An Empirical Examination of the Governance Choices of Income Trusts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publicly traded trusts, known as income trusts, became very popular in recent years in Canada. Income trusts participate in a variety of industries, and do not simply fulfill specialized roles, like that of a special purpose entity in a securitization transaction. Because of the absence of mandatory statutory rules, these trusts have much greater freedom to choose particular governance terms than analogously situated corporations. In this article, we examine the individual declarations of trust (DOTs), which set out the governance regime for the firm, of 187 income trusts that listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 1996 and 2005. We compare private choices with respect to 25 mandatory terms found in the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA). Examining private choices of income trusts provides insight into the role of corporate law in supplementing/distorting private ordering in the corporate domain. On some dimensions, DOTs mimic the CBCA, but on other important dimensions, particularly remedial ones, they depart significantly from the CBCA. We also examine particular characteristics of the trust (e.g., its jurisdiction, size, industry, whether it listed as an IPO or by way of conversion from a corporation) in order to determine whether certain characteristics are associated with greater resemblance to the governance regime established in the CBCA. We find generally that certain jurisdictions (particularly Quebec) are statistically significantly and negatively correlated with CBCA provisions relative to others (Ontario), while year (2003 and beyond) is statistically significant and positively correlated with CBCA provisions. We find that industry, measured by type and one-digit SIC code, is statistically significant throughout the analysis. Firm size is also significant, though its relationship with CBCA adoption may be positive or negative depending on the particular provision in question.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".