Open-Market Common Stock Repurchases and Subsequent Market Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reexamines the evidence supporting long-term performance after announcements of open-market repurchase plans. Ikenberry et al. (1995, 2000) support the existence of long-term performance using two samples of U.S. and Canadian firms. However, differences in regulatory environment might have a confounding effect on their inference. This study reexamines post-event performance through buy-and-hold abnormal returns (BHAR) and cumulative abnormal returns for a single sample of 723 announcements of openmarket repurchases of common stock by U.S. firms. The results are mixed. BHAR of 23 and 14 percent strongly supports the existence of significant abnormal returns in the first two years after the event, respectively. Small firms appear to drive the results; value firms do not. After correcting for multicollinearity, the three-factor model's insignificant alpha of 0.27 percent per month, or approximately 3 percent per year, fails to support the existence of long-term abnormal performance after repurchase plan announcements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".