Darryl Laws

 In concluding their research Malmendier and Tate (2008) investigated the capital market’s perception / reaction to the merger / acquisition decisions made by overconfident CEOs. They used a standard event study methodology to show that outside investors react more negatively to the announcement of a bid if the CEO is overconfident. 

Sample. Malmendier and Tate’s (2008) used the sample to test ad validate their propositions. The sample was comprised of 477 large publicly traded U.S. companies between the years 1980 to 1994. To be included in the in the sample required that a company must appear at least four times on one of the lists of largest US companies compiled by Forbes magazine between 1984 to 1994. IPOs were excluded. The core of their data set provides detailed information on the stock ownership and set of option packages, including exercise price, maturity, and number of underlying shares for the CEO of each company in each year. From this data they were able to obtain a fairly detailed picture of the CEO’s personal portfolio rebalancing over his tenure.

As mentioned previously the authors collected data on how the press portrayed each of the CEOs during the sample period. For each CEO, they recorded four statistics: the total number of articles; the number of articles containing the words confident or confidence; the number of articles containing the words optimistic or optimism; and the number of articles containing the words reliable, cautious, conservative, practical, frugal, or steady. They supplemented this CEO data with merger data from the SDC and CRSP merger databases. Both data sets give them the bid / offer announcement date and means of financing for merger / acquisition being conducted by the sample of companies. They used the SDC data to supplement the set of mergers with acquisitions of private firms and large subsidiaries. They also supplemented the data with various items from the COMPUSTAT database.

In an effort to restrain the length of this paper I will focus my critique and analysis on the first of the three propositions that Malmendier and Tate (2008) put forth in their article; the acquisitiveness of overconfident CEOs.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Darryl Laws

  Their model is binary because there are two kinds of variation that they use to identify the effect of overconfidence on acquisitiveness, cross-sectional and within-company variation. Malmendier and Tate (2008) solve their regression equation using three estimation procedures: 1) a logit regression, makes use of both types of variation, 2) a logit regression with random effects, also makes use of both types of variation but, it explicitly models the effect of the firm, rather than the CEO, on acquisitiveness. I noted that if the estimated effects of overconfidence in the logit equation are due to company effects, they should expect to see a decline in their estimates if they include random effects. The remainder of their solution uses a logit regression with fixed effects. This regression equation makes use only of the second type of variation, the effect of overconfidence on acquisitiveness using only variation between overconfident and rational CEOs within a particular firm. Fo...
Read more

Darryl Laws

  Log likelihood. Had I conducted the research I would have chosen to use log likelihood statistic to assess and to depict the  deviance, or -2 log-likelihood (-2LL) statistic . The deviance is basically a measure of how much unexplained variation there is in our logistic regression model the higher the value the less accurate the model. It compares the difference in probability between the predicted outcome and the actual outcome for each case and sums these differences together to provide a measure of the total error in the model. This is similar in purpose to looking at the total of the  residuals  (the  sum of squares ) in linear regression analysis in that it provides us with an indication of how good our model is at predicting the outcome. The -2LL statistic (often called the deviance) is an indicator of how much unexplained information there is after the model has been fitted, with large values of -2LL indicating poorly fitting models. The  deviance...
Read more

Darryl Laws

  The measurement they use is the coefficient odds ratio (log likelihood statistic). The odds ratio is crucial to the interpretation of logistics regression. It is an indicator of the change in odds resulting from a unit change in the predictor. The resulting statistic is based upon comparing observed frequencies with the predicted model. When the predictor variable is categorical the odds ratio is easier to explain. This is referred to as the likelihood ratio Field, 2018, pg. 614)  There are two very different approaches to answering the goodness of fit question. One is to get a statistic that measures how well you can predict the dependent variable based on the independent variables. These kinds of statistics are referred to as measures of predictive power . Typically, they vary between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning no predictive power whatsoever and 1 meaning perfect predictions. The other approach to evaluating model fit is to compute a goodness-of-fit statistic. Ordinarily the ...
Read more