The impact of insurance institutional investors on corporate value from selection and creation perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of insurance investment funds are derived from policy liability debt funds. It differs from other institutional investors in a number of ways, including investment size, horizon, duration, risk, and so on. However, only a small portion of the extant literature focuses on in-depth and extensive analysis of Insurance Institutional Investors' holdings (IIIs). This study analyses the impact of shareholding by insurance institutions on the value of Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies in China's capital market. The paper offers three major contributions. First, we discovered that long-term equity-holding IIIs have both value selection and value creation functions. Second, the value creation function becomes more significant among long-term stock-holding IIIs with an increase in the period during which they retain the company's shares; Third, fast-in and fast-out (FIFO) IIIs have a value-inhibiting effect on the held company and serve a value selection role, rather than a value creation function. This study provides more insight on the lack of academic interest in insurance institutions and serves as a foundation and reference for the design of regulatory policies for insurance institutions' involvement in stock markets. It also gives empirical evidence for corporations to accurately analyze shareholding by insurance institutions. Furthermore, since this study concentrates on China's capital market, it can serve as a benchmark for other nations, particularly, those designated as developing market economies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".