MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578008269 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v8n1p143

The Determinants of Corporate Cash Holdings: The Case of a Small Emerging Market

2016· article· en· W2578008269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ghada Tayem

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Jordan
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Cash flowCash flow forecastingCash managementOperating cash flowCash conversion cycleBusinessEmerging marketsMonetary economicsCash flow statementVolatility (finance)CashContext (archaeology)Free cash flowEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the factors influencing the level of corporate cash holdings in the context of Jordan, a small emerging market characterized by large market frictions. This article employs the framework of the trade off, financing hierarchy, and managerial discretion theories to predict determinants of cash reserves. Then it examines these predictions using a sample of listed nonfinancial Jordanian firms over the period 2005-2013 using alternative estimation methods. Consistent with the trade-off theory, the results show that firm size and cash substitutes have negative and significant impact on cash holdings while growth opportunities and cash flow volatility have positive and significant impact. In addition, and consistent with the financing hierarchy view, the results show that cash flow and growth opportunities have positive and significant impact on cash holdings. Also, the study documents that leverage is negatively related to cash holdings while squared leverage is positively related to cash reserves. Finally, the results indicate that there are significant dynamic effects in determining cash holding targets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207