financial performance and ownership structure of european airports
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Financial performance and ownership structure of European Airports

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Financial performance and ownership structure of European Airports - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 180 Views
  • Uploaded on

Financial performance and ownership structure of European Airports. Mikhail Zolotko. Outline. Motivation Description of analysis techniques Data description Empirical results Conclusions. Why study financial performance of the airports?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Financial performance and ownership structure of European Airports' - spiro


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
outline
Outline
  • Motivation
  • Description of analysis techniques
  • Data description
  • Empirical results
  • Conclusions
why study financial performance of the airports
Why study financial performance of the airports?
  • Components of overall airports performance (according to e.g. Graham, 2005):
    • Service quality performance
    • Operational performance
    • Financial performance
  • Financial performance is of interest to investors
structure of the analysis
Structure of the analysis
  • Compare financial performance indicators of the airports
    • that didn’t experience the change in ownership structure
    • that did experience it
  • Apply Data Envelopment Analysis to the financial data and explain efficiency scores through a number of variables including ownership structure
data description
Data description
  • Unbalanced panel of selected entries of balance sheets, income statements and cash flow statements.
  • Time span: 1990-2006
  • Over 50 airports with constant ownership structure
  • 17 airports that experienced the change in the ownership structure.
mean ratios private partially privatised and public airports
Mean ratiosPrivate, partially privatised and public airports

To test significance of differences between ratios across airports t-test and non-parametric Mann-Witney test were used

after accounting for other factors
…after accounting for other factors

Signs of coefficients corresponding to ownership dummies (as compared to public airports) in an ANOVA model

Stars denote the level of significance

mean ratios airports before vs after privatisation
Mean ratiosAirports before vs after privatisation

To test significance of differences between ratios across airports t-test and non-parametric Mann-Witney test were used

again taking into account other factors
…again, taking into account other factors

Signs of coefficients corresponding to ownership dummies (as compared to (partially) privatised airports) in an ANOVA model

Stars denote the level of significance

dea scores first specification
DEA scores. First specification
  • Inputs: log assets, operating expenditure except depreciation
  • Outputs: aviation revenue, non-aviation revenue

(in contrast to Vogel’s one-input, one-output analysis)

dea scores second specification
DEA scores. Second specification
  • Inputs: log assets, total personnel expenditure
  • Outputs: aviation revenue, non-aviation revenue

The number of specifications is limited due to data limitations

Though specifications are almost identical, the results are totally different.

dea scores explanation
DEA scores explanation
  • According to Simar and Wilson (2007), only application of truncated regression leads to consistent estimates.

(compared to Tobit regression and OLS that were used in literature previously)

  • Regressors used:
    • Ownership and country dummies
    • Leverage (debt/assets)
    • Airport size proxy (logarithm of assets to reduce the variation – a technical condition to ensure convergence)
dea scores explained under constant returns to scale 1st specification
DEA scores explained (under constant returns to scale). 1st specification

Negative signs denote increasing effiency given increase in variable

Stars denote significance level: *** 0.001, ** 0.01, *0.05, ^0.1

dea scores explained under variable returns to scale 1st specification
DEA scores explained (under variable returns to scale). 1st specification

Negative signs denote increasing effiency given increase in variable

dea scores explained under constant returns to scale 2nd specification
DEA scores explained (under constant returns to scale). 2nd specification

Negative signs denote increasing effiency given increase in variable

dea scores explained under variable returns to scale 2nd specification
DEA scores explained (under variable returns to scale). 2nd specification

Negative signs denote increasing effiency given increase in variable

conslusions
Conslusions
  • Private airports beat both partially privatised and publicly owned airports in terms of profitability but are worse at interest coverage and asset turnover
  • After privatisation airports tend to increase profitability, non-aviation revenue share and to worsen interest coverage and asset turnover.

(where decrease in interest coverageratio may be an evidence of higher interest rates for private companies compared to )

conslusions18
Conslusions
  • On the „overall” financial performance level private and partially privatised airports outperformpublic airports which is however evidenced only by one of two specifications.
  • „Overall” financial performance can also be explained by country differences, airports size and leverage. However, these effects often have different signs under different specifications.
ad