Institutional investor and accounting restatement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the role that institutional investors play in the market reaction to accounting restatements. We show that transient institutional investors, defined as institutions with short investment horizons and high portfolio turnover, significantly reduce their holdings in a restating firm at least one quarter prior to the quarter of the restatement announcement. This result holds after controlling for factors such as return momentum, unexpected earnings, size, book-to-market, and the portfolio weight of the firm to the institution. Second, using previously identified predictors of earnings manipulation, we show that institutional investors react most negatively to an increase in the days sales in receivables and high accruals. Finally, we demonstrate that the market reaction to accounting restatements for firms with higher levels of transient institutional ownership is more negative in the period prior to the restatement announcement. Taken together, these results suggest that institutional investors act as though they partially anticipate potential accounting irregularities and adjust their holdings downward prior to the restatement announcement. Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE Keywords : Institutional investors, Accounting restatements JEL Classifications : G30, 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.
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 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".