MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007822415 · doi:10.1016/s1058-3300(02)00043-5

Long‐horizon seasoned equity offerings performance in Pacific Rim markets

2002· article· en· W2007822415 on OpenAlex
Prem G. Mathew

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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)BusinessMonetary economicsInformation asymmetryFinancial economicsFinancial systemEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous studies of firms that issue seasoned equity in the US and Japan have found that these firms significantly underperform over the long‐run subsequent to the issue. I offer further evidence of this by examining Japanese seasoned offerings (SEOs) from 1975 to 1992. I find similar results for firms issuing seasoned equity in Hong Kong. However, I also find that Korean SEOs generate insignificant abnormal returns over a 36‐month period following the issue. These results suggest that the asymmetric information argument offered for the US and Japanese markets do not always hold, especially in markets where the regulatory and market structures vary greatly. Cross‐sectional results suggest that younger firms tend to perform worse than older firms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.188 · 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