Power Outages in Ghana: Did They Have an Effect on the Financial Performance of Listed Firms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper seeks to find out whether the recent power outages in Ghana had a negative effect on listed firms.. Out of 35 listed firms in Ghana, 25 were purposively chosen as the sample size for the study. The research design was explanatory and employed quantitative methods that enabled comparison of six years trend analysis of firms’ performance – ‘before’ and ‘during’ power outage periods. Key performance indicators measured were Revenue, Profitability and Growth Rate. Findings were that power outages did not have effect on revenue generation of listed firms and that contrary, they recorded higher maximum revenues for power outage periods. Again, an average growth rate of 122.26% for periods of power outages as against 79.0% mean growth rate for periods of consistent power established that power outages did not have an effect on the growth rate of listed firms. However, power outages had an effect on listed firms’ profitability and more so, accounted for increases in operational expenditure. Our findings on revenue generation and growth rate are unique in literature but that on revenue generation confirms earlier studies. We conclude that the effect of power outages on financial performance of listed firms in Ghana is mixed. To investors, we still recommend Ghana as an investment destination since power outages that beset the country were well managed and did not, to a large extent, have a negative effect on firms’ performances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".