MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220719209 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15030145

Intended Use of IPO Proceeds and Survival of Listed Companies in Malaysia

2022· article· en· W4220719209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Sarah Alyasa-Gan, Norliza Che-Yahya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitial public offeringDebtBusinessContext (archaeology)Monetary economicsCapital (architecture)AccountingSurvival of the fittestFinanceFinancial systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of Malaysian companies’ survival, the potential role of intended use of proceeds as an influential factor remains unfamiliar. This study examines the link between the intended use of IPO proceeds and the survival of 423 Malaysian listed companies over the period of 2000–2014. This study distinguishes the use of IPO proceeds into three segregations: growth opportunities, debt repayment, and working capital. Employing the Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival model, the overall evidence shows a statistically significant effect of the intended use of IPO proceeds for growth opportunities and debt repayment on companies’ post-IPO survival. Furthermore, company survival was found to be consistently improved when they allocated less than 50% of their IPO proceeds, regardless of the purposes (growth, repay debt or general). These results highlight the importance of the intended use of IPO proceeds on the survival of newly listed companies, and provide insights for policymakers on the management of IPO proceeds for long-term survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicWorking Capital and Financial PerformanceFrench-language works237,207