MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385069467 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16070340

Does Competition Affect Financial Distress of Non-Financial Firms in India: A Comparison Using the Lerner Index and Boone Indicator

2023· article· en· W4385069467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jagjeevan Kanoujiya, Shailesh Rastogi, Rebecca Abraham, Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressCompetition (biology)Financial distressBankruptcyContext (archaeology)Index (typography)BusinessEconomicsFinanceFinancial systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firms’ financial distress (FD) is a major issue for smooth business activities. Timely recognition of FD should be a prime concern; otherwise, it may cause a nasty bankruptcy situation. The FD issue is paramount to researchers, policymakers, and investors. Several factors, whether they are financial or non-financial, may be responsible for financial distress. Such aspects specific to the firms have been explored. Exogenous factors such as competition can also be responsible for a firm’s FD situation. In view of this, this study proposes to determine competition’s impact on financial distress in the Indian context. BSE 100 (“Bombay Stock Exchange”)-listed non-financial firms (NFFs) in India, over a timeframe of 2016–2020, are incorporated in this study. Panel data econometrics is performed for hypothesis testing. This study is novel in its approach, employing multi-technique analysis for measuring financial distress. FD is measured using Altman Z-scores, BOS, and AC distress scores variants. The Boone index (BI) and Lerner index (LI) are undertaken for the competition assessment of NFFs in India. The findings have contrasting views based on BI and LI; BI is positively connected to Z-scores; however, LI negatively connects to Z-scores. The findings suggest that competition (reverse of BI) positively affects financial distress (reverse of Z-score), while competition (reverse of LI) has an adverse effect on FD. It is also found that competition as BI affects FD non-linearly (inverted U shape connection). This means that competition (or market power) initially increases financial distress (or financial stability), and after a specific limit, it reduces financial distress. It can also be said that market power improves financial soundness to a specific limit, and after that, it starts decreasing financial stability. The study’s findings provide fresh and exciting evidence for the connectivity of competition and financial distress. This situation has noticeable implications for all stakeholders and policymakers concerned with the survival of Indian listed firms. The significant connection of competition with financial distress implies that all stakeholders should consider competition an essential element for a firm’s financial distress.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.225
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→