MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413228218 · doi:10.1017/s0022109025101841

Mutual Fund Trading, Fund Flows, and ESG Portfolios

2025· article· en· W4413228218 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Albuquerque, Yrjö Koskinen, Raffaele Santioni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicState Capitalism and Financial Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessTarget date fundMutual fundOpen-end fundInvestment fundClosed-end fundFinanceSovereign wealth fundFund administrationEconomicsInstitutional investorMicroeconomicsCorporate governanceMarket liquidity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article studies how ESG and conventional mutual funds trade stocks during the COVID-19 crash. Both fund types trade individual stocks similarly: Net purchases of ESG stocks are less sensitive than other stocks to fund flows pre-crash, but sensitivities increase for all stocks during the crash. In contrast, ESG funds’ aggregate net purchases are less sensitive than those of conventional funds during the crash. This difference is due to ESG funds’ portfolio tilt toward the less flow-sensitive ESG stocks. There is no evidence of an ESG clientele effect in trading decisions, as both fund types trade individual stocks similarly.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial and Quantitative AnalysisSame topicState Capitalism and Financial GovernanceFrench-language works237,207