Liquidity, Leverage and Firm Value Nexus of Banks Listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange: A Panel Granger Causality Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the linkage among liquidity, leverage, and firm value. The study employed panel data from listed banks on the Ghana Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2020 and a quantitative design to achieve the objectives of the study. The purposive sampling approach is used to source data from the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE) and various entities’ websites. With the aid of Granger causality, the study demonstrates a causal relationship between liquidity and firm value and a unidirectional causality between leverage and firm value. Further, the study showed that prudent leverage structures improve firm value by optimizing debt levels to improve shareholders’ worth. The study recommended that firms need to sustainably manage their debts and liquidity to enhance their firm value because investing in viable projects with these resources of a firm will overall enhance firm value. In so doing, this will enhance the level of trust and confidence of diverse stakeholders such as clients, owners and potential investors, since shareholder’s wealth emanates from the sustainable use of firm resources which in turn promotes firm value.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".