Impact of Leverage on Valuation of Non-Financial Firms in India under Profitability’s Moderating Effect: Evidence in Scenarios Applying Quantile Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The firm’s valuation (FV) is the key element for all stakeholders, particularly the investors, for their investment decisions. The main impetus of this research is to estimate the effects of the debt ratio (DR, i.e., leverage) on the FV (i.e., assets and market capitalisation) of the non-financial firms listed in India. The quantile panel data regression (QPDR) on the secondary data of 76 non-financial BSE-100 listed firms in India is employed. This study also checks the effect of the net profit margin (NPM) as profitability on the association between DR and FV. The QPDR estimates result in multiple quantiles and provide evidence in scenarios. The findings reveal a positive relationship of DR to assets only in higher quantiles, i.e., 90%ile), and a negative association of DR is found with a market capitalisation in all quantiles. Under the interaction effect, profitability (NPM) does not affect the association of DR with assets but negatively affects the association of debt ratio with market capitalisation in the middle (50%) quantile. The findings indicate that leverage (DR) affects a firm’s value. The study’s outcomes are helpful to all stakeholders, particularly investors, to realise the leverage (DR) as a critical indicator of FV before making any investment decisions. Managers should also consider lower debt ratios for better firm value. The present analysis is original and holds novelty in the form of the moderating role of the net profit margin, i.e., the profitability of the firm between DR and FV in the non-financial firm in India. To the best of our knowledge, no such studies have been performed to look for the association of the debt ratio with a firm’s value under the effect of profitability in different quantiles using quantile regression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".