Effects of Corporate Profitability and Growth on the Shareholding Strategies of Banks: Evidence from Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study scrutinised whether the profitability indexes of firms and the costs associated with product creation as reflections of growth potential affect the percentage of shareholding that Japanese banks acquire from Japanese client companies. To this end, multiple regression analysis was conducted on a sample of 302 firms on which 2,231 observations were made over the fiscal years 2006 to 2015. The findings indicated that the principle of shareholding alone does not drive banks to secure shares in client companies. Instead, the standard that prompts share acquisition is whether management is efficiently operating company business. The implication of this study is that a bank’s shareholding strategy requires client companies to implement management with an awareness of corporate governance, whose significance lies in advancing the realisation of returns from corporate activities by lenders and/or shareholders. In other words, banks are motivated to hold shares when client companies are highly profitable and efficient. Even under these conditions, a bank carries on serving as the financial institution with which a client company is primarily affiliated. As a main bank, a given financial institution seems to consider the pursuit of long-term corporate profits through the research and development of a client firm. However, whether banks will continue to seek such profits from client companies is doubtful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".