MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901253002

Tunneling and Value Relevance of Financial Reports: Evidence from Hong Kong

2018· article· en· W2901253002 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanpeng Xie, Hyeryoung Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderEquity (law)AccountingBusinessRelevance (law)Asset (computer security)ConservatismValue (mathematics)FinanceCorporate governanceLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a sample of Hong Kong listed firms that announced related party transactions, this paper examines the informativeness of financial reports prior to the announcements of related party transactions. We find that the value relevance of financial reports is higher for firms undertaking asset or equity tunneling transactions than for firms undertaking other types of related party transactions in the period prior to the announcement of transactions. Given firms with forthcoming tunneling transactions, financial reports are more value relevant for firms with more conservative accounting than for firms with less conservative accounting. Further, the association between conservatism and entrenchment effect is stronger for firms with forthcoming tunneling transactions. Collectively, the evidence suggests that firms adopt conservative accounting to increase the informativeness of financial reports prior to the tunneling transactions, which assists controlling shareholders in expropriating wealth from the minority shareholders from the tunneling transactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207