MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588711827 · doi:10.11648/j.jfa.20160406.17

Shareholder Valuations of Petroleum Companies and Oilfield Services During the 2008 and 2014 Oil Price Shocks

2016· article· en· W2588711827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruud Weijermars

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Finance and Accounting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCiência sem FronteirasCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsShareholderValuation (finance)BusinessMonetary economicsPetroleumPetroleum industryStock (firearms)Market capitalizationOil priceEarningsEarnings growthStock marketEconomicsFinanceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the impact of the 2008 and 2014 oil price falls on the shareholder returns of diversified oil and gas majors, Canadian oil sands producers, US shale oil and gas producers and oilfield service companies. The 2008 an 2014 oil price shocks lead to capital book losses for investor TSR at year end. In both years, the TSR losses were disproportionately large as compared to the actual slow down (which was very modest) in retained earnings growth. Our recommendation is that investors should not only use P/E ratios to identify value growth stock investment opportunities. An alternative methodology quantifies the degree of speculative valuation involved in the TSR component of capital gains (losses). When negative speculative valuations are large, future TSR growth is most likely. Companies that want to mitigate unwarranted erosion of their market capitalization due to stock price declines should ramp up advertorial efforts and point out value growth opportunities to attract investors, especially in times of depressed stock prices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Finance and AccountingSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207