Impact of Asset Bubbles on Exercise of Executive Stock Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines whether Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) exercise a greater proportion of their exercisable options in response to firm-specific stock price bubbles. For a sample of U.S. firms from 1992 to 2021, the study identifies stock price bubble periods using the Generalized Sup Augmented Dickey-Fuller (GSADF) method. A bubble is a statistical measure that detects an ex-post firm-specific stock price exuberance that creates abnormally high variation in stock prices arising from changes in discount rates, R&D and market liquidity. If executives have private information and can infer firm-specific bubbles, they are likely to exercise a greater proportion of their exercisable stock options during bubbles to benefit from their firms’ stock price exuberance. Using data aggregated at the CEO-year level, we find that executives are prone to exercising a larger portion of their vested stock options during market bubbles, with the aim of monetizing on the exuberance in the firm’s stock price. They leverage their expertise and their acquired price-sensitive private information to identify these bubbles. We also find that CEOs’ option exercise activity increases as the duration of the bubble increases to capture the price momentum.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".