Hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant impact of Credit Deposit

# Hence the null hypothesis that there is no

• Essay
• 22

This preview shows page 18 - 20 out of 22 pages.

impact of CRDR on Return on Equity of PNB from 2006-07 to 2015-16. Hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant impact of Credit Deposit Ratio on Return on Equity is rejected. The value of beta coefficient of capital deposit ratio is .043 which signifies that for every unit change in CPDR, there is a 0.043 unit’s change in ROE and the intercept is .010 which shows that if the val ue of CPDR is zero then the value of ROE would be affected by 0.010 units. It indicates that there is other factor that affects ROE of PNB. The significant value is .006 which is less than the critical value i.e. 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant impact of Proprietary Ratio on Return on Capital Employed is rejected. H 05 : There is no significant difference in business per employee of PNB and HDFC Bank. Table 13 Statistical Description of Business per Employee of PNB and HDFC Bank N Mean Std. Deviation PNB 10 946.1000 334.79694 HDFC 10 6.7000 3.36815 Source: Annual Reports of PNB from 2011-12 to 2015-16 The above table presents statistical description of Business per employee of PNB and HDFC Bank from 2006-07 to 2015-16. The business per employee of PNB stood at 946 with standard deviation of 335 while the business per employee was only 6.7 in HDFC Bank with standard deviation of 3.37 during the study period.

Subscribe to view the full document.

International Academic Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 26-47. 44 Table 14 ANOVA of Business per Employee of PNB and HDFC Bank Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4412361.800 1 4412361.800 78.722 .000 Within Groups 1008903.000 18 56050.167 Total 5421264.800 19 Source: Annual Reports of PNB from 2011-12 to 2015-16 As it has been clearly seen from table 11 that the P value of F test in ANOVA is 0.000 which is less than alpha 0.05 which shows statistically significant differences in the mean percentage of business per employee between PNB and HDFC Bank and therefore null hypothesis is rejected. It reveals that the business per employee by both the banks differs significantly. From the analysis it has been observed that PNB is more or less doing business per employee satisfactorily during the study period and a significant difference exist in business per employee between PNB and HDFC Bank. H 06 : There is no significant difference in profit per employee of PNB and HDFC Bank. Table 15 Statistical Description of Profit per Employee of PNB and HDFC Bank N Mean Std. Deviation PNB 10 6.1030 2.17588 HDFC 10 .0830 .03743 Source: Annual Reports of PNB from 2011-12 to 2015-16 Table 12 shows the statistical description of profit per employee of PNB and HDFC Bank from 2006-07 to 2015-16. In case of PNB, profit per employee stood at Rs. 6.10 which is better than HDFC bank which earn only 0.08 as profit on per employee. Table 16 ANOVA of PPE of PNB and HDFC Bank Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 181.202 1 181.202 76.524 .000 Within Groups 42.623 18 2.368 Total 223.825 19 Source: Annual Reports of PNB from 2011-12 to 2015-16 As it has been clearly seen from table 11 that the P value of F test in ANOVA is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 which shows statistically significant differences in the mean percentage of profit per employee among PNB and HDFC Bank and thus null hypothesis is rejected. It reveals that the profit per employee by PNB and HDFC differs significantly and according. From the analysis it has been observed that PNB
• Fall '16

### What students are saying

• As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

• I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

• The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern