COMMONS DEED
COMMONS DEED COMMONS DEED
-0.060 -0.055 -0.050 -0.045 -0.040 -0.035 -0.030 -0.025 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 -0.10 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 -0.083 -0.074 -0.066 -0.058 -0.050 -0.041 -0.033 -0.025 -0.017 -0.008 0.000 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.041 0.050 0.058 0.066 0.074 0.083 0.091 0.099 0.107 0.116 0.124 0.132 0.140 0.149 0.157 0.165 0.173 0.182 0.190 0.198 -0.075 -0.070 -0.065 -0.061 -0.056 -0.051 -0.047 -0.042 -0.037 -0.033 -0.028 -0.023 -0.019 -0.014 -0.009 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.009 0.014 0.019 0.023 0.028 0.033 0.037 0.042 0.047 0.051 0.056 0.061 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.079 TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF TOURISM Volume 6, Number 3, Winter 2011, pp. 13-36 UDC: 338.48+640(050) Table 2 Frequency histograms (net income) Panel A: Net income distribution. Interval widths using Degeorge et al.´s (1999) formula NI/ATt-1 ΔNI/ATt-1 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Panel B: Net income distribution. Interval widths 0.01 for net income and 0.005 for changes in net income NI/AT t-1 ΔNI/AT t-1 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 23
-119.0 -108.2 -97.4 -86.5 -75.7 -64.9 -54.1 -43.3 -32.5 -21.6 -10.8 0.0 10.8 21.6 32.5 43.3 54.1 64.9 75.7 86.5 97.4 108.2 119.0 129.8 140.6 151.5 162.3 -249.4 -224.5 -199.5 -174.6 -149.6 -124.7 -99.8 -74.8 -49.9 -24.9 0.0 24.9 49.9 74.8 99.8 124.7 149.6 174.6 199.5 224.5 249.4 274.4 299.3 324.2 349.2 374.1 399.1 424.0 448.9 Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús Such Devesa & Pilar Alberca Oliver Panel C: Net income distribution (undeflated). Interval widths using Degeorge et al.´s (1999) formula NI (Undeflated) ΔNI (Undeflated) 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% The histograms were generated from a data pool of 9,950 observations. The interval widths, following the Degeorge et al.´s (1999) formula, are 0.0083 for NI and 0.0047 for ΔNI (figures reported on Panel A); 0.01 for NI and 0.005 for ΔNI (figures reported on Panel B) and 24.94 for NI and 10.81 for ΔNI (figures reported on Panel C). We report two standardized differences: the first number corresponds to Burgstahler and Dichev´s (1997) formula and the second one correspond to Beaver et al.´s (2007) formula. The standardized differences in the interval immediately to right to zero are 9.23 and 8.41 for NI and 4.88 and 4.39 for ΔNI for figures reported on Panel A; 9.96 and 9.00 for NI and 5.00 and 4.51for ΔNI for figures reported on Panel B. Table 3 presents earnings distribution of net income constrained by level of leverage. The quartile measure is used to split the sample in low and high leverage. Panel A reveals that the discontinuity at zero point is more accused in firms with higher leverage. Particularly, the kink is only statistical significant (p < 0.01) for firms with higher leverage. The difference between both regions tested by Chi-square is statistically significant (p < 0.01). Panel B shows similar results for changes in earnings distributions. The discontinuity at zero point disappears for lower leverage firms and the discontinuity at zero point is statistical significant (p < 0.01) for firms 24
- Page 1 and 2: COMMONS DEED Attribution Non-commer
- Page 3 and 4: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 5 and 6: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 7 and 8: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 9 and 10: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 11: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 15 and 16: -0.076 -0.069 -0.061 -0.053 -0.046
- Page 17 and 18: -0.086 -0.078 -0.070 -0.062 -0.054
- Page 19 and 20: -0.077 -0.070 -0.063 -0.056 -0.049
- Page 21 and 22: -0.107 -0.099 -0.091 -0.084 -0.076
- Page 23 and 24: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
- Page 25: Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús
-119.0<br />
-108.2<br />
-97.4<br />
-86.5<br />
-75.7<br />
-64.9<br />
-54.1<br />
-43.3<br />
-32.5<br />
-21.6<br />
-10.8<br />
0.0<br />
10.8<br />
21.6<br />
32.5<br />
43.3<br />
54.1<br />
64.9<br />
75.7<br />
86.5<br />
97.4<br />
108.2<br />
119.0<br />
129.8<br />
140.6<br />
151.5<br />
162.3<br />
-249.4<br />
-224.5<br />
-199.5<br />
-174.6<br />
-149.6<br />
-124.7<br />
-99.8<br />
-74.8<br />
-49.9<br />
-24.9<br />
0.0<br />
24.9<br />
49.9<br />
74.8<br />
99.8<br />
124.7<br />
149.6<br />
174.6<br />
199.5<br />
224.5<br />
249.4<br />
274.4<br />
299.3<br />
324.2<br />
349.2<br />
374.1<br />
399.1<br />
424.0<br />
448.9<br />
Laura Parte Esteban, María Jesús Such Devesa & Pilar Alberca Oliver<br />
Panel C: Net income distribution (undeflated). Interval widths using<br />
Degeorge et al.´s (1999) formula<br />
NI (Undeflated)<br />
ΔNI (Undeflated)<br />
16.0%<br />
14.0%<br />
12.0%<br />
10.0%<br />
8.0%<br />
6.0%<br />
4.0%<br />
2.0%<br />
0.0%<br />
12.0%<br />
10.0%<br />
8.0%<br />
6.0%<br />
4.0%<br />
2.0%<br />
0.0%<br />
The histograms were generated from a data pool of 9,950 observations. The interval<br />
widths, following the Degeorge et al.´s (1999) formula, are 0.0083 for NI and 0.0047 for<br />
ΔNI (figures reported on Panel A); 0.01 for NI and 0.005 for ΔNI (figures reported on Panel<br />
B) and 24.94 for NI and 10.81 for ΔNI (figures reported on Panel C). We report two<br />
standardized differences: the first number corresponds to Burgstahler and Dichev´s (1997)<br />
formula and the second one correspond to Beaver et al.´s (2007) formula. The standardized<br />
differences in the interval immediately to right to zero are 9.23 and 8.41 for NI and 4.88 and<br />
4.39 for ΔNI for figures reported on Panel A; 9.96 and 9.00 for NI and 5.00 and 4.51for ΔNI<br />
for figures reported on Panel B.<br />
Table 3 presents earnings distribution of net income constrained by<br />
level of leverage. The quartile measure is used to split the sample in low<br />
and high leverage. Panel A reveals that the discontinuity at zero point is<br />
more accused in firms with higher leverage. Particularly, the kink is only<br />
statistical significant (p < 0.01) for firms with higher leverage. The<br />
difference between both regions tested by Chi-square is statistically<br />
significant (p < 0.01).<br />
Panel B shows similar results for changes in earnings distributions.<br />
The discontinuity at zero point disappears for lower leverage firms and<br />
the discontinuity at zero point is statistical significant (p < 0.01) for firms<br />
24
Change language