MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410456765 · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2025.104085

Liquidity picking and fund performance

2025· article· en· W4410456765 on OpenAlexafffund
Feng Jiao, Sergei Sarkissian, David Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of EdinburghSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMarket liquidityBusinessFinanceMonetary economicsFinancial systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using global mutual fund and American Depositary Receipt (ADR) data, we test if funds strategically trade cross-listed firms’ equity shares in the most liquid trading location. We find that especially funds that score high on traditional skill measures exhibit a liquidity-based trading venue preference. We identify an informed trading motive as the most likely driver for such behaviour rather than preference based on geographic, economic, cultural, or governance motives. Thus, liquidity picking is associated with fund outperformance and stock selection ability that is not limited to only cross-listed firms. Our tests directly support theories of informed trading in a multi-market setting.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial EconomicsSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207