X hits on this document

PDF document

PRIVATISING NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES: ASSESSING THE IMPACT ON FIRM PERFORMANCE - page 12 / 30

93 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

12 / 30

0.0973

0.1257

0.0284

(0.0468)

(0.0787)

(0.0319)

0.0595

0.0886

0.0291

(0.0433)

(0.0666)

(0.0233)

0.1412

0.1830

0.0418

(0.1175)

(0.1607)

(0.0432)

0.8777

1.1512

0.2735

(0.8477)

(1.1245)

(0.2768)

0.6717

1.2210

0.5494

(0.5929)

(1.0761)

(0.4832)

0.8956

1.0672

0.1717

(0.9016)

(1.0742)

(0.1727)

2.7736

1.5437

-1.2298

(1.5003)

(1.6038)

(0.1035)

1.0635

1.0851

0.0217

(1.0505)

(0.9513)

(-0.0992)

1.5079

1.6258

0.1179

(1.3539)

(1.3272)

(-0.0267)

0.9679

1.4615

0.4936

(0.8783)

(1.3159)

(0.4376)

0.1990

0.1783

-0.0206

(0.1306)

(0.1337)

(0.0030)

0.1071

0.1198

0.0127

(0.1032)

(0.1163)

(0.0131)

0.8763

1.2215

0.3452

(0.8559)

(1.1268)

(0.2709)

0.8847

1.1408

0.2561

(0.9351)

(1.0749)

(0.1398)

62,139

55,245

-6,894

(17,536)

(13,942)

(-3,595)

1.1350

1.1211

-0.0139

(1.0144)

(1.0259)

(0.0115)

1.2598

0.8747

-0.3851

(1.1936)

(0.8273)

(-0.3663)

0.8722

0.5581

-0.3140

(0.6767)

(0.5177)

(-0.1590)

0.3636

0.3120

-0.0516

(0.3894)

(0.3388)

(-0.0506)

1.7429

1.2964

-0.4465

(1.1747)

(1.3507)

(0.1760)

0.0356

0.0569

0.0213

(0.0089)

(0.0226)

(0.0137)

0.3523

0.3986

0.0464

(0.3105)

(0.4055)

(0.0950)

difference in variable values is zero. In addition, we calculate the percentage of

to materialise through a combination of higher output, cuts in employment intensity,

than through a sustained reduction of operating costs, efficiency improvements seem

shows some improvement at the median level, but not statistically significant. Rather

including the preferred metric of output per employee. Production cost per barrel

Efficiency. All per-employee metrics increase at the 1% significance level,

companies with improved performance as defined above.

to -1 vs. +1 to +3 z-statistic (one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test) -2.824***

Fraction of firms that change as predicted 75.0%

-3.211***

71.4%

-2.049**

64.3%

-3.054***

84.0%

-3.486***

83.3%

-2.914***

70.8%

0.459

55.6%

-0.157

61.5%

-0.220

46.2%

-3.985***

78.6%

0.182

57.1%

-1.571*

64.3%

-3.279***

75.0%

-4.076***

92.3%

1.036

48.0%

-0.283

48.0%

4.049***

88.0%

1.662**

64.3%

1.708**

64.3%

1.826**

59.3%

-2.482***

71.4%

-1.562*

65.4%

and 5% levels) improvements. Three out of four firms improve their return on sales.

Variable Return on sales

No. of obs 28

Return on assets

28

Return on equity

28

Sales per employee

25

Profit per employee

24

Output per employee

24

F&D costs per boe

10

Production cost per boe

14

Reserve replacement

14

Capex

28

Capex / sales

28

Capex / assets

28

Sales

28

Physical Output

26

Employment

25

Rel. employment

25

Employees / assets

25

Debt / equity

28

Debt / debt+equity

28

Debt / EBITDA

27

Dividends / sales

28

Dividends / profit

26

Three-year

averages: -3

Average

Change in

(median)

average

after

(median)

Table 2: Results of univariate tests

Average (median) before

Notes: * / ** / *** : Denotes significance at the 10-percent / 5-percent / 1-percent level, respectively.

Profitability. All measures show economically and statistically significant (at 1%

12

Document info
Document views93
Page views93
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 10:01:41 UTC 2016
Pages30
Paragraphs1873
Words11467

Comments