Cash Holdings and Marginal Value of Cash across Different Age Groups of U.S. Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a sample of 11,365 unique US firms over the period 1966 to 2021, this study examines the relationship between the age of a firm and its cash holdings. We categorize firms as young, mature, or old based on their age or years of operation. Our results show that firm age is one of the important determinants of cash holdings and that managers adjust cash holdings in response to changing financial needs and risks as firms age. We find that young firms tend to hold higher levels of cash than more established firms and that the marginal value of cash holdings is higher for younger firms. This is consistent with the notion that young firms are more focused on growth and investment and may have limited access to external financial resources. In contrast, mature and old firms tend to hold lower cash levels, possibly due to greater financial stability, increased creditworthiness, and a lower need to manage financial risks. Controlling for significant variables, we confirm our findings with the robustness tests. Taking care of the endogeneity issue, we still can confirm that firm age is negatively significant to the level and the marginal value of cash holdings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".