MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125857823 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaa125

How is Liquidity Priced in Global Markets?

2020· article· en· W3125857823 on OpenAlexaff
Ines Chaieb, Vihang R. Errunza, Hugues Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMarket liquidityLiquidity premiumCapital asset pricing modelMarket segmentationLiquidity riskFinancial economicsRisk premiumBusinessMonetary economicsLiquidity crisisEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We develop a new global asset pricing model to study how illiquidity interacts with market segmentation and investability constraints in 42 markets. Noninvestable stocks that can only be held by foreign investors earn higher expected returns compared to freely investable stocks due to limited risk sharing and higher illiquidity. In addition to the world market premium, on average, developed and emerging market noninvestables earn an annual unspanned local market risk premium of $1.17\%$ and $9.04\%$, and a liquidity level premium of $1.06\%$ and $2.39\%$, respectively. These results obtained in a conditional setup are robust to the choice of liquidity measure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207