Skip to main content

Table 5 Regression with MTBt + 1 as the dependent variable

From: The impact of US sugar prices on the financial performance of US sugar-using firms

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
ln(SGA) 0.237*** 0.226*** 0.224***
(0.082) (0.080) (0.080)
t 2.90 2.81 2.81
ln(ATO) 0.545*** 0.520*** 0.513***
(0.097) (0.093) (0.092)
t 5.64 5.59 5.59
ln(Size) 0.275*** 0.251*** 0.237***
(0.045) (0.046) (0.046)
t 6.14 5.48 5.18
ln(Growth) 0.005 0.005 0.006
(0.007) (0.007) (0.007)
t 0.65 0.66 0.84
ln(FRisk) − 0.090*** − 0.095*** − 0.098***
(0.015) (0.016) (0.017)
t − 5.89 − 5.86 − 5.83
ln(UWpra) 0.153***   
(0.046)   
t 3.28   
ln(UWpre)   0.117*  
  (0.062)  
t   1.88  
ln(UWprb)    0.056
   (0.047)
t    1.18
Constant − 2.807*** − 2.563*** − 2.395***
(0.501) (0.517) (0.533)
t − 5.60 − 4.95 − 4.49
Observations 977 977 977
# of firms 26 26 26
R-squared 0.647 0.624 0.617
F value 112.92 98.03 93.48
  1. Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Reported R2 are “within” R2 statistics. Variable definitions are in Table 1. The data were winsorized at the 1% and 99% percentiles (Adams et al. 2019; Tukey 1962). The AIC and BIC tests confirmed that winsorized data explain better the models