Table 8

Results of panel data regression models

Dependent / independent variableModel IModel IIModel IIIModel IV
VAMPMMMGM
Panel data model typeFixedFixedRandomRandom
C2.223(4.490)***2.105(4.964)***0.895(2.080)**0.956(1.504)**
CSR0.817(1.567)*0.569(1.915)**0.181(0.751)0.275(2.642)***
Age−0.326(−1.772)*−0.257(−0.535)0.031(0.248)−0.134(−1.646)*
Size0.168(3.649)***0.406(2.695)***−0.060(−1.320)0.246(2.832)***
Risk−0.005(−1.129)0.006(0.825)−0.033(−1.773)*0.000(0.025)
R20.690.600.410.28
Adjusted R20.660.560.350.20
F-test20.04***13.60***6.05***3.51***
DW statistics1.661.541.932.07
Hausman Test133.208***120.115***6.5085.518
Redundant fixed effect test  419.612***463.933153.541***126.619***
Collinearity VIF 1.291.691.051.08
Unit root test (ADF)170.392***148.633***126.037***129.38***
Total observations560

Note(s): (1) standardized beta coefficients are provided. T-ratios are presented in parentheses. (2) Average of VIF has been used to find collinearityVIF for checking the serial correlation (Maqbool and Zameer, 2018). (3) The Durbin–Watson test showed no autocorrelation amongst the variables. (4) F-test showed fitness of the model. (5) The Hausman test was used to choose amongst random and fixed effects for model. (6) Significant at *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. (7) Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) shows data are stationary and there is no unit root in the data

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options