Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Publishing India Group

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
R-square = 0.5544, Wald chi2 (5) = 80.35, Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER

Table 5 R-square = 0.5544, Wald chi2 (5) = 80.35, Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER

Related Figures (7)

Series: EPS COS PBT DER
Series: EPS COS PBT DER
R-square = 0.5755, Adjusted R-square = 0.5498, F-statistics = 6.81, Prob(F-stat) = 0.0003 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER
R-square = 0.5755, Adjusted R-square = 0.5498, F-statistics = 6.81, Prob(F-stat) = 0.0003 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER
R-square = 0.7968, Adjusted R-square = 0.7688, F-statistics = 28.43, Prob(F-stat) = 0.0000 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance
R-square = 0.7968, Adjusted R-square = 0.7688, F-statistics = 28.43, Prob(F-stat) = 0.0000 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance
R-square = 0.2413, Adjusted R-square = 0.1367, F-statistics = 2.31, Prob (F-stat) = 0.0132 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER
R-square = 0.2413, Adjusted R-square = 0.1367, F-statistics = 2.31, Prob (F-stat) = 0.0132 (*) connotes significance at 5% level of significance Series: EPS COS PBT DER
Table 7: Tests of Panel Model Assumptions
Table 7: Tests of Panel Model Assumptions
Table 6: Hausman Test Table 6 reported chi-square statistics of 60.18 and probability value of 0.0027. The result shows that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of difference in the fixed effect and random effect estimates are not systematic in favour of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, among the three estimators (pooled regression estimator, fixed effect estimator and random effect estimator), in the analysis of the effect of tax planning variables, the most consistent and efficient estimation is fixed effect cross- sectional specific estimation presented.
Table 6: Hausman Test Table 6 reported chi-square statistics of 60.18 and probability value of 0.0027. The result shows that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of difference in the fixed effect and random effect estimates are not systematic in favour of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, among the three estimators (pooled regression estimator, fixed effect estimator and random effect estimator), in the analysis of the effect of tax planning variables, the most consistent and efficient estimation is fixed effect cross- sectional specific estimation presented.
Table 5 reported f-statistics values of 29.56 and 0.84 with probability values of 0.0000 and 0.5830, respectively. The result reveals that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that all differential intercepts corresponding to the cross-sectional specific units are equal to zero, but otherwise for the period-specific intercepts. Meaning there is substantial heterogeneity effect amidst firms sampled in the study, while the effect over the period covered is not significant. Hence, result of the restricted f-test presented above invalidates the potency of the pooled OLS estimation for investigating the effect of tax planning variables on earnings per share. Table 5: Restricted F-Test of Heterogeneity (Cross-Sectional and Time Specific)
Table 5 reported f-statistics values of 29.56 and 0.84 with probability values of 0.0000 and 0.5830, respectively. The result reveals that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that all differential intercepts corresponding to the cross-sectional specific units are equal to zero, but otherwise for the period-specific intercepts. Meaning there is substantial heterogeneity effect amidst firms sampled in the study, while the effect over the period covered is not significant. Hence, result of the restricted f-test presented above invalidates the potency of the pooled OLS estimation for investigating the effect of tax planning variables on earnings per share. Table 5: Restricted F-Test of Heterogeneity (Cross-Sectional and Time Specific)
Related topics:
FinanceAccountingTax AvoidanceEarnings Per SharePanel regressionDebt to Equity RatioProfit before Tax
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved