The Opening, Short, Medium and Long Term Performance of Canadian Unit Trust Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper investigates the initial pricing and performance of Canadian unit trust IPOs over a three‐ to four‐year period and then draws implications for the efficiency of the Canadian market. Overall, the results confirm the following: in the short term, unit trust IPOs are underpriced and outperform the Canadian market; in the medium term, IPOs are fairly priced and neither outperform nor underperform the Canadian market; and in the long term, IPOs are fairly priced but underperform the Canadian market. In addition, our results confirm that the size of underpricing is related to ex‐ante uncertainty about the value of the issue. Ex‐ante uncertainty proxies, namely total risk, exchange listing, relative bid‐ask spread, and relative volume of initial trade, all explain the size of underpricing. When the effects of these factors are controlled, the results confirm that Canadian unit trust IPOs are indeed overpriced in the short term but underpriced in the long term. We conclude that the Canadian unit trust IPO market appears to be inefficient in the short and long term, but over the medium, the market appears to be efficient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".