The effects of multinationality on the market value of cash: Evidence from Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine whether the value investors place on cash holdings varies between multinationals and domestic firms from Latin America. Utilizing data from the six largest Latin American economies , our analyses with different proxies of multinationality reveal that investors do not attribute a significant valuation premium, nor do they impose a price discount , on the cash held by Latin American multinational corporations (Multilatinas) when compared to the cash of their domestic counterparts. These findings suggest that shareholders do not view Multilatinas' cash holdings as conferring greater advantages relative to those of domestic firms. We interpret this as evidence that the perceived benefits of multinationality, such as increased growth potential, may be counterbalanced by elevated agency costs and greater information asymmetry . Our study advances the literature on cash holdings and international business and discusses implications for stakeholders of multinational corporations that have subsidiaries in countries with potential growth opportunities but in which poor investor protection may lead to agency conflicts and the risk of improper cash diversion. Our research yields important implications for policymakers by highlighting the relevance of requiring the disclosure of disaggregated information about domestic and foreign cash to improve efficiency in stakeholder 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".