The Interrelationship between Culture, Capital Structure, and Performance: Evidence from European Retailers

By Kimberly Gleason, Lynette Knowles Mathur, I. Mathur. 2000

474 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d2dc38f5143cc217c47bad12454cf1acd5341a69

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Capital Structure Effect on Firms Performance: Focusing on Consumers and Industrials Sectors on Malaysian Firms (2012, background): “Furthermore, according to Gleason et al. (2000), the utilization of different levels of debt and equity in the firm’s capital structure is one such firm-specific strategy used by managers in the search for improved performance.”
Gravity and culture in foreign portfolio investment (2012, background): “National culture in turn impinges on the structure of financial systems (Kwok and Tadesse (2006)); accounting conventions and practices (Gray (1988), Salter and Niswander (1995)); institutional strength (La Porta et al (1998), De Jong and Semenov (2002), Hitt, Franklin and Zhu (2006)); and corporate”
The Relationship between Capital Structure and Profitability (2012, result): “The results support part of earlier findings by Fama and French (1998), Graham (2000), and Booth et al.”
Invested resource, competitive intellectual capital, and corporate performance (2010, methodology): “Return on assets (PER1) Bontis et al. (2000), Chen et al. (2005), Gleason et al. (2000), Chu et al. (2008) Return on equity (PER2) Chen et al. (2005), Chu et al. (2008) Tobin’s Q (PER3) Bontis et al. (2000), Chen et al. (2005), Wang and Chang (2005), Tseng and Goo (2005) Price to book ratio (PER4)…”
The relative influence of competitive intensity and business strategy on the relationship between financial leverage and performance (2008, background): “…that increasing debt financing will increase managers’ risk aversion and reduce their willingness to invest in more risky but profitable projects, and some empirical studies report a negative relationship between leverage and performance (e.g., Gleason et al., 2000; Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993).”
CULTURE, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, AND DIVIDEND POLICY: INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE (2012, methodology): “Gleason et al. (2000) use PD, UA, and MAS to classify European retailers and show that capital structures of European retailers vary by cultural groups.”
Influence of Capital Structure on Firm Performance: Evidence from Bangladesh (2014, result): “These results are consistent with Rajan and Zingales (1995), Gleason et al. (2000), Manawaduge et al. (2011), Ali and Iman (2011), Salim and Yadav (2012), Anup and Suman (2010) and Nor and Fatihah (2012) who found a significant negative relationship between capital structure and firm’s performance.”
Capital Structure, Profitability and Firm Value: Panel Evidence of Listed Firms in Kenya (2014, unknown): “The preponderance of findings, however, is that a negative relationship exists between leverage and financial performance (Majumdar and Chhiber, 1999; Gleason et al., 2000; and Simerly and Li, 2000; Hammes, 2003; de Mesquita and Lara, 2003; Zeitun and Tian, 2007).”
Corporate governance and firm value during the global financial crisis: Evidence from China (2012, unknown): “Gleason et al. (2000) show”
IMPACT OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE ON THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF NIGERIAN FIRMS (2012, result): “The outcome is consistent with the findings of previous writers such as Gleason et al (2000) and Zeitun and Tian (2007).”
Factors Affecting the Financial Performance of Listed Companies at the Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya (2013, background): “Hypothesis 3 stated that Company size has no significant effect on the Financial Performance (Return on Assets) of Companies listed at Nairobi Securities Exchange (Ho3), results from the study show inconsistency with the hypothesis thus supporting the argument that company size has a significant pos”