MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004289128 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v5n7p85

Factors Affecting Leveraging for Quoted Real Estate Development Companies in China

2013· article· en· W2004289128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lunani Abiud Simiyu, Xuexi Huo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringReal estateStock exchangeBusinessFinanceLeverage (statistics)ChinaProfitability indexReal estate investment trustCapital structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real estate companies in China need to undertake capital restructuring by deepening and broadening additional sources of funding such as real estate investment trusts, venture capital, mezzanine financing and commercial mortgage backed securities. This study is aimed at analyzing the factors that influence leveraging among quoted real estate development companies in China. A sample of 90 real estate companies quoted on Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) and Shenzhen Stock Exchange(SZSE) for the period covering 2005 to 2011 was selected however, due to information inadequacy, only 68 samples were analyzed using fixed effects regression. The results exhibited the following; management experience, company size, “guanxi” common in china meaning (personal/business relationship), company growth, company profitability, asset tangibility were positive and significant to leverage, whereas; interest amount was negative and significant, business risk and company age were negative and insignificant to the company leverage. In overall, the outcome of the research is in line with predictions from various documented theories and previous works.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207