MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121161351 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1887

Do Temporary Increases in Information Asymmetry Affect the Cost of Equity?

2014· article· en· W3121161351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shai Levi, Xiao‐Jun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation asymmetryAdverse selectionMarket liquidityPortfolioEquity (law)Private information retrievalMonetary economicsEconomicsStock (firearms)Quarter (Canadian coin)Affect (linguistics)Factor analysis of information riskBusinessFinancial economicsFinanceRisk management information systemsInformation system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior literature finds that long-lasting changes in firms' disclosure policies and information environment affect the cost of equity. Information asymmetry, however, also changes during the fiscal quarter. Firms disclose information periodically, and in between disclosure dates, traders can obtain private information, and adverse-selection risk increases. Such temporary increases in information asymmetry are usually considered to be diversifiable or too small to impact expected stock returns. In addition, investors may postpone trades or sell other assets in their portfolio on high information asymmetry days. We, however, find that returns increase significantly on days during the fiscal quarter when adverse-selection risk is high and liquidity low. Consistent with theory, we show that temporary asymmetry affects returns when investors demand liquidity and market makers bear risk for carrying capacity and providing it. This paper was accepted by Mary Barth, accounting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207