Table 2.
Extent of targeting: Subsidy by decile relative to top decile
| Ratio for decile d / Ratio for top decile | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Subsidy / Cash Flow Loss | ||||||||||
| Participants | 15.2 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| All firms | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| Subsidy / Total Costs | ||||||||||
| Participants | 16.1 | 9.1 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
| All firms | 3.9 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| Subsidy / Liquidity | ||||||||||
| Participants | 12.3 | 8.2 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| All firms | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
For each denominator D (predicted cash flow loss, total costs, and liquidity) and each decile d, we calculate the mean subsidy-to-D ratio among firms in that decile: . We then divide this by the analogous ratio in the top decile: . implies that smaller firms receive more fiscal support than top-decile firms, as a proportion of D. We report these comparisons for both SI participant firms and for the full sample of firms. The ratios S/D are winsorized within each decile at the 5 th and 95 th percentiles (before constructing the participants-only sample). The calculation of the simulated subsidy is described in Sect.3.2.1. Predicted cash flow loss, costs, and liquidity are defined in Sect. 2