MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969973031 · doi:10.5430/afr.v8n3p169

Corroborate Benjamin Graham’s Approach of Valuing Equity with Special Reference to Indian Capital Market

2019· article· en· W2969973031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suyash Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrinsic value (animal ethics)EconomicsEquity (law)Value (mathematics)Market valueFinancial economicsStock marketBook valueStock (firearms)Equity valueActuarial scienceFinanceMathematicsLawStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research we reconnoiter the effectiveness of Benjamin Graham’s formula for the Indian market and calculated the returns on BSE100 stocks for a tenure of a decade. Benjamin Graham devised a technique to calculate intrinsic value of stocks. His approach emphasized on buying the stocks with market value less than intrinsic value and selling the stocks with market value less than the intrinsic value. This strategy helped him to invest in stocks with less risk. The technique was originally developed by Graham in 1962 and reviewed by him in 1974. He offered a simple and effective formula to calculate the stock’s intrinsic value. Graham’s formula is used to measure an individual company’s intrinsic value. In this paper we wanted to study the effectiveness of Benjamin Graham’s formula on BSE100 stocks, to find out if the value investing method works. This method also helps investor to swiftly and precisely categorize underrated companies and expensive companies. We have conducted research based on past 10 years’ data to validate our findings.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207