2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.09.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Financial performance of renewable energy producers: A panel data analysis from the Baltic Sea Region

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In conclusion, the effect of the bias correction on the scaled LM statistic is small when N and T are comparable in magnitude. In contrast, the test statistic value of the Pesaran CD test is much lower than that of the scaled LM test in both developing and developed countries (6.282 and 10.527, respectively), but it still rejects the null at conventional significance levels, suggesting that it may be more useful to focus on these results (Gander, 2013;Dopierała et al, 2022). Thus, we use Fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) together with random effect (RE), fixed effect (EF), and quantile regression (Q25, Q50, and Q75).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…In conclusion, the effect of the bias correction on the scaled LM statistic is small when N and T are comparable in magnitude. In contrast, the test statistic value of the Pesaran CD test is much lower than that of the scaled LM test in both developing and developed countries (6.282 and 10.527, respectively), but it still rejects the null at conventional significance levels, suggesting that it may be more useful to focus on these results (Gander, 2013;Dopierała et al, 2022). Thus, we use Fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) together with random effect (RE), fixed effect (EF), and quantile regression (Q25, Q50, and Q75).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…All variables are winsorized at the 5% and 95% levels to mitigate the impact of outliers using STATA software. The choice of proxies for each variable is as follows: This study explores the moderating effect of firm age, which is incorporated into the following formula for analysis: This study uses asset growth, ROE, and ROA as the proxies for firm performance (Dopierała et al 2022;Egorova, Grishunin, and Karminsky 2022). The dependent variable, firm growth, is measured using three different proxies in accordance with firm growth literature: Firstly, asset growth is used as the firm growth proxy, as firms grow by first acquiring assets (Lefebvre 2023), and assets bring in profits from increased sales volume (Theodore and Lindberg 1978).…”
Section: Data Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sources:McFaddin and Clouse 1993;Kaplan and Zingales 1997;Whited and Wu 2006;Çoban 2014;Coad 2018;Regasa et al 2019;Haran et al 2021;Dopierała et al 2022. …”
unclassified
“…For this purpose, we performed estimation using random effects models. This approach is often found in the literature as a way to test the robustness of results, especially when the signs of the estimated time-varying parameters and their statistical significance are more important for the inference than their exact values [ 90 , 91 ]. The results of the model estimation for the dependent variable ROAA are presented in Table 9 , and for the dependent variable ROAE in Table 10 .…”
Section: Robustness Checks and Alternative Specificationsmentioning
confidence: 99%