The institutional economic theory emphasizes the role that institutions
play on economic outcomes. Institutions
can be: social norms; pollical interactions; government agencies; non-government
organizations; rules, regulations, and the law; and more.
Another economic theory is neoclassical economic
theory. In this theory, economic
outcomes are determined (in contrast to institutional economic theory) by
supply and demand of products, the desires of consumers to want products, and
the perspective that the consumer uses rational thinking in deciding whether to
purchase products. Rational thinking
implies that the consumer makes a choice on whether to buy a product, based strictly
on whether it is in the consumer’s best interest to do so. In this theory, there seems to be little, if
any, role for institutions to play in determining economic outcomes.
Knowing whether institutional economic theory influence the economic
performance outcomes of companies is of interest to me as an analyst evaluating
companies’ economic performances. I am especially
interested in materials and energy-related companies.
Do differences exist in institutional impacts on fossil fuel
companies that operate primarily in the European Union (EU) compared to the institutional
impacts on fossil fuel companies that operate primarily in the United States
(US)? If so, based on the intuitional
economic theory, one would expect that these institutional impacts would cause different
economic outcomes for the companies in each area.
To test this expectation, I have compared the profit rate
(net profit divided by total asset value) of 10 primarily EU fossil fuel companies
to 10 primarily US fossil fuel companies.
The following table shows the average profit rate for each of the EU and
US companies over the last 3 years (net profit and total asset value data taken
from the companies’ annual reports) and the average of the 10 companies in each
area:
european union fossil
fuel companies
|
profit rate (net
profit/ total assets)
|
united states fossil
fuel companies
|
profit rate (net
profit/ total assets)
|
omv
|
0.031
|
anadarko
|
-0.081
|
ina
|
-0.050
|
apache
|
-0.212
|
total
|
0.023
|
cabot
|
-0.028
|
hellenic
|
0.001
|
chesapeake
|
-0.402
|
mol
|
-0.011
|
chevron
|
0.029
|
shell
|
0.020
|
conocophillips
|
-0.009
|
statoil
|
-0.062
|
hess
|
-0.083
|
pkn orlen
|
0.015
|
marathon
|
0.059
|
lundin
|
-0.120
|
occidental
|
-0.061
|
respol
|
0.012
|
valero
|
0.034
|
average
|
-0.014
|
average
|
-0.075
|
as a %
|
-1.4%
|
as a %
|
-7.5%
|
The table shows that the average profit rate for the 10 EU
companies (-1.4%) to be much better (even though still negative) than for the
US companies (-7.5%). The EU companies
have about a 6% better profit rate than the US companies. This data does not show that institutional
impacts account for the differences in these economic performances, but such a
difference allows for the possibility.
Another test is determining the fossil fuel use per person
for the EU and the US. EU and US fossil
fuel use and population data were obtained from EU and US government websites
(click here and here to go to the EU websites) (click here and here to go to the
US websites). Using a fossil fuel use of
1.22 million tons oil equivalent (mtoe) and 508 million EU population gives a fossil
fuel use per person of 2.4 toe. Using a
2.03 mtoe fossil fuel use and a 318.6 million population for the US gives 6.4
toe per person. If only the neoclassical
economic theory governed energy fuel-type choices by individuals in the EU and
US, I believe you would expect the toe/person values to be much closer. That they are not suggest other economic considerations,
such as the institutional economic theory, are at work.
In conclusion, both economic outcomes for EU and US fossil fuel
companies and the EU and US fossil fuel per person data, given above, suggest that
institutions impact the outcomes and that the institutional economic theory has
validity and should be considered when evaluating companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment