Asset Growth and Future Stock Returns: Insight from International Equity Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this research is to examine the cross-sectional connection between asset growth and stock returns in the international equity market during 2016-2020. Firms in international equity markets, subsequently experience lower stock returns with higher asset growth rates, consistent with the United States evidence. If capital markets are well-developed stocks efficiently priced then the negative AG effect on returns is likely to be stronger, but different to country characteristics representing accounting quality, investor protection, and limits to arbitrage. The research is to examine the cross-sectional connection between the asset growth and stock return in the international equity market is likely due to optimal investment effect than due to market timing, overinvestment, or other forms of mispricing. The evidence suggests that the cross-sectional association between the AG effect and stock return is more likely due to an optimal investment effect than due to overinvestment, mispricing or market timing. The findings of the research support Copper et al (2008) however, the weakening of the accounting quality decreases the AG effect magnitude which contradicts the mispricing-based arguments.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".