Skip to main content

The Invisible Handshake: Profits vs. Connectedness

Is it better to be smart or connected? In the world of Malaysian corporate finance, the answer might be "both."

Continuing with the theme of corporate connectedness, I have calculated various measures of network structure in Malaysia's listed companies to see if "social capital" translates into financial returns. I focus here on two metrics:
  • Degree: Simply the number of shareholders a company has. Think of this as raw popularity.
  • PageRank: Named after Google co-founder Larry Page, this algorithm ranks websites by importance. I applied this to the network of cross-shareholding to determine the quality of connections. A company owned by a major player (like Khazanah) gets a higher PageRank than one owned by obscure holding companies.

Figure 1: Visualizing the relationship between connectedness and returns.

The graph above confirms my hypothesis: importance attracts importance. Companies with high centrality are likely to receive more links from other nodes in the network, such as institutional investors.

Figure 2: Regression results for Returns on Shareholders' Funds (2015).

Does this matter for the bottom line?
I regressed Return on Shareholders' Funds (2015) against these network measures. The preliminary results (shown above) suggest a positive relationship: companies that are more central to the network tend to be more profitable.
The Chicken or the Egg?
This raises a question of causality. Are these companies profitable because they are well-connected (gaining access to resources), or are institutional investors simply good at picking winners?

Needless to say, there is an endogeneity problem here. Correlation is not causation. To determine if networking is a legitimate strategy for boosting ROI, I will need to use instrumental variables to isolate the direction of causality.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Constructive feedback is always welcome. Thank you

Popular posts from this blog

Modeling Core PCE inflation: A dual approach

Today's release of the August 2025 Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation data drew widespread media attention, with coverage highlighting both the persistence of inflation and its implications for Federal Reserve policy. Across outlets, analysts pointed to resilient consumer spending and income growth as signs of underlying economic strength, even as inflation remains above the Fed's 2% target. The consensus among media reports is that while inflation is not worsening, its stubbornness continues to challenge policymakers navigating a softening labor market and evolving rate expectations. To provide deeper insights into inflation's trajectory, I've developed a forecasting framework that combines two econometric approaches — ARIMA time series modeling and Phillips Curve analysis—to predict Core PCE inflation. This analysis presents a unique opportunity to validate my forecasting methodology against eight months of 2025 data. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mapping the Blast Radius: What Happens When the "World's Factory" Stops?

In global trade, "efficiency" often masks "fragility." We know that China is central to the global electronics supply chain, but how central? And if that node were to go dark, who would feel the shockwaves first? To answer this, I moved beyond standard trade statistics and built a network simulation using the OECD Inter-Country Input-Output (ICIO) Tables (2023 Edition) . This dataset maps the DNA of the global economy, tracking every dollar of input across 66 countries and 45 industries. 1. The Blast Radius: Tracing the Contagion I treated the global economy as a directed graph and simulated a total supply shock to Chinese Electronics (CHN_C26) . By tracing the flow of inputs across three tiers of buyers, I visualized the "Blast Radius" of this disruption. Fig 1: The Supply Chain Cascade. The shock originates in China (Red) and immediately hits "Tier 1" assembly hubs (Dark Blue) before cascading to global consumers...
Post a Comment
Read more

Turkey's Informality Tax

A general-equilibrium model of Turkey's dual labour market says the cost of taxing formal work doesn't show up where we usually look for it. The bottomline: Making Turkey's transfer to the unemployed a third more generous raises unemployment from 8.6% to 9.2% . That is the honest cost, and it is not large. How you pay for it matters more than whether you pay for it. Funded by payroll taxes, the poor end up 0.6% worse off than before the transfer was raised — the policy defeats itself. Funded by VAT, they are 0.5% better off . The reason is not unemployment, which is nearly identical under both. It is informality . A higher payroll tax pushes formal jobs into the unregistered sector, where the wage is 43% lower and nothing is taxed. Turkey is not on the wrong side of the payroll-tax Laffer curve — revenue peaks around 53%, well above today's ~37.5% wedge. But the marginal cost...
Post a Comment
Read more