MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945596792 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v10n3p299

Government-Linked Investment Companies and Real Earnings Management: Malaysian Evidence

2019· article· en· W2945596792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rahayu Abdul Rahman, Asheq Rahman, Erlane K Ghani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarnings managementBusinessGovernment (linguistics)IncentiveCorporate governanceAccountingInvestment (military)EarningsFinanceCash flowSample (material)Economic interventionismAuditEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the association between government-linked investment companies’ (GLICs’) shareholdings and real earnings management activities in Malaysia. Consistent with prior research, this study uses three proxies to measure real earnings management; abnormal cash flow from operations (RCFO), abnormal production costs (RPC), and abnormal discretionary expenses (RDE). This study segregates GLICs’ shareholdings into two categories; Federal Government Pension Investment Funds (FGPIF) and other GLICs (OFGLIC). Using a sample of 213 firm-year observations of Malaysian government-linked companies from 2010 to 2015, this study finds that FGPIF is a more effective monitoring mechanism than OFGLIC in limiting real earnings management. The findings also show that there is a significant and negative relationship between Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Khazanah Nasional Berhad (Khazanah), Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) and RCFO and RPC. The evidence suggests that these three are the most effective government institutional investors in promoting corporate governance, which in turn limit real earning management activities in Malaysia. In general, the findings support the incentive alignment hypothesis, which argues that companies with government intervention are normally better governed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207