Akintoye, A and Skitmore, M (1991) Profitability of UK construction contractors. Construction Management and Economics, 9(4), pp. 311-325. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper describes three analyses to examine differences in construction company POT profitability between (1) different financial years and (2) different sizes of companies. In the first analysis, the aggregated profitability of a sample of 80 UK general contractors was found not to differ significantly from 3.23 % for each year of the period examined. The size (turnover) of companies, however, was significantly and positively correlated with profitability. The second analysis, of a sub-sample of eight very large companies, showed that profitability enhancement was associated with diversification into house building and other related activities. The third analysis, of 110 speculative house builders, showed profit margins to be around four times those of general contractors but uncorrelated with company size. Systematic changes were found, however, over the period involved. In all cases, the variability of profitability between companies was found to reduce with company size, implying a greater consistency in the financial performance of larger companies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | company size; diversification; pricing policies; profitability; turnover growth |
| Index terms: | general contractor, construction company, builder, profit, turnover, construction contractor, financial performance, pricing, variability, diversification, profitability |
| Subjects: | organization, practitioner, economic analysis, business management, business analysis, market analysis, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here