MediaWiki API result

{
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "continue": {
        "gapcontinue": "The_appropriateness_of_hedging_instruments",
        "continue": "gapcontinue||"
    },
    "query": {
        "pages": {
            "29": {
                "pageid": 29,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "Replicating Anomalies",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": "== Authors of the Article ==\n* Kewei Hou, ''Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University; China Academy of Financial Research (CAFR)''\n* Chen Xue, ''Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati''\n* Lu Zhang, ''Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University; NBER''\n\n== Publication Year ==\n2017\n\n== Take-aways ==\n* Most infringements to market efficiency identified by academic research are actually flukes. The market anomalies comprise variables for: momentum, value versus growth, investment, profitability, intangibles, trading frictions (among which liquidity).\n* Most academic papers finding market anomalies abuse of equal weighting, hence overweighting small cap stocks, for which transactions costs are very high (ie. the arbitrages cannot be implemented for these stocks)\n* Overall, financial markets appear more efficient than depicted in the academic litterature\n\n== Quotes ==\n<blockquote>''\"Our results indicate widespread p-hacking in the anomalies literature. Out of 447 anomalies, 286 (64%) are insignificant at the 5% level. Imposing the cutoff t-value of three proposed by Harvey, Liu, and Zhu (2016) raises the number of insignificant anomalies further to 380 (85%).\"''</blockquote>\n\n<blockquote>''\"The biggest casualty is the liquidity literature. In the trading frictions category that contains mostly liquidity variables, 95 out of 102 variables (93%) are insignificant. (...) The distress anomaly is virtually nonexistent in our replication. (...) Even for significant anomalies, such as price momentum and operating accruals, their magnitudes are often much lower than originally reported.\"''</blockquote>\n\n<blockquote>''\"regressions impose a linear functional form, making them more susceptible to outliers, which most likely are microcaps. Alas, due to high costs in trading these stocks, anomalies in microcaps are more apparent than real. More important, with only 3% of the total market equity, the economic importance of microcaps is small, if not trivial.\"''</blockquote>\n\n\n== References ==\n* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2961979 Hou, Xue & Zhang, ''Replicating Anomalies'']"
                    }
                ]
            },
            "8": {
                "pageid": 8,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "The Economic rationale behind spinoffs",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": "== Firms Involved ==\n* Alibaba\n* Yahoo\n\n== Year of the event ==\n1998-2016\n\n== Description of the case ==\nLong ago, Yahoo bought a 40% participation in a tiny Chinese firm for a modest amount. In 2015, this participation had grown to become larger than the value of Yahoo itself, though Yahoo owned ''only'' 20% of Alibaba by then. In fact, in 2015, Yahoo\u2019s core business was worth around $5bn, while its participation in Alibaba was worth circa $40bn. Under the pressure of shareholder activist Starboard Value<ref>http://businesscycles.eu/tech/cowcot-entreprises-yahoo-contre-les-activistes/ Business Cycles (FR), ''Yahoo contre les activistes''</ref>, Yahoo planned to spin off its participation in Alibaba in a new entity, and give the shares to its shareholders. That was a major issue, as the DOJ was looking forward to taxing heavily this transaction<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-28/yahoo-would-rather-not-pay-taxes-on-its-alibaba-shares Bloomberg, ''Yahoo Would Rather Not Pay Taxes on Its Alibaba Shares'']</ref>, which would result in the loss of $16bn (40%). In 2016, Yahoo found another suitable solution: instead of making a spin-off of Alibaba\u2019s shares, Yahoo would sell its core business, and the historic Yahoo would become a shell holding Alibaba Stock as well as various other participations and licenses. The reborn holding entity was named Altaba. The transaction was completed as planned, with Verizon acquiring Yahoo<ref>[https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/verizon-buys-yahoo-for-4-83-billion/ Techcrunch, ''Verizon buys Yahoo for $4.83 billion'']</ref> in June 2017. Yahoo, having cleared the shadow of the potential tax payment, appreciated sharply.\n\n== Take-aways ==\n* Spinoff aim at making an entity more valuable by being splitting in two. The discrepancy can come from taxes.\n* Activists target firms with inconsistent structures or large holdings/long term investments/cash.\n\n== References ==\n<references />"
                    }
                ]
            }
        }
    }
}