Purpose

This paper examines the relationship between the number of domestic banks that the firm engages with and firm value and how this relationship is moderated by ownership concentration at low and very high level on a sample of Malaysian family and non-family firms.

Design/methodology/approach

For hypotheses testing, panel data analysis using the fixed effects model (FEM) is used because the FEM can address any endogeneity problems effectively (Chi, 2005). The panel data regression is conducted on both family firms and non-family firms.

Findings

We find that there is a significant negative relationship between the number of domestic banks engaged by family firms, operating in industries where these firms do not have absolute monopoly, and firm value. However, there is no evidence that this significant negative firm value effect is stronger in family firms compared to non-family firms. Furthermore, the significant positive moderating effect of ownership concentration on this relationship within family firms in such industries is evident only at low level of ownership concentration. Interestingly, at very high level of ownership concentration, this significant positive moderating effect becomes negative. There is no evidence that these significant moderating effects are stronger in family firms compared to non-family firms.

Research limitations/implications

This research has focused only on family and non-family firms.

Practical implications

An implication of this research is that there is a need for the capital market regulators to introduce appropriate policies to deter family firms from having a close relationship with domestic banks as well as monitor the number of domestic banks engaged by such firms. There may be policy implications for consideration by the Central Bank of Malaysia as well.

Originality/value

This research provides some insights to both academia and industry regarding the consequences of domestic banking relationship and different levels of concentrated ownership in family firms in an emerging market. These insights can help improve the corporate governance as well as ownership structure of Malaysian public-listed family firms which dominate the capital market. Our findings refute the argument by Peng and Jiang (2010) by demonstrating that corporate reputational effects may be a substitute for institutional deficiencies.

中文翻译：

---

家族企业，银行和企业价值：来自马来西亚的证据

目的

本文研究了马来西亚参与的家庭和非家族企业样本中，该企业参与的国内银行数量与企业价值之间的关系，以及该关系如何通过低水平和非常高水平的所有权集中度来缓和。

设计/方法/方法

对于假设检验，使用固定效应模型（FEM）进行面板数据分析，因为FEM可以有效解决任何内生性问题（Chi，2005）。面板数据回归是在家族企业和非家族企业上进行的。

发现

我们发现，家族企业聘用的国内银行数量，在这些企业没有绝对垄断地位的行业中运营的国内银行数量与企业价值之间存在显着的负相关关系。但是，没有证据表明，与非家族企业相比，家族企业的这种显着的负企业价值效应更强。此外，只有在所有权集中度较低的情况下，所有权集中度对此类行业家族企业内部这种关系的显着积极调节作用才是明显的。有趣的是，在所有权高度集中的情况下，这种显着的积极调节作用就变成了消极作用。没有证据表明，与非家族企业相比，家族企业的这些显着的调节作用更强。

研究局限/意义

这项研究仅针对家族企业和非家族企业。

实际影响

该研究的含义是，资本市场监管机构需要引入适当的政策，以阻止家族企业与国内银行建立密切关系，并监督此类企业聘用的国内银行的数量。马来西亚中央银行也可能会考虑政策影响。

创意/价值

这项研究为学术界和工业界提供了有关国内银行业务关系的后果以及新兴市场中家族企业中不同程度的集中所有权的见解。这些见解可以帮助改善在资本市场上占主导地位的马来西亚上市家族企业的公司治理和所有权结构。我们的发现驳斥了Peng和Jiang（2010）的论点，表明企业的声誉效应可以替代制度缺陷。