MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946396720 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3122

Informed Options Trading Prior to Takeover Announcements: Insider Trading?

2019· article· en· W2946396720 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsider tradingBusinessCommissionSpeculationEquity (law)Alternative trading systemPredictabilityElectronic tradingInside informationMonetary economicsFinancial economicsAccountingFinanceAlgorithmic tradingEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantify the pervasiveness of informed trading activity in target companies’ equity options before the announcements of 1,859 U.S. takeovers between 1996 and 2012. About 25% of all takeovers have positive abnormal volumes, which are greater for short-dated, out-of-the-money calls, consistent with bullish directional trading before the announcement. Over half of this abnormal activity is unlikely due to speculation, news and rumors, trading by corporate insiders, leakage in the stock market, deal predictability, or beneficial ownership filings by activist investors. We also examine the characteristics of option trades litigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for alleged illegal insider trading. Although the characteristics of such trades closely resemble the patterns of abnormal option volume in the U.S. takeover sample, we find that the SEC litigates only about 8% of all deals in it. This paper was accepted by Lauren Cohen, finance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.205 · 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