Common and Fundamental Factors in Stock Returns of Canadian Oil and Gas Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we assess the determinants of Canadian oil and gas stocks returns. We find that the stock return of Canadian energy stock is positively associated with returns on the Canadian stock market, appreciations of crude oil and natural gas prices, growth in internal cash flows and proven reserves, and negatively with interest rates. Surprisingly, however, production volume and a weakening of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar have a negative impact. This latter impact is more pronounced for oil producers than for integrated energy companies. Finally, we find that the influence of the exchange rate, the market return and prices of natural gas on Canadian oil and gas stocks changes significantly over the years 1995-1998 and 2000-2002. Le but de cet article est de mesurer ce qui influence le rendement des actions d'entreprises pétrolières et gazières canadiennes. Nous trouvons que le rendement des actions de ces entreprises énergétiques est influencé positivement par le rendement du marché canadien dans son ensemble, par une appréciation du prix du pétrole et du gaz naturel, par une croissance dans les flux monétaires discrétionnaires de l'entreprise, par la quantité de réserves prouvées de l'entreprise. Nous trouvons également que le volume de production et une dépréciation du dollar canadien par rapport à la devise américaine réduit sensiblement le rendement des titres énergétiques, ce qui va à l'encontre de notre hypothèse initiale. L'impact du taux de change est encore plus marqué pour les producteurs indépendants que pour les entreprises intégrées. En dernier lieu, nous montrons que le marché a subi une cassure significative entre les années 1995-1998 et 2000-2002, spécialement pour ce qui est de l'impact du taux de change, du rendement de marché et du pris du gaz naturel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".