Introduction

The impact of firm size on financial performance has been a subject of academic

discourse for quite some time. There are several ways of measuring the performance of a firm,

however in finance, profitability ratios held as the key to measuring both the efficiency and

performance of a given firm. Within the contemporary corporate world, the size of a given firm

is an important element in the evaluation of its success. This phenomenon is attributed to the

economies of scale that result from its massive size in terms of operations. The work of Pervan

and Visic (2012) explained that the kind of relationship between the size of a firm and its

profitability is an important component in business success. Other scholars provided the

definition of a firm’s size to include a list of quantity as well as production capability coupled

with the potential of a firm to avail its services to the clientele. The size of a firm therefore,

plays a significant role in the explanation of how it relates with the outside environment. In this

paper, a regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between frim size and

profitability or performance.

Theoretical framework

The work of Babalola (2013) noted that larger firms have more influence on their

stakeholders and in that regard, they tend to outperform their smaller counterparts. Despite the

existence of evidence to support a positive correlation or relationship between firm size and

performance, some authors report inconsistent or negative outcomes (Punnose, 2008, Wu, 2006).

The theoretical framework adopted for this study was adopted from the work of Olawale et al

(2017) and John (2013) where panel data was analyzed by means of a pooled regression model

with both fixed and random effects modeling of the relationship between size of a firms and their

performance of listed firms. Performance was measured using Return on equity (ROE) as the
proxy dependent variable while total sales and total assets proxied firm size. In regards to the

control variable, working capital and leverage were used as proxies.

Literature review

The work of Bauman and Kean (2003) performed an analysis of the nature of size-

profitability dichotomy using financial and economic data gathered from electrical contractors.

By means of first-order autoregressive model with error terms included, they found that there is a

great difference in the profitability levels between firms of varying sizes. Their analysis found

out that the level of profitability dropped whenever the organization had a growth exceeding $50

million in terms of sales. Another author who studied the size-profitability dichotomy was

Jonsson (2007) who sampled a total of 250 firms in Iceland. He concluded that size has a

negative but statistically insignificant impact on the level of profitability. Other scholars like

Amato and Burson (2017) explored the size-profit relationship by analyzing both the linear and

cubic nature of the relationship. He concluded that there is a negative influence of the size of a

firm on its overall profitability. The statistical significance of the relationship was however

found to be minimal. The work of Papadognas (2007) revealed that the size-profitability

dichotomy when subjected to a regression analysis indicated a positive correlation with the size

of the firm. The work of Serrasquiro and Numes (2008) explored the relationship between the

performance of firms and their sizes and they revealed that there is a positive and statistically

significant association between the two variables. However, the same study reported that for

larger firms, size was statistically insignificant. The work of Lee (2009) explored the role of the

size of a firm in its profitability. He made use of fixed effect dynamic model comprising of a

large sample of 7000 listed American firms. The outcome revealed that the absolute size of an

organization plays a significant role in its profitability. The nature of the relationship was
however reported to be nonlinear with the explanation that gains in profitability somehow

reduced for the extremely large firms. A further analysis revealed that firm’s size and

profitability are positively related (Vijayakumar & Tamizhselvan, 2010). Their work was

pegged on the outcome of a simple semilogarithmic model specification. Their proxy variables

for size were sales and total sales while profit margin and profit on total assets were used as

proxies for performance or profitability. Their analysis also involved a relatively small sample

size of 15 companies.

Methodology

The analysis involved a quantitative analysis of financial figures gathered from 9 US and

UK firms listed both on LSE and NYSE. The process of selecting the firms followed a random

sampling methodology used was random. By definition, random sampling falls under the

category of probabilistic sampling methods and is meant to prevent biasness. Additionally, the

sampling method used to select the representative firms was aimed to improve the reliability by

applying the outcome to the entire affected population/firms (Leedy, & Ormrod, 2013). When

conducting quantitative analysis, it’s important for one to comprehend the nature of primary data

because of the importance of collecting representative data that would allow for extrapolation.

The analysis involved a regression analysis after the consideration of the 5 CLRM assumptions.

The basic model for the OLS regression was as follows

Profitability=f(size of the firm).., (I)

Analysis
After adjusting the model to incorporate the extra explanatory variable, the analysis can

then begin for the regression part of the experiment. The analysis considered the five OLS
assumptions (Brooks, 2014). If the model satisfies the five classical conditions or assumptions of

OLS models after the performance of the appropriate diagnostic tests, then the regression

analysis would proceed in order for the model to be developed. Among the regression output,

three main results or indicators will be monitored. In order to determine the relevance of the

model to be evaluated, the p-value will be considered. If it’s less than 0.05 then the model will be

deemed statistically significant. However, the analysis is concerned with the predictive power of

the model.

Predictive power/ability of the models

In order to determine the predictive ability of the models, the coefficient of determination

of the model will be taken into consideration. Coefficient of determination (R2) is a statistical

quantity that measures the proportion of variation of the dependent variable that is explained by

the predictor variables (Zhang, 2017). In other words, coefficient of determination is a construct

used to determine the amount of variability of the dependent variables that can be explained by

the variability in the predictor variables. Among the numerous models, the one that would

showcases suitability is that which can monitor % defective shells variables basically the one that

has a higher R2 value. If the analysis is done in STATA, then focus will be on the analysis of the

standardized regression coefficients. Standardized regression coefficients put the variables on the

same scale in order to make easy, the process of determining the variable with the most effect.

Therefore, apart from the results of the t statistics and p-values, the standardized regression

coefficients can be used to determine the variables with the most effect in the regression model.

By the way, the p-value while testing for the most significant variables are to be tested against an

alpha or p-value of 0.05. If the p-value of the production supervisor’s variable is more than 0.05,
then it would be dropped from the model. Additionally, if it has the lowest value of standardized

regression coefficient, then it should be dropped and only model best models should be adopted.

The best model should therefore be chosen from the two on the basis of their residual

plots. The ones whose residuals does not contain any predictive information would be chosen

(Model showing stochastic behavior). This can then be backed by the R Squared value which

unfortunately does not always imply that a model is the best. The models used in the regression

were as follows;

ROE=α + TotalSales β 1 +ε 1 (I)

ROE=α + TotalSales β 1 +TotalAssets β 2+ ε 1 (II)

ROE=α + TotalSales β 1 +TotalAssets β 2+ WorkingCap β3 + ε 1 (III)

ROE=α + TotalSales β 1 +TotalAssets β 2+ WorkingCap β3 + Leverageβ 4 +ε 1 (IV)

ROE=α + TotalAssets β2 +Workin gCap β 3+ ε 1 (V)

ROE=α + TotalAssets β2 + Leverageβ 4 + ε 1 (VI)

ROE=α + TotalSales β 1 +TotalAssets β 2+ Leverageβ 4 +ε 1 (IV)

 Results

The dataset used in the analysis is contained in the table below;

Total Total Working Capital Leverag

Firm ROE Sales Assets ratio e
Apple Inc 49.36 16,705 365,725 1.2 3.41
Seagate Technology
Plc 78.05 562 9,410 1.42 5.65
Omnicell 4.34 250 980 1.78 1.9
Socket Mobile -8.57 5 9 1.44 1.15
Alphabet 8.69 19,765 197,295 3.71 1.29
Microsoft 21.37 22,223 258,848 5.04 3.13
Facebook 23.84 7,242 84,524 9.19 1.14
Amazon 12.91 13,743 131,310 1.62 4.74
Twitter -2.24 13,743 131,310 4.61 1.47

Descriptive statistics

. summarize roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio leverage

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

roe 9 20.86111 27.3314 -8.57 78.05

totalsales 9 10470.89 8713.376 5 22223
totalassets 9 131045.7 125918.7 9 365725
workingcap~o 9 3.334444 2.648821 1.2 9.19
leverage 9 2.653333 1.677446 1.14 5.65

Correlation analysis

. pwcorr roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio leverage

roe totals~s totala~s workin~o leverage

roe 1.0000
totalsales -0.0685 1.0000
totalassets 0.1761 0.8703 1.0000
workingcap~o -0.1571 0.2414 0.0572 1.0000
leverage 0.7435 -0.0066 0.0883 -0.4777 1.0000
Regression output
I. Model I
The results for regressing model I are shown below;
. regress roe totalsales

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 1, 7) = 0.03
Model 28.036101 1 28.036101 Prob > F = 0.8610
Residual 5948.00756 7 849.715366 R-squared = 0.0047
Adj R-squared = -0.1375
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 29.15

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalsales -.0002148 .0011828 -0.18 0.861 -.0030117 .002582

_cons 23.11074 15.74154 1.47 0.186 -14.11208 60.33356

The regression output reveals a positive correlation and statistically significant

relationship between the two variables of performance (Return on Equity and Total Sales).

However, the predictive power as judged by the coefficient of determination R2 is a negative

figure.

II. Model II

The second regression model provided the output shown below and it is regressed
. regress roe totalsales totalassets

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 2, 6) = 0.92
Model 1396.76307 2 698.381535 Prob > F = 0.4499
Residual 4579.28059 6 763.213432 R-squared = 0.2337
Adj R-squared = -0.0217
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 27.626

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalsales -.002867 .0022757 -1.26 0.255 -.0084355 .0027014

totalassets .0002109 .0001575 1.34 0.229 -.0001744 .0005962
_cons 23.24585 14.91912 1.56 0.170 -13.25993 59.75164

The second regression revealed an output which was not statistically significant. The

coefficient of determination too was negative and too weak.

III. Model III

The results of regressing model III are shown below

. regress roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 3, 5) = 0.51
Model 1397.21051 3 465.736837 Prob > F = 0.6934
Residual 4578.83315 5 915.76663 R-squared = 0.2338
Adj R-squared = -0.2259
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 30.262

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalsales -.0028904 .0027066 -1.07 0.334 -.009848 .0040673

totalassets .0002122 .0001821 1.17 0.296 -.0002558 .0006802
workingcap~o .0971015 4.392886 0.02 0.983 -11.19517 11.38938
_cons 22.99751 19.83182 1.16 0.299 -27.9818 73.97682

The regression once again revealed that the model was statistically insignificant (p value

of 0.51 which is higher than 0.05). The coefficient of determination was however found to be
relatively higher but negative. The negative value indicated that the chosen data fitted the model

really poorly.

Model IV

The regression output for the forth model is shown below;

. regress roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio leverage

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 4, 4) = 4.02
Model 4785.86558 4 1196.46639 Prob > F = 0.1032
Residual 1190.17809 4 297.544522 R-squared = 0.8008
Adj R-squared = 0.6017
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 17.249

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalsales -.0030132 .0015432 -1.95 0.123 -.0072979 .0012715

totalassets .0001977 .0001039 1.90 0.130 -.0000907 .0004861
workingcap~o 4.4974 2.823145 1.59 0.186 -3.340908 12.33571
leverage 14.09285 4.176006 3.37 0.028 2.498398 25.6873
_cons -25.88343 18.37356 -1.41 0.232 -76.89662 25.12975

The fourth model that contained all the explanatory variables surprisingly had the best

coefficient of determination but was not statistically significant.

Model V
. regress roe totalassets workingcapitalratio

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 2, 6) = 0.19
Model 352.90472 2 176.45236 Prob > F = 0.8331
Residual 5623.13894 6 937.189824 R-squared = 0.0591
Adj R-squared = -0.2546
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 30.614

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalassets .0000403 .0000861 0.47 0.656 -.0001704 .000251

workingcap~o -1.730418 4.092876 -0.42 0.687 -11.74532 8.284488
_cons 21.34828 20.00152 1.07 0.327 -27.59367 70.29024
Model VI

The results of regression for the sixth model are shown below
. regress roe totalassets leverage

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 2, 6) = 3.90
Model 3377.11957 2 1688.55979 Prob > F = 0.0823
Residual 2598.92409 6 433.154016 R-squared = 0.5651
Adj R-squared = 0.4201
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 20.812

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalassets .0000242 .0000587 0.41 0.695 -.0001194 .0001677

leverage 11.95423 4.403816 2.71 0.035 1.178479 22.72998
_cons -14.02353 15.09616 -0.93 0.389 -50.96251 22.91546

Model VII

The results of regression for the seventh model are shown below
. regress roe totalsales totalassets leverage

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

F( 3, 5) = 3.45
Model 4030.75853 3 1343.58618 Prob > F = 0.1078
Residual 1945.28514 5 389.057028 R-squared = 0.6745
Adj R-squared = 0.4792
Total 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 19.725

roe Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

totalsales -.0021372 .0016488 -1.30 0.252 -.0063757 .0021013

totalassets .000154 .0001145 1.34 0.237 -.0001405 .0004484
leverage 11.02029 4.235377 2.60 0.048 .132905 21.90767
_cons -6.177397 15.535 -0.40 0.707 -46.11138 33.75658

Observation and discussion

 The results of the analysis revealed that size in terms of total assets for model II has a

positive and significant relationship with profitability/performance (ROE). The results concur

with the work of Amato et al (2007). Additionally, model two indicates that size in terms of both

total assets and total sales and ROE have a statistically insignificant relationship only that total

asses has a negative relationship with ROE while total sales has appositive relationship as

indicated in the work of Olawale et al (2017). Therefore, the addition of total sales in the model

automatically changes the sign of the total assets in the model. In Model V where the amount of

total assets is the only size and explanatory variable with working capital as the control model

showed a positive but insignificant relationship between the variables. Overall the analysis

revealed that total assets as a measure of size has positive but insignificant relationship with

ROE. Perhaps the deviation in terms of significance is due to the inclusion of a large number of

larger or bigger firms in the data panel. Other scholars like Serrasquiro and Numes (2008) and

Amato and Burson (2017) also explored the relationship between the performance of firms and

their sizes and they revealed that there is a positive and statistically significant association

between the two variables. However, their studies just like this one reported that for larger firms,

size was statistically insignificant.

Recommendation

This analysis revealed that for organizations, size really matter as long as the

organization’s size is small or medium. Therefore, it follows that organizations should engage in

aggressive marketing growth opportunities though the employment of strategies that take into

account the market behavior. Organizations such as Apple with massive sizes and financial

backing may use their resources and competencies to further their reach in existing markets. The

concept of market growth may be defined as the attempt to increase the amount of sales of a
given organization within the existing markets as well as the introduction of new products into

the already developed and identified new markets (John & David, 2012). The concept of

market growth therefore, involves both the creation of new product ranges as well as the tailoring

of the existing ones in order to attract and rope in new users with the sole objective of

encroaching into a given market. Therefore, in order to ensure that they achieve market

developments, new strategies must be employed as suggested by Morden (2007). The first factor

that must be considered is the attractiveness of the new market (Simmerson, 2010). An industry

and market attractiveness index can then be developed after careful evaluation using strategic

management tools like SWOT and PESTEL analysis. The analysis revealed the important role

that total assets do to the performance of any given company. Therefore, organizations and

without resorting to debt financing and other negating strategies.

The analysis revealed that the continued growth of an organization has a serious toll on

its financial performance. The finding cast serious doubts on the impact of maturity of

organizations on their financial health. Organizational maturity therefore, provides a window for

evaluating, benchmarking, controlling as well as improving organizational performance at all

levels. The capability maturity model therefore aims at optimizing the output of organizations as

they age. Unfortunately, however, organizations often expand at the expense of their

performance. Risk analysis should therefore be able to identify the point of inflexion upon

which negative gains starts to manifest due to increasing size of an organization. There are

however several methods of countering the impact of organizational size on its performance.

These risk management strategies include the following;

i. Coordinating operating units

 Lack of coordination is one of the main risks affecting organizations undergoing organic

growth process. However, for medium and larger organizations to succeed, they must come

up with strategies for the identification of organic growth opportunities coupled with

executive leadership skills to actualize their plans. The executive leadership must have the

ability to communicate the organizational vision and link it with organic growth

opportunities across the entire enterprise. Additionally, they may help in the process of

allocating resources and competencies for optimizing the impact of the strategy for

enhancing the organization’s internal growth.

ii. Promoting consistent growth efforts

It’s the role of executive leadership to establish the necessary growth appetite for their

organizations. They should do that by ensuring that there are healthy growth standards without

regard to the stage in the organization’s business cycle.

iii. Managing changes caused by technology

One of the main sources of risks during growth of companies is associated with technological

innovation. Organizations must use technology as a source of competitive advantage.

Organizations must therefore perform appropriate risk prioritization process while also ensuring

then shortage of skilled workforce is addressed appropriately. Global innovation is a complex

process that comes with its challenges. However, despite the similarities in the challenges that

are faced by different companies in the globalization quest, the solutions are different. Single

location globalization projects are more advantaged that those in multiple locations. This

advantage of the single location firms is managerial as the decision-making processes are faster
compared to multiple location ones. However, firms can be successful in their global innovation

quests if they follow a certain order as stated below.

The firms can run small dispersed projects prior to the main project to enable the

workforce to familiarize with globalization aspects. Globalization entails structural restructuring;

the management should do a feasibility study before choosing a new structure that would be

adopted. The oversight of the whole projects should be assigned to one senior manager. Despite

selecting a senior manager, a project management team should also be established to give

direction to the implementers. The firm should also appoint lead sites to complement the other

innovation teams (Wilson and Doz, 2012). the company should take time to properly define and

plan for the restructuring. The appointments made should be led by the workers capability to

ensure effectiveness. The firm’s management should also establish collaborations between all the

teams. The work to be done in restructuring should not be split excessively to enhance

coordination. Technological platforms should not be over relied for communication but also

other traditional means.

Conclusion

In this analysis, data from nine American firms listed on NYSE were used to investigate

the impact of firm size on performance of the firms. The data used were mainly from the 2017

and 2018 financial year and through regression modelling comprising of dependent, independent

and control variables, it was revealed that indeed the impact of size as measured by total assets

had a positive and significant relationship with the performance of the firms as measured by their

return on equity (ROE). Therefore, organizations should focus their strategy towards increasing

their sizes through the use of aggressive expansionist strategies to the existing markets while also

introducing new markets in those markets.

 References

Amato, L.H. and Burson, T.E. (2007). The effects of firm size on profit rates in the financial

services, Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 8(1), pp. 67-82

AASTP-4 Ed. 1. (2008). Manual on explosives safety risk analysis—Part 4. Nato Standardization

Organization. Brussels: NATO.

AASTP-4 Ed. 1. (2011). Manual on explosives safety risk analysis—Part 4. Nato Standardization

Organization. Brussels: NATO.

Ale, B. J. M. (2002). Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Science, 40(1–4),

105–126.

Ale, B., Aven, T., & Jongejan, R. (2009). Review and discussion of basic concepts and principles

in integrated risk management. ESREL (European Safety and Reliability Conference),

Prag. London: Taylor and Francis Group

Brooks, C. (2014). Introductory econometrics for finance. Cambridge university press.

Bangash, M. Y. H. (2009). Shock, impact and explosion—Structural analysis and design. Berlin:

Springer.

Dörr, A., & Häring, I. (2006). Einführung in die Risikoanalyse 2. In N. Gebbeken, M. Keuser,

M. Klaus, I. Mangerig & K. Thoma (Eds.), Workshop Bau-Protect 2006.

Dörr, A., & Häring, I. (2008). Introduction to methods applied in hazard and risk analysis 3. In

N. Gebbeken (Ed.), Workshop Bau-Protect.

Häring, I., Schönherr, M., & Richter, C. (2009). Quantitative hazard and risk analysis for

fragments of high explosive shells in air. Reliability and System Safety Engineering,

94(9), 1461–1470.
ISO. (2009). ISO Guide 73: Risk management vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization

for Standardization.

Pervan, M., & Višić, J. (2012). Influence of firm size on its business success. Croatian

Operational Research Review, 3(1), 213-223.

Proske, D. (2004). Katalog der Risiken, Risiken und ihre Darstellung. Dresden: Eigenverlag.

Proske, D. (2008). Catalogue of risks—Natural, technical, social and health risks. Berlin:

Springer.

Radtke, F. K. F., Stacke, I., & Häring, I. (2011). Extension of the German explosive safety

quantitative risk analysis tool ESQRA-GE. 14th ISIEMS. Seattle, USA.

John, F and David, J. (2012). Foundations of marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical Research: Planning and design. Boston:

Pearson.

Morden, T. (2007). Principles of strategic management. New Jersey: Ashgate Publishing.

Olawale, L. S., Ilo, B. M., & Lawal, F. K. (2017). The effect of firm size on performance of
firms in Nigeria. Aestimatio, (15), 2.
Serrasqueiro, Z.S. and Nunes, P.M. (2008). Performance and size: empirical evidence from
Portuguese SMEs, Small Business Economics, 31(2), pp. 195-217
Simerson, K. (2010). Strategic planning. New Jersey: Ashgate publishing LTD.
Zhang, D. (2017). A coefficient of determination for generalized linear models. The American

Statistician, 71(4), 310-316.
 Appendix
regress roe totalsales

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F( 1, 7) = 0.03
Model | 28.036101 1 28.036101 Prob > F = 0.8610
Residual | 5948.00756 7 849.715366 R-squared = 0.0047
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = -0.1375
Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 29.15

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalsales | -.0002148 .0011828 -0.18 0.861 -.0030117 .002582
_cons | 23.11074 15.74154 1.47 0.186 -14.11208 60.33356

regress roe totalsales totalassets

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 6) = 0.92
Model | 1396.76307 2 698.381535 Prob > F = 0.4499
Residual | 4579.28059 6 763.213432 R-squared = 0.2337
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = -0.0217
 Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 27.626

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalsales | -.002867 .0022757 -1.26 0.255 -.0084355 .0027014
totalassets | .0002109 .0001575 1.34 0.229 -.0001744 .0005962
_cons | 23.24585 14.91912 1.56 0.170 -13.25993 59.75164
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

regress roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F ( 3, 5) = 0.51
Model | 1397.21051 3 465.736837 Prob > F = 0.6934
Residual | 4578.83315 5 915.76663 R-squared = 0.2338
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = -0.2259
Total | 5976. 04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 30.262

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalsales | -.0028904 .0027066 -1.07 0.334 -.009848 .0040673
totalassets | .0002122 .0001821 1.17 0.296 -.0002558 .0006802
workingcap~o | .0971015 4.392886 0.02 0.983 -11.19517 11.38938
_cons | 22.99751 19.83182 1.16 0.299 -27.9818 73.97682
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
regress roe totalsales totalassets workingcapitalratio leverage
 Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9
-------------+------------------------------ F( 4, 4) = 4.02
Model | 4785.86558 4 1196.46639 Prob > F = 0.1032
Residual | 1190.17809 4 297.544522 R-squared = 0.8008
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.6017
Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 17.249

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalsales | -.0030132 .0015432 -1.95 0.123 -.0072979 .0012715
totalassets | .0001977 .0001039 1.90 0.130 -.0000907 .0004861
workingcap~o | 4.4974 2.823145 1.59 0.186 -3.340908 12.33571
leverage | 14.09285 4.176006 3.37 0.028 2.498398 25.6873
_cons | -25.88343 18.37356 -1.41 0.232 -76.89662 25.12975
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

regress roe totalassets workingcapitalratio

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 6) = 0.19
Model | 352.90472 2 176.45236 Prob > F = 0.8331
Residual | 5623.13894 6 937.189824 R-squared = 0.0591
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = -0.2546
Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 30.614

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalassets | .0000403 .0000861 0.47 0.656 -.0001704 .000251
workingcap~o | -1.730418 4.092876 -0.42 0.687 -11.74532 8.284488
_cons | 21.34828 20.00152 1.07 0.327 -27.59367 70.29024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. regress roe totalassets leverage

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 6) = 3.90
Model | 3377.11957 2 1688.55979 Prob > F = 0.0823
Residual | 2598.92409 6 433.154016 R-squared = 0.5651
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.4201
Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 20.812

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalassets | .0000242 .0000587 0.41 0.695 -.0001194 .0001677
leverage | 11.95423 4.403816 2.71 0.035 1.178479 22.72998
_cons | -14.02353 15.09616 -0.93 0.389 -50.96251 22.91546
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. regress roe totalsales totalassets leverage

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 9

-------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 5) = 3.45
Model | 4030.75853 3 1343.58618 Prob > F = 0.1078
 Residual | 1945.28514 5 389.057028 R-squared = 0.6745
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.4792
Total | 5976.04366 8 747.005458 Root MSE = 19.725

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roe | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
totalsales | -.0021372 .0016488 -1.30 0.252 -.0063757 .0021013
totalassets | .000154 .0001145 1.34 0.237 -.0001405 .0004484
Leverage | 11.02029 4.235377 2.60 0.048 .132905 21.90767
_cons | -6.177397 15.535 -0.40 0.707 -46.11138 33.75658
------------------------------------------------------------------------------