2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00057-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of delivery lags on irreversible investment under uncertainty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
38
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimated coefficient for growth volatility is statistically significant and negative (i.e., growth volatility decreases investment), suggesting that growth volatility decreases output via investment. This supports the irreversible investment argument of Bernanke (1983), Pindyck (1991), Dangl (1999), and Alvarez and Keppo (2002) and the empirical study by Aizenman and Marion (1999).…”
Section: Estimatessupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The estimated coefficient for growth volatility is statistically significant and negative (i.e., growth volatility decreases investment), suggesting that growth volatility decreases output via investment. This supports the irreversible investment argument of Bernanke (1983), Pindyck (1991), Dangl (1999), and Alvarez and Keppo (2002) and the empirical study by Aizenman and Marion (1999).…”
Section: Estimatessupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Firstly it is necessary to break down the DAX into different market value levels 30 . Secondly success will be measured based on annual financial statements and using differ- 26 If the M/B ratio is interpreted as an indicator of management performance it can be posited that when gauging the advantages of a potential transaction the market extrapolates the previous performance of the purchasing company's management too much ("performance-extrapolation hypothesis"). Cf.…”
Section: The Methodological Basismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Against the background of the hubris and performance extrapolation hypotheses 26 glamour acquirers pay higher premiums in boom phases than value acquirers in downturn phases. Lower premiums during anticyclical transactions are also sustained by the lower level of competition from other bidders, which allows for lower transaction prices in comparison to procyclical transactions in which multiple purchasing companies compete to buy scarcely available target companies 27 .…”
Section: Premium Sizementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alvarez and Keppo, 2002;Bar-Ilan and Strange, 1996). We do not consider the latter aspect in the present application due to the unavailability of the necessary data.…”
Section: Objective Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%