MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048672791 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v3n2p120

DETERMINANTS OF CORPORATE HEDGING PRACTICES IN MALAYSIA

2010· article· en· W2048672791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rashid Ameer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCurrencyForeign exchange riskMarket liquidityPosition (finance)Monetary economicsDerivatives marketInterest rateInterest rate derivativeExchange rateDerivative (finance)Foreign exchangeFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of the firm specific factors on the use of foreign exchange and interest derivative instruments for Malaysian firms. We find that firms’ foreign sales, growth options, managerial ownership and size have positive influence on the use of foreign exchange and interest derivatives in Malaysia. In particular, our results seem to suggest that Malaysian firms with higher level of foreign sales and growth opportunities are active users of the foreign currency derivatives, while, firms with higher ratio of quick assets do not use such derivatives, as these firms might use excess liquidity to absorb unpredicted changes in the foreign currency and interest rate risks. Our findings suggest that only a small number of Malaysian listed firms have appropriate understanding of the derivatives instruments to mitigate market risks in the international business environment. Most Malaysian managers seem to be risk averse and might not be aware of the upside of taking position in the derivatives markets.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207