MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410592267 · doi:10.1515/jbnst-2024-0058

Do Firms Issue More Equity When Markets Become More Liquid? The Case of Imperial Germany, 1898–1913

2025· article· en· W4410592267 on OpenAlexaff
Carsten Burhop, Sergey Gelman

Bibliographic record

VenueJahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)BusinessEconomicsMonetary economicsCommercePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on new aggregated data on initial and seasoned equity offerings (IPOs and SEOs) on the Berlin Stock Exchange before the First World War on a monthly basis and in combination with several other available datasets, we test the hypothesis presented by Hanselaar, René Stulz, and Mathijs (2019. Do Firms Issue More Equity when Markets Become More Liquid?” Journal of Financial Economics 133 (1): 64–82) that market liquidity significantly influences issuance activity on the stock market. For the first time, we can substantiate this hypothesis using historical data. Indeed, the number and value of SEOs and IPOs can be explained quite well with the help of past market liquidity.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und StatistikSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207