Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major factors affecting the companies' performance is their risk appetite.Regarding the cost-benefit considerations, institutional ownership can be of great worth to shareholders and affect the company's performance and the exposure of investors to risk.This study aimed to examine the effect of institutional ownership on the relationship between risk appetite and financial performance.To this end, two hypotheses were formulated, in which institutional ownership, risk appetite, and financial performance were assumed as moderator, independent and dependent variables.The statistical population of the study consisted of the companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange, which were selected based on systematic sampling method.The study sample included 165 companies being listed during 2012 to 2016.The research method of this descriptive survey was causal-correlational in terms of the relationship between variables and applied with regard to the study objective.The regression method and panel data as well as the fixed effect model were used to process and test the hypotheses.The findings for the first hypothesis indicated that there is a positive and significant relationship between risk appetite and financial performance.Concerning the second hypothesis, institutional ownership has a positive and significant impact on the relationship between risk appetite and financial performance at0.05.It was also found that the control variable of the company's size has a positive and significant relationship with financial performance and that financial leverage was also positively and significantly correlated with financial performance.The shareholders are recommended to pay attention to the ownership structure of companies when deciding to purchase shares since the proper ownership structure improves monitoring the selection of investment options.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.941 | 0.935 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".