MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288755211 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n4p31

The Predictive Value of Government Accounting Information and the Secondary Brazilian Bond Market

2016· article· en· W2288755211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janilson Antônio da Silva Suzart, Ariovaldo dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryBondAccountingGovernment bondSecondary marketAccounting information systemGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsBusinessFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The international literature highlights evidence on the predictive ability of government accounting information in relation to bond markets, especially for sub-national governments’ bonds. However, there is little evidence in the literature about the role of accounting information from national governments. Having observed this gap, we aimed to identify how strongly the government accounting information affects the pricing of the government bonds issued by the Brazilian Federal Government and traded in the secondary market. In this research, we analyzed the transactions carried out without the direct participation of the federal government. The predictive ability of the accounting information of the Brazilian federal government was verified for the period from 2003 to 2012 on a monthly basis. Following the value relevance approach, we developed price and return models for the bond National Treasury Bills, Single Series. After analyzing the presence of unit roots in the price and return series, we estimated regressions using the ordinary least squares method. We showed that the accounting information of the Brazilian federal government has predictive ability regarding the pricing of bonds traded in the secondary market. However, this does not mean that the government accounting information is fully and directly used by investors, but rather that such information is intended as a proxy for information reviewed by investors when negotiating such bonds, these investors being considered as limited rational agents.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207