MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407100621 · doi:10.1093/rof/rfaf008

Does the level of cash always increase with firm size? Theory and evidence from small firms

2025· article· en· W4407100621 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Kakhbod, A. Max Reppen, Tarik Umar, Hao Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Finance Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary economicsCashEconomicsBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large firms typically increase their cash holdings as they grow to buffer against greater cash flow volatility. However, data on 11.2 million small firms show the opposite: cash levels decline as firms expand. We explain this phenomenon through a liquidity management model. Small firms with limited cash flows rely on cash reserves for investment due to costly external financing. As they grow, they do not fully replenish their cash reserves because investment incentives decrease, and increased cash flows support more of their anticipated investments. This mechanism generates a negative correlation between cash holdings and firm size among small firms.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Finance ReviewSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207