SPB Git

spb/wp45_uqo

Public
8.3 KB · 277 lines json
1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "doc_id": "jof_12749",4 "ontology_version": "1.0",5 "prompt_version": "1.0",6 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",7 "effort": "medium",8 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:06:11+00:00",9 "source_sha256": "1992f3bcc1433962079aff9b1c467b2e9df56292b1cdecf38d9bf2754ab40625",10 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",11 "payload_chars": 23817,12 "usage": {13  "input": 7914,14  "output": 2258,15  "cache_read": 3968,16  "cache_write": 017 },18 "cost_usd": 0.07761,19 "request_id": "req_011CggqFyJK4gmDMYqXZQF5D",20 "annotation": {21  "genre": "empirical",22  "subfield": "asset_pricing",23  "subfield_secondary": "corporate_finance (managerial compensation / agency in asset management)",24  "primary_method": "reduced_form_regression",25  "identification": {26   "estimand": "Cross-sectional associations between the likelihood of compensation contract features (performance pay, AUM pay, profit pay, deferred pay, evaluation period) and proxies for agency conflicts, alternative monitoring, and manager characteristics; also associations of contract features with future performance and fees.",27   "strategy": "Logistic and OLS regressions on hand-collected SAI disclosure data with advisor-, fund-, and manager-level controls. Supplemented by bootstrap simulations of randomly assigned contracts and by change regressions around switches of advisory firm.",28   "key_assumptions": [29    "Proxies (clientele dispersion, financial affiliations, ownership) capture the intensity of agency conflicts",30    "Disclosed SAI compensation descriptions accurately reflect actual contracts",31    "Contract choice reflects an optimal contracting equilibrium"32   ],33   "threats_addressed": [34    "Spurious correlation from contract clustering within families, addressed with randomly assigned contract simulations",35    "Time-invariant unobservables, addressed with changes in contracts around advisory firm changes"36   ],37   "causal_language_strength": 2,38   "uses_causal_claim": false39  },40  "abstract_moves": {41   "question": {42    "present": true,43    "sentence_index": 044   },45   "gap": {46    "present": false,47    "sentence_index": -148   },49   "method": {50    "present": true,51    "sentence_index": 052   },53   "results": {54    "present": true,55    "sentence_index": 256   },57   "magnitude": {58    "present": false,59    "sentence_index": -160   },61   "contribution": {62    "present": true,63    "sentence_index": 164   }65  },66  "introduction": {67   "moves": [68    {69     "paragraph_index": 0,70     "move": "motivation"71    },72    {73     "paragraph_index": 0,74     "move": "literature_gap"75    },76    {77     "paragraph_index": 0,78     "move": "other"79    },80    {81     "paragraph_index": 1,82     "move": "preview_of_results"83    },84    {85     "paragraph_index": 2,86     "move": "preview_of_approach"87    },88    {89     "paragraph_index": 3,90     "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"91    },92    {93     "paragraph_index": 3,94     "move": "preview_of_results"95    },96    {97     "paragraph_index": 4,98     "move": "preview_of_results"99    },100    {101     "paragraph_index": 5,102     "move": "preview_of_results"103    },104    {105     "paragraph_index": 6,106     "move": "contribution_statement"107    },108    {109     "paragraph_index": 7,110     "move": "related_literature_positioning"111    },112    {113     "paragraph_index": 7,114     "move": "tension_or_puzzle"115    }116   ],117   "contribution_paragraph_index": 6,118   "contribution_types": [119    "new_evidence",120    "new_data_or_measure"121   ],122   "roadmap_present": false,123   "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"124  },125  "section_roles": [126   {127    "idx": 0,128    "role": "introduction"129   },130   {131    "idx": 1,132    "role": "other"133   },134   {135    "idx": 2,136    "role": "data"137   },138   {139    "idx": 3,140    "role": "results"141   },142   {143    "idx": 4,144    "role": "results"145   },146   {147    "idx": 5,148    "role": "results"149   },150   {151    "idx": 6,152    "role": "conclusion"153   },154   {155    "idx": 7,156    "role": "appendix"157   },158   {159    "idx": 8,160    "role": "appendix"161   }162  ],163  "results_presentation": {164   "economic_significance_discussed": true,165   "statistical_significance_language": "unclear",166   "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true167  },168  "robustness": {169   "location": "within_results",170   "types": [171    "placebo",172    "alternative_specification",173    "other"174   ]175  },176  "tables": {177   "convention_notes": "Table notes describe the regression type (logit with coefficients and marginal effects at means; OLS) and the sample. Variables are deferred to the Appendix, whose definitions include units and sources. Summary tables report mean, SD and percentiles. The bootstrap table reports simulated t-statistic distributions.",178   "units_stated_in_notes": true,179   "standard_errors_description": "unclear"180  },181  "figures": {182   "uncertainty_shown": "no_figures"183  },184  "conclusion": {185   "bounded_claims": true,186   "policy_implications": false,187   "open_questions": false,188   "restates_contribution": true189  },190  "hedging": {191   "level": "moderate",192   "typical_devices": [193    "'broadly consistent with' an optimal contracting equilibrium",194    "'as proxied by'",195    "'arguably'",196    "'we speculate'",197    "'little evidence'",198    "'mixed evidence'"199   ]200  },201  "claim_evidence": [202   {203    "claim": "Most portfolio managers receive explicit performance-linked bonuses, often large relative to base salary.",204    "evidence_type": "table",205    "evidence_ref": "Table I"206   },207   {208    "claim": "Performance-based pay and deferred pay are more likely when agency conflicts are more intense.",209    "evidence_type": "table",210    "evidence_ref": "Table III"211   },212   {213    "claim": "Investor sophistication, flow discipline and outsourcing dismissal threat substitute for explicit incentives; managerial ownership does not.",214    "evidence_type": "table",215    "evidence_ref": "Table III"216   },217   {218    "claim": "Determinant results are not an artifact of chance, per randomly assigned contract simulations.",219    "evidence_type": "table",220    "evidence_ref": "Table IV"221   },222   {223    "claim": "Contract changes after advisory firm switches track changes in determinants.",224    "evidence_type": "table",225    "evidence_ref": "Table V"226   },227   {228    "claim": "Compensation arrangements are not associated with differences in future fund performance.",229    "evidence_type": "table",230    "evidence_ref": "Table VII"231   },232   {233    "claim": "Performance pay goes with higher advisory fees and lower distribution fees, leaving total fees unchanged.",234    "evidence_type": "table",235    "evidence_ref": "Table VIII"236   }237  ],238  "structural_summary": "The paper motivates the topic with the economic importance of mutual funds and the lack of data on manager-level incentives. It then introduces a new data source created by an SEC disclosure rule and describes pay patterns. Three hypotheses (agency intensity, substitute monitoring, manager characteristics) are previewed with findings. The body runs: institutional background; data and construction of compensation variables; a large determinants section with hypothesis development, logit results and robustness (simulation, advisory firm changes); evaluation-period determinants; and links to performance and fees. The conclusion restates findings within an optimal-contracting interpretation.",239  "writing_profile_keywords": [240   "hand-collected data",241   "first systematic evidence",242   "hypothesis-testing structure",243   "optimal contracting interpretation",244   "agency theory",245   "descriptive-then-determinants",246   "null result on performance"247  ],248  "confidence": 0.8,249  "notes": "No roadmap paragraph is visible in the excerpts. The way statistical significance is reported is not visible in the table notes. Section I is institutional background rather than a literature review, so it is labeled 'other'. Robustness is placed inside Section III.D."250 },251 "deterministic_checks": {252  "roadmap_regex": false,253  "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,254  "magnitude_in_abstract": false,255  "abstract_n_sentences": 7,256  "intro_n_paragraphs": 8,257  "intro_n_words": 1332,258  "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,259  "hedge_words_in_abstract": 1,260  "stars_mentioned": false,261  "clustered_se_mentioned": false,262  "internet_appendix_mentioned": true,263  "section_roles_rule": {264   "0": "introduction",265   "1": "literature",266   "2": "data",267   "3": "other",268   "4": "other",269   "5": "other",270   "6": "conclusion",271   "7": "appendix",272   "8": "appendix"273  }274 },275 "schema_valid": true,276 "code_version": "feb6c9e-dirty"277}
Files · 62a9da723bfa8125e943fa9f6b4bc31044d26d0e
Menu

Theme