Market Response to Announcements of Mergers of Canadian Financial Institutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines a sample of mergers of Canadian Financial Institutions during the 1990âs to determine whether in-pillar, cross-pillar and foreign mergers are value-enhancing, and to determine possible sources of synergies behind those mergers. It develops testable hypotheses for Canadian FI mergers by synthesizing prior U.S. tests in the context of Canadian institutional arrangements. The overall results support the generality of findings of prior U.S. studies that the average abnormal return for both the acquiring and target firms is positive and statistically significant. This result suggests that acquisitions in the financial industry are, in Canada as elsewhere, driven by value-maximizing motivations. The study also shows that acquiring institutionsâ shareholders benefit more when the acquisition is of a similar type (in-pillar) and domestic.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it