Comparative performance of publicly listed construction companies: Australian evidence

Balatbat, M C A; Lin, C Y and Carmichael, D G (2010) Comparative performance of publicly listed construction companies: Australian evidence. Construction Management and Economics, 28(9), pp. 919-932. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

Understanding the performance of publicly listed Australian construction companies, in comparison with other Australian listed companies, is vital to the construction sector's continuous access to capital from the public equity market. Evidence on the performance of construction companies that do business in building and/or civil infrastructure is presented and compared with the Australian All Ordinaries Index and a portfolio of publicly listed (blue chip) companies. Using fundamental analysis, a comprehensive assessment on a range of financial and performance indicators is provided (including share prices, equity valuation multiples and profitability ratios) over the 10-year period, 1998 to 2007. The results show that, apart from the period when the Goods and Services Tax was introduced in 2000, the performance of publicly listed Australian construction companies in most of the indicators assessed is comparable to the largest traded shares on the Australian Securities Exchange. The empirical evidence is encouraging and could potentially elicit interest and confidence for investors to invest in construction companies.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: company performance; financial ratios; market performance
Index terms: investor, profitability, performance indicator, construction company, evidence, construction sector, financial ratio
Subjects: organization, evaluation and assessment methods, economic analysis, performance management, industry analysis, sociology
Topics: Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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