Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose and analyze a relative indexing scheme for executive stock options. In contrast to the absolute indexing scheme of Johnson and Tian (2000) which bases the option’s payoff on the dollar difference between the stock price and the indexed exercise price, our scheme defines the option’s payoff on the ratio of the stock price over the indexed exercise price. The absolute indexing is shown to still yield an option value moving in tandem with the index, which is undesirable for it ends up rewarding or penalizing the executive for the factors outside his/her control. Besides correcting the misalignment between reward and performance, relative indexing also possesses many desirable incentive properties. On a per dollar basis, it has a much higher delta (i.e., sensitivity to stock price) and vega (i.e., sensitivity to firm volatility) than absolute indexing, implying that relative indexing has a stronger performance incentive and is more effective in encouraging the CEO to undertake more risky projects which otherwise may be shun due to his/her less-diversified personal wealth. ∗Both authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".