MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966936990 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v10n6p24

An Agency Perspective on Firm Diversification, Efficiency and Performance: Evidence From Malaysia

2019· article· en· W2966936990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sin Huei Ng, Tze San Ong, Boon Heng Teh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)BusinessPrincipal–agent problemAgency costAgency (philosophy)Monetary economicsAsset (computer security)Corporate groupAccountingCorporate governanceEconomicsFinanceShareholderMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I examine, from the agency perspective, the relationship between three important corporate measures among the Malaysian publicly-listed family-controlled firms: firm diversification, asset utilization efficiency and firm performance. I also explore the role of board independence in moderating the firm diversification-performance relationship. My findings suggest that the greater the extent of firm diversification, the poorer will the asset utilization efficiency be. The poorer efficiency is likely to have caused the equally poorer performance for the firms in my findings. Notably, firm diversification is found to be more detrimental to performance for those firms affiliated to business group compared to firms without group affiliation. The group-affiliated firms which are found to be more diversified than the non-group firms, could have engaged in greater diversification for the self-interest of the controlling family. Specifically, I find that the agency-driven diversification causes the ROA (Tobin’s Q) of the firms to be lowered by 0.354% (0.026) for every additional increase in the number of business segments as the measure of firm diversification. In terms of the moderating effect of board independence, my finding shows that audit committee of board comprises entirely of independent outside directors positively moderate the firm diversification-performance linkage and is capable of reversing the apparently negative linkage between the two.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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