European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 11 (2008)

© EuroJournals, Inc. 2008
http://www.eurojournalsn.com

The Usefulness of Corporate Governance and Financial

Ratios to Credit and Financial Analysts: Evidence from Bahrain

Jasim Al-Ajmi
Department of Economics and Finance, College of Business Administration
University of Bahrain, Bahrain
Tel: +973-39444284; Fax: +973-17449776
E-mail: jasimalajmi@gmail.com

Abstract
Financial ratios provide useful quantitative information to investors and analysts who want
to evaluate the operations of a firm and analyze its position within its industry over time.
The financial indicators that analysts use as basis for decisions are not necessarily all
equally useful. This study attempts to determine the perceptions of credit and financial
analysts working in financial institutions in Bahrain as to the usefulness of 71 financial
ratios and 6 attributes of corporate governance named in a questionnaire. There are no
significant differences between credit analysts and financial analysts with respect to 40 of
the indicators. Credit analysts consider the quick ratio the most useful ratio, followed by
the non-recurrent ratio. Financial analysts consider price-earnings the most useful ratio,
followed by the market-to-book ratio. The quality of corporate governance practices is also
considered important by financial analysts, but less important by credit analysts. These
results should be of interest to a variety of stakeholders, including credit analysts, financial
analysts, auditors, regulators and educators.

Keywords: Corporate governance, credit analysts, financial analysts, Bahrain, financial

ratios

1. Introduction
Accounting information is important for rationalizing the decisions of users of corporate reports in
many countries including Bahrain; Anderson (1981), Arnold and Moizer (1984), Chenhall and Juchau
(1977), Chang and Most (1985), Lee and Tweedie (1975a, b; 1981), Streuly (1994), Winfield (1978),
Naser (2003), Al-Razeen and Karbhari (2004) and Al-Ajmi (2007), among others. Among the most
important of the users groups are investors and creditors. Those users read the contents of financial
statements and calculate a variety of financial indicators before they make credit and investing
decisions, because they believe that financial indicators have predictive power.
Among the most widely used indicators are financial ratios. Financial ratios are used for a
number of reasons, to value firms [Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998)], to differentiate
creditworthy companies from others [Altman (1968), among others], to identify acquisition targets and
to indicate the process of organizational turnaround [Pearce (2007)]. Altman (1968) was the first to
develop a bankruptcy prediction model based on a set of financial ratios. Financial ratios have been
widely used ever since. This extensive use of financial ratios by practitioners and in the accounting and
finance literature is that those ratios are seen as proxies for firm fundamentals.
108 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

The usefulness of financial indicators depends largely on the integrity of financial statements.
The integrity of financial disclosure is directly related to the quality of a firm’s corporate governance
practices; see, for example, Kasznik and Lev (1995), Francis et al. (2004) and Wang (2006). Agency
conflicts between controlling shareholders and minority investors are found to account for a significant
portion of earnings management in China’s listed firms (Liu and Lu,2007). Corporate governance
practices are also found to impact credit ratings (Ashbaugh-Skaife, 2006) the cost of debt and firm
value (Gompers et al., 2003). Fitch (2004) asserts that shareholder and creditor interests are generally
aligned when better monitoring of management occurs. Other attributes of corporate governance have a
less clear impact on creditors.
The purpose of this research is twofold. I report the use of financial ratios by credit analysts and
financial analysts working in different financial institutions in Bahrain, to investigate (1) whether there
are any significant differences between the perceptions of financial ratios by the two groups, and (2)
the effect of corporate governance practices on investment and lending decisions. To the best of my
knowledge, this is the first published study on this question in Bahrain and the first survey related to
the usefulness of financial information and the importance of company annual reports.
The study makes several contributions. It provides the first survey of professional analysts on
the use of financial ratios in both credit and investment decisions in Bahrain. It thus provides a
benchmark for comparative studies to identify the determinants of stock prices, firm values and
company performance. It also provides evidence of users’ need for non-financial information that is not
currently disclosed by companies for investment and credit decisions. Regulators, auditors and
managers can use the results to determine the disclosure of accounting information that facilitates
decision-making. Accounting and finance professors can use the results to identify the ratios to
emphasize in teaching and curriculum development. Results on the importance of the quality of
corporate governance in lending and investment decisions contribute to the literature on governance.

2. Brief Literature Review

Altman’s (1968) model to predict company bankruptcy promoted a huge literature on the usefulness of
financial ratios. For extensive reviews of different of aspects of financial ratios, see Chen and Shimerda
(1981), Salmi and Martikainen (1994), Dimitras et al. (1996) and Kumar and Ravi (2007).
Another perspective comes from studies that survey actual users of corporate reports. Some of
this research finds that credit analysts and financial analysts attach particular importance to corporate
reports. If this is the case, readers of corporate reports need to use analytical approaches to evaluate the
financial information. One of the most common approaches is financial ratios.
Ratios are classified into groups on the basis of different criteria. One way to group ratios is on
the basis of the contents of the ratio; that is, cash flow ratios and other ratios. Another is on the basis of
the aspects they measure; that is profitability ratios, activity ratios, leverage ratios, liquidity ratios and
investors’ (market) ratios.
Chen and Shimerda (1981) review 26 articles that classify 100 financial indicators, 65 of them
financial ratios. They report that 41 financial ratios are considered important, given citation in one
more of the 26 articles. In identifying bankrupt firms: Their final model, however, includes only seven
financial indicators, namely, return on investment, debt ratio, the current ratio, cash position, net
working capital turnover, inventory turnover and accounts receivable turnover. The bankruptcy model
for industrial companies developed by Gombola and Ketz (1983) adds to these factors a cash flow
measure.
Sun and Li (2006) have developed a model to predict companies’ financial distress, testing 35
financial ratios for 135 pairs of listed companies. Their final distress prediction model includes net
profit growth rate, liabilities to tangible net assets, accounts receivable turnover, liabilities to cash flow,
liabilities to equity market value, total asset turnover and gross profit margin.
There are interesting observations in a comprehensive review by Kumar and Ravi (2007) of 128
articles between 1968 and 2005 that attempt to investigate bankruptcy problems for banks and other
109 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

firms, over different countries and including statistical techniques ranging from traditional to
innovative. The author’s was to compare the primary techniques in bankruptcy prediction. Despite
similarities in many of the studies, Kumar and Ravi (2007) show differences in the financial ratios and
non-financial indicators such as firm age, degree of competitiveness, fraud and size that were finally
used in the bankruptcy prediction models. While all 128 models reviewed include liquidity indicators,
leverage, profitability and asset management, the ratios used to measure these attributes are not
universal; that is researchers use different financial ratios as proxies for the same attribute. Models also
differ in terms of the number of independent variables used to predict bankruptcy.
A considerable body of research in the finance literature finds that financial ratios can
differentiate value stocks from glamour stocks (see, for example, Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1995,
1996, 1998), Ho et al. (2006) and Morelli (2007), among others]. Ratios considered as measures of
company fundamentals that are able to explain the cross-sectional variation between stock rates of
returns are price-to-earnings, dividends to price, market-to-book and retained earnings to total assets.
Matsumoto et al. (1995) examine security analysts’ views on the financial ratios of
manufacturing and retailing companies in the United States. They include in their questionnaire 63
indicators classified into 8 groups: profitability ratios, leverage ratios, inventory turnover ratios,
receivable turnover ratios, cash flow ratios, liquidity ratios, capital turnover ratios and cash position
ratios. The analysts ranked growth rates as the most important, followed by valuation ratios and
profitability ratios. EPS measures and leverage ratios are ranked slightly lower. Cash flow ratios,
liquidity and cash position are ranked 6th, 10th and 13th. Surprisingly, dividend ratios are ranked 7th
after the liquidity ratios.
Most recently, Al-Abdulqader et al. (2007) undertook a comprehensive survey of the
investment decision processes used by a variety of analysts in Saudi Arabia. Among the three groups
surveyed (small investors, large investors and local shares mediators, the latter considered to be more
knowledgeable about markets and more educated compared with the other two). The P/E ratio is
ranked first. Profitability ratios come next, followed by estimated future dividends, while turnover
ratios are ranked last of the 11 groups of ratios. The authors do not list the financial ratios included in
the survey.
Cash flow based financial ratios require additional examination because cash flow statements
offer ways to evaluate performance. Yet many corporate finance textbooks generally pay little attention
to cash flow-based financial ratios; see, for example, Brigham and Basely (2007). If cash flow
information is useful but unused, the logical conclusion is that analysts are not analyzing the available
data properly Carslaw and Mills (1991). Close analysis of the studies reviewed by Kumar and Ravi
(2007) reveals that not all authors included cash flow measures. This observation also applies to studies
published after companies started to comply with the requirements of SFAS 95 in 1988.
Many new cash flow ratios are discussed in the recent professional business literature or used in
financial statements in countries where the cash flow statement is mandatory. No comprehensive set of
cash flow ratios has been agreed upon for evaluation of the cash flow statement, however. Different
users may apply different financial ratios even for the same purpose. When different financial ratios are
used comparison of results becomes rather complex Gombola and Ketz (1993).
Giacomino and Mielke (1993) propose nine cash flow ratios to evaluate a company's
performance and use than to evaluate US companies in the chemical, food and electronic industries,
calculating three-year averages per industry. The industries were chosen had the largest number of
companies among the Fortune 500.
On the basis of empirical analysis ove 1986-1988, Giacomino and Mielke (1993) suggest a set
of cash flow ratios for relative performance evaluation using the primary operating activities that are
the primary activities of a company as a component of each ratio. The ratios are used to evaluate the
sufficiency and efficiency of operating cash flows. Sufficiency means the ability of a company to
provide for its cash requirements and efficiency means the extent to which cash is generated over time
and compared to other companies.
110 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

Using the ratios suggested by Giacomino and Mielke (1993), Juchau and Ross (1994) studied
ratio analysis of companies in the Australian food industry over 1992-1993. A comparison between
cash flow ratios of the Australian and US food industries indicates they are significantly different.
Jooste (1999) performs a similar evaluation of South African food companies for the period
1994-1996, after companies were required to include cash flow statements in financial reports.
Comparison with the norms calculated for the same industries in the United States reveals. The
industry ratios in South Africa were calculated over a three-year period 1994-1996. Giacomino and
Mielke (1993) suggest that three-year averages may be used as norms with the potential to serve as
benchmarks for the industries.
A repeat of the analysis in Jooste (2006) compares the nine cash flow ratios in three industries,
chemicals, food and electronics in South Africa and the United States. The ratios differ in the two
countries.
The extensive research on financial ratios reveals their importance in many important decisions,
including financing and investment decisions. At the same time, there is no universal agreement about
the ratios to be used in each decision, even in the same environment. For example, Ezzamel et al.
(1987) find that in a study of bankrupt British firms in 1973, 1977 and 1981 that no single model can
be used in each year studied, even when the methodology is the same.
In the wake of the corporate scandals that hit America and Europe in the early 1990s,
stakeholders started looking beyond the specific contents of financial statements. Poor corporate
governance is widely cited as one reason for company problems.
In response to those scandals, the US Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with
the aim of strengthening corporate governance practices. Standard & Poor’s (2002) states that
corporate governance practices play a significant role both in determining a company’s
creditworthiness and supporting the integrity of financial disclosure. Fitch (2004) also argues that
corporate governance is important to both equity holders and lenders and that a borrower’s corporate
governance must be addressed in the process of determining a credit rating.
Ashbaugh-Skaife et al. (2006) confirm the link between governance and credit ratings. Griep
and Samson (2002) argue that poor corporate governance practices that allow misapplication of
company resources, management incentives that can compromise long-term stability for short-term
gain and inadequate oversight of the integrity of financial disclosure can undermine creditworthiness.
They also assert that strong corporate governance, demonstrated in part by an active, independent
board that participates in determining and monitoring the control environment, can serve to make
financial disclosures credible.
Yet Collins and Ashbaugh (2004) report that the quality of corporate governance is not a factor
in Standard & Poor’s credit ratings absent red flags on whether a board is providing adequate checks
and balances to management. In a study of the effect of corporate governance practices and firm
performance in Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand, Nam and Nam (2004) report conflicting
results.
There is plenty of research on the relation between corporate governance and firm value
(McConnell and Servaes, 1990; Kapoff et al. 1996, Yermack, 1996, Gompers et al., 2003, for example).
Gompers et al. (2003) report a positive relation between the quality of corporate governance and firm value.
Firm value and characteristics of leveraged buyouts are found to be related to corporate governance
practices (Nikoskelainen and Wright, 2007). Company performance is also found to be linked to corporate
governance (He, 2007). Chhaochharia and Grinstein (2007), however, report that firms that comply less
with the provisions of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act earn a higher abnormal rate of return than firms that are
more compliant.
Jenson and Meckling (1976) provide the theoretical framework for studies of corporate
governance. They consider firms to represent a set of contracts between stakeholders. As a result, there
are “agency relationships” between parties. Two of those relationships are relevant to this research: (1)
between managers and shareholders and (2) between bondholders and shareholders. The separation of
ownership and control in modern corporate organizations produces information asymmetry problems
111 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

between external stakeholders and managers. Shareholders in levered firms have incentives to
undertake actions that can transfer wealth from bondholders to themselves.

3. Methodology
This section provides brief description of the the survey instrument, the sample, the respondents and
the reliability of the questionnaire.

Instrument, Sample and the Respondents

My methodology is similar to that adopted elsewhere in the accounting and finance literature.
Researchers who use a survey to gather information from users of financial ratios include Bouman et
al. (1987), Gipson (1987), Anderson (1988), Matsumoto et al. (1995) and Al-Abdulqader (2007).
Only commonly cited ratios are included in the survey instrument; an exhaustive list of choices
might affect the response rate. Non-response biases can occur when a certain group of respondents
systematically avoids returning questionnaires.
The final version of the questionnaire is divided into four sections. The first section requires
respondents to provide information about their age, type of financial institution they work with, job,
length of experience and highest level of qualifications. The second section names the 71 ratios shown
in Table 1. Respondents were asked to determine a ratio’s level of usefulness on a five-point Likert
scale where a rating of 1 represents “very useful” and 5 is represents “least useful.” A rating of 3 is
thus the midpoint between the two extremes, and ratings of 2 and 4 represent the midpoint of their
adjacent scores.
The third section seeks respondents’ opinion on the relative importance of five attributes of
corporate governance practices in credit and lending decisions. These attributes are drawn from
empirical literature in the area because there is so far no well-developed theory or model of the
economic determinants of governance attributes (Hermalin and Weisbach, 2003). Sections two and
three assume that both creditworthiness and firm value are functions of a firm’s financial
characteristics and its corporate governance practices.
The fourth section lets respondents volunteer their opinions regarding the issues. Respondents
were asked to assume that they are either lending to or investing in a manufacturing or retailing
company in Bahrain.
The survey questionnaires were distributed to 450 respondents working in retail banks,
wholesale banks and investment companies, 250 to credit analysts and 200 to financial analysts. 244
usable questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 53.11 percent response rate. Of the 244 responses
130 were from credit analysts, and 114 were from financial analysts, resulting in a 52 and 57 percent
response rates from.
To evaluate the possibility of a non-response bias, I compared results of the first 15
questionnaires received the last 15 received from both financial analysts. Both tests indicate that there
was no significant difference between the results of the questionnaires received early with those
received late, which indicated that there is no response bias.
112 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)
Table 1: Financial Ratios included in the Survey

1. EPS growth rate 37. Dividends/CFFO

2. Sales growth rate 38. Total debt/CFFO
3. Sustainable growth rate 39. (Depreciation + Amortization)/CFFO
4. Total assets growth rate 40. Cash flow/long-term debt
5. Price Earnings Ratio 41. Cash flow/sales
6. Market value/cash flow = Price/cash flow per share 42. Cash flow per share/book value per share
7. Market-to-book ratio (MB) 43. Cash flow/current liabilities
8. Price/Sales per share 44. Cash flow/total assets
9. Price/ Net Working Capital per share 45. (CFFO+I interest paid)/interest paid
10. Operation Profit Margin 46. Cash flow/total debt
Cash flow/current maturities (notes payable + current bond
11. Returns on Equity (ROE) 47.
payable)
12. Returns on Sales (ROS) 48. CFFO/Income from continuing operations
13. Gross profit margin 49. Dividend payout ratio
14. Return on common 50. Dividend yield
15. ROI = (EBIT+I)/total assets 51. Retention rate= (EPS-DPS)/EPS
16. Net Income/Total Assets 52. Dividend growth rate
17. Operating Profit to total assets 53. Current ratio
18. Operating profit to equity 54. Quick ratio
19. EPS – Fully diluted 55. Quick assets/total assets
20. EPS – Primary 56. Current assets/total assets
21. Non-recurrent EPS 57. Net Working Capital/Sales
22. Long-term debt/total capital 58. Net Working Capital /total assets
23. Fixed charges coverage (FCC) 59. Current liabilities/equity
24. Total debt/equity 60. Current liabilities/total assets
25. Long-term debt /equity 61. Sales/total assets
26. Times Interest Earned 62. Sales/net fixed assets
27. Total Debt/Total Assets 63. Sales/equity
28. Long-term debt/total assets 64. Current assets turnover
29. EBIT/current maturates (notes payable+ current bond payable) 65. Cash/ Current liabilities
30. Selling period = inventory/(sales/365) 66. Cash/ total assets
31. Sales/inventory 67. Cash/Sales
32. COGS/inventory 68. Research expenditures per share/sales per share
33. Average Collection period = receivables/(sales/365) 69. Capital expenditure per share/book value per share
34. Receivable turnover ratio 70. Receivables/inventory
35. Cash flow from Operation/(LTD+ Purchases of assets + dividend paid) 71. Retained earnings/total assets
36. Long-term debt payments/CFFO
CFFO: Cash flow from operation, EPS: Earnings per share, NWC = net working capital, EBIT= Earnings before interest and taxes, DPS= Dividends
payout ratio.

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 2. In terms of type
of financial institution for, 46.7 percent of the respondents work for retail banks and 53.3 percent for
wholesale banks. 32.8 percent have experience of less than 5 years; 37.7 percent 5-9; 22.1 percent, 10-
15 years and 7.4 percent 15 years or more. Of the 244 respondents, approximately 53.3 percent (130)
were credit analysts and 46.7 percent (114) were financial analysts. 45 percent of respondents were
aged between of 20 and 29; 30 percent, 30-39; 15 percent, 40-49 and 11 percent, 50 or more. The
distribution according to qualifications shows that 37.7 percent hold B.Sc. degrees; 36.5 percent
graduate qualifications and 25.8 percent of the respondents professional qualifications such as ACCA,
CPA and CFA. The respondents’ education levels and length of experience indicate that they are in a
good position to respond to the questionnaire.
113 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)
Table 2: Sample Characteristics

Institution Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Retail Bank 114 46.7 46.7
Wholesale Bank 130 53.3 100.0
Total 244 100.0

Position Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Credit Analyst 130 53.3 53.3
Financial Analyst 114 46.7 100.0
Total 244 100.0

Length of Experience Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Less than 5 Years 80 32.8 32.8
5 Years to Less than 10 Years 92 37.7 70.5
10 Years and Less than 15 Years 54 22.1 92.6
Longer than 15 Years 18 7.4 100.0
Total 244 100.0

Highest Level of Qualification Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

B.Sc. 92 37.7 37.7
Graduate Degree 89 36.5 74.2
ACC/CA/CFA/CPA 63 25.8 100.0
Total 244 100.0

Age Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

20 years - 29 Years 109 44.7 44.7
30 Years - 39 Years 72 29.5 74.2
40 Years - 49 Years 36 14.8 89.0
50 Years and More 27 11.1 100.0
Total 244 100.0

Reliability of the Instrument

To verify the reliability of the questionnaire as internally consistent in measuring the qualitative
variable, “usefulness of the ratios” for financing and investment decisions from the perspective of
credit and financial analysts, I use the Cronbach’s alpha method. Reliability analysis indicates that:
• For the responses of both groups, an alpha value equivalent to 0.941.
• For the responses of credit analysts, an alpha value equivalent to 0.948.
• For the responses of financial analysts, an alpha value of 0.936.
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), Peterson (1994) and Streiner and Norman (2003) argue that an
alpha value similar to 0.7 is usually considered the minimum level for preliminary investigation, 0.8
for basic investigation and 0.9 for applied investigation. McKinley et al. (1997) indicate an alpha level
of 0.61 implies a moderately high coefficient of reliability. Accordingly, by any benchmark, from the
reliability values obtained, the questionnaire seems to have an acceptable internal consistency. These
high Cronbach alphas should not be of surprise because of the nature of the financial ratios; some of
them are related to each other and sometimes a group of them might be used to measure one of the
aspects of interest to users of financial statements.

4. Results
Table 3 depicts the mean ranking of the financial ratios according to level of usefulness as perceived by
both credit analysts and investment analysts. As the respondents’ perceptions are random, to determine
the level of usefulness of each ratio, I assume that an average score of at least 4.5, the ratio is
considered very useful; an average score higher than 3.5 and 4.5 means the ratio is useful; if average
114 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

score is between higher 2.5 and 3.5 means the ratio is moderately useful; if the mean score is between
more than 1.5 and 2.5 the ratio is assumed to be less useful; and if the mean score is higher than 1.5
means the ratio is least useful.
Furthermore, following Matsumoto et al. (1995) the ratios are classified into 13 groups: growth
rate ratios, valuation ratios, profitability ratios, EPS measures, leverage ratios, capital turnover ratios,
cash flow ratios, cash position ratios, inventory ratios, liquidity ratios, receivable turnover ratio,
dividend ratios and other ratios. This classification includes particular ratios that are seen by many as
more useful to investors than to credit analysts. The section that includes cash-flow based ratios aims at
investigating the importance of those ratios, even though they might be classified within some of the
other 12 groups.
The questionnaire does not divide the financial ratios into the 13 groups but rather mixes them.
The rationale was to make it less likely that respondents would give ratios in the same group similar
ratings simply because they were listed one together.
Preliminary analysis of the responses shows that the mean ranks of credit analysts range
between 4.52 and 3.41; one ratio is considered highly useful, one ratio moderately useful and 69 ratios
useful. The mean ranks of ratios for financial analysts range between 4.61 and 3.06; five ratios are
considered to be highly useful, four moderately useful, and 62 ratios useful. Combining both groups,
the mean ranks of ratios range between 4.53 and 3.26.
These results indicate that ratios included in the questionnaire are considered at least
moderately useful by each group of users. Mean responses to each financial ratio were tested against
the null hypothesis that the means are not significantly different from zero. The results of a series of t-
tests show that all means were significantly different from zero for the responses of each group.
To ascertain whether there are any perceived differences between the credit analyst and
financial analyst groups responses to the survey items, I carried out a series of t-tests on the data
collected from the two groups. Before that I checked to see whether the variances of the responses of
the two groups were equal; one of the assumptions of the t-test is equality or inequality of variance
between the variance of the two groups.
115 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)
Table 3: Mean Rank Scores of Financial Ratios by Credit and Financial Analysts

Credit Analysts Financial Analysts Mean

Ratio
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Difference
Growth Rates
EPS growth rate 4.45 0.599 4.43 0.609 -0.0242
Sales growth rate 4.40 0.592 4.16 0.686 -0.2422
Sustainable growth rate 4.18 0.840 4.28 0.588 +0.1041
Total assets growth rate 3.41 1.173 3.09 1.085 -0.3201,2
Valuation Ratios
Price Earnings Ratio 3.84 0.979 4.61 0.541 0.7761,2
Market value/cash flow = Price/cash flow per
3.79 0.860 3.66 1.128 -0.1341
share
Price/Sales per share 4.03 0.889 3.84 0.826 -0.189
Market-to-Book 3.82 0.752 4.56 0.549 0.7382
Price/ Net Working Capital per share 3.91 0.884 3.28 1.018 -0.6271,2
Profitability Ratios
Operation Profit Margin 4.03 0.889 3.84 0.826 -0.189
Returns on Equity (ROE) 4.35 0.619 4.51 0.599 0.1632
Returns on Sales (ROS) 4.13 0.875 4.07 0.713 -0.0611
Gross profit margin 4.13 0.811 4.35 0.716 0.2202
Return on common 4.05 0.905 3.75 0.878 -0.2922
ROI = (EBIT+I)/total assets 4.11 0.819 3.53 1.066 -0.5811,2
Net Income/Total Assets 3.92 0.630 4.05 0.891 0.1301
Operating Profit to total assets 4.28 0.747 4.45 0.499 0.170
Operating profit to equity 4.48 0.625 4.01 0.698 -0.4762
EPS Measures
EPS – Fully diluted 3.81 1.035 4.01 0.906 0.087
EPS – Primary 4.45 0.500 3.89 0.502 0.046
Non-recurrent EPS 4.51 0.502 4.50 0.498 0.054
Leverage Ratios
Long-term debt/total capital 4.25 0.916 4.10 0.950 -0.150
Fixed Charges Coverage 4.46 0.684 4.36 0.811 -0.1021
Total debt/equity 4.05 1.008 3.11 1.387 -0.8941,2
Long-term debt /equity 3.78 1.080 3.65 0.872 -0.128
Times Interest Earned 4.11 0.662 4.10 0.912 -0.0111
Total Debt/Total Assets 4.28 0.647 4.01 0.825 -0.2682
Long-term debt/total assets 4.12 1.042 4.06 0.656 -0.0621
EBIT/current maturates (notes payable+ current
3.74 0.803 4.13 0.847 0.3932
bond payable)
Inventory Ratios
Selling period = inventory/(sales/365) 4.18 0.762 4.10 0.579 -0.0801
Sales/inventory 4.18 0.691 4.00 0.532 -0.1851,2
COGS/inventory 4.32 0.728 4.21 0.746 -0.113
Receivable Turnover
Average Collection period =
3.95 0.905 4.15 0.812 0.195
receivables/(sales/365)
Receivable turnover ratio 4.14 0.775 3.81 0.786 -0.3312
Cash Flow Ratios
Cash flow from Operation/(LTD+ Purchases of
4.08 0.924 3.81 0.977 -0.2782
assets + dividend paid)
Long-term debt payments/CFFO 4.11 0.856 3.86 0.840 -0.2482
Dividends/CFFO 3.53 1.156 3.92 0.997 0.3901,2
Total debt/CFFO 3.83 0.873 3.53 1.099 -0.3041,2
(Depreciation + Amortization)/CFFO 3.92 0.969 3.80 0.843 -0.125
CFFO/Income from continuing operations 4.05 0.874 3.99 0.836 -0.063
CFFO/total debt 3.69 0.939 3.81 0.861 0.115
1
F Levene's test is significant at .05 or less
2
t test is significant at .05 or less
116 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)
Table 3: Mean Rank Scores of Financial Ratios by Credit and Financial Analysts (Continued)
Credit Analysts Financial Analysts Mean
Ratio
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Difference
CFFO/current maturities (notes payable + current 4.12 0.797 3.78 1.054 -0.3421,2
bond payable)
CFFO/long-term debt 4.02 0.687 4.08 0.832 0.0561
CFFO/sales 4.25 0.758 4.07 0.838 -0.176
CFFO per share/book value per share 4.24 0.786 4.13 0.659 -0.107
CFFO/current liabilities 4.20 0.811 3.06 0.708 -1.1391,2
CFFO/total assets 3.48 1.036 4.18 0.732 0.6911,2
CFFO+IP/Interest paid 4.08 0.890 3.96 0.775 -0.1201
Dividend Ratios
Dividend payout ratio 3.58 1.018 4.20 0.706 0.6171,2
Dividend yield 3.88 1.001 4.25 0.659 0.3611,2
Retention rate= (EPS-DPS)/EPS 3.88 1.001 4.25 0.659 0.3611,2
Dividend growth rate 3.95 0.746 4.27 0.779 0.3181,2
Liquidity Ratios
Current ratio 4.35 0.765 4.03 1.034 -0.3201,2
Quick ratio 4.52 0.673 3.86 1.012 -0.6561,2
Quick assets/total assets 4.33 0.771 4.21 0.836 -0.120
Current assets/total assets 4.22 0.816 4.27 0.790 0.057
Net Working Capital/Sales 3.89 1.013 3.88 0.894 -0.015
Net Working Capital /total assets 3.82 1.038 3.75 0.929 -0.077
Current liabilities/equity 3.93 1.058 3.95 0.739 0.0171
Current liabilities/total assets 3.85 0.836 3.92 0.970 0.067
Capital Turnover Ratios
Sales/total assets 4.09 0.731 4.10 0.691 0.004
Sales/net fixed assets 4.18 0.709 4.09 0.659 -0.0891
Sales/equity 4.02 0.936 3.85 0.971 -0.172
Sales to Current Assets 3.99 0.885 3.53 1.006 -0.4662
Cash Position
Cash/ Current liabilities 4.08 0.803 3.68 0.834 -0.3932
Cash/ total assets 3.96 0.968 4.22 0.975 0.2582
Cash/Sales 4.05 1.029 3.92 0.961 -0.133
Others
Research expenditures per share/sales per share 4.17 0.949 4.15 0.924 -0.020
Capital expenditure per share/book value per share 4.18 0.913 4.26 0.776 0.079
Receivables/inventory 3.78 0.975 3.84 0.888 0.065
Retained earnings/total assets 3.93 0.990 3.89 0.856 -0.036
1
F Levene's test is significant at .05 or less
2
t test is significant at .05 or less

I used Levene’s test rather than an alternative Bartlett test because the former is less sensitive
than the latter to departures from normality. On the bases of Levene's test for equality of variances
indicates that for 31 financial ratios the variances of the responses are significantly different from one
another. Therefore, for those ratios t-tests were performed on the assumption that the variances are
heterogeneous. The t-test results supported this finding, showing a significant disagreement between
the two groups on only 31 of 71 total financial ratios. These results indicate that the responses of the
remaining ratios (40) in the two groups could be merged into one dataset and used for subsequent
analysis.
It is worth noting that the t-tests results were not affected by heterogeneity of the variances of
the perceptions of the credit and financial analysts to the 31 ratios; this is because the tests produced
the same outcomes when they were run once on the assumption that the variances were homogeneus
and then on the assumption that the variances were heterogeneous. Furthermore, the mean responses of
credit and financial analysts to 17 of 31 ratios were found to differ significantly.
Both credit analysts and financial analysts perceived growth rate ratios as useful or moderately
useful. Both groups of analysts considered the EPS growth rate the most useful with a mean rank of
117 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

4.45 by credit analysts and 4.43 by financial analysts. The least popular growth rate ratio for both
groups was total asset growth rate. These results are similar to those reported by Matsumoto et al.
(1995), although groups differ in their perceptions of sustainable growth rate and sales growth rate.
Perceptions valuation ratios show that credit analysts perceived as less useful than financial
analysts do. Mean ranks for the five valuation ratios by credit analysts are below 4.00 except for stock
price/sales per share, which is perceived as the most useful ratio followed by stock price to net working
capital per share with a mean rank of 3.94. The financial analysts consider the price-earnings ratio the
most useful with a mean rank of 4.61 followed by the market-to-book value ratio with a mean rank of
4.56. In fact the financial analysts see the price-earnings ratio as the most useful ratio of all for
investment decisions.
These observations should not come as surprise if we consider the purpose of financial analysis
and credit analysis; the purpose of the first is to determine the value of the company’s stock, out of the
latter to determine the creditworthiness of prospective borrowers. The perception of the usefulness of
the price-earnings ratio by financial analysts is line with the findings of Al-Abdulqader et al. (2007).
The mean rank of the ratio price to net working capital per share is seen as the least useful by financial
analysts. This is not a popular ratio in the investment industry, see Matsumoto et al. (1995).
The nine profitability ratios are ranked useful by both groups, as the mean ranks of the ratios by
credit analysts ranged between 4.48 for operating profit to equity and 3.92 for net income to total assets
(ROA). For the financial analysts, return to equity (ROE) received a mean rank of 4.51, while return on
investment (ROI, earnings before interest and taxes divided by assets) received a mean rank of 3.53.
Other financial ratios generally used by analysts to evaluate company profitability are different
forms of earnings per share. Both groups perceived the three EPS ratios included in the questionnaire
as either very useful or useful, with the exception of fully diluted EPS. Both groups saw non-recurrent
EPS as the most useful ratio of these, and that fully diluted EPS was seen by both groups as least
useful.
It should not be seen as a surprise, because convertible securities are not common in Bahrain.
As of July 2007, only one bank of the 41 listed on the Bahrain Stock Exchange has convertible
preferred stock outstanding, and that represents the only issue that has taken place in the country.
The questionnaire includes eight leverage ratios. Five of them measure the extent to which a
company uses debt; the other three measure the company’s ability to generate profit to cover different
types of commitments arising from the use of the debt. Both groups of analysts would be expected to
be highly concerned as to the burden arising from the excessive use of debt, which might lead to
default or in the worst case scenario to bankruptcy. The mean ranks indicate the perceptions indicate
that both groups consider the eight ratios useful, although, the ranks of are lower than those reported by
Matsumoto et al. (1995).
One possible explanation for the differences between my results and those reported by
Matsumoto et al. (1995) is the context within which the two surveys were administered. In Bahrain,
unlike the US, non-financial listed firms maintain very low debt ratios, which make leverage ratios less
useful than leverage ratios in analysis of the financial statements of American firms. According to the
Bahrain Stock Exchange, the debt-to-total assets ratio was 25.82 percent for the service sector in 2006,
3.42 percent for the industrial sector and 11.41 percent for the hotel and tourism sector. These figures
should be read with caution, as listed companies might not berepresentative of non-listed firms.
Managing inventories is considered vital for both the success of manufacturing and retailing
companies. The mean rank scores of the three inventory ratios indicate that both credit and financial
analysts find them useful. Inventory turnover (cost of goods sold divided by inventory) is considered
by both groups as the most useful of the three.
Companies make credit decisions with the idea of increasing revenues. The extension of credit
risk, however, increases because purchasers may default. Two credit ratios are included in the
questionnaire to solicit the opinion the participants on their usefulness in lending and investment
decisions.
118 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

The mean rank scores show that both groups consider credit ratios useful. The ranks are
relatively low might be because of the time period during of survey administration when Bahrain was
enjoying an economic boom (February and March 2007). T-tests also show for average collection
period ratio not significantly different but a significantly different for perceptions of the two groups
was from zero, while that of the accounts receivable turnover.
According to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB), the primary purpose of the cash flow statement is to allow assessment of a
company’s liquidity, solvency, viability and financial adaptability. Both credit analysts and financial
analysts rank cash flow based ratios lower than non-cash-based ratios. Nor do they rank any cash-flow-
based ratios in the top ten most useful ratios. These results lend further support to those report in Al-
Ajmi (2007) that investors in Bahrain consider both the balance sheet and the income statement as
more important than the cash flow statement.
One possible reason for such a perception lies in the advanced education systems. In
introductory accounting and finance courses taught at the University of Bahrain, the largest institution
in Bahrain that offers business degrees, and the only university until 2002 that has a business college,
students are taught (implicitly) that the balance sheet and income statement are more useful than the
cash flow statement. For example, the syllabus for the first corporate finance course shows that
students need to review only the balance sheet and income statements and not the statement of cash
flows before calculating financial ratios, which in turn do not include any cash-flow based ratios.
Another reason might simply due to the preference of credit analysts and financial analysts. Based on a
restricted sample, Liu et al. (2002) report that multiples based on reported earnings outperform
multiples based on a variety of reported operating cash flow measures. Similar results are reported in
Liu (2007) when the same exercise extended to samples of companies.
Most of the cash flow based ratios received higher mean rankings than those reported by
Matsumoto et al. (1995). One reason may be the time period, because the Matsumoto et al. (1995)
study was conducted shortly after the introduction of the SFAS 95, while my study was completed
after nearly two decades after companies started publishing cash flow statements.
Ranks of ratios are also much higher than those reported by Al-Abdulqader et al. (2007). A
possible reasons lies in the respondents educational qualifications and experience, as my sample is
confined to professional credit and financial analysts. Other samples include investors, 45 percent of
whom do not have the academic background to appreciate the usefulness of financial ratios.
There three cash position ratios in the questionnaire. Their mean ranks indicate that these are
not among the most popular financial ratios used. Analysts give more weight to cash-flow-based ratios
in lending and investing decisions. Tests of the significance of the mean rank scores differences in
perception of credit and financial analysts showed that both groups were homogeneous in their
perceptions of the usefulness of the cash-to-sales ratio and heterogeneous as to the other two ratios.
Dividends represent one of the reasons investors hold shares for the long term. Five dividend
ratios are included in the questionnaire. The mean ranks of those ratios indicate that financial analysts
perceived them five ratios as more useful for investment decisions compared with how those ratios
were perceived by financial analysts. Four ratios were ranked above four, but the fifth one which is
dividends to cash flow from operations was given a mean rank of 4.11. The mean rank score
differences of the five ratios are significant at less than the 5 percent significance level.
The perceptions of these ratios by financial analysts lend further support to findings report in
Al-Ajmi (2007) in a survey of individual private investors. He found that individual investors prefer to
invest in dividend-paying firms. One possible reasons for is that capital gains on stocks listed on the
Bahrain Stock Exchange are relatively low.
Liquidity ratios are financial indicators used to formulate an opinion about the company’s
ability to meet its short-term commitments. Eight liquidity ratios were included in the questionnaire.
The mean ranks of responses indicate that credit analysts perceive liquidity ratios, on average, as more
useful than financial analysts. The quick ratio was for credit analysts the most popular with a mean
119 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

rank score of 4.52, while financial analysts found the current ratio the most popular (4.03). Both groups
seem to consider liquidity ratios useful in both credit and investment decisions.
The quality of a firm’s asset management is judged on the basis of a number of financial
indicators. To see which financial ratios are perceived as useful in lending and investing decisions,
three capital turnover ratios are included in the questionnaire: total asset turnover (sales/total assets),
net fixed asset turnover (sales/net fixed assets) and current asset turnover ratio (sales/current Assets).
An equity turnover also included. The results show that both groups consider all four ratios useful.
Four final ratios were included in the questionnaire that do not fall into any other groups:
research and development expenditures per share to sales per share; capital expenditure per share to
book value per share; receivables to inventory turnover and retained earnings to total assets. All ratios
were perceived to be useful by both groups’; the most popular were R&D expenditures per share to
sales per share and capital expenditure per share to book value per share. These ratios could be
interpreted to imply growth opportunities that companies might enjoy in the future.
Table 4 lists the 15 ratios in order of the usefulness to both credit analysts and financial
analysts. For credit analysts, liquidity ratios and profitability ratios are the most popular, while
financial analysts’ list demonstrates that valuation, dividends and profitability ratios are generally the
most popular. The differences relates to the different types of decisions that particular analysts must
make.
The relatively low ratings on most of the financial ratios may indicate that credit analysts and
financial analysts use other information (financial and non-financial) or financial indicators in taking
investment and lending decisions. To enhance our understanding of analyst lending and investment
appraisal process, we include in the third section further questions regarding the impact of corporate
governance on these decisions.
Six attributes of corporate governance are included: audit processes and quality; board structure
and processes; financial stakeholder rights and relations; financial transparency and information
disclosure; ownership structure and influence and related party transactions. These attributes are drawn
from the corporate governance literature (see, for example, Ashbaugh-Skaife et al., 2006) and credit
rating company practices (see Fitch, 2004).
No specific indicators of each attributes are included in the questionnaire because non-financial
companies are not required to comply with a particular code of corporate governance, and there is no
general agreement among researchers and practitioners as to how to measure corporate governance.
Nam and Nam (2004) argue that determining the quality of corporate governance is subjective and can
be controversial, and analysts are unlikely to agree on whether or not a certain aspect of corporate
governance should be included or how much weight to give to each aspect.
120 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)
Table 4: The Most Fifteen Popular Ratios as perceived by Credit and Financial Analysts

Credit Analysts Financial Analysts

Std. Std.
Ratios Mean Ratio Mean
Deviation Deviation
Quick ratio 4.52 0.673 Price Earnings Ratio 4.61 0.541
Non-recurrent EPS 4.51 0.502 Market-to-Book 4.56 0.549
Operating profit to equity 4.48 0.625 Non-recurrent EPS 4.56 0.498
Fixed Charges Coverage 4.46 0.684 Returns on Equity (ROE) 4.51 0.599
EPS growth rate 4.45 0.599 EPS – Primary 4.50 0.502
EPS – Primary 4.45 0.500 Operating Profit to total assets 4.45 0.499
Sales growth rate 4.40 0.592 EPS growth rate 4.43 0.609
Returns on Equity (ROE) 4.35 0.619 Fixed Charges Coverage 4.36 0.811
Current ratio 4.35 0.765 Gross profit margin 4.35 0.716
Quick assets/total assets 4.33 0.771 Sustainable growth rate 4.28 0.588
COGS/inventory 4.32 0.728 Dividend growth rate 4.27 0.779
Operating Profit to total assets 4.28 0.747 Current assets/total assets 4.27 0.790
Total Debt/Total Assets Capital expenditure per share/book
4.28 0.647 4.26 0.776
value per share
Long-term debt/total capital 4.25 0.916 Dividend yield 4.25 0.659
Cash flow/sales 4.25 0.758 Retention rate= (EPS-DPS)/EPS 4.25 0.659

The means of the relative importance and standard deviations of the components are shown in
Table 5. Each groups’ ranking of the different items, while similar, varies in a number of important
respects. Both groups rank audit process and quality as the most important attribute, but the financial
analysts give it a higher rank than the credit analysts. Similarly, both groups rank financial stakeholder
rights and relations in second place, while financial analysts attach more importance to it than credit
analysts. Similar rankings, however, do not necessarily imply that an attribute has a similar effect on
decisions. The groups rank the remaining four attributes in different order.
The relatively low ranking of the six attributes, especially by credit analysts, do not reflect
growing interest in the issue by regulators. The Central Bank of Bahrain, the regulator of financial
institutions and capital markets, has taken a series of steps toward improving corporate governance
practices. Among them are issuing a corporate governance code for banks, shortening the period within
which listed companies are required to publish interim and annual reports and strengthening the rules
governing director trading. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce has also formed a national
committee of representatives of different stakeholders, charged with recommending corporate
governance codes for non-financial companies including state-owned enterprises.
Before testing whether there are any differences between credit analysts and financial analysts
group responses to the five components of corporate governance, I use Levene’s test to examine
whether there is a significant difference between the variances of the responses to each item. The
results of Levene’s tests for equality of variances show that for the five components the variances of
the responses are significantly different from each other. Accordingly, t-tests are conducted on the
assumption that the variances are not similar in all attributes except board structure and process and
financial transparency and information disclosure.
The t-test results show that the mean responses of credit analysts and financial analysts are
significantly different. The mean ranks of the responses indicate that financial analysts seem to see
corporate governance practices as more important in investment decisions than credit analysts in every
case except financial transparency and related party transactions. Perceptions of credit analysts of
corporate governance seem to be in line with the practices of international credit rating agencies such
as Fitch and Standard & Poor’s. Although the rating agencies acknowledge the importance of corporate
governance practices, these practices are considered only if a board fails to exercise overall control
over a company’s affairs.
Another reason that might explain the results may relate to the context within which the
respondents expressed their perceptions, as the questionnaire asks them to assume they are either
121 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

lending to or investing in a manufacturing or retailing company. Sixty-one of the respondents note that,
despite their perception of the importance of the six factors, they find it difficult to obtain the
information necessary for evaluating the quality of a firm’s corporate governance and also for
completely evaluating a firm’s financial position.
A review of the 2006 annual reports of non-financial companies listed on the BSE reveals no
report sections on corporate governance practices, and no report refers to board committees.
Respondent comments regarding the limited information provided in companies’ annual reports might
be seen as evidence supporting enactment of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8,
which is expected to come into effect in 2009 as recommended by the IFSB. Implementation of such a
standard is expected to improve the quantity and quality of disclosed information.

Table 5: Mean Rank Scores of Corporate Governance Attributes by Credit and Financial Analysts

Both Samples Credit Analysts Financial Analysts

Std. Mean
Corporate Governance Attributes Std. Std.
Mean Mean Mean Deviatio Diff.
Deviation Deviation
n
Audit processes and quality -
3.6967 1.04931 3.3615 1.11372 4.0789 .82166
0.717411,2
Board structure and processes 3.1077 1.28344 3.2692 1.21864 3.6930 1.14542 -0.585292
Financial stakeholder rights and -
3.5984 1.16999 3.2692 1.19293 3.9737 1.02586
relations 0.704451,2
Financial transparency and
3.5410 1.11958 3.4923 1.14963 3.5965 1.08668 -0.10418
information disclosure
Ownership structure and influence -
3.2131 1.38617 3.0462 1.50895 3.4035 1.20998
0.357351,2
Related party transactions 3.3648 1.18380 3.3077 1.25040 3.4298 1.10485 -.122131
1
F Levene's test is significant at .05 or less.
2
t test is significant at .05 or less.

The relative low regard for of credit analysts of the six factors have very important implications
for regulators regarding firms’ compliance with the provisions of a corporate governance code. The
most important implication is that banks might not play a significant role in enforcing a code’s
requirements if they do not factor the quality of corporate governance of their clients into their lending
decisions.

5. Concluding Remarks and Future Research

Financial ratios provide useful quantitative financial information to both investors and analysts who
use them to evaluate the operation of a firm and analyze its position within an industry or sector over
time. The usefulness of these ratios largely depends on the integrity of financial statements, which in
turn is a function of firms’ corporate governance practices. Governance practices play a role in
reducing information asymmetry as well as influence both a firm’s creditworthiness and value.
Perceptions of 244 credit analysts and financial analysts in Bahrain are measured by the ranking
of 71 financial indicators and 5 components of corporate governance. The research follows surveys of
US analysts and Saudi Arabian investors and the corporate governance literature.
The financial ratios are useful in making lending and investment decisions. These results lend
support to the importance of corporate reports as a primary source of information. We can also see that
creditors and investors attach importance to the cash flow statement as well as balance sheet and
income statement, although some users may not fully appreciate its importance. Regulatory authorities
and universities in Bahrain might need to increase awareness as to the importance of the cash flow
statement.
While there are some differences between credit analysts and financial analysts as to the
perceived usefulness of particular ratios, the professional users generally find all the financial ratios in
122 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

the questionnaire useful credit and investment decisions. These conclusions are based on both tests for
equality of variances of the groups’ perception of each ratio and t-tests of the mean ranks of each ratio.
Corporate governance practices are perceived by financial analysts as very important, while
financial analysts perceive them as important. The results of the test indicate that the perceptions of the
two groups on the importance of corporate governance attributes are significantly different.
Credit and investment decision processes are sophisticated and cannot rely on one single
financial indicator or one indicator of corporate governance. Constant research is needed if we are to
enhance such a process. Research might explore particular ratios in actual decisions by modeling rates
of return in relation to some ratios. Another area of research might identify the specific non-financial
information that credit and financial analysts use in lending and investing decisions.
A final extension of the research is to investigate the relation between proxies for corporate
governance and firm value and those indicators and credit ratings of companies that are rated by
international rating agencies. What is the effect of each attribute of corporate governance on
investment and lending decisions? What is the effect of regulation?
123 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

References
1] Al-Abdulqader, K. A., Hannah, G., and Power, D. M., 2007, The appraisal of ordinary shares
by Saudi investors”, Research in International Business and Finance 21, 69-86.
2] Al-Ajmi, J., 2007, The use of accounting information by investors in Bahrain, Working Paper,
University of Bahrain, Bahrain.
3] Al-Razeen, A. and Karbhari, 2004, Annual corporate information: importance and use in Saudi
Arabia,” Mangerial Auditing Journal 19, 117-133.
4] Altman, E., 1968, Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate
bankruptcy, Journal of Finance 23, 589–609.
5] Anderson, M. J., 1988, A Comparative Analysis of Information Search and Evaluation
Behavior of Professional and Non-Professional Financial Analysts," Accounting, Organizations
and Society 13, 431-446.
6] Anderson, R. and Epstein, M., 1995, The usefulness of annual reports, Australian Accountant,
April, 25–28.
7] Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., Collins, D. W. and LaFond, R., 2006, The effects of corporate
governance on firms’ credit ratings, Journal of Accounting and Economics 42, 203-243
8] Arnold, J., and Moizer, P., 1984, A survey of the methods used by UK investment analysts to
appraise investment in ordinary shares, Accounting and Business Research 14, 195-207.
9] Bahrain Stock Exchange (BSE), 2007, Investors’ Guide, BSE, Bahrain.
10] Bouwman, M. J., Frishkoff, P. A. and Frishkoff, P., 1987, How do financial analysts make
decisions? A process model of the investment screening decision, Accounting, Organizations
and Society 12, 1-29.
11] Brown, M. B. and Forsythe, A. B., 1974, Robust test for the equality of variances, Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 69, 364-367.
12] Carslaw, C.A. and Mills, J.R., 1991, Developing ratios for effective cash flow statement
analysis", Journal of Accountancy 172, 63-70.
13] Chang, L.S. and Most, K.S., 1985, The perceived usefulness of financial statements for
investors decisions, Florida International University Press, Miami, FL.
14] Chenhall, R.H. and Juchau, R., 1977, Investors information needs: an Australian study,
Accounting and Business Research, 7, 111-19.
15] Chen, K.H., Shimerda, T.A. 1981, An empirical analysis of useful financial ratios", Financial
Management 10, 51-60.
16] Chhaochharia, V. and Grinstein, Y., 2007, Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact
of the 2002 Governance Rules, Journal of Finance 62, 1789-1825.
17] Collins, D. W and Ashbaugh-Skaife, H, 2004, Getting Credit for Governance, MIT Sloan
Management Review 45, 7-8.
18] Dimitras, A.I., Zanakis, S.H., and Zopounidis, C., 1996, A survey of business failure with an
emphasis on prediction method and industrial applications, European Journal of Operational
Research 90, 487–513.
19] Ezzamel, M.; Brodie, J. and Mar-Molinero, C., 1987, Financial patterns of UK manufacturing
companies, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 14, 519-536.
20] Fama, E. and French, K., 1992, The cross-section of expected stock returns, Journal of Finance
47, 427–467.
21] Fama, E. and French, K., 1993, Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds,
Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56.
22] Fama, E. and French, K., 1995, Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns,
Journal of Finance 50, 131–155.
23] Fama, E. and French, K., 1996, Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies, Journal of
Finance 51, 55–84.
124 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

24] Fama, E. and French, K., 1998, Value versus growth: The international evidence, Journal of
Finance 53, 1975–1999.
25] Fitch, 2004, Fitch ratings: Corporate governance issues from the bondholders' perspective, New
York. http://www.fitchratings.com/corporate/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=203150.
26] Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P. and Schipper, K., 2004, Costs of equity and earnings
attributes, The Accounting Review 79, pp. 967–1010.
27] Giacomino, D.E. and Mielke, D.E. 1993, Cash flows: another approach to ratio analysis,
Journal of Accountancy 175, 55-8.
28] Gibson, C. H., 1987, How chartered financial analysts view financial ratios, Financial Analysts
Journal 43, 73-76.
29] Gombola, M. J, and Ketz, J. E., 1983, A note on cash flow and classification patterns of
financial ratios, The Accounting review LVIII, 105-14.
30] Gompers, P., Ishii, J. and Metrick, A., 2003, Corporate governance and equity prices, Quarterly
Journal of Economics 118, 107–155.
31] Griep, C. M. and Samson, S. B., 2002, The Evolving Role of Corporate Governance in Credit
Rating Analysis, Ratings Direct, Standard & Poor's Web-based credit analysis system.
32] He, L., 2007, Do founders matter? A study of executive compensation, governance structure
and firm performance, Journal of Business Venturing, Article in Press.
33] Hermalin, B. and Weisbach, M., 2003, Boards of directors as an endogenously determined
institution: a survey of the economic literature, Economic Policy Review 9, 7–26.
34] Ho, R.Y.W., Strange, R. and Piesse, J., 2006, On the conditional pricing effects of beta, size,
and book-to-market equity in the Hong Kong market, International Financial Markets
Institutions and Money 16, 199–214.
35] Jooste, L. 1999, "An evaluation of listed companies by means of cash flow ratios", South
African Journal of Economic and Management Science 2, 128-42.
36] Jooste, L. 2006, Cash flow ratios as a yardstick for evaluating financial performance in African
businesses, Managerial Finance 32, 569-576.
37] Juchau, R. and Ross, P., 1994, Putting cash into ratios, Australian Accountant, November, 29-
31.
38] Kumar, P. R., and Ravi, V., 2007, “Bankruptcy prediction in banks and firms via statistical and
intelligent techniques – A review”, European Journal of Operation Research 180, 1-28.
39] Lee, T.A. and Tweedie, D.P. 1975a, Accounting Information: An Investigation of private
Shareholder Usage’, Accounting and Business Research 5, 280–291.
40] Lee, T.A. and Tweedie, D.P., 1975b, Accounting information: an investigation of private
Shareholder Understanding’, Accounting and Business Research 5, 3–17.
41] Lee, T.A. and Tweedie, D.P., 1978, Subjectivity in Research into Shareholder Behaviour, The
Accountant’s Magazine, July, 295–298.
42] Liu, Q. and Lu, Z., 2007, Corporate governance and earnings management in the Chinese listed
companies: A tunneling perspective, Journal of Corporate Finance, Article in Press.
43] Liu, J., Nissim, D. and Thomas, J., 2002, Equity valuation using multiples, Journal of
Accounting Research 40, 135-172.
44] Liu, J., Nissim, D. and Thomas, J., 2007, Is cash flow king in valuation." Financial Analysts
Journal 63, 56-68.
45] Matsumoto, K., Shivaswamy, M. and Hoban, J. P., Jr., 1995, Security analysts’ views of the
financial ratios of manufactories and retails”, Financial Practice and Education 5, 44-55.
46] McConnell, J. and H. Serves, 1990, Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate
value, Journal of Financial Economics 27, 595–612.
47] Karpoff, J., Malatesta, P. and Walkling, R., 1996, Corporate governance and shareholder
initiatives: empirical evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 42, 365–395.
125 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 11 (2008)

48] Kasznik, R. and Lev, B., T. 1995, To warn or not to warn: management disclosures in the face
of an earnings surprise, The Accounting Review 70, 113–134.
49] McKinley, R. K., Manku-Scott, T, Hastings, A. M., French, D. P. and Baker, R., 1997,
Reliability and validity of a new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary
medical care in the united kingdom: development of a patient questionnaire, British Medical
Journal 314, 193. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7075/193.
50] Morelli, D., 2007, Beta, size, book-to-market equity and returns: A study based on UK data,
Journal of Multinational Financial Management 17, 257-272.
51] Nam, S. and Nam, I., 2004, Corporate Governance in Asia: Recent evidence from Indonesia,
Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo.
52] Naser, K., Nuseibeh, R., and Al-Hussaini, A., 2003, Users’ perceptions of various aspects of
Kuwaiti corporate reporting, Managerial Auditing Journal 18, 599-617.
53] Nikoskelainen, E. and Wright, M.,2007, The impact of corporate governance mechanisms on
value increase in leveraged buyouts, Journal of Corporate Finance 13, 511-537.
54] Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., 1994, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill Companies, New
York.
55] Pearce II, J. A., 2007, The value of corporate financial measures in monitoring downturn and
managing turnaround: An exploratory study, Journal of Managerial Issue XIX, 253-270.
56] Peterson, R.A. (1994), A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, Journal of Consumer
Research, 21, 381-91.
57] Salmi, T. and Martikainen, T., 1994, A review of the theoretical and empirical basis of financial
ratio analysis, The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 43, 426-448.
58] Standard & Poor's, 2002, Standard & Poor's Corporate Governance Scores: Criteria,
Methodology and Definitions. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York
59] Streuly, A.C. 1994, The primary objective of financial reporting: how are we doing?, The Ohio
CPA Journal 53, 15-22.
60] Streiner, D. L., and Norman, G., 2003, Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their
Development and Use, Oxford University Press, USA.
61] Sun, J., and Li, H., 2006, Data mining method for listed companies’ financial distress
prediction, Knowledge-Based Systems, up loaded on 8 December 2006. www.Scincedirect.com
62] U.S. Congress, 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 107th Congress of the United States of
America. H.R. 3763. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
63] Wang, D., 2006, Founding family ownership and earnings quality, Journal of Accounting
Research 44, 619-656
64] Winfield, R.R. 1978, Shareholder opinion of published financial statement, paper presented at
the Association of Australia and New Zealand 1978 Conference, University of Otago, Dunedin,
1-12.
65] Yermack, D., 1996, Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors,
Journal of Financial Economics 40, 185–211.