Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.30886

The Reaction of Financial Markets to the Releases of DeepSeek R1 and Kimi K3: A Critical Analysis

Marco Taboga
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper compares financial-market reactions to the releases of DeepSeek R1 in January 2025 and Kimi K3 in July 2026. Both AI models were presented as credible Chinese competitors near the capability frontier, but their releases conveyed different economic information. DeepSeek R1 combined open weights with unusually low reported training and inference costs, prompting investors to reassess expected demand for computing infrastructure and producing large stock-price decreases among semiconductor and data-centre-related firms. Kimi K3 instead entered at broadly frontier prices and generated a market reaction concentrated more heavily among rival Chinese AI laboratories. Drawing on descriptive event-window evidence, model capability and cost comparisons, subsequent industry developments, and the historical diffusion of open-source software, the paper argues that open-weight models redistribute rents across the AI value chain rather than eliminating them. Incumbents remain protected by complementary assets including distribution, product bundling, switching costs, proprietary data, serving capacity, and contractual trust. The analysis suggests that investors and policy makers should assess risks looking not only at model capability, but also at the ownership and durability of complementary assets across the AI value chain.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marco Taboga. 2026-10-22. The Reaction of Financial Markets to the Releases of DeepSeek R1 and Kimi K3: A Critical Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30886

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Simulation in discrete choice models evaluation: SDCM, a simulation tool for performance evaluation of DCMs

Discrete choice models are widely used in economics, transportation, and marketing to explain and predict how decision makers choose among a finite set of alternatives. The resulting choices depend on the socioeconomic characteristics of the decision makers, the attributes of the alternatives, and the conditions under which the decision is made. Because these factors interact in complex ways, and because real experiments raise confidentiality concerns, take time, and are costly, controlled experimentation with real respondents is often impractical. Simulation offers an alternative in which the data-generating process, and hence the true parameters, are known. This paper connects discrete choice modeling, experimental design, and simulation. We review the three areas in a common notation and state the results on which the simulation approach relies. We then formalize a simulation tool that combines an experimental design with a behavioral model of artificial agents to generate synthetic stated choice data, and we prove that the generated choices follow a panel mixed multinomial logit model with known parameters. On this basis we define measures of estimator performance and of the discrepancy between simulated and real data, illustrate the tool with a stated choice experiment on the willingness to pay for environmental attributes of roses, and discuss the behavioral factors that separate simulated choices from real ones.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

The missing price feedback: Why studies overstate local grid peaks from synchronized home batteries under real-time pricing

Existing studies consistently find that home batteries optimized against real-time electricity prices create new load peaks in local distribution grids. This is because all assets respond to the same price signal in sync. However, most of these studies treat wholesale prices as exogenous, i.e., unaffected by that very response. This paper argues that treating prices as non-responsive biases the result: in reality, charging in low-price hours raises the wholesale price, which dampens the incentive to charge. In equilibrium, charging is spread out across hours. I test this by simulating households with rooftop solar and home batteries under a spot-based retail tariff, using a model of equilibrium wholesale prices calibrated to German data for 2025. With exogenous prices, my results confirm the finding from the previous literature: synchronous charging pushes the coincident import peak of the local grid to 83% above its no-battery level. With endogenous prices, the same fleet leaves the peak 6% below the no-battery benchmark. In other words, treating prices as endogenous reduces the coincident peak at high battery penetration nearly by half. This finding is robust across alternative price functions and exogenous price paths, different measures of the coincident peak, 20 scenario variations, and three historical years. I conclude that while new local peaks remain possible, particularly in grids where battery deployment runs ahead of the national average, the risk and magnitude are considerably smaller than the existing literature suggests.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

The Delegation Divide: An Open Index of AI-Agent Delegability across Occupations and Countries

35.2% of task time in world employment is at least partly delegable to AI agents in 2026, and only 2.5% can be handed over in full. Existing measures score exposure to generative AI, mostly for the United States. We build the Agent Delegability Index (ADI): two language models rate all 18,796 O*NET 30.2 task statements on a frozen, preregistered rubric of delegation levels and barriers; tasks are mapped to 433 ISCO-08 unit groups and weighted by ILOSTAT employment in 146 countries. Four findings. First, delegable employment rises with income, from 22.5% in low-income to 48.7% in high-income countries, a slope of 7.23 percentage points per log point of GDP per capita. This delegation divide is compositional: the physical barrier dominates the jobs poorer countries employ most. Second, at the occupation level ADI tracks exposure closely (r = 0.93 with Eloundou et al. and 0.89 with Felten et al.), above the preregistered bound of 0.80; ADI adds delegation levels and barriers on top of exposure, for the world, not a new ranking of occupations. Third, full delegation is rare and peaks for tasks that take a human about twelve minutes (11.8 minutes). Fourth, the preregistered adoption gap is not supported: across 101 countries, delegability and observed AI usage correlate at r = 0.86, and the gap between them is not wider in middle-income countries (p = 0.27). Model agreement is kappa = 0.77; a blind human rating of 300 tasks agrees with the model consensus at kappa = 0.85, and an agentic panel with web search at kappa = 0.87. We release the index, the atlas, the prompts and an MCP server at https://github.com/Cespial/delegation-divide.

econ.GN↗