MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2304452412 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n4p207

Value of Financial Flexibility and Firm’s Financial Policies: Empirical Evidence from the Firms Listed in Tehran Stock Exchange

2016· article· en· W2304452412 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kazem Rahimi, alireza mosavi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock exchangeLeverage (statistics)Panel dataDividendPopulationBusinessCashEconometricsEconomicsFinanceBalance sheetStock (firearms)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between financial flexibility and financial policies of the firms listed on Tehran stock exchange. The population of this descriptive-correlational study is comprised of all firms listed on Tehran stock exchange during the years 2010 to 2014. From this population, a sample of 155 firms is created through systematic elimination. The research hypotheses are investigated via multivariate regression, integrated data model and estimated generalized least squares (EGLS) methods. This research uses panel data technique as its statistical method, and utilizes Eviews9 and Excel softwares for data analysis. Results of investigations show that value of financial flexibility has significant inverse relationship with firm’s dividend payouts, its financial leverage, and the change in its cash balance. The results also suggest that firms putting more value to their financial flexibility have lower dividend payouts, prefer stock redemption to paying dividends, have lower leverage ratios, and tend to accumulate more cash.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→