The Relative Importance of Financial Ratios in Making Investment and Credit Decisions in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has aimed to demonstrate the relative importance of financial analysis using ratios for each of lenders and investors in Jordan when making decision.Also; this study, included the financial ratios that could be adopted by decision makers in the industry (area) of lending or investment. The study included two categories; first is the category of financial intermediaries; to express the category of investors in Amman stock exchange (ASE), while the second category included employees of credit departments -in Jordanian banks- for the category of lenders.The collection of study data was based on a review of the subject's scientific literature, previous studies and by preparing a questionnaire that was designed on the basis of the theoretical framework of the study and its hypotheses.The objectives of financial analysis are to judge the efficiency of management and to use the information available to make various administrative decisions. The study found that financial ratios are used by data users when making decisions related to investment and lending. The results of the study also revealed the interest of lenders in debt and liquidity ratios, while investors' attention is focused on profitability and market ratios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".