Disclosure versus Recognition of Stock Option Compensation: Effect on the Credit Decisions of Loan Officers
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 examine if different stock option reporting formats affect bank loan officers' judgments and decisions. Three formats were used: (1) descriptive note of stock options plan only, (2) descriptive note that included a pro forma disclosure showing the impact of expensing the cost of stock options on net income, and (3) recognition of the stock options cost in the income statement. Our results show that loan officers estimated a higher risk rating and a more pessimistic trend rating, were less inclined to grant the loan, and charged a higher risk premium when the stock option expense was recognized in the income statement. Judgments and decisions did not significantly differ for the two methods of footnote disclosure, suggesting that loan officers are functionally fixated on reported earnings. Overall, our results support the FASB's claim that “disclosure is not an adequate substitute for recording.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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