Role of International Trade Competitive Advantage and Corporate Governance Quality in Predicting Equity Returns: Static and Conditional Model Proposals for an Emerging Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to develop some static and conditional (dynamic) models to predict portfolio returns in the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) that are calibrated to combine the capital asset-pricing model (CAPM) and corporate governance quality. In our conditional model proposals, both the traditional CAPM (beta) coefficient and model constant are allowed to vary on a binary basis with any degradation or improvement in the country’s international trade competitiveness, and meanwhile a new variable is added to the models to represent the portfolio’s sensitivity to excess returns on the governance portfolio (BIST Governance) over the market. Some robust and Bayesian linear models have been derived using the monthly capital gains between December 2009 and December 2019 of four leading index portfolios. A crude measure is then introduced that we think can be used in assessing governance quality of portfolios. This is called governance quality score (GQS). Our robust regression findings suggest both superiority of conditional models assuming varying beta coefficients over static model proposals and significant impact of corporate governance quality on portfolio returns. The Bayesian model proposals, however, exhibited robust findings that favor the static model with fixed beta estimates and were lacking in supporting significance of corporate governance quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".