MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416392327 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18110648

Capital Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from FTSE All-Share Firms During COVID-19

2025· article· en· W4416392327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sneha Jaiswal, Mahmoud Elmarzouky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital structureLeverage (statistics)DebtPanel dataDebt ratioFinancial crisisCorporate debt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine how capital structure related to firm performance for UK companies in the FTSE All-Share over 2018–2023, explicitly segmenting pre-pandemic (2018–2019), pandemic (2020–2021), and post-pandemic (2022–2023) periods. Using Bloomberg data for 516 firms and panel fixed-effects models (Hausman-tested), we assess the impact of short- and long-term leverage on ROA, ROCE, Tobin’s Q, and EPS, and compare financial versus non-financial firms. Leverage is, on average, negatively associated with ROA and EPS, consistent with pecking-order and agency-cost arguments: market-based outcomes (Tobin’s Q) show weaker, nuanced links. The adverse effects of debt are stronger for non-financial firms, particularly during and after COVID-19, while financial firms display a post-COVID positive association between short-term debt and ROA, suggesting sector-specific debt utilization under stress. Firm size relates negatively to Tobin’s Q for non-financials. Results highlight how crisis conditions and industry characteristics shape the leverage–performance nexus, offering practical guidance for managers and policymakers on capital structure decisions in turbulent environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→