MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998719085 · doi:10.35536/ljb.2015.v3.i2.a3

Demutualization in Developing and Developed Country Stock Exchanges

2015· article· en· W2998719085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Hammad, Adil Awan, Amir Rafiq

Bibliographic record

VenueLahore Journal of Business · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKuala lumpurStock exchangeComposite indexAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility (finance)Stock (firearms)Stock market indexStock marketIndex (typography)BusinessEconomicsMonetary economicsFinancial economicsGeographyFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study considers seven different stock exchanges in order to measure the impact of demutualization announcements on stock market return volatility. This is measured based on the daily index prices of all seven indices: the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) in Canada, the FTSE 100 in the UK, the Straits Times Index (STI) in Singapore, the Nikkei 225 in Japan, the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (KLCI) in Malaysia, the SENSEX in India, and the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong, China. A dummy variable is used to differentiate between pre- and post-event data. We use the augmented Dickey–Fuller test, the ARCH LM test and GARCH (1, 1) methodology to measure return volatility due to demutualization announcements. The results show that the decision to demutualize did not affect the UK, Singapore, and Indian stock markets, where volatility is explained by other factors. It did, however, affect the Canadian, Japanese, Hong Kong, and Malaysian stock markets. Moreover, the Canadian and Malaysian market swere negatively affected, while the Hong Kong and Japanese markets reacted positively to the demutualization announcements.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLahore Journal of BusinessSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207