永利国际娱乐注册送56 会员中心 TAG标签
网站地图 RSS
代写英国essay 代写澳洲essay代写美国essay 代写加拿大essay MBA Essay Essay格式范文
返回永利国际娱乐注册送56

中国的企业储蓄之谜:The Chinese Corporate Savings Puzzle: A Firm-level(3)

时间:2014-01-02 11:55来源:www.ukassignment.org 编辑:Tamim Bayoumi, Hui T 点击:
We now compare state-owned versus non-state-owned firms in Column 3.Conditional on sector and time fixed effects and firm size, there is no significant difference between the two groups, which is cons
We now compare state-owned versus non-state-owned firms in Column 3.Conditional on sector and time fixed effects and firm size, there is no significant difference between the two groups, which is consistent with the unconditional pattern in Table 2. In Column 4, we look at the time pattern by adding the interaction of time trend and stateowned dummy. This interaction has a negative coefficient and is significantly different from zero at the 10% level. Meanwhile, the state-ownership dummy has a weakly positive coefficient. Taken together, this suggests that state-owned companies have slightly higher gross savings rates than private firms at the beginning of the sample period, but the gap declines gradually to become negligible.
As corporate savings is the difference between profits and dividend payout, we now look at the two components separately.
D. Decomposing Gross Savings: Profits and Dividends
The patterns of coefficients for profits in Table 4 are similar to those for gross savings rates. China’s firms have somewhat higher profit but not significantly so (Column 1 of Table 4). To find the country-level conditional average dividend rate, we perform a version of the regression in Column 1 by adding individual country dummies (regression results not reported to save space). We plot the estimated individual country fixed effects in the top panel of Figure 5. China, while below the median, is not far from it. India, Australia and the U.K. still have higher profit over asset ratios than China.
In Column 2 of Table 4, we compare the trend in China’s corporate profits rates during 2002 to 2007 to the global time fixed effects. The coefficient on the interaction between the China dummy and the time trend is statistically insignificant, suggesting that the time profile of Chinese firms’ profit rates is not that different from the global trend.
In Column 3 of Table 4, we compare majority state-owned versus non-state-owned firms within China. We find that majority state-owned firms have a similar profit ratio as non-state-owned companies over the sample period. To see the time trend, we add an interaction term between the state-ownership dummy and the time trend. It appears that the majority state-owned firms used to have a higher profit rate than majority private-owned firms, but the pattern reversed in the later part of the sample period.
Now we look at the dividend practices conditional on sector and year fixed effects and firm size (Table 5). The coefficient for the China dummy is positive but insignificant, suggesting that Chinese firms issue dividends at an amount at least as large as the global average. To find the country-level conditional average dividend rate, we perform a version of the regression in Column 1 by adding individual country dummies (regression results not reported). The estimates of the individual country effects are plotted in the bottom panel of
Figure 5. There, Chinese firms’ conditional dividend payoff rates, on average, lie in the middle: for example, they are larger than those in France, Germany, Korea, Japan and the United States, but smaller than Thailand, South Africa, Brazil, and Sweden.
In Column 2 of Table 5, we add the interaction term of a time trend and the China dummy. This interaction term is negative and significant but very small (-0.00097), suggesting a moderate decline over the sample period.6 To gain further insight, we compute the fraction of listed Chinese companies that issued dividends in a year. The fraction is 55%, 49%, 55%, 47%, 50% and 52% respectively from 2002 to 2007. In other words, there was a mild reduction in the fraction of dividend-paying firms, but the change is overwhelmed by year-to-year fluctuations. We also compute the average cash dividend per share (DPS) for Chinese firms. The average DPS increased over the years, from 4.74 in 2002 and 4.96 in 2003 to 6.34 in 2006 and 7.47 cents in 2007 (the numbers of shares per company are held constant as stock splits and reverse splits and new shares are adjusted). Note from Column 2 in Table 4, there is a modest (but insignificant) decline in the profit rate of Chinese firms during the same period. In any case, recall from Column 2 of Table 3, there is no significant change in the gross savings rate over time for Chinese firms.
In Column 3 of Table 5, we compare the dividend payout rates between majority state-owned firms and other companies, conditional on the sector and year fixed effects and firm size. Contrary to the mainstream view, we see that state-owned companies issue more dividends. The coefficient on the state ownership dummy is 0.002, significantly different from zero at the 10% level. In Column 4 of Table 5, we examine whether and how the difference between state-owned and other firms changes over time. The negative but insignificant coefficient on the interaction term suggests that there might be a narrowing of the gap over time, but the evidence is not statistically significant.

 

E. Investment and Net Savings

 

To understand the corporate sector’s contribution to a country’s current account, one ultimately needs to look at net corporate savings--the difference between gross savings and
capital investments. We now examine China’s corporate investments over assets by using the same set of right-hand-side variables for gross savings. In Column 1 of Table 6, the China dummy is positive and significant at the 1% level, suggesting that Chinese firms invest more than the global average. To find the country-level conditional average investment rate, we 6 In October 2008, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) required listed firms that applied for refinancing to pay cash dividends annually in an amount no less than 30 % of its distributed profits over the past three years. As it is outside our sample period, we are not able to test the effect of the policy.
perform a version of the regression in Column 1 by adding individual country dummies(regression results not reported). Again, the estimates of the individual country effects are plotted in Figure 5 (top panel). It is clear that Chinese firms invest more than firms in all other countries save two (India and Canada). From Column 2 of Table 6, Chinese firms appear to decrease their investment relative to assets over time when compared with a global year fixed effects (of generally rising investment).
In Column 3 of Table 6, we compare the conditional investment rate by majority state-owned firms with non-state owned firms in China. Interestingly, an average stateowned firm invests less than an average non-state firm. The gap in the investment ratio between state and non-state firms does not shrink over the sample period (column 4 ofTable 6).
We now examine the net savings rate in Table 7. There is little evidence that Chinese firms have higher net savings as a share of total assets than firms in other countries. The estimated coefficient is positive but insignificant (Column 1 of Table 7). To find the countrylevel conditional average net savings rate, we perform a version of the regression in Column 1 by adding individual country dummies (regression results not reported). The estimates of the individual country effects are plotted in the bottom panel of Figure 6. We see that China’s net savings are smaller than more than half of the countries in the sample, including India,
Australia and the U.K. From Column 2 of Table 6, the insignificant interaction term suggests that the gap between net corporate savings in China and the global average has not narrowed over time.
In Column 3 of Table 7, we compare state-owned companies with non-state-owned ones in China. There is no significant difference between the two groups on corporate net savings. Column 4 of Table 7 suggests that the net savings rate might be higher for stateowned firms at the beginning of the sample. The trend is negative but insignificant. Since there is no difference between state and non-state firms averaged over the entire sample, we surmise that state-owned firms may have a lower net savings rate than non-state firms in the latter part of the sample. The insignificant trend term reflects that year-to-year fluctuations are large (producing a relatively large standard error).
F. Do Financial Constraints Raise the Savings by Non-state Firms?
Recall that a key conclusion so far is that within China, private firms do not save less than state-owned firms. One reason that private firms need to save is concern for future financing constraints when good investment opportunities come along.
We now test these arguments. The first question is how to measure external finance needs in a cross-country setting. Following the literature on empirical corporate finance, we use an index for intrinsic dependence on external finance for investment (DEF_INV). Specifically, we construct a sector-level approximation of a firm’s intrinsic demand on external finance for capital investment following a methodology developed in Rajan and Zingales (1998):
Dependence on external finance for investment = capital expenditures - cash flow , capital expenditures where Cash flow = cash flow from operations + decreases in inventories + decreases in receivables + increases in payables. All the numbers are based on U.S. firms, which are judged to be least likely to suffer from financing constraints (during a normal time) relative to firms in other countries. While the original Rajan and Zingales (1998) paper covers only 40 (mainly SIC 2-digit) sectors, we expand the coverage to around 250/373 SIC 3-digit sectors (following Tong and Wei, 2010).
To calculate the demand for external financing of US firms, we take the following steps. First, every firm in the COMPUSTA USA is sorted into one of the SIC 3-digit sectors.
Second, we calculate the ratio of dependence on external finance for each firm from 1990- 2006. Third, we calculate the sector-level median from firm ratios for each SIC 3-digit sector that contains at least 5 firms, and the median value is then chosen, to be the index of demand for external financing in that sector. Conceptually, the Rajan-Zingales (DEP_INV) index aims to identify sector-level features, i.e. which sectors are naturally more dependent on external financing for their business operation. It ignores the question of which firms within a sector are more liquidity constrained. What the DEP_INV index measures could be regarded as a “technical feature” of a sector, almost like a part of the production function. To capture the economic concept of the percentage of capital expenditure that has to be financed by external funding, we winsorize the DEP_INV index to range between 0 and 1.


推荐内容
  • 英国作业
  • 新西兰作业
  • 爱尔兰作业
  • 美国作业
  • 加拿大作业
  • 代写英国essay
  • 代写澳洲essay
  • 代写美国essay
  • 代写加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲66402
  • 代写英国assignment
  • 新西兰66402
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何写assignment
  • 代写英国termpaper
  • 代写澳洲termpaper
  • 英国coursework代写
  • PEST分析法
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • 参考文献格式
  • case study
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • Summary范文
  • common application
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter
  • XML 地图 | Sitemap 地图