Firm History and Managerial Entrenchment: Empirical Evidence for Vietnam Listed Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managerial entrenchment occurs when managers are able to manipulate financing decisions to support their own interests rather than those of shareholders. Such possible actions can involve deception and fraud. Furthermore, the market timing activity is explained by managers' financing decisions through which companies choose to raise debt or equity to finance their investment opportunities. Nevertheless, the relationship between managerial entrenchment and leverage ratio, together with the link between market timing and leverage ratio, have not been considered carefully and investigated in the Vietnamese context. The paper provides empirical evidence of the effect of managerial entrenchment and market timing through firms' histories on leverage ratio in Vietnam using a sample of 289 non-financial firms listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE) during the period 2006-2017. OLS, GMM and the endogenous switching methods are used for estimating the models. Findings from the paper indicate that there is a negative relationship between managerial entrenchment and leverage ratio, and that there is a negative effect of firm history, including financial deficit, various timing measures, and stock price history on the leverage ratios of Vietnam's listed firms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".