MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409313768 · doi:10.1016/j.gfj.2025.101110

Comovement and S&P 500 membership

2025· article· en· W4409313768 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Finance Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAlberta School of Business, University of Alberta
KeywordsEconomicsMonetary economicsKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper tests the existence of excessive comovement among firms in the S&P 500. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity approach I show that membership in the S&P 500 leads to significant positive excess comovement in the long term. I evaluate a traditional, liquidity based explanation and a friction based explanation, and find no evidence that liquidity is driving excess comovement in the sample. I show that the previous lack of evidence for excess comovement shown in Chen, Singal, Whitelaw (2016) is due to heterogeneous effects on firms who are newly included versus those that are established members. One potential explanation is that immediately after inclusion, investors take time to rebalance and fully integrate the new stock into the group, reducing observed increases in comovement in the short term. These results constitute new evidence of frictions when exposed to large classes of noise traders with correlated demands, such as those populating the S&P 500.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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