Financial Factors Affecting Price-to-Earnings Ratios in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to ascertain which financial factors affect the price-to-earnings ratios of Canadian firms. Methodology: A sample of 578 Canadian firms, across 11 industries, listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange during 2011 to 2018 is examined. Stock prices and financial statements accounts data is collected from S & P Capital IQ. We compute 27 financial factors to use as independent variables to regress on the price-to-earnings ratio dependent variables employing the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) utilizing the software program’s forced, forward, and backward selection methods. Robustness tests are conducted using alternative dates (after the fiscal year end) to discover which model of financial factors best explains the forward price-to-earnings ratio as well as other statistical methods such as analysis of variance. Results: We find a unique model for each of the 3 models based on the forward price-to-earnings ratio date. The financial factors that explain each of the dates after the end of the fiscal year (1 month, 2 months, and 3 months) are the 4 variables: net profit margin, return on investment, total asset turnover, and the natural logarithm of the total assets. For model 3 (1 month after fiscal year end), in addition to the previous 4 factors, the dividends per share is part of the regression equation. All 3 models have strong statistically significant results at an alpha level of one percent. Further, industry effects are deduced and presented. Unique contribution to theory, policy, and practice: The results are unique to a Canadian sample of firms post- International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. Companies can utilize the empirical findings to manage their financial performance to maximize their price-to-earnings ratio. A product of a firm’s higher price-to-earnings ratio is a lower cost of capital which expands the corporation’s investment opportunities. Investors can apply this research to develop investment strategies hinged on price-to-earnings ratios to augment investment returns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".