Business Education of CEO-CFO and Annual Report Readability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial report readability captures the transparency and effectiveness of information communicated by firms¡¯ executives. It¡¯s interesting to investigate whether business knowledge, cognitive preferences, and professional ethics taught by a business education will shape the CEO/ CFO¡¯s thinking in determining words, languages, paragraphs, and contents presented in financial reports when the self-interested CEO/CFO tends to influence the interpretation of financial information users. Using a sample of S&P 1500 CEOs and CFOs, we find that the CEO (CFO) with a business degree is associated with better (worse) readability of annual reports and the positive (negative) relation is strengthened (moderated) by internal corporate governance and external analyst following. Furthermore, we explore the interaction between CEO¡¯s and CFO¡¯s education background and provide additional evidence for the conflict of interest between CEOs and CFOs on financial reporting strategies. Our findings suggest business education, although has no direct impact on financial reporting quality, is beneficial to CEOs for strengthening their monitoring role in firm¡¯s financial reporting activities. Also, we consider that the ethical topics in business education can enhance financial executives¡¯ awareness to conduct practice under the ethical codes. Our study has implications for academic literature, business education, industry practitioners, and standards setting.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".