MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255269522 · doi:10.17722/ijme.v5i3.818

Leverage, Risk & Choice Of Capital Structure: An Empirical Case From India

2015· article· en· W2255269522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gurnam Singh Rasoolpur

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management Excellence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital structureLeverage (statistics)Monetary economicsDebtBasis pointDebt-to-equity ratioEconomicsEquity (law)Return on equityReturn on assetsBusinessOperating leverageFinancial economicsFinancial systemFinanceInterest rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present empirical paper studies the leverage, risk and choice of capital structure in India through a case of MRF Ltd. from tyres & tubes industry of the Indian corporate sector which covers a time period of ten years (effective nine years) extending from the year 1982-83 to 1991-92 where the company is lying in the top of tyres & tubes industry of the Indian corporate sector on the basis of sales for the year 1991-92 for the purpose of our study. The study reveals that that debt-equity ratio2 and leverage ratio2 have been varying from 53.01 percent in the 1982-83 to 68.25 percent in the year 1985-86, each, with rising trend during the period under study, whereas, aggregate debt-equity ratio2 and leverage ratio2 of the company are worked out 63.71 percent, each, during the period under study. It is found that cost of debt on before and after tax basis (Kdbt & Kdat) has been declining over the period under study, whereas, aggregate cost of debt on before and after tax basis (Kdbt & Kdat) of the company is worked out 17.91 percent and 10.21 percent, respectively, during the period under study. It is observed that rate of return on net assets on before and after tax basis (ROIbt2 & ROIat2) and rate of return on total networth on before and after tax basis (RONbt & RONat) have been rising during the period under study. On aggregate basis, aggregate rate of return on net assets on before and after tax basis (ROIbt2 & ROIat2) is worked out 25.18 percent 14.35 percent, whereas, aggregate rate of return on total networth on before and after tax basis (RONbt & RONat) is worked out 38.42 percent and 21.90 percent, respectively, during the study period. Thus, it is concluded that the company is enjoying favourable leverage with regard to use of debt during seven out of nine years under study. Consequently, rate of return on total networth (RONbt & RONat) is higher than cost of debt (Kdbt & Kdat) and rate of return on net assets (ROIbt2 & ROIat2) on before and after tax basis in the above said seven years under study. It means that use of debt in the capital structure of the company has positive impact on the profitability of the company during seven out of nine years under study which consequently is contributing to the total networth of the company which ultimately is benefitting to the equity shareholders of the company. Leverage created through debt by the company is not generating risk for the company in the above said seven years under study because MRF Ltd. is able to cover the cost of debt (Kdbt & Kdat) on before and after tax basis from the rate of return on net assets (ROIbt2 & ROIat2) on before and after tax basis in the above said seven years under study. However, on aggregate basis, the company has also been experiencing favourable leverage with regard to use of debt on before and after tax basis during the period under study which further means that debt is behaving favourably during the period under study. It is also found that spread and net gain are positive when leverage impact is positive and vice-versa during the period under study. It is also found that effective tax rate born by the company is high, i.e. 43 percent, during the period under study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management ExcellenceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207