MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802575928 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n5p231

Bank Loan Financing Decisions of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Significance of Owner/Managers’ Behaviours

2018· article· en· W2802575928 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Forbeneh Agha Jude, Ntieche Adamou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverconfidence effectPecking orderLoanPecking order theoryOrder (exchange)DebtFinanceSample (material)BusinessControl (management)Equity (law)EconomicsCapital structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to highlight the influence of entrepreneurs’ behaviour on the decisions to apply for bank loans. A mixed research methodology known as triangulation was employed in order to achieve the objective of the study. Data were sourced from a stratified randomly selected sample of 450 Cameroonian SMEs and analysed using logistic regression. The result of the study revealed that both control aversion and overconfidence behaviours of the owner/managers influence significantly the decisions of SMEs to apply for bank loans. From the result, it is found that behavioural finance theory explains the decisions of SMEs to seek for bank credits. Contrary to the predictions of the pecking order theory, managerial behaviours such as the fear to loss the control of the firm, and overconfidence provide explanations on the decisions of SMEs to seek for bank loans. For instance, the fact that debt does not entail any loss of business control urges SMEs to prefer debt than external equity.

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)0.008
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
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207