MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085384664 · doi:10.1287/msom.1080.0237

Demand-Supply Mismatches and Stock Market Reaction: Evidence from Excess Inventory Announcements

2008· article· en· W2085384664 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin B. Hendricks, Vinod R. Singhal

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock marketEquity (law)Inventory turnoverStock (firearms)Event studyEconomicsSample (material)BusinessExcess returnInventory valuationDebtMonetary economicsFinanceStock exchange

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents that excess inventory announcements, an indication of demand-supply mismatch, are associated with an economically and statistically significant negative stock market reaction. The results are based on a sample of 276 excess inventory announcements made during 1990–2002. Over a two-day period (the day of the announcement and the day before the announcement) the mean (median) stock market reaction ranges from −6.79% to −6.93% (−4.51% to −4.79%), depending on the benchmark used to estimate the market reaction. The percent of sample firms that experience negative market reaction ranges from 73% to 74%. When excess inventory is at the announcing firm's customers, the market reaction is more negative than when the excess inventory is at the announcing firm. The stock market reaction is less negative for excess inventory announcements made by larger firms but is more negative for firms with higher growth prospects and with higher debt-equity ratios.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations151
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManufacturing & Service Operations ManagementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207