Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
• Project Objective
• The Data
• The Model
• Conclusion
• Appendix
1
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
2
GENDER DIVERSITY IN US CORPORATIONS
• Women are severely under-
represented on corporate
boards and executive teams
• Qualitative research suggests
that gender diversity could
improve decision-making and
operations
3
OBJECTIVE
• To understand various factors
driving 5 year stock returns
among US companies
• Derive conclusions about the
role of gender diversity in
company performance
4
KEY QUESTIONS
• What are the key indicators
that predict company
performance?
• Sample: Russell 1000
• Dependent variable: 5-year
returns
5
THE DATA
6
THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (5YR RETURN)
• Top Performers Histogram of 5YR Return
• Medivation 1 80
• Rite Aid 1 40
1 20
Losers
Frequency
• 1 00
• Fossil Group 80
• Ensco CL A 60
40
• Denbury Rsc De
20
0
-1 5 0 15 30 45 60
5YR Return
7
THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Variable Definition
1YR Return 1 year total return of the stock. This is often used as a ‘Momentum’ factor.
% Women on Board Percentage of women on the Board of Directors, as reported by the company.
% Female Executives Number of female executives as a percent of total executives at last fiscal year end.
Industry The industry classification based on the stock's business or economic function
Mean 12.52 -1.14 2.01 24458.95 17.73 13.68 5.94 32.62 1.01
Standard
10.65 23.51 1.83 48291.68 9.42 12.55 20.94 90.11 0.27
Deviation
Largest 63.74 119.57 12.81 553672.47 50.00 100.00 437.33 1250.35 2.96
Smallest -25.00 -82.09 0.00 759.96 0.00 0.00 0.11 2.57 0.28
Range 88.74 201.66 12.81 552912.51 50.00 100.00 437.22 1247.79 2.68
200
80
1 50
F re q u en c y
F re q u en c y
60
1 00 40
50 20
0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 8 16 24 32 40 48
Beta -0.32 -0.51 -0.18 -0.05 -0.08 -0.10 -0.06 0.02 1.00
Oil & Gas -0.27 -0.17 0.10 0.04 -0.08 -0.08 -0.04 0.17 0.26 1.00
Industrials -0.03 0.01 -0.13 -0.09 -0.11 -0.06 -0.01 -0.04 0.16 -0.10 1.00
Consumer Goods 0.14 0.08 -0.05 -0.01 0.07 -0.01 0.12 -0.05 -0.09 -0.07 -0.17 1.00
Health Care 0.13 -0.05 -0.21 0.09 0.07 0.05 -0.01 0.05 -0.11 -0.06 -0.15 -0.11 1.00
Consumer Services 0.07 -0.15 -0.09 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.08 -0.04 -0.02 -0.08 -0.20 -0.14 -0.12 1.00
Telecommunication
-0.05 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 1.00
s
Utilities 0.03 0.28 0.16 -0.04 0.07 0.12 -0.03 -0.03 -0.29 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 -0.07 -0.10 -0.02 1.00
Financials -0.03 0.03 0.27 -0.06 -0.03 0.01 -0.07 -0.01 -0.12 -0.11 -0.27 -0.20 -0.17 -0.23 -0.05 -0.13 1.00
Technology -0.06 -0.02 -0.09 0.10 -0.08 -0.07 -0.02 0.06 0.20 -0.06 -0.15 -0.11 -0.09 -0.13 -0.03 -0.07 -0.17 1.00
11
1YR RETURN VS 5YR RETURN
1YR Return vs. 5YR Return
70
y = 0.2129x + 12.761
60
R² = 0.2206
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-100 -50 0 50 100 150
12
BETA VS 5YR RETURN
Beta vs. 5YR Return
70
60
50
40 y = -12.48x + 25.165
R² = 0.1014
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
13
% WOMEN ON BOARD VS 5YR RETURN
% Women on Board vs. 5YR Return
70
60 y = 0.0371x + 11.859
50 R² = 0.0011
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
14
% FEMALE EXECUTIVES VS 5YR RETURN
% Female Executives vs. 5YR Return
70
60
y = 0.0166x + 12.29
50 R² = 0.0004
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
15
THE MODEL
16
OUR APPROACH: FULL MODEL VS
REDUCED MODEL
1. Create a “full model” with all independent variables
2. Create a “reduced model”, excluding the gender diversity
variables
3. Run a hypothesis test to see if the gender diversity variables
are significant in the predictive power of the full model
17
THE FULL MODEL: ANOVA
19
HETEROSCEDASTICITY AIN’T NO THANG
20
THE REDUCED MODEL: ANOVA
21
THE REDUCED MODEL: MODEL SUMMARY
22
NULL HYPOTHESIS: FAIL TO REJECT
3 Actual F = 0.522
Reduced
Full Model
Model
R Square 34.71% 34.57%
Adjusted R Square 33.19% 33.23%
23
FOR GOOD MEASURE: BEST SUBSETS
REGRESSION
24
CONCLUSION
25
CAVEATS AND CONCERNS
• Conclusion: Gender diversity doesn’t
improve the predictive power of other
independent variables such as beta
and PE ratios for 5-year returns
• Caveats:
• Insufficient time duration - perhaps 5 years
is insufficient
• Lacking critical mass - % of women on
boards and % of female executives are
very low
• Further research needed - future research
is possible as companies continue to
diversify
• Disease of available information - private
companies and public companies may
illustrate a different conclusion
26
APPENDIX
27
HISTOGRAMS: MARKET CAP AND DIV YIELD
Histogram of Market Cap Histogram of Dividend Yield
1 80
400
1 60
1 40
300
1 20
F re q u en c y
F re q u en c y
1 00
200
80
60
1 00
40
20
0 0
0 80000 1 60000 240000 320000 400000 480000 560000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
700 600
600 500
500
400
F re q u en c y
F re q u en c y
400
300
300
200
200
1 00
1 00
0 0
0 60 1 20 1 80 240 300 360 420 0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200
PB Ratio PE Ratio
1 40
1 00
1 20
1 00 80
F re q u en c y
F re q u en c y
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
-60 -30 0 30 60 90 1 20 0.4 0.8 1 .2 1 .6 2.0 2.4 2.8
1 YR Return Beta
31
MARKET CAP VS 5YR RETURN
Market Cap vs. 5YR Return
70
60 y = 3E-05x + 11.794
50 R² = 0.018
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
32
PB RATIO VS 5YR RETURN
PB Ratio vs. 5YR Return
70
y = 0.0489x + 12.227
60
R² = 0.0092
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
33
PE RATIO VS 5YR RETURN
PE Ratio vs. 5YR Return
70
60 y = 0.0018x + 12.459
50 R² = 0.0002
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
34
THE REDUCED MODEL: RESIDUAL PLOTS
35