Risk Monitoring Committee and Firm Value of Listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria: A Panel Data Analysis

Authors

  • EGBERI Kelvin Agbarha Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Administration and Management, Delta State University of Science and Technology, Ozoro, Nigeria.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33094/ijaefa.v13i2.617

Keywords:

Risk management, Risk committee size, Risk committee presence, Non-executive directors on risk committee, Firm value, Nigeria.

Abstract

In this paper, the relationship between the risk monitoring committee (RMC) and the firm value of listed Nigerian oil and gas firms was examined. The risk monitoring committee was measured via the presence and size of the risk committee and the contributions of non-executive directors, while firm value was measured using Tobin’s Q, price-to-earnings per share, and earnings yield. Data were collected from the Machamratios database for the period 2012–2020. An aggregate panel data of eight (8) firms was obtained and the data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical tools. The fixed effect (FE) and random effect (RE) models established that the risk monitoring committee measures insignificantly and negatively affected the value of the firm. This suggests that the risk monitoring committee does not affect firm value, particularly for listed Nigerian oil and gas firms. Consequently, for firms to enhance their value via a risk monitoring committee, management must develop a well-structured risk monitoring framework aimed at increasing firm value; this can be realized by reducing the size of the risk committee, the presence of the risk committee, and the contribution of non-executive directors in the risk committee structure of listed Nigerian oil and gas firms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Agbarha, E. K. . (2022). Risk Monitoring Committee and Firm Value of Listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria: A Panel Data Analysis . International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 13(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.33094/ijaefa.v13i2.617
Loading...