Econometric Analysis of Market Responses to Corporate Reports of a Multinational Gold Producer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the advances to mandatory corporate disclosures and reporting systems since 1996, including the growing prevalence of optional reporting in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Technology and Innovation (T&I), specifically by the gold sub-industry which has increased year-over-year. Many multinational mining corporation executive officers preach that this optional reporting generates greater value for shareholders and is critical to corporate success. This research explores whether this claim is supported by market data on regulated trading platforms. \n \nWhile the social benefits of a strong company-community relationship are immeasurable, the value can be contextualized through econometric techniques which quantify market reactions to various types of corporate disclosures. A custom event study model was built and tested on a case study of a major multinational gold producer. This case study quantified the economic value of mandatory corporate disclosures and evaluated them relative to optional reports. The methodology used benchmarks the company’s equity price to a reconstructed variant of the "NYSE Arca Gold BUGS" (HUI) Index and calculates the abnormal returns for all corporate disclosures. Each abnormal return is then categorized into a performance indicator category (production, financial, corporate, technical), and a T&I or CSR category. Finally, statistical analysis and sentiment analysis determine any economic impacts and trends. \n \nDisclosure system shortcomings are discussed along with recommendations provided on improving electronic disclosure systems, from both a policy and practical perspective. Potential further applications of this custom model include stock price prediction given corporate disclosures as an input, anomalous trading behaviour identification for regulatory tools, and communicating social value on equity valuation to corporate board executives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".