Investment Strategies, Performance, And Trading Information Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a set of investment strategies based on past market information to evaluate performance and trading impact on the Canadian Market. In doing so, we assess whether trading information adds value to the effectiveness of these strategies. Utilizing variant models of four different methodologies, we find strong evidence that supported the Momentum Investment Strategy, which buys past winner stocks and sells past loser stocks. Our evidence did not support Contrarian Investment Strategy, which posits that investors overreact to good and bad news. Our winners portfolios outperform our losers portfolios. The Negative Volume Effect Strategy did not work, which is contrary to the Foerster, Prihar and Schmitz (1995) study. We found that winners stocks did not reverse in cases of heavy volume; nor did loser stocks reverse in a high volume context. However, we did find that trading information has an impact on stock returns and thus adds value to investment strategies for the 1990 to 2000 investment period. Investors who combine past price and trading volume information in constructing their investment strategies would achieve higher returns than investors who base their portfolio construction decisions solely on stock prices.University.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".