MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Positive and Negative Earnings Surprises, Regulatory Climate, and Stock Returns*

2000· article· en· W2073868610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emeka T. Nwaeze

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Accounting Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsEconomicsCash flowStock priceStock (firearms)Context (archaeology)MicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study focuses on electric utilities in the United States to consider two related issues. First, the study tests for asymmetric price reactions to positive and negative earnings surprises (ES). Second, the study associates policy differences across jurisdictions with variations in the cash flow effects of positive and negative ES and then uses the framework to consider variations in price responses across regulatory climates. In the same context, the study investigates the effects of a utility's abnormal profits on the asymmetry of price reactions to positve and negative ES. The empirical predictions are motivated by the disparity between the principles and practices that underlie cost recovery for the utilities and the uneven effects of the cost‐recovery practies on the cash flows associated with positve and negative ES. The results show that the sign of ES and the climate in which a utility operates are related to the size of price reactions to ES. Furthermore, a utility's abnormal profit status has significant effects on the size of price reactions to ES. Only a modest price response asymmetry is indicated for manufacturing 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Accounting ResearchSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207