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

Investment in employer shares, incentive alignment, and monitoring

2007· article· en· W2109526838 on OpenAlexaff
Issouf Soumaré

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pensions Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207