Seeing or believing? Cross-listing and the earnings response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify and examine two contrasting mechanisms of information asymmetry for cross-listed firms with respect to the information environment and its impact on earnings response. Design/methodology/approach The study empirically assesses two mechanisms of information asymmetry (“seeing” and/or “believing”) by looking at abnormal returns and volume reactions to international firms’ earnings announcements pre- and post-listing in the USA from 1990 to 2012. Findings The authors’ findings indicate that investors “seeing” more (media and analyst coverage) decrease the earnings response; however, “believing” more or gaining more credibility has the opposite effects. Based on the results, both mechanisms of information asymmetry can take effect simultaneously. Research limitations/implications The study sheds light on the multi-dimensional impact of the improved information environment that non-US firms face when they list their securities on US exchanges. Originality/value This study identifies and reconciles these two mechanisms of information asymmetry (visibility and credibility) under one setting and estimates the magnitude of each effect empirically.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".