The Impact of Selected Financial Ratios on Economic Value Added: Evidence from Croatia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional financial performance measures should be extended to provide additional information to stakeholders. One such extension is the economic value added (EVA). It shows residual profit above the cost of financing, both creditors and equity financing. This paper elaborates on the impact of selected financial ratios on EVA to total assets and EVA to capital employed using the 20-year aggregated data of non-financial business entities operating in Croatia. It answers the research question of which of the selected financial ratios impacts the above-mentioned EVA-based ratios. Applying dynamic panel data modeling using the generalized method of moments technique resulted in the derivation of two models. The human capital efficiency ratio was statistically significant in both models, positively affecting EVA/total assets and EVA/capital employed. In contrast, the debt ratio and net profit margin were significant only in the second model, where EVA/capital employed was a dependent variable. The research results indicate that the debt ratio affects EVA/capital employed negatively while the net profit margin has a positive effect, confirming the existing research. Total liabilities/earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and total asset turnover were not found to be significant in either of the two models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".