Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focal point of this study is to investigate whether the Jordanian companies hold more cash after the financial crisis compared to before the financial crisis and which theories can explain these cash holdings. This work addresses the following questions: 1) what determine the corporate cash holdings in Jordan in normal time and during crisis. 2) How do the financial crises affect the policy of cash holding in the Jordanian firms? This study investigates the effect of capital expenditure, profitability, cash flows, investment (growth) opportunities, leverage, and ability to access capital markets, dividend’s payment and liquid assets substitutes. The study use data from 47 industrial companies listed at Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) during the period 2001 to 2011, with total 517 firm-year observations. The study time period was divided into four sub periods to assess the changes in cash holdings during each period. Panel regression was applied to examine the study model; also ANOVA test was used to test the differences in means for each sub period. Our results show that; Jordanian companies tend to increase their cash holdings because of financial crisis by increasing debt, decreasing investment activity and reducing payouts to shareholders. Moreover, the study show a different patterns in cash holdings during the pre crisis period and the post-crisis period, also there is a different patterns in cash holdings during the base period and the pre-crisis period. In addition, the main theories that explain the changes in cash holdings for the Jordanian companies were trade off theory and the pecking order theory. Generally speaking, our results support the trade off theory. The precautionary motive founded to be the most important motives for the Jordanian firms to hold cash. Generally, Cash flow, liquid assets substitutes, degree of financial leverage and dividend payment policy are the most important determinants of corporate cash holdings in Jordan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".