MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512246116 · doi:10.5296/ajfa.v8i2.9759

Share Repurchases: A Literature Review

2016· review· en· W2512246116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarthak Kumar Jena, Chandra Sekhar Mishra, Prabina Rajib

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Finance & Accounting · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Grants Commission
KeywordsShare repurchaseBusinessMarket liquidityDividendFinanceAccountingShareholderCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Share repurchases evolved as an alternative method of payout and a corporate finance tool in 1950 in the USA. From 1980 to 2000 it has achieved a significant growth as compared to dividend payment by companies. Then, share repurchase is gradually spread to other countries like UK, Canada, etc. Pertinent to its growing importance, over the years an enormous literature has emerged that deals with many facets of share repurchase. This article classifies and organizes literature in relations to the established hypotheses, determinants affecting share repurchase decisions, the effect of share repurchase on liquidity and earning management around share repurchase. In additions to the above, this article also analyses the regulatory framework of Indian buyback starting from 1998. It gives a brief view of sections of old Companies Act (1956) and new Companies Act (2013) dealing with buyback. This article also provides a snapshot of SEBI buyback regulations, 1998 and also accommodates all the amendments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Finance & AccountingSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207