To begin with there is the survey provided by Lin, Wen and Yu (2010), which discusses that enterprise risk management is rather a destroying approach value for companies. Numerous journals reveal no support regarding the effect of ERM on businesses. Initially, Sekerci (n.d.), tests an insignificant correlation between firm value and ERM after manipulating the variables for the determinants of firm value. This contingent result is similar to that of Beasley, Pagach, and Warr (2008) who confirm that ERM is a non-value-adding approach after examining the financial performance of their samples. McShane, Nair, and Rustambekov (2011) find growth in ERM capability and firm value. Unfortunately, an inconclusive effect regarding the value relevance of ERM is mentioned. Equally important is the work of Gordon, Loeb and Tseng (2009) which finds that the relationship between ERM and relationships between companies depends on the union of ERM with the following factors: environmental uncertainty, industrial competition, size of the company, complexity of the business and board monitoring. The three articles highlight the contribution of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to the corporate value of publicly traded insurance companies, which persists with the argument of Hoyt and Liebenberg (2010). First, Eckles, Hoyt, and Miller (2011) showing the risk declination for stocks and investment returns after implementing Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). A further finding is that operating profits arising from the ratio of return on assets to return volatility (ROA/return volatility) or returns per unit risks increase the consequences of implementing corporate risk management. Second, Ai, Bajtelsmit, and Wang (2014) demonstrated the latter hypothesis by stating that apart from the corporate value of insurance companies, asset return was found to have a substantial effect arising from ERM. Likewise, a business