MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123076883 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n2p94

The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Selected Listed Companies in Sri Lanka

2016· article· en· W3123076883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tharmalingam Pratheepan, Y. K. Weerakon Banda

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPecking order theoryCapital structurePanel dataSri lankaStock exchangeLeverage (statistics)Profitability indexEconometricsFixed effects modelMonetary economicsBusinessPecking orderEconomicsVariablesDebtFinancial economicsFinanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the determinants of capital structure of selected listed companies in Sri Lanka. The capital structure of 55 companies listed in Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) is empirically examined using the fixed effects model. Based on the findings of the panel data analysis during the period of 2003-2012, Profitability exhibits statistically significant of inverse relationship with leverage while firm size and growth shows statistically significant of positive relationship with leverage for selected listed companies in Sri Lanka. Non–debt tax shields and tangibility indicate insignificant impacts on leverage. The results of this empirical study shows that there is robust evidence to support the pecking order theory by manufacturing based companies on the capital structure determinant of profitability variable, and growth variable also strongly supports to the association of the pecking order theory. Though, trade–off theory also can not be rejected because of the correct estimate of the positive sign of size variable of manufacturing based companies. Thus, implication of pecking order theory is more appropriate in Sri Lankan perspective.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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