MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414790362 · doi:10.1111/eufm.70024

Is There an Industry Effect of SPAC Merger Announcements?

2025· article· en· W4414790362 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Financial Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Sample (material)Affect (linguistics)Large sampleMergers and acquisitionsCompetitive advantage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether SPAC merger announcements affect the target firms' industry rivals. Using a sample of 468 SPAC mergers from 2016 to 2023, the results indicate that rival firms experience significant negative abnormal returns, especially around smaller and riskier deals that yield lower announcement returns for SPACs. Additional evidence links more severe rival reactions to higher redemption rates and longer completion timelines. Collectively, the findings suggest that SPAC mergers have a significant impact on industry dynamics, most plausibly stemming from transitory shifts in investor attention rather than genuine competitive pressures. Moreover, this effect is moderated by positive investor sentiment.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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