'Canada Steps Up'--Task Force to Modernize Securities Legislation in Canada: recommendations and discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a Canadian discount in the cost of equity capital. One study observed that the cost of equity capital in Canada is 25 basis points higher than in the US1 and a second noted that valuations of Canadian public companies are significantly lower than those found in the US.2 There are a number of possible explanations of this latter observation: first, there are many companies in the Canadian capital market that have either dual class or pyramid share structures; these structures can lead to problems from the divergence of ownership and control3; second, there may be a perception (or even reality) that enforcement of securities legislation is less vigorous in Canada than that found in the US. Whatever the explanation, attempts to, at a minimum, remove this discount are important to improving Canadian economic growth. Competitive capital markets are crucial to an economy. From an issuer's perspective, they facilitate raising capital from domestic and increasing numbers of international investors at reasonable cost thereby enhancing business operations and generating employment. If the Canadian capital market is viewed as a good venue to raise funds, new companies will issue, sophisticated investors will enter the market and securities prices will reflect better the underlying value of issuers’ equity (referred to as an improvement in price discovery). Liquidity will also increase. Both domestic issuers and investors will be better off. However, if investors believe that the capital market is open to manipulation, that there is false or incomplete information, that corporate governance is not effective and/or they are not being treated fairly, investors will either leave the market or if they stay, they will reduce the price (increase the cost of equity) of securities to protect against this behaviour. Both outcomes will have a negative impact on the economy. As cost of equity capital increases, corporate investment and economic activity decreases. For individual and institutional investors, competitive capital markets facilitate the construction of portfolios of diversified securities for specific purposes, such as retirement.
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 | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".