MARKET EFFECTS OF PRIVATE INVESTMENTS IN PUBLIC EQUITY: EVIDENCE FROM CANADIAN BOUGHT DEALS AND MARKETED BEST EFFORT OFFERS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the market effects to announcements of private placements of two types of equity offers by Canadian public companies: bought deals and marketed best efforts.These types of offers are only sold to qualified investors (e.g., pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, hedge funds) in private deals, and not open to the public market.It finds the market reaction is favorable for both offer types but not statistically different between them.The favorable market effects associates to determinants that reduce information asymmetry among market participants, including firm fundamentals, certainty of earnings, and quality of financial information by the Big-4 accounting firms.From the positive market reaction and significance on the expected determinants for both, bought deals and marketed best efforts offers, this study infers that investors that buy both offer types are well-informed and active.That is, they are, willing to engage in business decisions as board members, such as pension funds.The favorable price response is a welcome signal to the issuing firm, and active investors for monitoring and certifying the quality of the firm and equity offerings.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".