Intangible-intensive strategy in crisis
Investments in intangibles are instrument for define future benefits, especially in knowledge-intensive industries. Investigation and comparation of intangibles influence on the performance of Russian and European companies in crisis related periods.
| Рубрика | Финансы, деньги и налоги |
| Вид | дипломная работа |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 07.12.2019 |
| Размер файла | 441,1 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
From the sample of the Russian companies such significant variables for EVA as qualification of the board of directors (before and during the crisis), earnings per employee (before and after the crisis), citations in the search engines (during and after the crisis), intangible assets (before and during the crisis) and foreign capital in the all crisis related periods were chosen. Significant variables for the MVA are foreign capital employment (before and during the crisis) and intangible assets in the all crisis related periods.
From the sample of European companies such indicators as earnings per employee (before and during the crisis), membership in business associations (during and after the crisis) are significant for the EVA. Such indicators as the qualification of the board of directors (before and after the crisis), presence of corporate university (before and during the crisis), membership in the business associations (all the crisis related periods) and ERP system implementation (before and after the crisis) were chosen.
For the more precise results for investigating effect of the industry, models for the research were built separately for each indicator of the intangible resources for the EVA and MVA in the European and Russian intangible-intensive companies. The model is the initial fixed effect model with the generated variable with effects of the industries. The control variables for the model are the same as for initial model as variable of intangible resource, book value of the assets of the company and company age. For the European companies it was observed seven industries(Construction & Real Estate, Manufacturing, Energy & Chemical , Trade & Related Services, Finance & Insurance, Professional Service, Services) while for Russian it is six industries (Construction & Real Estate, Manufacturing, Energy & Chemical , Trade & Related Services, Finance & Insurance, Services) as it was mentioned in previous sections of the thesis. Manufacturing industry was chosen as the reference category from the industry dummy variables for the model; therefore, the results are compared with the manufacturing industry for the both samples of Russian and European companies.
The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for the Russian intangible-intensive companies for the EVA are introduced in the tables below. Tables 18-22 present the industry effect for the significant intangibles for EVA for Russian companies. Table 23 provides the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the EVA in Russian companies.
Table 18. The industry effect for the foreign capital employment (EVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Foreign capital employment*construction before crisis |
-22.5847 (61.45466) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment*construction during crisis |
-149.3831** (61.60873) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *construction after crisis |
-30.0229 (60.04314) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy before crisis |
29.44114 (41.75424) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy during crisis |
-138.4208*** (41.65806) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy after crisis |
30.09602 (39.94258) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *services before crisis |
11.45494 (42.79067) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * services during crisis |
30.73526 (42.67154) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *services after crisis |
12.73922 (40.33913) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *trade before crisis |
-75.28065 (73.32046) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * trade during crisis |
-72.50763 (73.09855) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *trade after crisis |
-74.68142 (65.04955) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *finance before crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * finance during crisis |
-3821.718*** (128.2374) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *finance after crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 19. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (EVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction before crisis |
3.230496 (23.99998) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction during crisis |
1.041242 (24.93664) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction after crisis |
-2.94353 (21.6752) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy before crisis |
6.555477 (19.65958) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy during crisis |
-50.5081** (19.5805) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy after crisis |
15.72115 (17.56153) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*services before crisis |
-41.33076 (27.07101) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* services during crisis |
-31.95087 (27.47116) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*services after crisis |
-47.60087* (25.41686) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*trade before crisis |
8.440102 (58.84422) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* trade during crisis |
7.277483 (60.05377) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*trade after crisis |
6.851785 (58.09482) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*finance before crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* finance during crisis |
-2843.333 *** (95.76329) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*finance after crisis |
-1206.996*** (90.42358) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 20. The industry effect for the earning per employee (EVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Earnings per employee*construction before crisis |
385.9717 (422.0626) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *construction during crisis |
111.9133 (341.964) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *construction after crisis |
27.59173 (379.1479) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy before crisis |
-52.36228 (34.60377) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy during crisis |
-238.9273** (109.7125) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy after crisis |
-3.054452* (13.36875) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *services before crisis |
173.1658 (2417.04) |
|
|
Earnings per employee * services during crisis |
69.54869 (1082.852) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *services after crisis |
213.0535 (1060.086) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *trade before crisis |
284.1276 (1227.58) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *during crisis |
285.9841 (2407.206) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *trade after crisis |
61.91832 (1095.793) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *finance before crisis |
-153.0421 (4472.082) |
|
|
Earnings per employee * finance during crisis |
-43.79041 (2765.489) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *finance after crisis |
11.98053 (1673.772) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 21. The industry effect for the citations in the search engines (EVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Citations*construction before crisis |
1.277112 (13.27492) |
|
|
Citations *construction during crisis |
-18.98442 (13.36559) |
|
|
Citations *construction after crisis |
.7225918 (12.98782) |
|
|
Citations *energy before crisis |
23.25076*** (8.407173) |
|
|
Citations *energy during crisis |
-15.8289 * (8.194449) |
|
|
Citations *energy after crisis |
28.62082 *** (7.933639) |
|
|
Citations *services before crisis |
-1.891179 (9.161594) |
|
|
Citations * services during crisis |
5.64902 (9.238731) |
|
|
Citations *services after crisis |
-3.354538 (8.956094) |
|
|
Citations *trade before crisis |
-3.842232 (15.99053) |
|
|
Citations *during crisis |
-3.888256 (16.18105) |
|
|
Citations *trade after crisis |
-3.328833 (16.41582) |
|
|
Citations *finance before crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
|
|
Citations * finance during crisis |
-639.3042*** (20.6899) |
|
|
Citations *finance after crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 22. The industry effect for the intangible assets (EVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction before crisis |
134.7485 (313.4697) |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction during crisis |
-2.230284 * (1.285632) |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction after crisis |
-.7950082 (1.554194) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy before crisis |
.1308324 (.2664932) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy during crisis |
-1.983761*** (.1221326) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy after crisis |
-.0139416 (.0888907) |
|
|
Intangible assets *services before crisis |
112.7674 (501.1503) |
|
|
Intangible assets * services during crisis |
.2424525** ( .120576) |
|
|
Intangible assets *services after crisis |
-.2364125 *** (.0578193) |
|
|
Intangible assets *trade before crisis |
-89.47159 (2257.276) |
|
|
Intangible assets * trade during crisis |
.0091378 (1.002473) |
|
|
Intangible assets *trade after crisis |
-.0055392 (.2714874) |
|
|
Intangible assets *finance before crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
|
|
Intangible assets * finance during crisis |
-2.422359*** (.1511194) |
|
|
Intangible assets *finance after crisis |
-1.122857 *** (.1453888) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 23. Summary of the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in Russian companies
|
Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry |
Manufacturing |
Construction & Real Estate |
Energy & Chemical |
Services |
Trade |
Finance& Insurance |
|
|
Foreign capital employment during crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
-*** |
-*** |
|||
|
Qualification of the board of directors during crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
-*** |
||||
|
Qualification of the board of directors after crisis |
Reference category |
-* |
-*** |
||||
|
Earnings per employee during crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
|||||
|
Earnings per employee after |
Reference category |
-* |
|||||
|
Citations before crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
|||||
|
Citations during crisis |
Reference category |
-* |
-*** |
||||
|
Citations after crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
|||||
|
Intangible assets during crisis |
Reference category |
-* |
-*** |
+** |
-*** |
||
|
Intangible assets after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
-*** |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable
“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable
*Source: own elaboration.
According to the summary of the industry effect of the significant intangibles for the indicator of EVA in Russian companies (Table 23), such intangible resource as foreign capital employment during the crisis is negatively significant in the construction and real estate, energy and chemical, finance and insurance companies in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Qualification of the board of directors during crisis has negative effect on the EVA in the energy and chemical and finance and insurance industries in comparison with the manufacturing. Qualification of the board of directors after crisis has also negative effect in comparison with the manufacturing in the services and finance and insurance industry. Earnings per employee during and after the crisis lead to the lower returns on the EVA for the energy and chemical industry than for the manufacturing industry. Citations in the search engines have negative effect on the EVA indicator for the energy and chemical and finance industry. On the other hand, citations in the search engines have also positive effect on the EVA in the energy and chemical industry in comparison with the reference industry before and after crisis. Intangible assets during crisis were not growth leading for the EVA in the construction, energy and finance industry, but positive for the services industry in comparison with the manufacturing. However, after crisis intangible assets have negative effect on the EVA in the services and finance industry in comparison with the reference industry. Overall, from the industry effect indicators of the models the most significant and positively influencing on the EVA with most of the intangible resources was the manufacturing industry.
The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for the MVA in the Russian intangible-intensive companies are demonstrated in the several tables. Tables 24-25 show the industry effect for the significant intangibles for MVA for Russian companies. Table 26 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the MVA in Russian companies.
Table 24. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (MVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Foreign capital employment*construction before crisis |
934.4944 (1186.676) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment*construction during crisis |
-693.1039 (740.5166) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *construction after crisis |
-98.66209 (728.2279) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy before crisis |
1536.132*** (536.9143) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy during crisis |
-1539.9*** (525.7274) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *energy after crisis |
-232.7717 (525.2233) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *services before crisis |
-593.9976 (623.9305) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * services during crisis |
-1519.697*** (518.9378) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *services after crisis |
-201.4363 (474.8648) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *trade before crisis |
-3903.549*** (1075.229) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * trade during crisis |
-5300.028*** (973.7677) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *trade after crisis |
-3801.491*** (917.4223) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *finance before crisis |
-1042.737 (1554.935) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment * finance during crisis |
-6046.894*** (1200.194) |
|
|
Foreign capital employment *finance after crisis |
0 (not enough data) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 25. The industry effect for the intangible assets (MVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction before crisis |
75.09924* (41.01678) |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction during crisis |
-1.699811 (4.42426) |
|
|
Intangible assets *construction after e crisis |
-.4932265 (4.945227) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy before crisis |
37.9409*** (1.844836) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy during crisis |
-5.143756*** (.9608392) |
|
|
Intangible assets *energy after crisis |
-7.311671*** (.6846979) |
|
|
Intangible assets *services before crisis |
93.13464** (37.05665) |
|
|
Intangible assets * services during crisis |
-.1427223 (1.017195) |
|
|
Intangible assets *services after crisis |
1.159073** (.5039536) |
|
|
Intangible assets *trade before crisis |
.9581451 (7.408636) |
|
|
Intangible assets * trade during crisis |
-1.374338 (9.556928) |
|
|
Intangible assets *trade after crisis |
.9716816 (1.987924) |
|
|
Intangible assets *finance before crisis |
1.601703 (1.629724) |
|
|
Intangible assets * finance during crisis |
-1.013103 (1.249372) |
|
|
Intangible assets *finance after crisis |
.1864471 (1.200812) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 26. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in Russian companies
|
Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry |
Manufacturing |
Construction & Real Estate |
Energy & Chemical |
Services |
Trade |
Finance& Insurance |
|
|
Foreign capital employment before crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
-*** |
||||
|
Foreign capital employment during crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
-*** |
-*** |
-*** |
||
|
Foreign capital employment after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
|||||
|
Intangible assets before crisis |
Reference category |
+* |
+*** |
+** |
|||
|
Intangible assets during crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
|||||
|
Intangible assets after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
+** |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable
“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable
From the table 26 with the summary of the models for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in the Russian companies can be seen that in foreign capital employment in the trade industry was negatively significant on the returns of MVA in the all crisis related periods in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Foreign capital employment during the crisis has negative effect in almost all industries besides the construction industry, which has not significant effect in comparison with the manufacturing industry. In the energy and chemical industry, it was observed more positive significant effect on the MVA growth than in the manufacturing industry. Intangible assets have positive effect on the MVA indicator with the construction, energy and services industries before crisis than reference industry. Intangible assets also have growth effect on the MVA before and after crisis than the manufacturing industry. However, the energy and chemical industry was also significant for the influence of the intangible assets in the all crisis related periods, but has negative effect on the MVA during and after the crisis. Overall, both intangibles show negative significant effect on the returns of MVA in all periods in comparison with manufacturing industries, except for intangible assets before crisis, which was positively significant in the most of the industries.
The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for intangible-intensive European companies for the EVA are presented below. Tables 27-28 present the industry effect for the significant intangibles for EVA for European companies. Table 29 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the EVA in the European companies.
Table 27. The industry effect for the earnings per employee (EVA) for European companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Earnings per employee*construction before crisis |
-43.32318*** (14.56332) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *construction during crisis |
-22.82986 (29.89143) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *construction after crisis |
-4.527031 (48.59107) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy before crisis |
1349.074*** (222.3838) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy during crisis |
375.6994* (195.8398) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *energy after crisis |
-18.77089 (28.66412) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *services before crisis |
140.1854 (110.0625) |
|
|
Earnings per employee * services during crisis |
618.7367 (594.3417) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *services after crisis |
1005.506* (585.5272) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *trade before crisis |
-125.1231 (544.1422) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *during crisis |
-143.8266 (1547.18) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *trade after crisis |
1002.165 (860.494) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *finance before crisis |
124.2574 (282.1607) |
|
|
Earnings per employee * finance during crisis |
318.2084 (587.3049) |
|
|
Earnings per employee *finance after crisis |
-1179.443* (605.8572) |
|
|
Earnings per employee*prof. service before crisis |
-15.93575 (189.9866) |
|
|
Earnings per employee*prof. service during crisis |
-48.54912** (19.26463) |
|
|
Earnings per employee*prof. service after crisis |
-45.54856* (26.55768) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 28/ The industry effect for the membership in the business associations in the search engines (EVA) for European companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Business associations*construction before crisis |
10.12437 (94.92571) |
|
|
Business associations*construction during crisis |
-186.9846* (104.3817) |
|
|
Business associations*construction after crisis |
-221.6738*** (67.78909) |
|
|
Business associations *energy before crisis |
-985.6477*** (118.3131) |
|
|
Business associations *energy during crisis |
-1227.411*** (114.8591) |
|
|
Business associations *energy after crisis |
-1200.483*** (73.46584) |
|
|
Business associations *services before crisis |
-14.70452 (73.09019) |
|
|
Business associations * services during crisis |
-133.7861* (79.08365) |
|
|
Business associations *services after crisis |
-19.42243 (56.60586) |
|
|
Business associations *trade before crisis |
15.3128 (86.92023) |
|
|
Business associations *trade during crisis |
-132.5345 (94.12327) |
|
|
Business associations *trade after crisis |
-69.6856 (68.06426) |
|
|
Business associations *finance before crisis |
153.7409 (225.6654) |
|
|
Business associations * finance during crisis |
-38.49948 (225.6571) |
|
|
Business associations *finance after crisis |
-408.6842** (204.475) |
|
|
Business associations *prof. service before crisis |
-12.57404 (58.46544) |
|
|
Business associations *prof. service during crisis |
-24.85452 (60.75775) |
|
|
Business associations *prof. service after crisis |
20.94876 (46.17445) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 29. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in European companies
|
Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry |
Manufacturing |
Construct. & Real Estate |
Energy & Chemical |
Services |
Trade |
Finance& Insurance |
Prof. service |
|
|
Earnings per employee before crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
+*** |
|||||
|
Earnings per employee during crisis |
Reference category |
+* |
-** |
|||||
|
Earnings per employee after crisis |
Reference category |
+* |
-* |
-* |
||||
|
Membership in business associations before crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
||||||
|
Membership in business associations during crisis |
Reference category |
-* |
-*** |
-* |
||||
|
Membership in business associations after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
-*** |
-** |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable
“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable
According to the summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in European companies, such intangible resource as earning per employees before and during the crisis has positive effect on the EVA returns in comparison with the manufacturing industry. In the services industry it was also observed positive effect of the earnings per employee after crisis in comparison with the reference industry. Earnings per employee indicator was significantly negative on the returns of EVA in European companies before crisis in the construction and real estate industry, professional services during crisis and finance and professional services industries after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Membership in business associations indicator was negatively significant in all periods for the energy and chemical industry for EVA. Negative effect of the membership in the business associations on EVA was also observed for construction industry during and after crisis, for the services industry during crisis and for the finance industry after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Overall, earnings per employee was significant on the returns of EVA in the energy and chemical, service industries in the crisis related periods, while for the membership in the associations influence on the EVA the manufacturing industry was more significant in the crisis related industries.
The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for European companies for the MVA are the following. Tables 30-33 show the industry effect for the significant intangibles for MVA for Russian companies. Table 34 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the MVA in European companies.
Table 30. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (MVA) for European companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction before crisis |
379.0409 (166.1606) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction during crisis |
7.562193** (183.0945) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*construction after crisis |
-19.99973 (169.8762) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy before crisis |
1543.887*** (165.5695) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy during crisis |
307.6288 (188.634) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*energy after crisis |
-773.7771*** (174.06) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*services before crisis |
386.754*** (131.4464) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* services during crisis |
-134.6078 (151.5318) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*services after crisis |
-80.23755 (137.4917) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*trade before crisis |
458.992*** (168.0985) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* trade during crisis |
158.9512 (191.5155) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*trade after crisis |
732.1003*** (169.3849) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*finance before crisis |
665.5763*** (201.497) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* finance during crisis |
120.7629 (179.1215) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors*finance after crisis |
-3.294805 (168.7897) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors *prof. service before crisis |
138.925 (88.94468) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors* prof. service during crisis |
-31.9476 (99.37892) |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors *prof. service after crisis |
62.94434 (90.57956) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 31. The industry effect for the presence of corporate university (MVA) for European companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Corporate university*construction before crisis |
883.9384* (501.2755) |
|
|
Corporate university *construction during crisis |
-216.3764 (541.832) |
|
|
Corporate university *construction after crisis |
-579.1266 (470.0684) |
|
|
Corporate university *energy before crisis |
7485.381*** (694.9699) |
|
|
Corporate university *energy during crisis |
1870.34** (750.9079) |
|
|
Corporate university *energy after crisis |
-2616.349*** (685.1987) |
|
|
Corporate university *services before crisis |
835.3471** (382.8795) |
|
|
Corporate university * services during crisis |
-770.6361* (431.5968) |
|
|
Corporate university *services after crisis |
-539.8377 (337.6465) |
|
|
Corporate university *trade before crisis |
24.1993 (474.9966) |
|
|
Corporate university *trade during crisis |
-729.1183 (513.6965) |
|
|
Corporate university *trade after crisis |
168.1204 (465.5815) |
|
|
Corporate university *finance before crisis |
3034.184*** (1052.703) |
|
|
Corporate university * finance during crisis |
475.3183 (1100.956) |
|
|
Corporate university *finance after crisis |
-815.8137 (1071.13) |
|
|
Corporate university *prof. service before crisis |
233.5432 (264.9225) |
|
|
Corporate university * prof. service during crisis |
-238.5145 (290.0215) |
|
|
Corporate university *prof. service after crisis |
49.76666 (259.2396) |
***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 32. The industry effect for the membership in the business associations in the search engines (MVA) for Russian companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
Business associations*construction before crisis |
545.5319 (451.456) |
|
|
Business associations*construction during crisis |
-276.507 (482.551) |
|
|
Business associations*construction after crisis |
-330.7153 (312.828) |
|
|
Business associations *energy before crisis |
2089.838*** (597.6384) |
|
|
Business associations *energy during crisis |
-2613.792 *** (573.2028) |
|
|
Business associations *energy after crisis |
-3723.69*** (376.1772) |
|
|
Business associations *services before crisis |
558.3197 (347.2307) |
|
|
Business associations * services during crisis |
-513.3568 (373.0555) |
|
|
Business associations *services after crisis |
-27.93895 (260.117) |
|
|
Business associations *trade before crisis |
569.9986 (428.9612) |
|
|
Business associations *trade during crisis |
-685.4508 (458.3617) |
|
|
Business associations *trade after crisis |
466.9284 (331.5207) |
|
|
Business associations *finance before crisis |
3456.392*** (890.3613) |
|
|
Business associations * finance during crisis |
-575.0296 (866.4748) |
|
|
Business associations * finance after crisis |
-1763.884** (799.0929) |
|
|
Business associations *prof. service before crisis |
-101.2693 (271.8589) |
|
|
Business associations * prof. service during crisis |
-343.965 (284.1031) |
|
|
Business associations *prof. service after crisis |
36.6783 ( 213.679) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 33. The industry effect for the ERP system implementation (MVA) for European companies
|
Interaction effect |
Coefficients |
|
|
ERP*construction before crisis |
158.6675 (427.4748) |
|
|
ERP *construction during crisis |
-692.9731 (472.5229) |
|
|
ERP *construction after crisis |
-764.9918** (363.0623) |
|
|
ERP *energy before crisis |
4088.067*** (567.1125) |
|
|
ERP *energy during crisis |
870.1565 (582.5685) |
|
|
ERP *energy after crisis |
-255.5148 (479.8763) |
|
|
ERP *services before crisis |
-155.1314 (365.9464) |
|
|
ERP* services during crisis |
-1632.932*** (399.1812) |
|
|
ERP*services after crisis |
-1395.098*** (322.8627) |
|
|
ERP*trade before crisis |
1173.047*** (477.3211) |
|
|
ERP *trade during crisis |
139.0719 (512.0336) |
|
|
ERP *trade after crisis |
140.1465 (396.0349) |
|
|
ERP *finance before crisis |
2117.548** (925.8534) |
|
|
ERP * finance during crisis |
-112.9546 (864.8328) |
|
|
ERP *finance after crisis |
-1227.182* (643.0619) |
|
|
ERP*prof. service before crisis |
-375.9545 (255.4069) |
|
|
ERP* prof. service during crisis |
-740.6871*** (265.2902) |
|
|
ERP*prof. service after crisis |
-444.3638** (208.1511) |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
Table 34. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in European companies
|
Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry |
Manufacturing |
Construct. & Real Estate |
Energy & Chemical |
Services |
Trade |
Finance& Insurance |
Prof. service |
|
|
Qualification of the board of directors before crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
+*** |
+**** |
+*** |
|||
|
Qualification of the board of directors during crisis |
Reference category |
+** |
||||||
|
Qualification of the board of directors after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
+*** |
|||||
|
Corporate university before crisis |
Reference category |
+* |
+*** |
+*** |
+*** |
|||
|
Corporate university during crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
-* |
|||||
|
Corporate university after crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
||||||
|
Membership in business associations before crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
+*** |
|||||
|
Membership in business associations during crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
||||||
|
Membership in business associations after crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
-** |
|||||
|
ERP system implementation before crisis |
Reference category |
+*** |
+*** |
+** |
||||
|
ERP system implementation during crisis |
Reference category |
-*** |
-*** |
|||||
|
ERP system after crisis |
Reference category |
-** |
-*** |
-* |
-** |
***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively
“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable
“-” negative effect in comparison with the reference variable
From the table 34 with the summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles on the returns of the MVA in the intangible-intensive European companies, such indicator as the qualification of the board of directors has positive effect on the returns of MVA before crisis in the energy and chemical, services, trade and finance industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. During the crisis for the construction industry and after the crisis for the trade industry in comparison with the reference industry the same effect was observed for the qualification of the board of directors. Corporate university was positively significant on the returns of MVA in almost all industries before crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry; negatively significant for the energy and services industry and positively significant for the energy and chemical industry after the crisis. Membership in the business associations was positively significant on the MVA indicator for the construction and finance industry; negatively significant for the construction industry during the crisis and for the construction and finance industry after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. ERP system was positively significant on the returns of MVA for the energy, trade and finance industry, negatively significant for the services and professional services industries during the crisis and negatively significant in almost all industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Overall, it was observed positive effect of almost all significant intangibles on the MVA growth before crisis for European companies.
As a result, for the intangibles significant on the returns of EVA and MVA in the crisis and crisis related periods in the intangible-intensive Russian companies the most significant industry was manufacturing industry. H4 is not rejected as significant for the performance intangibles of intangible-intensive companies in the crisis related periods in Russia are significant with the positive effect of manufacturing industry predominantly. The overall positive effect on the returns of MVA in the intangible-intensive Russian companies was observed only for the intangible assets before crisis in such industries as construction, energy and chemical and services in comparison with the manufacturing industry. For European companies positive effect of almost all intangibles on the returns of MVA was observed before crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Even if the negative effect on the EVA and MVA indicators was observed for the some industries for the several intangibles in the European companies, the results showed that the indicator of earnings per employee has positive effect on the returns of EVA during and after crisis for the energy and chemical industry, after crisis for the services industry in comparison with the manufacturing industry. The indicator of the qualification of the board of directors, corporate university was positively significant on the returns of MVA during and after crisis for several industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Therefore, H4 is rejected for European companies, as manufacturing is not predominant industry, which brings positive effect on the significant intangibles influence on the company performance.
Conclusion
Various studies investigated topic of intangibles as company's value driver in terms of crisis as studies of [Guevara and Bounfour, 2013; Shakina and Barajas, 2016; Cincera et al., 2012; Archibugi et al., 2013; Jung et al.,2018]. This study was aimed to continue and deepen investigations of the topic. The research has the new dimension from previous studies, such as investigation of influence of intangible-intensive strategy of companies in the crisis related periods on the performance, concerning also industry effect and comparing trends for the Russian and European companies, which is not fully researched topic.
This research analyzes and compares the performance of intangible-intensive and not intangible-...
Подобные документы
Strategy of foreign capital regulation in Russia. Russian position in the world market of investments. Problems of foreign investments attraction. Types of measures for attraction of investments. Main aspects of foreign investments attraction policy.
реферат [20,8 K], добавлен 16.05.2011Экономическая сущность и значение инвестиций в современных условиях. Организационно-экономическая характеристика компании. Проблемы привлечения внешних инвестиций в объекты промышленных корпораций. Предложения по развитию инвестиционной политики фирмы.
курсовая работа [61,0 K], добавлен 11.05.2015The economic benefits to the recipient countries by providing capital, foreign exchange. The question of potential causality between foreign debt and domestic savings in the context of the Kyrgyz Republic. The problem of tracking new private businesses.
реферат [26,7 K], добавлен 28.01.2014Fisher Separation Theorem. Consumption Vs. Investment. Utility Analysis. Indifference Curves. The satisfaction levels. Indifference Curves and Trade Off between Present and Future Consumptions. Marginal Rate of Substitution. Capital Market Line.
презентация [1,5 M], добавлен 22.06.2015Capital Structure Definition. Trade-off theory explanation to determine the capital structure. Common factors having most impact on firm’s capital structure in retail sector. Analysis the influence they have on the listed firm’s debt-equity ratio.
курсовая работа [144,4 K], добавлен 16.07.2016Changes in the legal regulation of the clearing, settlement system of securities in Ukraine aimed at harmonizing Ukrainian securities legislation with European and international regulatory standards. Netting regulation in Ukraine. Concepts of securities.
статья [23,2 K], добавлен 19.09.2017Crisis in Russia and international tobacco enterprises. International tobacco companies in the Russian market. Рroper suggestions with the purpose to adapt them to the Russian tobacco market in the new circumstances to maintain the level of profit.
реферат [15,4 K], добавлен 15.05.2016Disintegration of the USSR. Restoration of Russia. Influence of the open market. The Asian financial crisis. Increase of local manufacture. Fast lifting of economy, gross national product. Export of consumer goods. Fluctuations in the world prices.
топик [12,4 K], добавлен 04.02.2009The global financial and economic crisis. Monetary and financial policy, undertaken UK during a crisis. Combination of aggressive expansionist monetary policy and decretive financial stimulus. Bank repeated capitalization. Support of domestic consumption.
реферат [108,9 K], добавлен 29.06.2011Presence of nominal rigidity as an important part of macroeconomic theory since. Definition of debt rigidity; its impact on crediting. The causes of the Japanese economic crisis; way out of it. Banking problems in United States and euro area countries.
статья [87,9 K], добавлен 02.09.2014The concept and features of bankruptcy. Methods prevent bankruptcy of Russian small businesses. General characteristics of crisis management. Calculating the probability of bankruptcy discriminant function in the example of "Kirov Plant "Mayak".
курсовая работа [74,5 K], добавлен 18.05.2015Global ecological crisis. Pollution of atmosphere. The preservation of the biosphere of an ozone layer of the atmosphere absorbing ultra-violet radiation harmful for live oragnizm of the Sun. Reduction of number of the woods. Exhaustion of rainforests.
презентация [368,2 K], добавлен 03.10.2012Stereotypes that influence on economic relations between the European Union countries and Russia. Consequences of influence of stereotypes on economic relations between EU and Russia. Results of first attempts solving problem. General conclusion.
реферат [19,0 K], добавлен 19.11.2007The causes and effects of the recent global financial crisis. Liquidity trap in Japan. Debt deflation theory. The financial fragility hypothesis. The principles of functioning of the financial system. Search for new approaches to solving debt crises.
реферат [175,9 K], добавлен 02.09.2014Description of the economic situation in the Qing empire. State control over the economy. Impact on its development Opium Wars. Thermos trade policy of the government. Causes and consequences of the economic crisis. Enforcement of a foreign sector.
курсовая работа [77,7 K], добавлен 27.11.2014The history of football. Specific features of English football lexis and its influence on Russian: the peculiarities of Russian loan-words. The origin of the Russian football positions’ names. The formation of the English football clubs’ nicknames.
курсовая работа [31,8 K], добавлен 18.12.2011The concept of legitimate force, the main condition and the possibility of entry of legal acts in force. Reflection of the procedure in the legislation of the European Union and the Russian Federation: comparative characteristics and differences.
реферат [20,5 K], добавлен 13.02.2015Понятия "Crisis management" и кризисных технологий. Кризисы. Составные компоненты СМ. Возможности. Технологии PR в конкурентной борьбе. Информационные и рекламные войны. Черный PR и негативные технологии. Манипулирование. Иллюстрации кризисных технологий.
курсовая работа [40,1 K], добавлен 07.08.2005Economic growth and potential of economic system. The main problems of productive forces in Ukraine. Modern approaches to productivity. Productivity growth in industries. Improvements in infrastructure quality Support of employment of the population.
курсовая работа [15,3 K], добавлен 09.05.2011Pictures of scientists of possible future of Earth. Scientific informations about influence of solar radiation on a planet. Earthquakes as a necessary evil. Change of the state arctic sea ice extent for twenty five years from data of satellite of NASA.
презентация [4,7 M], добавлен 19.12.2011
