MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135881547

A Comparison of Revenue Growth at Recent-IPO and Established Firms: The Influence of SG&A, R&D and COGS

2009· article· en· W2135881547 on OpenAlexaff
Moren Lévesque, Nitin Joglekar, Jane Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsQuest University CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitial public offeringRevenueElasticity (physics)Output elasticityProductivityIndustrial organizationFunction (biology)EconomicsProduction functionBusinessMicroeconomicsMonetary economicsProduction (economics)EconometricsFinanceMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dynamic view of the resource based theory (RBT) examines how a firm builds its resources over time, considering variations in resources' growth rates while the firm attempts to grow. Accordingly, we consider the elasticity of accumulated resources to assess conditions where these resources might serve as substitutes for rather than complements to COGS during periods of growth. We specify a production function that links aggregate resource allocation among SG&A, R&D and COGS expenses to a firm's revenue. This function yields a set of hypotheses on the elasticity of SG&A and R&D, and the productivity of COGS, while controlling for the revenue growth rate. We test these hypotheses on a dataset of 64 randomly selected firms that recently underwent an IPO, and a comparable set of 64 established public firms from four high-technology sectors. Results show that the accumulated stocks of resources can serve as substitutes for rather than complements to COGS, and the manner in which recent-IPO firms allocate and use resources differs from their established counterparts. We discuss the implications of associated elasticity and productivity results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207