MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791195304 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n4p65

Capital Structure Determinants in Family Firms: An Empirical Analysis in Context of Crisis

2018· article· en· W2791195304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefania Migliori, Fabrizio Maturo, Francesco Paolone

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPecking order theoryLeverage (statistics)Capital structureFinancial crisisMarket liquidityAgency costBusinessPecking orderPrincipal–agent problemContext (archaeology)Asset (computer security)Monetary economicsEconomicsFinanceMacroeconomicsDebt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the capital structure of family firms in a context of crisis. Specifically, it aims to discover whether and how the determinants of their capital structure have a different impact on firms’ leverage before and during the recent global financial crisis. Considering the pecking order theory (POT), trade-off theory (TOT), and agency theory (AT), this study analyzes 1,502 Italian medium family firms comparing the pre-crisis (2005-2007) and crisis (2008-2010) periods. This research shows that that current liquidity, asset structure, and agency costs are the most important variables in influencing medium family firms' leverage, in both the pre-crisis and crisis periods. Moreover, during the crisis, agency costs increase and have a negative influence on the short-term leverage highlighting that crisis contingencies influence the agency-based effects on family firm's leverage. Furthermore, our findings highlight that a more exhaustive understanding of family firms’ capital structure can be achieved through the combined use of different theories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207