PUBLICATIONS AND WORKING PAPERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1990 and 2005, 14 percent of the world’s public firms were targets in minority block acquisitions, of which one third were cross-border. These target firms are mostly financially constrained, experience significant increases in their stock prices at the announcement and increase their investment expenditures subsequent to the acquisition. In the immediate two years following the acquisition, 27 percent of target firms issue new equity and 10 percent issue new debt. The size of these new issues is between 23 and 27 percent of the target firms ’ market capitalization. These findings are consistent with the theory that equity stakes by other corporations certify the investment opportunities of target firms and allow them to raise additional capital. There is little evidence in support of competing theories that corporate blockowners lower contracting costs in the product market, effectively monitor insiders or capitalize on their overvalued stocks. “Testing for the Elasticity of Corporate Yield Spread ” (with Gady Jacoby and Jonathan Batten), Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, forthcoming. What drives the compensation demanded by investors in risky bonds? Longstaff and Schwartz (1995) predict one key factor is the time-varying negative correlation between interest rates and the yield spreads on corporate bonds. However, the effects of callability and taxes also need to be considered in empirical analyses. Canadian bonds have no tax effects, yet, after controlling for callability, the correlation between riskless interest rates and corporate bond
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.535 | 0.486 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".