The Tale of BYD before and after its A Share IPO: The Art of Precise Profit Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case is set in 2011, before and after BYD’s return to the A-share market in June that year. The case describes how BYD attracted much attention from the media and investors after receiving an investment from Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings in September 2008. BYD’s share price soared from HK$ 8.4 per share (the closing price on the date of the signing of the Placing Agreement with MidAmerican Energy Holdings) to a record high of HK$ 85.5 per share (the closing price on October 23, 2009), an increase of 917.86%. The miracle that BYD had created set high expectations among Chinese investors for its return to the A-share market in June 2011. Although BYD’s 2010 Annual Report showed that its performance had already taken a dip, its Prospectus gave an optimistic statement on the market prospects for its three main business activities. But the first quarter report of 2011 issued one day before its A-share IPO confirmed the earlier worries of the investors. Though BYD’s A-shares fared quite well on the day of the IPO, its mid-year report fell short of investors’ expectations, showing a massive decline of 88.6% in net profits and forecasting a further slide for the 3rd quarter. However, the 2011 annual report surprised everyone with a statement that operating profits had declined by only 49.04% year on year, meaning the company narrowly escaped being called to account by the CSRC (which would have taken action had losses exceeded 50%, as specified in Article 72 of the Administrative Measures for the Sponsorship Business of the Issuance and Listing of Securities).
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".