Book-to-Market and the Cross-Section ofExpected Returns in International Stock Markets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual stocks’ expected return estimates are a key input for equity selection models. A 2008 study by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French found evidence that past changes in book equity and price contain independent information about expected cash flows that can be used to improve estimates of expected returns. This study focuses on international stock markets and re-examines whether the origins of the book-to-market ratio (BM), in terms of past changes in book equity and price, enhance the estimates of expected returns provided by BM alone. Examining all stocks, as well as subcategories of microcap, small, large, and all-butmicrocap stocks trading in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, the authors find that recent changes in book equity and price are more relevant than more distant changes in enhancing estimates of expected future cash flows and expected future returns. Their tests also show that changes in book equity say much more about expected stock returns than price changes do. <b>TOPICS:</b>Global, exchanges/markets/clearinghouses, statistical methods
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it