MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970651823 · doi:10.1108/02756660510597047

On the decision to reprice stock options: almost never

2005· article· en· W1970651823 on OpenAlex
Dan R. Dalton, Catherine M. Dalton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Strategy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessStock optionsStock (firearms)Non-qualified stock optionValue (mathematics)AccountingOriginalityCorporate governanceRestricted stockStock marketFinanceActuarial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Looks at the issue of repricing stock options for CEOs and other senior managers when existing option are under water. The board of directors has the option of exchanging existing options (i.e. the underwater options) for new options with a lower exercise price. Design/methodology/approach Opinion piece. Findings There is no evidence that repricing reduces CEO or top management turnover. In fact, top executives left a firm at a much higher rate than their counterparts in firms that did not reprice. Moreover, whether relying on accounting returns (ROA) or market returns (returns on common stock), there is no evidence that repricing firms perform better after the repricing. Practical implications Provides boards and senior managers with information with information showing that repricing of options is almost never justified except possibly when hiring a new CEO. Originality/value Of particular value to CEOs and other board members

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it