MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292264382 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15080365

Hedging Policies to Reduce Agency Costs in Brazil

2022· article· en· W4292264382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vinícius Medeiros Magnani, Marcelo Augusto Ambrozini, Rafael Moreira Antônio, Rafael Confetti Gatsios

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)ShareholderAgency costContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)BusinessPanel dataRelation (database)FinancePrincipal–agent problemEconomicsPublic economicsCorporate governanceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the recent Brazilian economic scenario, characterized by political uncertainties and economic instabilities, it is essential for companies to engage in hedging as part of their financial policy in order to prevent their results from being affected by market frictions. In this context, the present study aimed to verify the impact of hedging on the agency costs of Brazilian companies. The methodology used was that of panel data contemplating a manually collected database of 154 companies between 2010 and 2017 (all companies that use derivatives for hedging). The results obtained agree with the literature on hedging and agency costs, indicating that the greater the use of hedging, the lower the agency costs faced by shareholders, expanding on the discussions involving developed markets. This relationship shows that by using hedging in a company’s financial policy, managers can minimize the impacts of market frictions and reduce the residual losses of shareholders in relation to what would otherwise occur.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207