Revisiting Shareholder Value Creation via International Joint Ventures: Examining Interactions Among Firm‐ and Context‐Specific Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study attempts to empirically reconcile the prevalent mixed findings regarding reactions of capital markets to announcements of American firms' participation in international joint ventures (IJVs). It does so by first admitting salient contextual variables into the portfolio of firm‐specific variables—heretofore mostly considered in isolation—and then modeling their collective impact on these parents' shareholder value. A cluster analysis of more than 700 equity IJVs yields findings that highlight important interactions between the two sets of variables, which better inform creation and destruction of shareholder value for IJV parents. These findings facilitate development of a conceptual framework for assessing how parents can exploit the inter‐connectedness between their firm‐specific and contextual domains. Thus, this study lays a foundation for generating more refined predictions about shareholder value creation via IJVs. Résumé La présente étude essaie de concilier, de façon empirique, les conclusions contradictoires, révélées par l'étude des réactions des marchés de capitaux aux annonces par les firmes américaines de leur participation aux coentreprises internationales. Elle y parvient en deux temps: premièrement, par la reconnaissance des variables contextuelles fondamentales, jusque‐là surtout considérées de façon isolée, dans le portfolio des variables spécifiques aux firmes; deuxièmement, par la modélisation de leur impact collectif sur la création des valeurs pour les actionnaires des firmes impliquées dans ces coentreprises. Les conclusions tirées de l'analyse par segments de plus de 700 coentreprises boursières internationales mettent en évidence d'importantes interactions (entre les deux groupes de variables) dans la création et la destruction des valeurs pour les actionnaires des coentreprises internationales. De façon incidente, les conclusions de l'étude tracent les contours d'un cadre conceptuel permettant de montrer comment les partenaires peuvent exploiter l'interrelation entre leurs secteurs spécifiques et les domaines contextuels. En somme, l'étude jette les bases d'une meilleure capacité de prédiction dans la création des valeurs par les actionnaires, via les coentreprises internationales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".