Financial Impact of Canadian Bill 198 on Seasoned Equity Offerings by Canadian Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the financial impact of the Canadian Bill 198on seasoned equity offerings by Canadian firms -cross-listed in major U.S. stock exchanges and those listed in the Toronto Stock Exchange only (non-cross-listed).Canadian Bill 198, also called Canadian SOX, became effective in December 2005.It finds the market reaction to all offer announcements is not different between the period 1999-2005 (pre-Bill) and the period 2006 -2011 (post-Bill) (post-Bill).When distinguishing offers by cross-listed and matched non-cross-listed firms, the market reaction is also not significantly different between the pre-and the post-Bill periods, after conditioning for offer and firm characteristics.On the other hand, when distinguishing offers by underwriting method (marketed underwritten versus bought deals), the market reaction is less positive for marketed underwritten offers than bought deals for the post-Bill period only -mostly for noncross-listed firms.This may explain why marketed underwritten offers have decreased significantly as a choice for underwriting seasoned equity offerings in the last years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".