arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Net Income Aggregation, Investor Inattention, and Portfolio Holding Decisions: Evidence from the Insurance Industry

Natee Amornsiripanitch et al.

Review of Corporate Finance Studies2025https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaf022article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

This paper uses an accounting rule change and the U.S. insurance industry to empirically show that the way in which accounting information is presented can distort equilibrium economic outcomes. When firms’ summary performance measure includes changes in unrealized gains and losses (UGL) from financial asset holdings, investor inattention causes the firms’ stock returns to overreact to changes in UGL. Inattentive investors perceive the firms’ earnings as having higher residual uncertainty and demand larger discounts on the firms’ stock prices. To maximize compensation, managers cut financial asset holdings. Managerial myopia exacerbates the response. A simple model formalizes the mechanism. (JEL: G11, G14, G22, G30, M41)

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaf022

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{natee2025,
  title        = {{Net Income Aggregation, Investor Inattention, and Portfolio Holding Decisions: Evidence from the Insurance Industry}},
  author       = {Natee Amornsiripanitch et al.},
  journal      = {Review of Corporate Finance Studies},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaf022},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Net Income Aggregation, Investor Inattention, and Portfolio Holding Decisions: Evidence from the Insurance Industry

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.