Do Small Indonesian Companies Have a Better Performance in the Stock Market than Larger Ones?
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
Company specific characteristics, such as size, might have an impact on stock performance. In fact, there is an extensive literature supporting the existence of a small capitalization effect stock in many markets, such as the U.S. (Fama, 1992), UK (Andrikopoulus, 2008)) and Thailand (Alfonso, 2016). In this article the Indonesian case is presented. Indonesia has a growing economy and financial markets and is one of the ASEAN countries. The performance of small and large capitalization stock from 2010 to 2016 was analyzed in this article. The results, at a 5% confidence level, indicate that the assumption that the returns from small and large capitalization stocks for that period being the same cannot be rejected. The result was consistent when analyzing the entire period or when analyzing every single year independently. The test used to compare the performance of small and large capitalization stocks was the Wilcoxon test. The risk adjusted returns were also compared with the conclusion remain the same. The returns of the index as well as the logarithmic returns, during the same, period did not appear to follow a normal distribution. Normal distribution is not an assumption required by the Wilcoxon test. The idea that small capitalization stocks outperformed large capitalization stocks cannot be supported by either the results of the statistical tests or by the actual returns during that period. The finding supports that there are significant differences between the behavior of the stock market in Indonesia and other comparable countries like Thailand.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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