MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551719169 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n12p151

Determinants of Corporate Hedging: Evidence from Emerging Market

2016· article· en· W2551719169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cigdem Vural-Yavas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)DividendDividend yieldProfitability indexYield (engineering)Emerging marketsBusinessLogistic regressionVariable (mathematics)Financial economicsCategorical variableMonetary economicsEconomicsEconometricsFinanceDividend policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this study is to understand the determinants of corporate hedging in emerging markets. The dependent variable, hedging, is estimated by a categorical variable. This process necessitates the usage of logistic regression. The analysis is conducted using data from non-financial companies listed in Borsa Istanbul (BIST) between 2010 and 2014. Evidence reveals that the cost of underinvestment has the highest impact on the likelihood of hedging. Firms with higher cost of underinvestment are more likely to use financial derivatives. The second most important determinant of hedging is growth opportunities. Interestingly, firms with greater growth opportunities are less likely to use derivatives in emerging markets. Results indicate that firm size, foreign sales, profitability, and dividend yield are the other predictors that increase the likelihood of hedging. On the other hand, growth opportunities, free-float rate, interest coverage ratio, and leverage have a negative relationship with the possibility of using financial derivatives.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207