Can Investors Detect Managers' Lack of Spontaneity? Adherence to Predetermined Scripts during Earnings Conference Calls
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
ABSTRACT This paper examines whether market participants infer negative information about future unexpected firm performance when managers adhere to predetermined scripts when responding to questions during earnings conference calls. I argue that managers respond to questions from prepared scripts to avoid the disclosure of bad news. Using a measure of the adherence to predetermined language, I provide evidence that a lack of spontaneity is negatively associated with the market reaction to the call and with the abnormal returns in the subsequent quarter. I further find that analysts downgrade their forecasts following these calls. I also provide evidence that adherence to predetermined language is negatively associated with future unexpected firm accounting performance, supporting investors' negative response to it. Finally, I find that bid-ask spreads increase and firms are less likely to guide future earnings when managers adhere to the predetermined language of a script, suggesting that firms provide less information, not more, during these calls. JEL Classifications: G14; M40; M41.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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