MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405853534 · doi:10.1177/27550311241308263

Coming full circle on cash holdings and firm value: A comment on Kim and Bettis (2014), Theissen et al. (2023), and Souder et al. (2024)

2024· article· en· W4405853534 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Scientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashValue (mathematics)EconomicsBusinessMathematicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their recent article, Theissen et al. (2023) re-examined the seminal study of Kim and Bettis (2014) on the positive relationship between firms’ cash holdings and firm value. Theissen et al. (2023) improved on the original Tobin's q measure used to capture firm value and found that—in contrast to the results of Kim and Bettis (2014) –there are not decreasing but increasing returns to holding cash. Separately, Souder et al. (2024) made various methodological improvements and developed a new measure of forward-looking firm value, ultimately finding no relationship between cash holding and value at all. In this article, we combine all methodological refinements made after the original study of Kim and Bettis (2014) into a single analysis. We find that Kim and Bettis’ (2014) original results are correct, despite the numerous limitations of their method.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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