MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138705581 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v7n10p112

Analysis of Liquidity-Study on Indian Mid-Cap Stocks

2015· article· en· W2138705581 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gaurav Kumar, Arun K. Misra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityLiquidity premiumLiquidity riskLiquidity crisisEconomicsCapital asset pricing modelAccounting liquidityFinancial economicsDividend yieldVolatility (finance)Monetary economicsEconometricsGranger causalityDividendFinanceDividend policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquidity is the pre-condition for a well-functioning and efficient market. Liquidity can be perceived, but difficult to measure due to its multi-dimensional characteristics. Studies have discussed various characteristics of liquidity and its influencing power on return and asset pricing. The article has considered Indian MidCap stocks and measured its liquidity using Amihud and trading volume as proxies. It has found Indian MidCap stocks have varying degree of liquidity. During the intraday, MidCap stocks have L-shaped liquidity pattern. The article observed that P-E ratio, P-B ratio, Dividend Yield and Index of Industrial Production are the significant determinants of liquidity. The article has estimated liquidity betas and carried out Granger non-causality test to articulate its relation with CAPM beta. The article has also found stability of liquidity beta across MidCap stocks. The liquidity betas of MidCap stocks have time-varying volatility. Relative Strength Index (RSI) and Change in Trading Volume are exogenous variables in explaining the time-varying volatility of beta. The study observed that MidCap stocks are claiming liquidity premium and liquidity premium is influencing the asset pricing along with WML, HML and EMR factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→