Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine whether corporate investment in real fixed assets in hot issue markets leads to higher income to shareholders than that in other equity market conditions. Design/methodology/approach – The authors address the research question in two steps: first, the authors identify how security issuances in hot and cold issue markets influence corporate investment decisions. Second, the authors examine how debt- and equity-financed investments in two different market conditions affect future holding period returns. The sample includes an unbalanced panel data set consisting of all non-financial and non-utility US companies from 1973 to 2006. The authors apply both firm- and industry-level fixed effect methods to estimate the coefficients of two separate empirical models. Findings – The authors find that equity issuances increase firms' capital investments in hot issue markets. These equity-financed investments in hot equity markets result in higher returns to shareholders compared to those in other market conditions. Therefore, there exists a window of opportunity for firms to issue new equities and make investments, which in turn improve shareholders' wealth. Practical implications – The findings convey a critical message to corporate managers about the right timing of equity-financed capital investments. Originality/value – While earlier research focuses on determining a specific equity market condition that favours new issuances, this paper determines a particular equity market condition when firms typically choose value-enhancing equity-backed projects for investment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".