The Effects of ERM Adoption on European Insurance Firms Performance and Risks
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
We investigate the effects of adopting enterprise risk management (ERM) on the performance and risks of European publicly listed insurance firms. Using a dataset for 24 years, we report new results which show that ERM adopters realize significant ERM premiums after controlling for other covariates and endogeneity. Several firm characteristics such as size, opacity, and the choice of external monitoring agents such as auditors are significant determinants of adopting ERM. We fill a gap in the literature by assessing the impact of adopting ERM on firm risks and report new findings for our sample, which show that ERM adopters effectively reduce firm total and systematic risks and, to a greater extent, idiosyncratic risk. Firm-level variables such as size, leverage, dividend payments events, and diversification impact firm total risk. Insurers use corporate events such as dividend payments to signal information about reducing risk. Industry and international diversification reduce firm total risk and idiosyncratic risk, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it