MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399527468 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17060243

Do Internal Corporate Governance Practices Influence Stock Price Volatility? Evidence from Egyptian Non-Financial Firms

2024· article· en· W4399527468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Sherif, Doaa El-Diftar, Tamer Mohamed Shahwan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Corporate governancePanel dataShareholderBusinessMonetary economicsStock (firearms)Volatility risk premiumVolatility swapEconomicsAccountingFinancial economicsEconometricsVolatility smileImplied volatilityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research paper is to investigate the association between internal Corporate Governance (CG) mechanisms and stock price volatility in Egypt as an emerging market. The paper investigates the impact of ownership structure and board structure as internal CG mechanisms on stock price volatility. Data are analyzed using a two-way fixed effects model, a one-step dynamic panel data model, and a panel weighted least squares model. The study concluded that ownership concentration has a negative influence on volatility. Interestingly, an inverted U-shaped relationship between the percentage of ownership by the greatest shareholder and volatility is evidenced. Managerial ownership also showed a negative influence on volatility. As for board structure mechanisms, the findings show that both board size and frequency of board meetings negatively influence volatility, whereas board independence has a positive impact.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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