MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394623637 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v16n5p40

How Corporate Liquidity Reacts to COVID-19 Outbreak? Evidence from Listed Corporations in Saudi Arabia

2024· article· en· W4394623637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faisal Alnori

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessMarket liquiditySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVirologyFinanceMedicineInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic remarkably influenced the global economy and hence corporate decisions. This study investigates corporate liquidity policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing corporate cash holdings levels before and after the COVID-19 crisis. Using quarterly data of listed non-financial firms in Saudi Arabia over the years 2018-2021 and employing a paired-sample univariate analysis, this study found that the COVID-19 outbreak significantly influenced corporate liquidity decisions. In particular, the results show a significant difference in the cash holdings levels between the periods before and after the COVID-19 crisis. Firms’ cash holdings are significantly higher after COVID-19 in comparison to cash holdings before the pandemic. These findings support the trade-off theory’s precautionary and transaction cost motives for holding liquid assets. The outcomes of this study provide important implications for policymakers, corporate managers, and lenders.

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)0.004
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→