Canadian Manager Perceptions of the US Exchange Listings: Recent Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports recent evidence of Canadian manager perceptions of the benefits and costs of listing in US markets, their attitudes toward listing in the US market, and their opinions regarding the importance of using alternative reporting and disclosure requirements, such as Canadian GAAP or international standards, in lieu of US GAAP for US listings. Manager perceptions of firms listing in the US (“listers”) are compared to those of firms that have not listed in the US (“nonlisters”) as well as to listers’ perceptions collected prior to the implementation of the Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS). Our results do not unambiguously support expectations that implementation of the MJDS would result in cost savings for Canadian listers. We find strong similarities in the perceived benefits of listing as previously reported, but in a significantly higher proportion of our post–MJDS sample. Responses from listers and nonlisters reflect differences between the two populations. Listers appeared concerned with US GAAP reconciliations and disclosure requirements while non–listers are more concerned with the overall difficulty of listing, the costs of listing, and US litigation. Most strongly, however, nonlisters perceive it as unnecessary to list in the US market. Contrary to expectations, we find that US accounting disclosure and reporting requirements are not perceived to be barriers to US market entry for Canadian firms, but instead appear to be post–entry irritants. Finally, we also find evidence that perceptions of nonlisters differ between those firms that list on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and those that list on the Toronto Stock exchange. This suggests that future studies may require finer partitions than on a national basis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".