kaal:claim:2629451-025

The authors reject Hypothesis 1: they find no evidence that the market reacts negatively to the N/DPA announcement and the start of the term and positively to the end of the term, contrary to the cost-imposition view of N/DPAs.

Source quote, verbatim

There is no evidence to support Hypothesis 1: The market does not react negatively at ANDPAE (E1a) and BNDPAT (E1b) and positively at ENDPAT (E1c).

From

Wulf A. Kaal, Timothy Lacine, Stock Price Response to Non- and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (2015), VI. Discussion, p. 19
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629451 · source PDF

Cite as

Wulf A. Kaal, Timothy Lacine, Stock Price Response to Non- and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (2015). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629451

Holds when

94 firm sample, three event dates

Classification

empiricalsupport: evidencedfailure: cost-imposition-hypothesis-unsupportedfamily: research-design-limitationinstitutional-design

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 507404d641abb922ab6d8e3a0b032e35ead2befd7b88746d09d178a8fa816957. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/1e498d12489711cc...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2629451-025.md | sha256sum