Beyond the Hype: What Drives the Profitability of S&P 500 Technology Firms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corporate finance field is inherently engaging, with a strong focus on factors influencing various performance indicators. This study analyzes 66 companies from the Information and Technology sector, all part of the Standard and Poor’s 500 index, over a 22-year period from 2003 to 2024. I applied linear, nonlinear, and interaction-variable models to identify the causal relationship between profitability and key influencing factors. The results reveal that firm size, sales growth rate, current ratio, long-term debt to total capital, free cash flow, asset turnover, receivable turnover, number of board meetings, percentage of women on the board, CEO age, audit committee independence, the presence of compensation and nomination committees, and a pandemic dummy variable all had positive effects on performance. In contrast, firm age, dividend payout ratio, effective tax rate, board size, CEO duality, and the presence of a corporate social responsibility committee negatively impacted firm performance. This research also explores corporate governance by evaluating the role of regulations and internal policies designed to promote financial transparency and protect shareholders’ interests. Additionally, it highlights the importance of board independence, the effectiveness of specialized committees, and the role of ethical leadership in driving long-term corporate success.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".