The Effect of Accounting Conservatism on Financial Performance Indicators in the Jordanian Insurance Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of accounting conservatism as independent variable and size of the company as a control variable on financial indicators related to the performance of Jordanian insurance Companies, represented in return on asset, earnings per share (EPS), and market value of the share, for the period (2007-2014). The researcher has collected the necessary data from annual reports issued by insurances companies listed in Jordan Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The study sample consisted of (12) Jordanian Insurance companies. For determining whether the Jordanian insurance companies has practice accounting conservatism policies, the study used accruals based approach; in order to test the hypotheses of the study it has been used multiple regression analysis. The most important results are: The Jordanian insurance companies have practice accounting conservatism policies, and there are significant and positive effect of accounting conservatism policies on financial indicators related to the performance of the Jordanian insurance companies represented in:, return on asset and earnings per share (EPS), and market value of share, for the period (2007 to 2014). According to of the above results the researcher concluded many recommendations the most prominent is the increased oversight of the securities Exchange commission, the organizers of the accounting profession and the official supervisors of organizing the companies’ work in Jordan, adopt the appropriate procedures in order to encourage companies to commitment to an acceptable accounting conservatism level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".