Investor relations and investment efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A rich literature suggests that investor relations officers (IROs) fulfill a one‐way information intermediary role by transmitting firm information to investors. We advance this literature with empirical evidence suggesting IROs are two‐way information intermediaries who also return investment efficiency‐increasing investor feedback to firm insiders. Exploiting granular investor relations activity data for 1,375 global firms, we document that firm investment efficiency is higher when IROs spend more time with existing institutional investors, conduct more institutional investor outreach, and meet more often with investment professionals (market intelligence collection), and when IROs transmit investment community feedback to board directors (market intelligence circulation). We mitigate endogeneity concerns stemming from our association tests by employing an expansive suite of control variables, a high‐dimensional fixed‐effects structure, an entropy‐balanced estimation sample, and an instrumental variables analysis. Our evidence supports theory predicting that managers learn about investment opportunities and their costs and benefits from investors and informs a literature predominantly characterizing IROs as one‐way information intermediaries.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".