MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220781501 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15040148

Shareholder Activism and Its Impact on Profitability, Return, and Valuation of the Firms in India

2022· article· en· W4220781501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sudam Shingade, Shailesh Rastogi, Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu, Abhijit Chirputkar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderProfit marginOperating marginValuation (finance)Market capitalizationBusinessProfitability indexReturn on equityCorporate governanceReturn on assetsAccountingFinanceStock market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper’s prime objective is to understand the impact of Shareholder activism on firm performance. This study is conducted in a unique setup where traditional activist investors such as pension funds and hedge funds are not present. However, the activism cases are increasing yearly in an emerging economy like India. We have created a comprehensive shareholder activism index (sha index) using multiple activisms and corporate governance factors. To measure firm performance, we have used valuation (Tobin’s Q and Market capitalization), profitability (operating profit margin and net profit margin), and return ratios (Return on capital and return on equity). Panel data analysis (PDA) is employed for the current study as it overcomes the shortcomings of the time series analysis and cross-sectional studies. The sample comprises 37 listed firms’ data for FY2017 to FY2020. Chosen firms have experienced activism instances at least once during the 2017–2020 period. As per our analysis, shareholder activism has a significant negative impact on valuation measured in market capitalization and profitability estimated by operating profit margin. Activism primarily impacts the other four parameters negatively, but it is insignificant. India is in the nascent stage of activism, partly explaining the insignificance of the effects of shareholder activism on firm performance. Also, activist investors are targeting companies. These attacks are not fructifying desired outcomes as promoters own over 50% stake in the listed companies. The latest data for FY2021 has not been considered for the study as covid-19 impacted the businesses during the financial year. Also, we cannot capture activism instances that are not reported in regulatory filings. Unlike past research in this area, we have used a comprehensive activism index as a proxy of activism and have employed PDA instead of event studies to assess the impact on firm performance. Also, this is the first such empirical study conducted in an emerging economy setup where neither large hedge nor pension funds are present.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207