Analyzing Foreign Investors Behavior in the Emerging Stock Market: Evidence from Qatar Stock Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the effect of the foreign investors fund flow into the domestic stock market. We investigated whether foreign investors are only herders or if they have also the ability to push the market up and down. To answer this question, we include investors’ types as an independent factor in Markov-Switching Model used by Hamilton (1989) to examine the asymmetric effect of the foreign investors during the bull and bear states. Empirical results from Qatar Stock Market suggested that foreign institutional traders are only herding in the market and they cannot play the role of the market maker. We have also found that neither foreign investors nor domestic investors have the ability to switch the regime of the market. The time-varying relationship between the various investors’ types has been investigated. We reported that, although the correlation matrixes of the investors’ categories with the market are time-varying, the foreign institutional trader is still the leader of the market during the bull (bear) states of the market. Finally, we proposed some procedures to minimize the harmful of the foreign investors bad trading.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".