Panel Data Analysis - DATA ANALYSIS - GLOBALIZING THE BOARDROOM AMONG FAMILY-CONTROLLED LISTED

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4.2 Panel Data Analysis

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 41 of 97

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 42 of 97

0.05 and 0.10. This means that ID (0.356), NOWD (0.767), NOFQ (0.92), NOBM (0.39), NOFDAC (0.68) and NOFD (0.958) all have a P-value above 0.05. So, it didn't have an impact on ROA. 2.11 percent of the difference in ROA could be explained by the difference in the seven IVs. In this case, the Adjusted R square was -0.012 where the F-statistic was 0.637.

4.2.1.2 Hausman Test for ROA Malaysia

Table 4.2.1.2: Hausman test Result for ROA Malaysia

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H0: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H1: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.9028, which was larger than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H1 was rejected, but H0 was not. In conclusion, the Random Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 2.800241 7 0.9028

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.287707 0.427977 0.023824 0.3635

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS -3.885191 -3.327894 2.700352 0.7345 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.135003 -0.089824 0.010723 0.6626 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.127987 -0.371048 0.035799 0.1989

BOARD_MEETING 0.036322 -0.058687 0.013433 0.4124

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.594774 -0.848764 0.093117 0.4052 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS -0.137231 0.033533 0.124851 0.6289

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: ROA Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 02/27/22 Time: 21:44 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 27

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 215

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 5.114712 3.135526 1.631213 0.1046

BOARD_SIZE 0.287707 0.362876 0.792852 0.4289

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS -3.885191 3.956607 -0.981950 0.3274 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.135003 0.319343 -0.422754 0.6730 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.127987 0.399100 -0.320688 0.7488

BOARD_MEETING 0.036322 0.311444 0.116625 0.9073

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.594774 1.206348 -0.493037 0.6226 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS -0.137231 0.724895 -0.189312 0.8501

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.678270 Mean dependent var 4.981981

Adjusted R-squared 0.619612 S.D. dependent var 5.293866 S.E. of regression 3.265024 Akaike info criterion 5.348550 Sum squared resid 1929.529 Schwarz criterion 5.881581 Log likelihood -540.9691 Hannan-Quinn criter. 5.563919

F-statistic 11.56313 Durbin-Watson stat 1.553558

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 43 of 97

4.2.2 ROE Malaysia

4.2.2.1 Random Effect Model of ROE

Table 4.2.2.1 Random Effect Model for ROE Malaysia

According to Table 4.2.2.1, the equation was formed as the following:

ROE= 10.927 + 0.691 BS -7.547 % ID – 0.804 NOWD – 0.427 NOFQ + 0.074 NOBM – 1.460 NOFDAC + 0.811 NOFD + 5.713 ɛ

Dependent Variable: ROE

Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects) Date: 02/27/22 Time: 23:34

Sample: 2013 2020 Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 27

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 215

Swamy and Arora estimator of component variances

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.691420 0.612462 1.128919 0.2602

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS -7.547339 6.740966 -1.119623 0.2642 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.803725 0.575976 -1.395415 0.1644 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.426821 0.645010 -0.661727 0.5089

BOARD_MEETING 0.074205 0.546544 0.135771 0.8921

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -1.459797 2.252351 -0.648121 0.5176 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.811230 1.162682 0.697723 0.4861

C 10.92691 5.712688 1.912744 0.0572

Effects Specification

S.D. Rho

Cross-section random 6.664730 0.5180

Idiosyncratic random 6.429316 0.4820

Weighted Statistics

R-squared 0.030914 Mean dependent var 3.331853

Adjusted R-squared -0.001857 S.D. dependent var 6.365411 S.E. of regression 6.371064 Sum squared resid 8402.224

F-statistic 0.943333 Durbin-Watson stat 1.337312

Prob(F-statistic) 0.474075

Unweighted Statistics

R-squared 0.014969 Mean dependent var 10.30017

Sum squared resid 16046.12 Durbin-Watson stat 0.700256

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 44 of 97

According to the equation had formed, it shown that BS, NOBM, and NOFD have a positive effect relationship with ROE, meanwhile %ID, NOWD, NOFQ, and NOFDAC have a negative effect on ROE.

In this research, eight years were used to run ROE in a Random Effect Model. The results show that only BS with a P-value of 0.057 had an impact on ROE because its P-value was more than 0.05. This means that ID (0.264), NOWD (0.164), NOFQ (0.509), NOBM (0.892), NOFDAC (0.517), and NOFD (0.486) all had P-values greater than 0.05. So, it didn't have an impact on ROE. In this case, 3.09 percent of the difference in ROE could be explained by how different the seven IVs were. In this case, the adjusted R square was -0.002 and the F-statistic was 0.943.

4.2.2.2 Hausman Test for ROE Malaysia

Table 4.2.2.2: Hausman test Result for ROE Malaysia

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H0: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H1: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.852, which was larger than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H1 was rejected, but H0 was not. In conclusion, the Random Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 3.335121 7 0.8524

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.486338 0.691420 0.135481 0.5774

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS -12.098165 -7.547339 15.261296 0.2441 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.795975 -0.803725 0.063682 0.9755 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.063692 -0.426821 0.201579 0.2746

BOARD_MEETING 0.236033 0.074205 0.077402 0.5608

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -1.207950 -1.459797 0.569807 0.7387 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.205522 0.811230 0.685715 0.4645

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: ROE Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 02/27/22 Time: 23:34 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 27

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 215

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 10.74324 6.174316 1.739990 0.0836

BOARD_SIZE 0.486338 0.714556 0.680616 0.4970

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS -12.09816 7.791144 -1.552810 0.1222 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.795975 0.628833 -1.265797 0.2072 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.063692 0.785886 0.081045 0.9355

BOARD_MEETING 0.236033 0.613280 0.384869 0.7008

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -1.207950 2.375477 -0.508508 0.6117 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.205522 1.427426 0.143981 0.8857

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.540709 Mean dependent var 10.30017

Adjusted R-squared 0.456971 S.D. dependent var 8.724752 S.E. of regression 6.429316 Akaike info criterion 6.703751 Sum squared resid 7481.835 Schwarz criterion 7.236783 Log likelihood -686.6533 Hannan-Quinn criter. 6.919121

F-statistic 6.457136 Durbin-Watson stat 1.502784

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 45 of 97

4.2.3 Tobin’s Q Malaysia

4.2.3.1 Random Effect Model of Tobin’s Q

Table 4.2.3.1: Random Effect Model of Tobin’s Q Malaysia

According to Table 4.2.3.1, the equation was formed as the following:

Tobin’s Q = 0.222 + 0.050 BS +0.514 % ID + 0.155 NOWD – 0.035 NOFQ + 0.084 NOBM – 0.123 NOFDAC + 0.113 NOFD + 0.489 ɛ

Dependent Variable: TOBIN_S_Q

Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects) Date: 02/27/22 Time: 23:35

Sample: 2013 2020 Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 27

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 215

Swamy and Arora estimator of component variances

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.049932 0.051962 0.960939 0.3377

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 0.514098 0.568290 0.904641 0.3667

WOMEN_DIRECTORS 0.154561 0.047159 3.277427 0.0012

FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.034990 0.056101 -0.623693 0.5335

BOARD_MEETING 0.084133 0.045373 1.854252 0.0651

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.122533 0.180920 -0.677280 0.4990 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.113148 0.101165 1.118451 0.2647

C 0.222396 0.489356 0.454467 0.6500

Effects Specification

S.D. Rho

Cross-section random 0.867300 0.7501

Idiosyncratic random 0.500618 0.2499

Weighted Statistics

R-squared 0.112462 Mean dependent var 0.285101

Adjusted R-squared 0.082449 S.D. dependent var 0.522468 S.E. of regression 0.500555 Sum squared resid 51.86498

F-statistic 3.747082 Durbin-Watson stat 1.228425

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000762

Unweighted Statistics

R-squared 0.011475 Mean dependent var 1.423655

Sum squared resid 199.4153 Durbin-Watson stat 0.319495

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 46 of 97

According to the equation had formed, it shown that BS, %ID, NOWD, NOBM, and NOFD have a positive effect relationship with Tobin’s Q, meanwhile NOFQ, and NOFDAC have a negative effect on Tobin’s Q.

In this research, eight years were used to run Tobin's Q in a Random Effect Model with Tobin's Q. NOWD, which had a P-value of 0.001, had an important effect on Tobin's Q because its P-value was less than 0.05 and 0.10. BS (0.338), %ID (0.368), NOFQ (0.534), NOBM (0.065), NOFDAC (0.499), and NOFD (0.265) all had P- values that were greater than 0.05, which means they were more than 0.5%. So, Tobin's Q didn't show a difference because of this. Some of Tobin's Q could be explained by how the seven IVs changed. In this case, the adjusted R-square was 0.082, and the F-statistic was 3.747.

4.2.3.2 Hausman Test of Tobin’s Q Malaysia

Table 4.2.3.2: Hausman Test of Tobin’s Q Malaysia

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H0: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H1: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.428, which was larger than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H1 was rejected, but H0 was not. In conclusion, the Random Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 7.006384 7 0.4282

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.014985 0.049932 0.000396 0.0789

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 0.598348 0.514098 0.045079 0.6915

WOMEN_DIRECTORS 0.159596 0.154561 0.000173 0.7022

FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.002220 -0.034990 0.000597 0.1799

BOARD_MEETING 0.110290 0.084133 0.000222 0.0789

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.086249 -0.122533 0.001481 0.3457 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.152528 0.113148 0.002119 0.3923

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: TOBIN_S_Q Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 02/27/22 Time: 23:36 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 27

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 215

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 0.103312 0.480762 0.214891 0.8301

BOARD_SIZE 0.014985 0.055639 0.269325 0.7880

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 0.598348 0.606656 0.986305 0.3253

WOMEN_DIRECTORS 0.159596 0.048964 3.259465 0.0013

FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.002220 0.061193 -0.036284 0.9711

BOARD_MEETING 0.110290 0.047753 2.309594 0.0220

FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.086249 0.184966 -0.466297 0.6416 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.152528 0.111146 1.372319 0.1717

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.775136 Mean dependent var 1.423655

Adjusted R-squared 0.734139 S.D. dependent var 0.970909 S.E. of regression 0.500618 Akaike info criterion 1.598190 Sum squared resid 45.36185 Schwarz criterion 2.131221 Log likelihood -137.8054 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.813559

F-statistic 18.90698 Durbin-Watson stat 1.427587

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 47 of 97

4.2.4 ROA Singapore

4.2.4.1 Fixed Effect Model

Table 4.2.4.1: Fixed Effect Model of ROA Singapore

According to Table 4.2.4.1, the equation was formed as the following:

ROA = 2.581 + 0.062 BS + 3.535 % ID – 2.109 NOWD + 1.039 NOFD + 0.396 NOFQ – 1.120 NOBM – 2.672 NOFDAC + 5.002 ɛ

According to the equation had formed, it shown that BS, %ID, NOFD, and NOFQ have a positive effect relationship with ROA, meanwhile NOWD, NOBM, and NOFDAC have a negative effect on ROA.

In this research, eight years were used to run ROA in a Fixed Effect Model. NOBM, NOWD, and NOFDAC all had an impact on ROA because their P-value was less than 0.05 and 0.10. In this case, the BS (0.911), the %ID (0.588), the NOFD (0.211),

Dependent Variable: ROA Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:25 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.062135 0.551974 0.112569 0.9106

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 3.535052 6.499058 0.543933 0.5879 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -2.109453 0.967101 -2.181213 0.0320 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 1.038973 0.824363 1.260334 0.2111 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.395903 0.657068 0.602529 0.5485 BOARD_MEETING -1.120341 0.327008 -3.426031 0.0010 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -2.671520 1.159200 -2.304624 0.0237

C 2.581206 5.002171 0.516017 0.6072

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.568851 Mean dependent var 3.542178

Adjusted R-squared 0.470155 S.D. dependent var 4.503175 S.E. of regression 3.277882 Akaike info criterion 5.384733 Sum squared resid 891.7945 Schwarz criterion 5.896331 Log likelihood -257.3138 Hannan-Quinn criter. 5.591948

F-statistic 5.763635 Durbin-Watson stat 1.913852

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 48 of 97

and the NOFQ (0.549) all had P-values greater than 0.05. So, it didn't have a big impact on ROA. 56.8% of the difference in ROA could be explained by the difference in the seven IVs. In this case, the adjusted R-squared was 0.470, and the F-statistic was 5.764.

4.2.4.2 Hausman Test for ROA Singapore

Table 4.2.4.2: Hausman test Result for ROA Singapore

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H0: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H¹: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.0001, which was less than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H0 was rejected, but H1 was not. In conclusion, the Fixed Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 30.164787 7 0.0001

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.062135 0.876060 0.213446 0.0781

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 3.535052 -1.330747 29.264463 0.3684 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -2.109453 0.257287 0.659118 0.0036 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 1.038973 0.789524 0.586836 0.7447 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.395903 -1.171013 0.208879 0.0006 BOARD_MEETING -1.120341 -0.888854 0.028379 0.1694 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -2.671520 -1.655390 0.472746 0.1394

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: ROA Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:26 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 2.581206 5.002171 0.516017 0.6072

BOARD_SIZE 0.062135 0.551974 0.112569 0.9106

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.568851 Mean dependent var 3.542178

F-statistic 5.763635 Durbin-Watson stat 1.913852

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 49 of 97

4.2.5 ROE Singapore

4.2.5.1 Fixed Effect Model

Table 4.2.5.1: Fixed Effect Model of ROA Singapore

According to Table 4.2.5.1, the equation was formed as the following:

ROE = 13.936 + 0.336 BS + 5.466 % ID – 2.438 NOWD + 2.297 NOFD – 0.674 NOFQ – 2.813 NOBM – 3.951 NOFDAC + 9.348 ɛ

According to the equation had formed, it shown that BS, %ID, and NOFD have a positive effect relationship with ROE, meanwhile NOWD, NOBM, NOFQ, and NOFDAC have a negative effect on ROE.

In this research, eight years were used to run ROE in a Fixed Effect Model. NOBM had an impact on ROE because its P-value was less than 0.05 and 0.10. They had P-values that were greater than 0.05 for the %ID, BS (0.745), NOWD (0.181), NOFD (0.140), NOWD, NOFQ (0.584), and NOFDAC (0.072). So, it didn't have a

Dependent Variable: ROE Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:27 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.336127 1.031538 0.325850 0.7454

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 5.466377 12.14555 0.450072 0.6538 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -2.438193 1.807335 -1.349054 0.1810 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 2.297379 1.540584 1.491239 0.1397 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.674234 1.227940 -0.549077 0.5844 BOARD_MEETING -2.813071 0.611119 -4.603147 0.0000 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -3.950980 2.166333 -1.823810 0.0718

C 13.93638 9.348144 1.490818 0.1398

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.586843 Mean dependent var 5.877733

Adjusted R-squared 0.492265 S.D. dependent var 8.596900 S.E. of regression 6.125764 Akaike info criterion 6.635345 Sum squared resid 3114.573 Schwarz criterion 7.146943 Log likelihood -321.7203 Hannan-Quinn criter. 6.842560

F-statistic 6.204861 Durbin-Watson stat 1.881545

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 50 of 97

big impact on ROE. 58.6% of the difference in ROE could be explained by how many IVs there were in each of them. In this case, the adjusted R-squared was 0.492, and the F-statistic was 6.205.

4.2.5.2 Hausman Test for ROE Singapore

Table 4.2.5.2: Hausman Test Results of ROE Singapore

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H⁰: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H1: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.016, which was less than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H0 was rejected, but H1 was not. In conclusion, the Fixed Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 17.212925 7 0.0161

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.336127 1.429530 0.715995 0.1963

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 5.466377 -5.753036 97.877086 0.2568 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -2.438193 1.805183 2.211318 0.0043 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 2.297379 2.078894 2.033337 0.8782 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS -0.674234 -2.721892 0.691583 0.0138 BOARD_MEETING -2.813071 -2.315106 0.093541 0.1035 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -3.950980 -4.001362 1.517010 0.9674

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: ROE Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:28 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 13.93638 9.348144 1.490818 0.1398

BOARD_SIZE 0.336127 1.031538 0.325850 0.7454

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.586843 Mean dependent var 5.877733

F-statistic 6.204861 Durbin-Watson stat 1.881545

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 51 of 97

4.2.6 Tobin’s Q Singapore

4.2.6.1 Fixed Effect Model

Table 4.2.6.1: Fixed Effect Model of ROA Singapore

According to Table 4.2.6.1, the equation was formed as the following:

Tobin’s Q = 0.415 + 0.015 BS + 0.397 % ID – 0.169 NOWD + 0.099 NOFD + 0.009 NOFQ – 0.017 NOBM – 0.076 NOFDAC + 0.318 ɛ

There are positive and negative effects on Tobin's Q based on the equation. BS, percent ID, NOFD, and NOFQ all have positive effects on Tobin's Q. NOWD, NOBM, and NOFDAC have negative effects on Tobin's Q.

In this research, eight years were used to run Tobin's Q in a Fixed Effect Model with Tobin's Q. There was an impact on Tobin's Q because NOWD had a P-value of 0.0072, which was less than 0.05 and 0.10. In this research, BS (0.676), percent

Dependent Variable: TOBIN_S_Q Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:28 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.014703 0.035084 0.419064 0.6763

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 0.397025 0.413091 0.961110 0.3393 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.169310 0.061470 -2.754337 0.0072 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.099137 0.052398 1.892003 0.0620 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.009184 0.041764 0.219899 0.8265 BOARD_MEETING -0.016991 0.020785 -0.817455 0.4160 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.075983 0.073681 -1.031243 0.3054

C 0.415360 0.317946 1.306383 0.1950

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.851722 Mean dependent var 1.003177

Adjusted R-squared 0.817779 S.D. dependent var 0.488078 S.E. of regression 0.208348 Akaike info criterion -0.126757 Sum squared resid 3.602922 Schwarz criterion 0.384841 Log likelihood 26.52800 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.080457

F-statistic 25.09259 Durbin-Watson stat 1.437543

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 52 of 97

ID (0.339), NOFD (0.062), NOQ (0.827), NOBM (0.416), and a NOFDAC (0.195) had P-values that were above 0.05. So, Tobin's Q didn't show an impact because of this. 85.2% of the difference in Tobin's Q could be explained by the difference in the seven IVs. In this case, the adjusted R-squared was 0.818, and the F-statistic was 25.093.

4.2.6.2 Hausman Test for Tobin’s Q Singapore

Table 4.2.6.2: Hausman Test Results of Tobin’s Q Singapore

Hausman test was performed with a view of decide on which regression would be the most suitable among the Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model.

Based on the Hausman Test, the following hypothesis was formed:

H0: Random Effect Model is the most appropriate model H1: Fixed Effect Model is the most appropriate model

The P-value was 0.0000, which was less than 0.05, based on the Hausman test findings. As a result, H0 was rejected, but H1 was not. In conclusion, the Fixed Effect Model was the most appropriate model.

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Equation: Untitled

Test cross-section random effects

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 67.232325 7 0.0000

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

BOARD_SIZE 0.014703 0.051810 0.000566 0.1188

__OF_INDEPENDENT_DIRECTORS 0.397025 0.092079 0.075049 0.2656 WOMEN_DIRECTORS -0.169310 0.061353 0.001742 0.0000 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS 0.099137 0.068970 0.002197 0.5198 FOREIGN_QUALIFICATIONS 0.009184 -0.040902 0.000508 0.0263 BOARD_MEETING -0.016991 -0.000269 0.000068 0.0428 FOREIGN_DIRECTORS_IN_AUDIT_COM... -0.075983 -0.164489 0.000922 0.0036

Cross-section random effects test equation:

Dependent Variable: TOBIN_S_Q Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 03/01/22 Time: 15:29 Sample: 2013 2020

Periods included: 8

Cross-sections included: 13

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 103

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 0.415360 0.317946 1.306383 0.1950

BOARD_SIZE 0.014703 0.035084 0.419064 0.6763

Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)

R-squared 0.851722 Mean dependent var 1.003177

F-statistic 25.09259 Durbin-Watson stat 1.437543

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Family-Controlled Listed Companies in Malaysia and Singapore

Page 53 of 97

Dalam dokumen GLOBALIZING THE BOARDROOM AMONG FAMILY-CONTROLLED LISTED COMPANIES ON (Halaman 59-71)