pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
2.7. ANALYSES FOR FOR-PROFIT BUS (APPENDIX B) 57 2.7 Analyses for For-Profit BUs (Appendix B) This appendix presents robustness checks of the models presented in section 2.4.3.1 (page 42) and 2.4.3.2 (page 43). The robustness checks analyse the base models using a for-profit subsample of the data. Although I do not have a priori different theoretical expectations for RPE antecedents among not-for-profit business units, it is possible that the empirical results are qualitatively or quantitatively different for not-for-profit business units from forprofit sectors. To control for the influence of not-for-profit business units on my results, I estimate both the RPE-Use and the RPE-based-Targets models with for-profit business units only. However, leaving out not-for-profit business units has one important drawback; it reduces the sample size. This is potentially harmful for the significance of the models, because the models contain interaction effects that require larger sample sizes. The testing of hypotheses using interaction effects with relatively small datasets can easily result in statistical null findings (see: Aguinis 1995:1142, Cohen et al. 2003:297). This risk is especially relevant in the case of the RPE-Use model, since the full-sample model (table 2.11 on page 42) already has limited explanatory power (ANOVA F-statistic = 1.718, p = 0.063, R 2 = 0.075, adjusted R 2 = 0.031). As the results of the for-profit analyses show, the RPE-Use model is insignificant. The ANOVA F-statistic of this model, presented in table 2.19 - panel A is 1.461 (p = 0.148). As argued above, this may be the result of the decreased sample size: the full-sample model has 267 included observations, the subsample analysis contains 224 observations. Due to the insignificance of the model, no inferences can be drawn from this analysis. Unlike the RPE-Use model, the for-profit robustness analysis of the RPE-based-Targets model is significant (F-statistic = 1.884, p = 0.044). The results of this analysis are shown in table 2.19 - panel B. Similar to the RPE-Use model, the RPE-based-Target model has a weaker F and R 2 -statistic than the full-sample analysis. Again, this may be the result of the reduced number of observations. Whereas the original full-sample RPE-based-Targets model (table 2.13 on page 45) contains 242 observations, the subsample analysis includes 200 observations. The full-sample analysis explained 12.2% of the variance in RPE-based- Targets (adjusted R 2 = 0.076). The current subsample analysis results in an R 2 of 0.099 (Adjusted R 2 = 0.047). Qualitatively, the subsample analysis yields the same results as the full-sample analysis. The results in table 2.19 - panel B support hypotheses H1 (the effect of common uncertainty on RPE use) and H3 (the interaction effect of uncertainty and information asymmetry on RPE use), but do not find siginficant support for the second hypothesis (the effect of the interaction between information asymmetry and comparability on RPE use). Concluding, the for-profit subsample analyses provide additional support for the hypotheses, for as far as the models themselves are significant. The insignificance of the RPE-Use model is probably the result of reducing the samplesize of the dataset.
58 CHAPTER 2. RPE AT THE BUSINESS UNIT MANAGER LEVEL Table 2.19: Results of OLS Regression Analysis for For-Profit BUs Panel A - RPE-Use For-Profit Subsample Analysis Coefficient Std. Error t-Stat. Prob. Constant 3.793 0.633 5.940 0.00 Common uncertainty 0.532 0.304 1.749 0.04a Interaction information asymmetry * comparability 0.119 0.113 1.049 0.15a Interaction uncertainty * -0.105 0.130 -0.809 0.20a information asymmetry Information asymmetry 0.015 0.076 0.194 0.85 Comparability -1.652 1.108 -1.491 0.14 Contractibility 0.033 0.024 1.383 0.17 Firm-Level Measures -1.125 0.377 -2.983 0.00 Size of BU -0.006 0.035 -0.172 0.86 Size of firm -0.012 0.031 -0.396 0.69 Dummy production BU 0.011 0.174 0.065 0.95 Dummy fin. services BU 0.072 0.172 0.417 0.68 R 2 = 0.070 F-statistic = 1.461 Adjusted R 2 = 0.022 Prob(F-statistic) = 0.148 Included observations: 224 Panel B - RPE-based-Targets For-Profit Subsample Analysis Constant 4.481 0.714 6.279 0.00 Common uncertainty 0.765 0.332 2.312 0.01a Interaction information asymmetry * comparability -0.017 0.128 -0.129 0.44a Interaction uncertainty * 0.307 0.144 2.127 0.02a information asymmetry Information asymmetry -0.072 0.084 -0.856 0.39 Comparability -2.712 1.220 -2.223 0.03 Contractibility 0.053 0.026 2.039 0.04 Firm-Level Measures -0.129 0.467 -0.276 0.78 Size of BU -0.008 0.041 -0.193 0.85 Size of firm -0.008 0.034 -0.243 0.81 Dummy production BU 0.155 0.191 0.810 0.42 Dummy fin. services BU -0.217 0.184 -1.179 0.24 R 2 = 0.099 F-statistic = 1.884 Adjusted R 2 = 0.047 Prob(F-statistic) = 0.044 Included observations: 200 ‘a’ : variable based on directional hypothesis significance calculated as one-tailed p-value
- Page 15 and 16: 6 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION T
- Page 17 and 18: 8 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION F
- Page 19 and 20: 10 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
- Page 22 and 23: Chapter 2 The Use of Relative Perfo
- Page 24 and 25: 2.1. INTRODUCTION 15 is not a promi
- Page 26 and 27: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 17 The
- Page 28 and 29: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 19 Sinc
- Page 30 and 31: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 21 who
- Page 32 and 33: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 23 suff
- Page 34 and 35: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 25 2.2.
- Page 36 and 37: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 27 2.3.
- Page 38 and 39: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 29 can
- Page 40 and 41: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 31 Comp
- Page 42 and 43: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 33 this
- Page 44 and 45: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 35 Emph
- Page 46 and 47: 2.4. ANALYSES 37 2.4 Analyses This
- Page 48 and 49: 2.4. ANALYSES 39 Table 2.8: RPE use
- Page 50 and 51: 2.4. ANALYSES 41 2.4.2 Correlations
- Page 52 and 53: 2.4. ANALYSES 43 Concerning the con
- Page 54 and 55: 2.4. ANALYSES 45 Table 2.13: Result
- Page 56 and 57: 2.4. ANALYSES 47 Table 2.15: Summar
- Page 58 and 59: 2.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 49
- Page 60 and 61: 2.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 51
- Page 62 and 63: 2.6. CONTRACTIBILITY MIMIC MODEL (A
- Page 64 and 65: 2.6. CONTRACTIBILITY MIMIC MODEL (A
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 3 Does Relative Performance
- Page 70 and 71: 3.1. INTRODUCTION 61 Holmstrom’s
- Page 72 and 73: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 63 3.
- Page 74 and 75: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 65 RP
- Page 76 and 77: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 67 3.3
- Page 78 and 79: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 69 3.3.
- Page 80 and 81: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 71 Tabl
- Page 82 and 83: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 73 Tabl
- Page 84 and 85: 3.4. ANALYSES 75 3.4 Analyses This
- Page 86 and 87: 3.4. ANALYSES 77 Table 3.9: Pearson
- Page 88 and 89: 3.4. ANALYSES 79 Table 3.10: Result
- Page 90 and 91: 3.4. ANALYSES 81 Table 3.11: Result
- Page 92 and 93: 3.4. ANALYSES 83 Larcker & Rusticus
- Page 94 and 95: 3.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 85
- Page 96 and 97: Chapter 4 Does Relative Performance
- Page 98 and 99: 4.1. INTRODUCTION 89 Moreover, chap
- Page 100 and 101: 4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 91 is
- Page 102 and 103: 4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 93 Sp
- Page 104 and 105: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 95 4.3
- Page 106 and 107: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 97 To i
- Page 108 and 109: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 99 of R
- Page 110 and 111: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 101 Tab
- Page 112 and 113: 4.4. ANALYSES 103 Table 4.8: Items
- Page 114 and 115: 4.4. ANALYSES 105 RPE use ✻ Posit
58 CHAPTER 2. RPE AT THE BUSINESS UNIT MANAGER LEVEL<br />
Table 2.19: Results of OLS Regression Analysis for For-Profit BUs<br />
Panel A - RPE-Use For-Profit Subsample Analysis<br />
Coefficient Std. Error t-Stat. Prob.<br />
Constant 3.793 0.633 5.940 0.00<br />
Common uncertainty 0.532 0.304 1.749 0.04a Interaction information<br />
asymmetry * comparability<br />
0.119 0.113 1.049 0.15a Interaction uncertainty *<br />
-0.105 0.130 -0.809 0.20a information asymmetry<br />
Information asymmetry 0.015 0.076 0.194 0.85<br />
Comparability -1.652 1.108 -1.491 0.14<br />
Contractibility 0.033 0.024 1.383 0.17<br />
Firm-Level Measures -1.125 0.377 -2.983 0.00<br />
Size of BU -0.006 0.035 -0.172 0.86<br />
Size of firm -0.012 0.031 -0.396 0.69<br />
Dummy production BU 0.011 0.174 0.065 0.95<br />
Dummy fin. services BU 0.072 0.172 0.417 0.68<br />
R 2 = 0.070 F-statistic = 1.461<br />
Adjusted R 2 = 0.022 Prob(F-statistic) = 0.148<br />
Included observations: 224<br />
Panel B - RPE-based-Targets For-Profit Subsample Analysis<br />
Constant 4.481 0.714 6.279 0.00<br />
Common uncertainty 0.765 0.332 2.312 0.01a Interaction information<br />
asymmetry * comparability<br />
-0.017 0.128 -0.129 0.44a Interaction uncertainty *<br />
0.307 0.144 2.127 0.02a information asymmetry<br />
Information asymmetry -0.072 0.084 -0.856 0.39<br />
Comparability -2.712 1.220 -2.223 0.03<br />
Contractibility 0.053 0.026 2.039 0.04<br />
Firm-Level Measures -0.129 0.467 -0.276 0.78<br />
Size of BU -0.008 0.041 -0.193 0.85<br />
Size of firm -0.008 0.034 -0.243 0.81<br />
Dummy production BU 0.155 0.191 0.810 0.42<br />
Dummy fin. services BU -0.217 0.184 -1.179 0.24<br />
R 2 = 0.099 F-statistic = 1.884<br />
Adjusted R 2 = 0.047 Prob(F-statistic) = 0.044<br />
Included observations: 200<br />
‘a’ : variable based on directional hypothesis<br />
significance calculated as one-tailed p-value
Change language