I have a doubt and at this stage this is a simple statistical calculation doubt which I tried using myself but couldnt clear it. Please see the below table. In the explanation to the table, it is written as
I dont have many issues here except the use of percentage points versus percentages even though both ROA and R&D have the same denominator-total assets.
From where do these figures 1.4 and 0.5 which are not in the table come? From the table, can we estimate these figures? Please let me know your comments as I cannot figure this myself. However for further appreciate the work I need to get the calculations right.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...04405X21000982
Based on column 1, there is a significant improvement in operating performance following the merger-induced increase in common ownership. The coefficient on Treat×After shows an increase in ROA by 1.2 percentage points (p-value<0.1). Similarly, based on column 2, there is a significant decline in R&D by 0.4% of assets (p-value<0.05).
Consistent with the conjecture that the financial crisis period is influential, the coefficient on Treat×After flips sign and becomes insignificant in both the ROA and the R&D regressions. The 95% confidence intervals around these coefficients highlight the contrast with the full sample results. From the results in column 5, we can reject with 95% confidence that the mergers increased ROA by more than 1.4 percentage points, that is, by a magnitude similar to the point estimate in column 1 (1.2 percentage points). Similarly, the results in column 6 indicate that we can reject that they reduced R&D by more than 0.5 percentage points, which is similar to the −0.004 point estimate in column 2.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...04405X21000982
Comment