Investment and Profits

19 Pages·2014·0.18 MB·English

Investment and Profits: Causality Analysis
in Selected eu Countries
IgorStubelj
UniversityofPrimorska,Slovenia
[email protected]
Thepurposeofthepaperistopresentthetheoreticalandempiricalanal-
ysisofthecausalrelationshipbetweencompany’sinvestmentandprofits.
Followingthepreviousresearchfindingsthatarenotunanimous,weex-
aminedthecausalrelationbetweenprofitsandinvestmentbothattheag-
gregateandattheindustrylevel.Thetheoryonthefieldallowsustodefine
threebasictheses:profitsdetermineinvestmentontheaggregatelevelor
industrysectorslevelinanationaleconomy,investmentdeterminesprof-
its,andprofitsdetermineinvestmentandinvestmentdetermineprofits.We
usedtheGrangerdefinitionofcausalityandtheToda-Yamamotoproce-
dure.Basedontheresultsoftheanalysis,wecanclaimthatinvestmentde-
terminesprofitsinanationaleconomy.Attheindustrysectorslevelthere
isthegreatestsupportforacause-and-effectrelationinthedirectionfrom
profitstoinvestment.Theresultsofourempiricalanalysisandcontextual
interpretation can help in identifying potential factors and barriers that
hindertheeffectivefunctioningoftheeconomicsystem.Itisundisputed
thatinvestmentandprofitsisextraordinarilyimportantfortheeconomic
systemandthattheinvestmentandprofitsrelationisundeniablystrong.
KeyWords:investment,profits,causality,industry
jel Classification: e22, g31
IntroductionandTheoreticalBasis
Classical economists as Smith (1805) and Ricardo (1817) emphasize the
importanceofinvestmentineconomicgrowth.Keynes(1936)builtanew
paradigmoninvestment,connectedwithothereconomiccategories.For
Keynes investment is a prevailing factor and an important determinant
ofnationalproduct. For the Keynesianeconomistsinvestment depends
onprofitexpectationsthat,besidedemandandinstitutionalfactors,are
based upon ‘animal spirits’ (Stockhammer 2006). Asimakopulos (1971)
explained the Keynes investment model. He presents his point of view,
showingatwo-waydirectionofcausalitybetweeninvestmentandprofits.
Profitexpectationsplayacrucialroleinfirms’investmentdecisionsand
ManagingGlobalTransitions12(4):395–413
396 IgorStubelj
theseexpectationsarestronglyaffectedbycurrentinvestmentlevelsince
thisisanimportantdeterminantofcurrentprofits.
Jorgensonandhiscollaborators(HallandJorgenson1967)contributed
to neoclassical theory with the development of the neoclassical invest-
mentmodel.Theneoclassicalinvestmentmodelstartingpointistheso-
lutionofdynamicproblemthatdeterminesthecompanies’capitalneeds
trough time. Neoclassical theory somehow shows the causal link from
profitstoinvestment(Gupta1988).
For Post-Keynesians, investment is a very important determinant of
theeconomicsystem.Theargumentisthattheexploitationofnewtech-
nologiesispossibleonlythroughinvestment.WhatKalecki(1942;1971)
wantedtopointoutwasthatthemostimportantprerequisitetobecome
anentrepreneuristhecapital.Withthisstatement,Kaleckisuggeststhat
the investment determines profits. The focus is on companies’ physical
capitalinvestment.TheimportancethatPost-Keynesiansassignedtoin-
vestmentraisesakeyquestionthatreadsasfollows:whatdeterminesthe
investment level? Joan Robinson (1962) has developed a model starting
fromKaldor’s(1955)modelwithaninvestmentwithinthemodel.Compa-
nieschooseinvestmentsbasedonexpectedprofitmargins.Theexpected
profitmarginsexplaintoalargeextenttheactualprofitmargins.Robin-
son set a two-way relationship between investment and profits with his
formula.Hertheorystatesthatinvestmentsdependonprofitsandprofits
on investments. Post-Keynesian research in the field of investment has
continuedontheimportanceofinternalfinancing.Thiswasincontrast
withModiglianiandMiller(1958)theoremthatundercertainconditions
emphasizedtheirrelevanceoffinancingpolicyandfinancialstructurefor
thecompanies’investmentandmadeatheoreticalframeworkforthere-
search of the importance of financial factors for the companies’ invest-
ment(Stockhammer2006).
EmpiricalEvidence
Notwithstanding the key role of companies’ sustainable investment for
the expected cash flows and companies’ value, sectors and the whole
economy, just a few important researches examined the causal link be-
tweeninvestmentandprofitsandshowedthattheinvestmentisvitalfor
theexpectedprofits.Theresultsofempiricalstudiesareunclear;fromthe
researchresults,itisdifficulttounequivocallyconcludethedirectionof
a causal link between profits and investment or cash flows. Studies car-
riedoutbyBaumoletal.(1970),Little(1962),FriendandHusić(1973)do
not support the hypothesis that profits results from past investment. In
ManagingGlobalTransitions
InvestmentandProfits 397
theirstudiesBar-Yosefetal.(1987)foundthatinvestmentdoesnotcreate
profits, but profits raise investment, defined in terms of Granger causal
effectrelationship.Theyalsofoundthattheprofitsareadeterminantof
companies’ business investment. Shapiro, Sims, and Hughes (1983) and
McFetridge(1978)surveyssupportthehypothesisthatcashflowsresult
frompastinvestment.IntheanalysisofMahdavi,Sohrabian,andKholdy
(1994) about the causal effect relationship, employing the ecm (Error
CorrectionModel),whichtakesintoaccountthecointegrationbetween
realcashflowsandrealinvestmentofcompanies,theyfoundthatthere
is evidence of the one-way causal effect relationship of real companies
investment to real cash flows. This is in contrast to some of the previ-
ous studies that demonstrated that the profit or cash flows at the level
ofcompaniesorindustriesdetermineinvestment.LeeandNohel(1997)
haveconcludedthatthereisatwo-waylinkbetweeninvestmentandprof-
its. Gupta (1988), who based on two different methodologies, comes to
different conclusions about the direction of causality. Akyüz and Gore
(1996),andInci,Lee,andSuh(2009)haveconcludedthatthereisalink
inthedirectionearningstoinvestment.
Asseen,theempiricalstudiesdonotgiveasingleanswertotheprob-
lemaboutthedirectionofthecausallinkbetweeninvestmentandprof-
its. The reasons for the different findings may lie in a variety of used
methodological approaches, information restrictions and limitations of
the studies. Previous researches are based on different samples of data,
both in terms of time-scale and different economic backgrounds (most
us based). Different economic and regulatory environment can play a
crucialinfluenceonthedecisionmakingofmanagersandthusthelink
between investment and profits. Different economic environments may
involveavarietyofconditionsthatarenecessaryforefficientinvestment,
whichofcourseaffectstheambitiousproblemofcausality.
Onthebasisofpreviousresearchwecanconcludethatthefindingsof
studiesinwhichdatawereusedattheaggregatelevel,forthemostpart
support the causal effect relationship in the direction of investment to
profitsortwo-waylink.Researchbasedondataatthefirmlevelislargely
supported by causal effect relationship in the direction of the profits to
investmentsortwo-waylink.
ThesesandHypothesesforEmpiricalTesting
If we realize a synthesis of theoretical concepts framed in micro-and
macroeconomictheory, thetheoryof financeandentrepreneurship,we
mayjustifyacorrelationlinkbetweeninvestmentandprofits.Thisthe-
Volume12·Number4·Winter2014
398 IgorStubelj
oretical framework also allows us to define the causal link between the
exposed variables, which runs from profits to investment, from invest-
menttoprofitsorinbothdirections.
Thethreebasicthesesare:profitsdetermineinvestmentontheaggre-
gateandindustrysectorslevelinanationaleconomy,investmentdeter-
mines profits, and profits determine investment and investment deter-
mine profits. The thesis of the causal link, running from profits to in-
vestment,hasalimitedexplanatorypowerbecauseitisonlyvalidinthe
special case when the primary companies’ objective in the economy is
to maximize profits. This means that companies should only invest in
thecurrentandexpectedmostprofitableactivities.However,ifthemaxi-
mizationassumptionisnottrue,theninvestmentisinducedalsobyother
motives,whichareindependentoftheprofitmotive.Thedoubtoftheva-
lidity of assumptions about theprofitmotive is offeredparadoxicallyin
the economic theory. In particular the part of economic theory which
refers to the business sciences, clearly explains that the company also
followsothergoals,suchasrevenuemaximization,maximizationofthe
market share, customer satisfaction, production optimization ... (Janeš
andDolinšek2010;NovakandŽižmond2012;Odar,Kavcic,andJerman
2012;Radosavljevićetal.2011).Throughtheseobjectives,managersand
equity holders can achieve the purpose of the company, which is to in-
creasethevalueofacompany’sequityandthusshareholdervalue.Crotty
(1992;1996)wrotethatcompaniesdevelopandadoptrulestohelpthemto
copewithuncertainty.Gordon(1992)arguedthattheprimaryobjective
of companies is a long-term survival. Many authors from the last Post-
Keynesianperiodarguethatthegoalofmoderncorporationsisnotprofit
maximizationbutalong-termsurvivalandgrowth(Stockhammer2006).
Thismeansthatinvestmentisprimarilynotdependentonprofits.On
contrary, investment determines profits. These arguments allow us to
claimthatprofitsdependoninvestmentandnotviceversa.Byconfirm-
ingthethesisthatprofitsresultfrominvestmentontheleveloftheentire
economy,wemayimplythatprofitabilitydoesnotdetermineandallocate
investmentbuttheallocationofinvestmentdeterminesprofitability.
Imperfectionsoffinancialmarketsthatincreasethedifferencebetween
internal and external financial resources act in contrary to the theory-
basedinterpretation,whichdefinesthedirectionofcausalityfromprof-
itstoinvestment.This meansthatthefailureoffinancialmarketsaffect
theallocationofcapital.Ontheonehand,thelimitedfinancialresources
andthedisparitybetweentheexternalandinternalsourcesofcapitalaf-
ManagingGlobalTransitions
InvestmentandProfits 399
fectthelevelofinvestmentandworkinfavouroftheprofitmotiveofin-
vestment.Companiesmustachievehigherprofitability,investinginmore
risky and profitable activities. On the other hand transaction costs, the
informationasymmetryproblemandtheriskalllimitsthemigrationof
capitalandgocontrarytothegainfulmotive.Companiesinvestthecre-
atedin-house resourcesinthemwellknown availableandlessrisky in-
vestmentsatthecostoflowerprofitability.Inthisway,companiespursue
agoaloflong-termsurvival.Giventheseimplicationsandtheresultsof
research,itisdifficulttodefinetheimpactthattheincompletenessoffi-
nancial markets have on the direction of causality between investment
andprofits.
In order toconfirm the theses we set the following hypotheses at the
aggregateandindustrysectorlevelinanationaleconomy:
h1 Profitsdetermineinvestment.
h2 Investmentdeterminesprofits.
h3 Investmentdeterminesprofitsandprofitsdetermineinvestment.
DataandMethodology
WegatheredthedataforinvestmentandprofitsfromtheEuropeanCom-
mission,Eurostatstatisticdatabase.Fortherepresentationofinvestment
(I)weusetheGrossfixedcapitalformation(esa95,3.102)whichaccord-
ingtoEurostatdefinitionconsistsofresidentproducers’acquisitions,less
disposals,offixedassetsduringagivenperiodpluscertainadditionsto
the value of non-produced assets realized by the productive activity of
produceror institutional units. For therepresentationof profits(P), we
useNetoperatingsurplusandnetmixedincome.Netoperatingsurplus
isinterpretedasthereturntocapitalortheeffectoftimepassingonthe
netpresentvalue.Forunincorporatedenterprises,ownedbyhouseholds,
thiscomponentiscalled‘mixedincome.’
WewereabletoobtainthedataonthenationaleconomylevelforAus-
tria,Denmark,Italy,FinlandandNetherlands.Wegatheredtheindustry
leveldataforAustria,Italy,FinlandandNetherlands.Forthesecountries,
itispossibletogetalongtimeseriesofdatafrom1977to2007toperform
thetestsofcausality.Weusedthe nace31industryclassification.Weend
upwith 88 time series (22 industries for eachcountry) foreachof both
variables. Data for some industries was not available and we left out of
our analysis aggregates of industry groups. To obtain data in real terms
wedeflatedthevariablenetoperatingsurplusandnetmixedincome.All
Volume12·Number4·Winter2014
400 IgorStubelj
thedataareinvaluelevelsinMillionsofeuro,chain-linkedvolumes,ref-
erenceyear2000(at2000exchangerates).
We can define the causal relationship between two variables, invest-
mentandprofitsinourcase,withtheGrangerdefinitionofcausality.It
shouldbenotedthattheassertionthatXcausesYinGrangersensedoes
notimplythatthevariableYistheresultofthevariableX.Grangercausal-
itymeansanteriorityofdatafluctuationsanddoesnotimplycausalityin
thegeneralsenseofthewordandintermsofcontent.
The implementation of Granger causality tests is connected with the
problems of stationarity and cointegration properties of the considered
timeseriesofdata.Grangercausalitytestsaresensitivetonon-stationary
timeseries.Thefirststepintheanalysisofcausalityisthecheckforsta-
tionarityandtheintegrationdegreeofvariables.Thesecondstepisiden-
tifyingthepossiblecointegrationofvariables(Bekő2003).
Only in the third step, we apply the analysis of causality. Standard
Granger tests of causal effect relationship are valid only if the original
timeseriesarenotcointegratedandmustbeappliedonstationaryvari-
ables. When this is not the case, we must differentiate the variables to
reachstationarityand,incaseofcointegration,wemustperformthetest
witherrorcorrectionmodels.
We can apply the test developed by Toda and Yamamoto (1995) and
avoid the procedure of testing for cointegration. Testing for cointegra-
tionandapossibleneedfordifferentiationtoreachstationaritycouldbe
problematic, as we lose some information with the differentiation. The
inferenceofcointegrationcouldbeunreliable.Bothproblemsmayaffect
theconclusionsofthecausalitytests.TheTodaandYamamotoprocedure
consistsintestingthevectorautoregression– var systemequations:
(cid:8)m m(cid:8)+el (cid:8)m m(cid:8)+el
Pt = aiPt−1+ bjPt−j+ ciIt−i+ djIt−j+εt (1)
i=1 j=m+1 i=1 j=m+1
(cid:8)m m(cid:8)+el (cid:8)m m(cid:8)+el
It = eiIt−1+ fjIt−j+ giPt−i+ hjPt−j+ηt, (2)
i=1 j=m+1 i=1 j=m+1
where It is investment for period t represented with Gross fixed capital
formation,Pt isprofitsforperiodt,representedwithnetoperatingsur-
plusandnetmixedincome,lettersfromatohareindependentvariables
coefficients, m is period lags, εt and ηt are regression errors, el are ex-
traperiodlags.Toapplythetestwemustdefinethenumberoflagsand
ManagingGlobalTransitions
InvestmentandProfits 401
table1 TheResultsoftheCausalityAnalysisattheNationalLevelforAustria,
Denmark,Finland,ItalyandNetherlands
Country P→I Significance I→P Significance
Austria No . No .
Denmark No . Yes .
Finland Yes . Yes .
Italy Yes . Yes .
Netherlands No . Yes .
the number of extra lags. I Granger cause P if any of the ci coefficients
isstatisticallydifferentfrom0.PGrangercausesI ifanyofthegi coeffi-
cientsisstatistically differentfrom0.For thetestofthenullhypothesis
that every ci = 0 or every gi = 0 we perform a Wald statistic test. To
avoidtheproblemofarbitrarydecidedlagswedefinetheoptimalnum-
beroflagswiththefollowingtestsfor var:sequentialmodified lr test
statistic,finalpredictionerror,Akaikeinformationcriterion,Schwarzin-
formationcriterion,Hannan-Quinninformationcriterion.Theproblem
ofsuchtestsisthatwemustdeterminethenumberofmaximumlagsfor
testing which influence the results. We select the optimum lags in base
of the most frequentoptimal lag, resulting from all the tests performed
from1upto6lags.WeusetheAugmentedDickey-Fullerunitroottest
equationtodefinetheorderofintegrationofthevariables.Theextralags
equaltotheorderofintegration.
ResultsandDiscussion
Wepresenttheresultsoftheanalysisofcausalityintables1,2and3.We
examinedthehypothesesattheaggregatelevel.Basedontheresults,we
cannotconfirmthefirsthypothesiswiththecriterionofmorethan50.
We found the causal link from profits to investment just in two of five
countries. The causal link from investment to profits is stronger as we
found it in four of five analyzed countries. We can confirm the second
hypothesisthatinvestmentdeterminesprofitsattheaggregatelevelina
national economy. We cannot confirm the third hypothesis that invest-
ment determinesprofitsand profitsdetermine investment at the aggre-
gatelevelinanationaleconomy.Basedontheresultsoftheanalysison
theaggregatelevelofanationaleconomy,wecansaythatinvestmentde-
terminesprofitsinanationaleconomy.
Theresultsattheaggregatelevelareinlinewiththeempiricalfindings
Volume12·Number4·Winter2014
402 IgorStubelj
in the researches carried out by Gupta (1988) and Mahdavi, Sohrabian,
and Kholdy (1994). The results are also in line with the findings of the
researches done by Akyüz and Gore (1996), Lee and Nohel (1997) and
Heshmatiand Lööf (2006) whereauthors found out the causal link be-
tweeninvestmentandprofitsinbothdirectionsinapartwhichshowsthe
causallinkfrominvestmenttoprofits.
Basedontheresults,weexaminedthehypothesesattheindustrysec-
torlevel.In28ofindustries,wefoundacausallinkfromprofitstoin-
vestment.Basedonthecriterionofmorethan50industries,inwhich
causalityrunsfromprofitstoinvestment,wecannotconfirmthefirsthy-
pothesis,sayingthatprofitsinindustrysectorsdetermineinvestmentin
industrysectors.In14ofindustries,wefoundthecausallinkfromin-
vestmenttoprofits.Basedonthecriterionofmorethan50industries,
inwhichcausalityrunsfrominvestmenttoprofits,wecannotconfirmthe
secondhypothesis,sayingthatinvestmentsinindustrysectorsdetermine
profits in industry sectors. In 19 of industries, we found a causal link,
runninginbothdirections.Basedonthecriterionofmorethan50in-
dustries, in which causality runs in both directions, we cannot confirm
the third hypothesis, saying that investment in industry sectors deter-
mineprofitsinindustrysectorsandprofitsinindustrysectorsdetermine
investmentinindustrysectors.
However, the results give stronger support to a causal relation from
profitstoinvestment.Thisisconsistentwiththefindingsoftheresearch
carriedoutbyBar-Yosefetal.(1987)andIncietal.(2009),inwhichthe
authorsfoundthatprofitscauseinvestmentinGrangersense,orthatthe
causal link in the direction from investment to profits is weak. Our re-
searchfindingsareinlinewithempiricalresearch,carriedoutbyAkyüz
and Gore (1996), Lee and Nohel (1997) and Heshmati and Lööf (2006),
inwhichtheauthorsfoundatwo-waycausallinkbetweentheresulting
investments and profits in the part for the causal relationship, resulting
inthedirectionfromprofitstoinvestment.
The results of our empirical analysis gave us just the causal link be-
tween the resulting investment and profit in a Granger sense. This did
notmeanthatinvestmentsleadtoprofits,profitsleadtoinvestment,or
bothinacommonsenseorinasenseofcontent.Grangersensecausality
doesnotimplythattheinvestmentorprofitsresultfromprofitsorinvest-
ment,orboth.Grangercausalitysimplymeasurestheanteriorityofdata
fluctuations.Itisanunstructuredmodelofevidencethathasnosubstan-
tiveinterpretation.Thealternativeisastructuredmodelthatexplainsthe
ManagingGlobalTransitions
InvestmentandProfits 403
table2 TheResultsoftheAnalysisofCausalityinIndustriesforAustria,Finland,
ItalyandNetherlands
Industry a fi it nl
Agriculture,huntingandforestry P↔I P↔I I(cid:2)P I→P
Miningandquarrying P↔I I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P I→P
Manufactureoffoodproducts;beveragesand I(cid:2)P P→I I(cid:2)P I→P
tobacco
Manufactureoftextilesandtextileproducts I(cid:2)P P→I I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P
Manufactureofpulp,paperandpaperproducts; P→I P↔I I→P P→I
publishingandprinting
Manufactureofcoke,refinedpetroleumproducts P→I P→I I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P
andnuclearfuel
Manufactureofchemicals,chemicalproductsand P↔I P→I P→I I(cid:2)P
man-madefibres
Manufactureofrubberandplasticproducts I(cid:2)P P↔I P↔I I(cid:2)P
Manufactureofbasicmetalsandfabricatedmetal I(cid:2)P P→I I(cid:2)P I→P
products
Manufactureofmachineryandequipment P→I P↔I I(cid:2)P P→I
Manufactureofelectricalandopticalequipment P↔I P↔I I→P I(cid:2)P
Manufactureoftransportequipment I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P I→P I→P
Manufacturing I(cid:2)P P↔I I(cid:2)P P→I
Electricity,gasandwatersupply P→I I(cid:2)P P→I I→P
Construction I(cid:2)P I→P I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P
Wholesaleandretailtrade;repairofmotorvehicles, I(cid:2)P P↔I I(cid:2)P P→I
motorcyclesandpersonalandhouseholdgoods
Hotelsandrestaurants I(cid:2)P P↔I P↔I I(cid:2)P
Transport,storageandcommunication P↔I P→I P→I P↔I
Financialintermediation P→I P→I P→I I(cid:2)P
Realestate,rentingandbusinessactivities P→I I(cid:2)P I(cid:2)P P→I
Healthandsocialwork I(cid:2)P P→I I→P P→I
Othercommunity,social,personalserviceactivities I(cid:2)P P↔I P→I I→P
notes a–Austria,fi –Finland, it –Italy, nl –Netherlands.P ↔ I –twosided
causalitybetweeninvestmentandprofits,P → I–causalityrunningfromprofitstoin-
vestment,I→P–causalityrunningfrominvestmenttoprofits,I(cid:2)P–nocausality.
mechanismsandfactorsthroughwhichonevariableinfluencesanother.
Theadvantageofthestructuredmodelisthatwemakeaconceptualex-
planationofaphenomenon.Thereisariskthatthemodelisnotcorrectly
Volume12·Number4·Winter2014
404 IgorStubelj
table3 AssembledResultsofCausalitybetweenInvestmentandProfitsfor
IndustriesintheAnalyzedCountries
Country P↔I P→I I→P I(cid:2)P
Austria    
Finland    
Italy    
Netherlands    
Share . . . .
specifiedandleavesoutimportantrelevantfactors.Themethodologyal-
lows us to analyze Granger causality through the unstructured model.
Theadvantageofunstructuredmodelisthatitdoesnotplacerestrictions
onhowandwhyonevariableaffectsanother.Thedisadvantageisthatthe
relationshipbetweenvariablesdoesnothaveanycontentvalue.Thus,it
remainsachallengingtasktorightlyinterprettheanalysisresultsofthe
causal link in Granger sense. We linked the results of the unstructured
modelwiththetheoreticalbasisandtheresultsofpreviousempiricalre-
searchonthisfield.Wedescribethelogicbehindtheanalyzedresultsand
theimplicationsoftheresultsfortheinvestmentpolicy.
Theresultsthatinvestmentdeterminesprofitsatthenationallevelhave
several implications. From the financial theory point of view we could
assumethattheanalyzedcountrieshaveawell-developedfinancialsys-
temandtheinnovationsoffinancialinstrumentsdiminishtheproblem
ofobtainingexternalfinancialresources.Financingproblems,described
inworksofKeynes(1936),Kalecki(1971),andMinsky(1975),donotplay
acrucialrole.Eveninthecaseoffinancialconstraintsofcompanies,other
companiesthatarenotfinanciallylimitedcantakeoninterestinginvest-
ment,andthusgenerateprofitsthatsupportthecausalrelationshipinthe
direction of investment to profits. For the support of such thinking see
FurlongandWeiss(1990).Transactioncostsarenotanimportantlimita-
tiontocapitalreallocation.
Mukherjee and Henderson (1987) have considered whether, in prac-
tice,theexpectedandrequiredreturnsaretruekeyfactorsofinvestment
decisionofcompanies,orsomeotherfactorsaremoreimportant.They
foundthatinpracticemanyprojectsarerejectedforreasonsotherthan
economicones.Guidelinesanddecisionrulesshouldleadtoinvestment
decisionsthatenabletofulfiltheprimaryobjectiveofthecompany,that
is, to increase the value of a company’s equity. Despite this, in practice
ManagingGlobalTransitions