Disclosure, Incentives, and Contingently Convertible Securities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present descriptive evidence on the quality of firms' disclosures related to contingently convertible securities (COCOs). We document evidence of inconsistent and inadequate disclosure of the information necessary to undo the financial reporting effects associated with COCOs prior to 2004, when only the general disclosure requirements on capital structure provided in SFAS 129 were in effect. Disclosure quality improved after the introduction of FASB Staff Position 129-a, which specifically required firms to disclose the terms of COCOs that would enable users to understand the conversion features of COCOs and their potential impact on earnings per share (EPS). However, we find evidence that managerial incentives significantly affect disclosure quality in both disclosure regimes. Our results underscore the difficulty that standard setters face in developing general disclosure guidelines that foster adequate disclosure and suggest that additional specific disclosure guidance may be necessary as new financial instruments and transactions evolve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it