MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093525351 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2009.12.2.086

Does Earnings Management Explain the Performance of Canadian Private Placements of Equity?

2009· article· en· W2093525351 on OpenAlex
Maher Kooli

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Private Equity · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate equityBusinessEarnings managementEquity (law)AccountingEarningsLabour economicsFinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Abstract</h3> Using a sample of 434 Canadian private placements of equity (PPEs) that occurred from 1996 to 2005, we first examine the long-run performance following PPEs, and secondly, we analyze the earnings management hypothesis. We find that Canadian PPEs do underperform on a calendar-time basis as well as on event-time basis. We also find that most aggressive earnings management firms issue larger offerings than most conservative ones but post the worst long term performance. The result for the most aggressive quartile is consistent with the over-optimism hypothesis. However, we find that private placements issuers unlike public issuers are less inclined to manage earnings around the time of the offering. <b>TOPICS:</b>Private equity, statistical methods, developed, factor-based models

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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