18.12.2012 Views

Proceedings

Proceedings

Proceedings

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 3. X Variable 1 Line Fit Plot<br />

4.4. Discussion concerning the power of net income and comprehensive income<br />

for profesional investors<br />

From the comparative analysis of the two simple regression models, it is noted that<br />

the price per share is influenced to a greater extent by the net income than by the<br />

comprehensive income. Thus, in the case of a change with a pound/centime of basic<br />

earning per share, the price per share changes by 8.91 pounds/centimes, while in the<br />

case of a change with a pound/centime of comprehensive income per share, the price<br />

per share changes by 5,37 pounds/centimes. However, we consider that the difference<br />

between the b coefficient in Formula 1 (8.91) and the β coefficient in Formula 2<br />

(5.37) is insignificant since the amounts are expressed in pounds/centimes. This close<br />

relationship that is, on the one hand, between basic earning per share and price per<br />

share, and on the other hand, between comprehensive income per share and price per<br />

share, was confirmed by the analysis using Pearson coefficient which showed the<br />

correlation values of 0.56 for net income and 0.47 for comprehensive income.<br />

Therefore, we consider validated the assumption that in making investment decisions,<br />

professional investors take into account both the net income and the comprehensive<br />

income. To support this idea, we present the interpretation of the results obtained by<br />

collecting data from the 2009's financial statements for entities under study.<br />

As seen in Table 3, most economic entities obtain a positive result, for both net<br />

income and comprehensive income. Four out of the eight entities for which<br />

comprehensive income registered a negative value, was generated by other<br />

comprehensive income (net income for these entities being positive) while for the<br />

remaining four entities, the negative value of comprehensive income was generated<br />

both by the negative net income and by the negative value of other comprehensive<br />

income. The remaining two entities had a negative result, in the end they had a<br />

positive comprehensive income as other comprehensive income were higher than net<br />

income. We can note that for 60% of entities surveyed, total comprehensive income<br />

has a negative value.<br />

~ 980 ~

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!