Skip to main content
Log in

Choice of organizational form in the life insurance industry: New Zealand evidence

  • Articles
  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two forms of ownership structure characterize the insurance industry—the stock company owned by shareholders and the mutual form which is owned by its policyholders. The academic literature suggests that ownership structure is dependent upon the efficiency of the endogenous contracting mechanisms and governance structures in firms. Mutuals are predicted to exist and successfully compete with stock companies in insurance markets because they merge the ownership-customer functions and introduceex-ante contracting mechanisms andex-post modes of governance which restrict managerial discretion. Drawing a framework from transaction cost theory, this study tests empirically the proposition that choice of ownership structure in the life insurance industry is related to contracting mechanisms and governance structures in the firm. Individual cross-sectional logistic regression models are estimated using 1991–1993 data gathered from New Zealand's life insurance industry. Consistent with expectations our results suggest that mutuals are more likely to have higher asset specificity than stock companies. By contrast, stocks appear to be more reinsured and incur higher governance expenditures than mutual companies. Furthermore, contrary to what was hypothesized, our findings indicate that mutuals may be bigger than stock companies. Therefore, overall the empirical evidence does not support the predictions drawn from transaction cost theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams, M.B., 1994,The New Zealand Life Insurance Industry: A Survey of Accounting and Reporting Practices, Wellington, Price Waterhouse.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alchian, A.A. and Woodward, S., 1988, The firm is dead; long live the firm: A review of Oliver E. Williamson'sThe Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 26, No. 1, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, D., Francis, J.R. and Stokes, D.J., 1993, Auditing, directorships and the demand for monitoring,Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 12, 4, 353–375.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Life Insurance Act 1945, Government Printing House, Canberra.

  5. Ball, R. and Smith, C. W., 1992,The Economics of Accounting Policy Choice, New York, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berger, L.A., Cummins, J.D. and Tennyson, S., 1992, Reinsurance and the liability insurance crisis,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 2, 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bradbury, M.E., 1990, The incentives for voluntary audit committee formation,Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 9, 1, 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coase, R.H., 1937, The nature of the firm,Economica, 4, 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coase, R.H., 1960, The problem of social cost,Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 3, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chow, C.W., 1982, The demand for external auditing: Size, debt and ownership influences,The Accounting Review, 57, 2, 272–291.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chow, C.W. and Wong-Boren, A., 1987, Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican corporations,The Accounting Review, 62, 3, 533–541.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Commerce Clearing House, 1991,Australian and New Zealand Insurance Reporter Volume 1, Canberra, CCH Australia Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cummins, J.D. and Weiss, M.A., 1991, The effects of organizational form on capital structure: The case of stock and mutual property-liability insurance firms, in H. Lonberge (ed.),Risk Information and Insurance, Norwell, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doherty, N. A. and Dionne, G., 1993, Insurance with unidiversifiable risk: Contract structure and organizational form of insurance firms,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 2, 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ezzamel, M., 1992, Corporate governance and financial control, inPerspectives on Financial Control, in M. Ezzamel and D. Heathfield (Eds.), London, Chapman-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C., 1983, Separation of ownership and control,Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 2, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen, M.C., 1986, Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers,American Economic Review, 76, 2, 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jones, G.R., 1983, Transaction costs, property rights, and organizational culture: An exchange perspective,Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 3, 454–467.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jones, G.R., 1987, Organization-client transactions and organizational governance structures,Academy of Management Journal, 30, 2, 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lamm-Tennant, J. and Starks, L.T., 1993, Stock versus mutual ownership: The risk implications,Journal of Business, 66, 1, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mak, Y.T., 1994, The voluntary review of earnings forecasts disclosed in IPO prospectuses,Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 2, 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mann, S.V. and Sichermann, N.W., 1991, The agency costs of free cash flow: acquisition activity and equity issues,Journal of Business, 64, 2, 213–227.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1981, Contractual provisions, organizational structure and conflict control in insurance markets,Journal of Business, 54, 3, 407–434.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1986, Ownership structure and control: The mutualization of stock life insurance companies,Journal of Financial Economics, 16, 1, 73–98.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1987, Corporate insurance and the underinvestment problem,The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 54, 1, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1990, On the corporate demand for insurance: Evidence from the reinsurance market,Journal of Business, 63, 1, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1992, Executive compensation in the life insurance industry,Journal of Business, 65, 1, 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mayers, D. and Smith, C.W., 1993,Managerial Discretion, Regulation and Stock Insurance Company Ownership Structure, Bradley Policy Research Center Working Paper, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  29. New Zeland Companies Act 1993, Wellington, Government Printer.

  30. New Zealand Financial Reporting Act 1993, Wellington, Government Printer.

  31. New Zealand Life Insurance Act 1908, Wellington, Government Printer.

  32. Noreen E., 1988, An empirical comparison of probit and OLS regression hypothesis tests,Journal of Accounting Research, 26, 1, 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Osborn, R.N. and Baughn, C.C., 1990, Forms of interorganizational governance for multinational alliances,Academy of Management Journal, 33, 3, 503–519.

    Google Scholar 

  34. O'Sullivan, N. and Diacon, S., 1994, Audit fee determination and governance structure: Empirical evidence from UK insurance companies,The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice, 19, 70, 70–84.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parsegian, E. V., 1985,A Test of Some of the Effects of Different Property Rights Structures on Managerial Behavior in the Life Insurance Industry, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pittsburgh, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stone, M. and Rasp, J., 1991, Tradeoffs in the choice between logit and OLS for accounting choice studies,The Accounting Review, 66, 1, 170–187.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Thompson, S., 1988, Agency Costs of Internal Organisation, inInternal Organisation, Efficiency and Profit, S. Thompson and M. Wright (eds.), London, Philip Allen.

    Google Scholar 

  38. United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977, Washington, U.S. Federal Government Printer.

  39. Walsh, J.P. and Seward, J.K., 1990, On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms,Academy of Management Review, 15, 3, 421–458.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Williamson, O.E., 1973, Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange,American Economic Review, 73, 3, 519–540.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Williamson, O.E., 1975,Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York, Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Williamson, O.E., 1979, Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations,Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 2, 233–262.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Williamson, O.E., 1983, Organizational form, residual claimants, and corporate control,Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 2, 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williamson, O.E., 1985,The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Williamson, O.E., 1988, Corporate finance and corporate governance,The Journal of Finance, 43, 3, 567–591.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

The authors are lecturers, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Glasgow, and Department of Accountancy, Massey University, New Zealand, respectively.

The authors thank Lars Hassel, Leung Hing-Man, Bill Maughan, Mike Pickford, Kulwant Singh and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on original drafts of this paper. However, they are solely responsible for any errors or omissions that remain. They also appreciate the cooperation of members of New Zealand's life insurance industry for supplying information. Finally, the financial support of Price Waterhouse (Wellington, New Zealand) is gratefully acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adams, M., Hossain, M. Choice of organizational form in the life insurance industry: New Zealand evidence. Asia Pacific J Manage 13, 19–35 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01739680

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01739680

Keywords

Navigation