MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143593055 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2014.9.004

The minimum price required by investors in IPOs

2014· article· en· W2143593055 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Jeribi, Anis Jarboui

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitial public offeringBusinessIndustrial organizationEconomicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With regard to purchasing Tunisian IPOs shares, the current paper aims at considering two types of investors: a non-institutional investor and an institutional one.Each is concerned with placing a purchase order at the offer price during the subscription period.In line with the literature on IPOs, we attempted to determine the minimum price required by an investor allowing for recovering the initial investment, information costs, transaction costs, and the offsetting of shortfall.We expect that the initial return of an IPO share in the Tunisian market is positively related to the following factors: the number of non-institutional investors participating during the subscription period, the subscription ratio of institutional investors, the expected rate of return by investors, the gap between the closing date of the subscription period and the day following the announcement of the subscription result, the gap between the announcement of the subscription result and the first listing day, the number of trading days, the cost of information and the transaction costs.However, it is negatively related to other determinants, such as the discount level, the number of shares allocated for a non-institutional investor and the number of offered shares, which are allocated to non-institutional investors.

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)0.013
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science Letters→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→