MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401701479 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17080371

Evaluating the Relationship between Accounting Variables, Value-Based Management Variables, and Shareholder Returns: An Empirical Approach

2024· article· en· W4401701479 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingShareholder valueShareholderEconometricsBusinessValue (mathematics)EconomicsMathematicsStatisticsFinanceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the accounting-based variables and value-based management (VBM) variables that jointly affect firm value and performance. The study applied the causality test and variance decomposition to determine the variability of the variables, and further empirically employed fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) techniques to justify the results. Data covering 356 industries were purposively sampled to arrive at 61 companies spanning 2011–2020. Overall, the causality test found no relationship between economic value added and market value added but only found unidirectional causality from shareholder returns to MVA, EVA to shareholder returns, ROA to MVA, ROE to MVA, EVA to MVA, MVA to EVA, ROE to ROA, EVA to ROA, and EVA to ROE. A very strong bidirectional causality relationship was found between return on asset and shareholder return as a measure of company performance. Further results from the forecast error of the variance decomposition showed that shareholder returns are explained only by its own shock, contributing 45.38 percent in the long run, while the remaining variables, namely market value added, return on asset, return on equity, and economic value added, contribute about 35.96%, 14.06%, 4.08%, and 0.51%, respectively, to predicting the future values of shareholder return. This confirms the relationships between the variables from the short run to the long run. Additionally, results from the FMOL and DOL revealed that all accounting variables and VBM are good approaches for evaluating company performance as the empirical result from ROA, ROE, and EVA revealed positive and significant relationships. This confirms that a combination of both variables would produce a better evaluation as the accounting variables and VBM variables jointly relate to shareholder returns. This study serves as a guide to companies’ management and boards of directors in having better ways to evaluate company performance. Consequently, it is recommended that managers select combinations of accounting and VBM variables that suit their operations and jointly apply them in the performance evaluation of the company. This will be useful in providing both the relative and incremental performance information needed for diverse decision-making.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.236 · 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