This paper conducts a UK test of a version of the Ohlson (1995) model. We should only expect abnormal earnings to revert to zero if the book value of assets is economically meaningful. In this paper we make use of the property revaluations common in UK accounts, but estimate other asset values and earnings in inflation-adjusted terms. This, we argue, gives rise to estimates of abnormal earnings that can reasonably be expected to revert to zero. We then test this modified model on UK data using the Dechow, Hutton and Sloan (1999) method. In line with the predictions of the Ohlson model, we find that these modified abnormal earnings appear to mean revert, and that a first order autoregressive process is sufficient to capture the persistence of UK real abnormal earnings. The modified abnormal earnings model in general predicts one year ahead earnings more successfully than an unmodified model. Furthermore, for much of the sample period, one year ahead predictions of abnormal earnings are better for the real model during periods of higher inflation. The undervaluation problem found in prior studies appears to be replaced with an overvaluation problem in the real model which is more acute during periods of high inflation. Last, we show that an estimate of the model based upon an industry level specification appears to perform no better than a market-wide specification of the model. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2005.
Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.
This study has proposed a framework to pinpoint factors that could influence the intention to become an entrepreneur among university students from four different Middle East countries. The proposed framework has integrated different explanatory factors that have been used within different approaches into one framework, and assess their relative importance to influence entrepreneurial intentions. Also, the framework was tested on a large diversified multi-country sample from four Middle East countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Oman).The findings stress the role that a university could play at motivating its students to be entrepreneurial and the governmental role in creating a perceived climate that encourages entrepreneurship.
Prior research provides evidence suggesting that losers tend to continue to be losers in the short and medium term, whereas there is evidence showing that losers outperform winners in the long term. However, there are some differences in methodology used in the studies, particularly in their definition of the duration of the formation period as well as the definition of returns. This paper aims to investigate the underreaction/overreaction hypothesis and in particular to examine the sensitivity of defining the duration of the formation period. The results confirm that losers tend to continue to be losers when cumulative excess return is calculated over short and medium periods. There is evidence, however, suggesting that losers outperform winners when cumulative excess returns are calculated over a long period, even after six months up to five years of portfolio formation. Furthermore, the results show that neither the size effect nor the January effect has a role in explaining the difference in returns between winners and losers. Moreover, the difference in returns between winners and losers cannot be attributed to change in risk or to change in illiquidity. However, I provide evidence that some part of the winner-loser effect can be attributed to leverage effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.