Does Short-Termism Influence the Market Value of Companies? Evidence from EU Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper fits into the stream of current research on the concept of short-termism and its importance for economic sustainability, especially sustainable finance. Short-termism focuses on short time horizons by both corporate managers and the financial markets, and prioritizes short-time shareholder return over the long-term growth of the company’s value. This study engages the short-termism discussion by examining the effect of quarterly reporting on the long-term market value of listed companies. The aim of the article is to determine whether European companies experience the negative effects of short-termism, precisely, whether public companies that prepare quarterly reports, and which focus mainly on achieving the short-term goals of stock exchange investors, are seeing a decline in their market value in the long-term. We have not proven the existence of such a dependence, the increase in reporting frequency of public companies does not contribute to a decline in their long-term market value. In the case of the EU-15 the results of regression model estimation indicate a positive and statistically significant impact of the time of regular quarterly reporting on the buy-and-hold rates of return, in the “new” EU member states this relationship is not observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".