MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344317490 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n5p55

Working Capital Management and Firms’ Profitability: Evidence from Vietnam’s Stock Exchange

2016· article· en· W2344317490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huy-Cuong Nguyen, Manh-Dung Tran, Duc-Trung Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking capitalProfitability indexCash conversion cycleStock exchangeBusinessLeverage (statistics)FinanceAccounts payableReturn on assetsAccounts receivableMonetary economicsCash flowEconomicsOperating cash flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper investigates what effect Working Capital Management has on firms’ profitability by using the data from listed companies on Vietnamese Stock Exchange. The sample is collected from 127 public companies for the period of 9 years from 2006 to 2014. The research uses four variables to represent Working Capital Management, which are Day of Sales Outstanding (DSO), Day Sales of Inventories (DSI), Day of Payables Outstanding (DPO), and Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC). Moreover, in order to robust the result, the study also takes into the account the following variables: “Leverage, Growth, Tangibility, Size, Industrial Factors, and Macroeconomic Effects”, which were proven to have significant effects on firms’ profitability. The result implies that there is no correlation between Working Capital Management and firms’ profitability. Hence the conclusion is that Working Capital Management can help companies solve the short-term obligations and improve the efficiency by improving the supply chain and credit policies, however it has nothing to do with firms’ profitability of the companies in the sample.

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)0.002
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicWorking Capital and Financial PerformanceFrench-language works237,207