Institutional investors’ response to improved corporate governance: Evidence from the brazilian capital market
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
<p>This study examines whether normative pressures from stock market regulators to improve the governance quality of Brazilian listed firms influence the participation and activism of institutional investors. More specifically, we investigate the association between institutional investor’s ownership and firm’s voluntary adhesion to the São Paulo Stock Exchange (B3) differentiated levels of corporate governance quality. Empirical testing is performed on a ten-year (2002–2011) panel data set from a sample of 439 firms listed on the B3. Our findings suggest that firms in differentiated corporate governance levels, that is, with better level of transparency and commitment to monitoring, are more attractive to institutional investors. We interpret this result as evidence supporting the shareholder activism movement, attributed by several scholars to institutional shareholders. Our study contributes to the governance literature on the firm’s response to normative pressures and the ability of internal governance mechanisms to signal lower agency cost to capital market. Our evidence also contributes to the ongoing discussion about the role and influence of institutional investors in the functioning of capital markets, and more specific in emerging market like Brazil.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it