MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109526838 · doi:10.1017/s1474747206002502

Investment in employer shares, incentive alignment, and monitoring

2007· article· en· W2109526838 on OpenAlex
Issouf Soumaré

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 Pensions Economics and Finance · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderBusinessIncentiveDiversification (marketing strategy)PensionStock (firearms)Labour economicsProductivityFinanceEconomicsMicroeconomicsCorporate governanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well documented that US defined contribution pension plans are largely invested in the shares of their employer. I argue that when the (single representative) worker holds shares in the firm, he tends to monitor the manager. On the one hand, the manager and shareholders gain from the productivity of the worker. On the other hand, the manager bears the cost of being monitored by the worker, and the shareholders loose part of their ownership power to the worker. Therefore, there is an optimal ownership limit for the worker from the viewpoint of the firm. I derive conditions under which the worker will never invest in the firm's stock if he has the freedom to do so. Nevertheless, under alternative conditions, it will be advantageous for the worker to invest his pension assets heavily in company stock, even if the under-diversification cost is very high.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.197 · 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