MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971765540 · doi:10.1016/j.rfe.2012.04.001

A logit model of retail investors' individual trading decisions and their relations to insider trades

2012· article· en· W1971765540 on OpenAlex
Olaf Stotz, Dominik Georgi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Economics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsider tradingInsiderCopyingBusinessStock (firearms)Financial economicsSample (material)LogitMonetary economicsEconometricsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Among the various external information sources that influence individual investors' trading decisions, no research has considered the important influence of insiders' transactions. Retail investors might copy the behavior demonstrated by insiders' trading; therefore, this study establishes an approach to estimate the buying probability for a certain stock by a certain investor at a certain point in time and analyzes whether insider trade reports influence this probability. Using a sample of more than 270,000 retail trades in Germany between 2008 and 2009, along with more than 3000 insider trades in the same period, we find evidence of copying of insiders' trades by retail investors. The basic mimicry hypothesis holds, even when we consider an information event hypothesis and an insider attention effect hypothesis as alternative explanations. A robustness test also supports the findings.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.125 · 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