Financial flexibility and the performance during the recent financial crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this study is to test whether financial flexibility has value. Using the current financial crisis, the authors investigate whether firms that built up financial flexibility over the years preceding the crisis yield superior performance during the financial crisis. Design/methodology/approach Financial flexibility is measured along the following dimensions: cash and cash equivalents, debt (short-term and total) and net debt. These proxies are measured as an average over the five years prior to the crisis, from September 2002 to August 2007. Firms are then sorted into ten portfolios and monthly stock returns for each portfolio are evaluated over the crisis period from September 2007 to March 2010. Findings The authors' results show that high pre-crisis levels of cash do not seem to have a positive impact on firm value during the crisis. However, the results provide evidence that high pre-crisis levels of debt had a negative impact on firm value during the latest financial crisis, supporting the hypothesis that financial flexibility has value. Originality/value The originality of the authors' approach is to evaluate the value of financial flexibility during a financial crisis. The recent financial crisis offers an ideal test case to evaluate whether financial flexibility has indeed value for the firm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".