MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964184898 · doi:10.1108/1525383x200600010

Investing in Emerging Equity Markets: The Case of Chinese ADRs versus B Shares

2006· article· en· W1964184898 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy D. Ursel, Xiaohua Lin, Jessica Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMultinational Business Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Listing (finance)Chinese marketBusinessPortfolioFinancial economicsStock marketStock exchangeEconomicsFinanceChinaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese companies have recently started listing ADRs in North American stock exchanges and thus offered an alternative venue for Western investors whose access to the Chinese market has largely been limited to the illiquid B shares. Are ADRs a good substitute for investing in Chinese B Shares? We examine characteristics of return distributions for indices of Chinese shares and an index of Chinese ADRs. We also compare efficient frontiers for portfolios including Chinese shares and Chinese ADRs and compute possible portfolio allocations. We find that investing in Chinese ADRs does not provide a risk/return tradeoff similar to direct investment in Chinese stock exchanges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultinational Business ReviewSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207