Question: Manipulating rates of return with stock splits. Some firms have been accused of using stock splits to manipulate their stock prices before being acquired by another firm. An article in Financial Management (Winter 2008) investigated the impact of stock splits on long-run stock performance for acquiring firms. A simplified version of the model fit by the researchers follows:

E(y)=β0+β1x1+β2x2+β3x1x2

where

y = Firm’s 3-year buy-and-hold return rate (%)

x1 = {1 if stock split prior to acquisition, 0 if not}

x2 = {1 if firm’s discretionary accrual is high, 0 if discretionary accrual is low}

a. In terms of the β’s in the model, what is the mean buy and- hold return rate (BAR) for a firm with no stock split and a high discretionary accrual (DA)?

b. In terms of the β’s in the model, what is the mean BAR for a firm with no stock split and a low DA?

c. For firms with no stock split, find the difference between the mean BAR for firms with high and low DA. (Hint: Use your answers to parts a and b.)

d. Repeat part c for firms with a stock split.

e. Note that the differences, parts c and d, are not the same. Explain why this illustrates the notion of interaction between x1 and x2.

f. A test for H0: β3 = 0 yielded a p-value of 0.027. Using α = .05, interpret this result.

g. The researchers reported that the estimated values of both β2 and β3 are negative. Consequently, they conclude that “high-DA acquirers perform worse compared with low-DA acquirers. Moreover, the underperformance is even greater if high-DA acquirers have a stock split before acquisition.” Do you agree?

Short Answer

Expert verified

Answers

a. In terms of β’s in the model, mean BAR = (β0 + β)

b. In terms of β’s in the model, the mean BAR = β0

c. Mean Bar level for firms with high and low DA = (β0 + β) - β0= β2

d. Mean Bar level for firms with stock split and no stock split = (β0 + β) - β0= β1

e. The answers in part c and part d are different, this might indicate towards some interaction amongst the two variable of stock split and discretionary accrual. Interaction exists in a model when there is some correlation amongst the two variable.

f. At 95% confidence level β3 = 0 meaning there’s no interaction between x1 and x2.

g. Negative sign of the β2 value denotes that there’s an inverse relation between BAR and discretionary accrual meaning that for the value of x2 = 1, the base level of x2 = 0 will have higher value. Similarly, for Negative sign of the β3 value denotes that there’s an inverse relation between BAR and the interaction between discretionary accrual and stock split indicating that high DA acquirers with stock splits underperforms than low DA acquirers with stock split.

Step by step solution

01

Interpretation of β

In terms of β’s in the model, the mean buy-and-hold return rate (BAR) for a firm with no stock split and a high discretionary accrual (DA) can be computed when the value of x1= 0 and x2 = 1;

Therefore, in terms of β’s in the model, mean BAR = (β0 + β)

02

Interpretation of β

In terms of β’s in the model, the mean buy-and-hold return rate (BAR) for a firm with no stock split and a low discretionary accrual (DA) can be computed when the value of x1= 0 and x2 = 0, this essentially is the base level;

Therefore, in terms of β’s in the model, the mean BAR = β0

03

Interpretation of β

For firms with no stock split, the difference between the mean BAR for firms with high and low DA can be computed by subtracting the mean BAR level for firms with no stock split and high DA with the firms with mean BAR level with no stock split and low DA;

mean BAR for firms with no stock split and high DA = (β0 + β)

mean BAR for firms with no stock split and low DA = β0

Therefore, mean Bar level for firms with high and low DA = (β0 + β) - β0= β2

04

Interpretation of β

For firms with no DA, the difference between the mean BAR for firms with stock split and no stock split can be computed by subtracting the mean BAR level for firms with stock split and no DA with the firms with mean BAR level with no stock split and no DA;

mean BAR for firms with stock split and no DA = (β0 + β)

mean BAR for firms with no stock split and low DA = β0

Therefore, mean Bar level for firms with stock split and no stock split = (β0 + β) - β0= β1

05

Interaction term

The answers in part c and part d are different, this might indicate towards some interaction amongst the two variable of stock split and discretionary accrual. Interaction exists in a model when there is some correlation amongst the two variable.

06

Hypothesis testing

H0: β3 = 0 while Ha: β3 ≠ 0 yielded a p-value of 0.027. Using α

Here, H0 is rejected if p-value < α. Since p-value = 0.027 and α = 0.05

There’s sufficient evidence to reject H0 at 95% confidence level

Therefore, β3 = 0 meaning there’s no interaction between x1 and x2.

07

Interpretation of β

Negative sign of the β2 value denotes that there’s an inverse relation between BAR and discretionary accrual meaning that for the value of x2 = 1, the base level of x2 = 0 will have higher value.

Similarly, for Negative sign of the β3 value denotes that there’s an inverse relation between BAR and the interaction between discretionary accrual and stock split indicating that high DA acquirers with stock splits underperforms than low DA acquirers with stock split.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Question: Glass as a waste encapsulant. Because glass is not subject to radiation damage, encapsulation of waste in glass is considered to be one of the most promising solutions to the problem of low-level nuclear waste in the environment. However, chemical reactions may weaken the glass. This concern led to a study undertaken jointly by the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Florida and the U.S. Department of Energy to assess the utility of glass as a waste encapsulant. Corrosive chemical solutions (called corrosion baths) were prepared and applied directly to glass samples containing one of three types of waste (TDS-3A, FE, and AL); the chemical reactions were observed over time. A few of the key variables measured were

y = Amount of silicon (in parts per million) found in solution at end of experiment. (This is both a measure of the degree of breakdown in the glass and a proxy for the amount of radioactive species released into the environment.)

x1 = Temperature (°C) of the corrosion bath

x2 = 1 if waste type TDS-3A, 0 if not

x3 = 1 if waste type FE, 0 if not

(Waste type AL is the base level.) Suppose we want to model amount y of silicon as a function of temperature (x1) and type of waste (x2, x3).

a. Write a model that proposes parallel straight-line relationships between amount of silicon and temperature, one line for each of the three waste types.

b. Add terms for the interaction between temperature and waste type to the model of part a.

c. Refer to the model of part b. For each waste type, give the slope of the line relating amount of silicon to temperature.

e. Explain how you could test for the presence of temperature–waste type interaction.

Consider the following data that fit the quadratic modelE(y)=β0+β1x+β2x2:

a. Construct a scatterplot for this data. Give the prediction equation and calculate R2based on the model above.

b. Interpret the value ofR2.

c. Justify whether the overall model is significant at the 1% significance level if the data result into a p-value of 0.000514.

Question: Chemical plant contamination. Refer to Exercise 12.18 (p. 725) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study. You fit the first-order model,E(Y)=β0+β1x1+β2x2+β3x3 , to the data, where y = DDT level (parts per million),X1= number of miles upstream,X2= length (centimeters), andX3= weight (grams). Use the Excel/XLSTAT printout below to predict, with 90% confidence, the DDT level of a fish caught 300 miles upstream with a length of 40 centimeters and a weight of 1,000 grams. Interpret the result.

Accuracy of software effort estimates. Refer to the Journal of Empirical Software Engineering (Vol. 9, 2004) study of the accuracy of new software effort estimates, Exercise 12.114 (p. 781). Recall that stepwise regression was used to develop a model for the relative error in estimating effort (y) as a function of company role of estimator (x1 = 1 if developer, 0 if project leader) and previous accuracy (x8 = 1 if more than 20% accurate, 0 if less than 20% accurate). The stepwise regression yielded the prediction equation y^= 0.12 - 0.28x1+ 0.27x8. The researcher is concerned that the sign of the estimated β multiplied by x1 is the opposite from what is expected. (The researcher expects a project leader to have a smaller relative error of estimation than a developer.) Give at least one reason why this phenomenon occurred.

Question:If the analysis of variance F-test leads to the conclusion that at least one of the model parameters is nonzero, can you conclude that the model is the best predictor for the dependent variable ? Can you conclude that all of the terms in the model are important for predicting ? What is the appropriate conclusion?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free