The corporate governance and financing of small-cap firms in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the interaction between corporate governance and capital structure for small publicly traded firms in Canada. Design/methodology/approach – The authors hand-collect data for all companies listed on the Canadian junior stock exchange and construct measures of corporate governance. The authors focus on a time period when the sample firms were unregulated in their governance choices. Since firms decide simultaneously on the level of corporate governance provisions and capital structure, the authors use simultaneous equation models as well as instrumental variables analysis to address endogeneity. Findings – The authors find that a strong relation exists between small-firm capital structure and corporate governance practices. Firms with low level of collateralizable assets have low leverage and chose better corporate governance provisions. All else equal, the firms with better corporate governance are more likely to issue new equity than debt. Overall the results support theories that predict a link between corporate governance and financing policy, where small-cap firms with low debt capacity incur costly shareholder protection to facilitate access to equity financing. Originality/value – The authors contribute to prior research by providing the first empirical evidence on the choice and impact of corporate governance on capital structure for junior small- and micro-cap firms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".