Opting for a Controlled-Firm Majority Independent Directors Exemption to NYSE or NASDAQ Listing Requirements: Much Ado about Nothing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of controlled-firms that opt out of the requirement that the majority of their Board members be independent is contrasted against controlled-firms who conformed to requirement in the ten year period 2005-2014. The Boards and management structure of these exempt and non-exempt controlled firms are remarkably similar. We find exempt firms have on average smaller market values, but use more debt, hold less cash, make larger investments in intangible assets, spend more on R&D, and have a more efficient workforce that grows slower than non-exempt controlled firms. This pattern of behaviors is more consistent with a stewardship hypothesis. We find strong evidence that investors substantially increase the Q ratios of family and founder-controlled firms. We find weak evidence that obtaining a controlled-firm exemption reduces Q values, but these reductions are small compared with the reductions in Q values associated with adopting take-over barriers. We conclude the fear that many large firms seem to have over seeking an exemption may not be well founded.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".