag-along rights (minority shareholders can sell their shares on the same terms as majority shareholders in a takeover), and (f) derivative lawsuits (minority shareholders can sue on behalf of the company) (OECD, 2015).

Proxy Voting: Shareholders who cannot attend AGMs in person can vote by proxy (authorise another person to vote on their behalf). Institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds) have proxy voting policies and disclose their votes. Proxy advisory firms (e.g., ISS, Glass Lewis) provide voting recommendations to institutional investors.

Annual General Meetings (AGMs) : AGMs are the primary forum for shareholder engagement. Shareholders can: (a) vote on director elections, executive compensation, financial statements, auditor appointment, and other matters, (b) ask questions of directors and management, (c) raise concerns about governance and performance. Banks are required to hold AGMs annually and give shareholders adequate notice (at least 21 days) (CAMA, 2020).

2.5.2 Debt Holders

Debt holders (bondholders, depositors, other creditors) are not owners but have a claim on the bank’s assets and cash flows. Debt holders have different interests from shareholders: shareholders prefer higher risk (higher potential returns), while debt holders prefer lower risk (to protect their principal). Debt holders protect their interests through:

Covenants: Debt contracts include covenants (restrictions on the bank’s activities) to reduce risk, such as: (a) maintaining minimum capital adequacy ratios, (b) limiting new debt issuance, (c) restricting dividend payments, (d) limiting asset sales, (e) providing regular financial reports, and (f) maintaining minimum liquidity ratios. Breach of covenants allows debt holders to demand immediate repayment (acceleration) or renegotiate terms.

Credit Rating Agencies: Credit rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s, SandP, Fitch, Agusto and Co, GCR) assign credit ratings to banks based on their financial strength, governance, risk management, and probability of default. Lower credit ratings increase borrowing costs (higher interest rates) and may restrict access to capital markets. Banks with strong governance (independent boards, risk committees, transparent disclosure) receive higher credit ratings, reducing their cost of debt.

Market Discipline: Bondholders (holders of bank-issued bonds) can discipline banks by: (a) demanding higher interest rates (risk premium) for banks with weak governance, (b) selling bonds (driving down prices), (c) engaging with management and boards (bondholder meetings), and (d) taking legal action in case of default. Market discipline is more effective for bonds traded in liquid markets (Eurobonds, corporate bonds) than for deposits (which are insured) (Macey and O’Hara, 2003).

Depositors: Depositors are debt holders (their deposits are liabilities of the bank). However, deposit insurance (NDIC) reduces depositors’ incentive to monitor bank risk (moral hazard). Uninsured depositors (large depositors, corporate depositors) have more incentive to monitor, but still face collective action problems (free-rider). Depositors may withdraw their deposits (bank run) if they perceive governance failures (excessive risk-taking, insider abuse). Bank runs can lead to liquidity crises and bank failure.

Subordinated Debt: Subordinated debt (debt that ranks below other claims in liquidation) is designed to provide market discipline. Subordinated debt holders are not protected by deposit insurance and bear losses in case of bank failure. They have incentives to monitor bank risk and can demand higher interest rates for weak governance. Some regulators require banks to issue subordinated debt to enhance market discipline.

Securitization: Banks that securitise loans (sell loan portfolios to investors) transfer credit risk to investors. Securitisation reduces the bank’s incentive to monitor loan quality (originate-to-distribute model), potentially increasing risk. Governance mechanisms (risk retention, disclosure) are needed to address this moral hazard.

Role of Debt Holders in Corporate Governance: Debt holders complement shareholders in corporate governance. While shareholders focus on profitability and growth, debt holders focus on risk and stability. A balanced governance system considers the interests of both shareholders and debt holders. Banks with strong governance satisfy both shareholders (profitability) and debt holders (safety) (Macey and O’Hara, 2003).

Related Projects