entity · derived
Ndpa
Derived node: assembled mechanically from the claims carrying ndpa. A roster, not an adjudicated definition.
Every claim under this term
- 2629451-001 : Stock prices respond significantly and predictably in a positive direction to the DOJ press release announcing execution of a non- or deferred prosecution agreement and to the start of the N/DPA term.
- 2629451-002 : The market does not price the three defining N/DPA events in isolation; it treats the announcement, the start of the term, and the end of the term as sequential and conditional events.
- 2629451-003 : Investor response to N/DPAs is not uniform: it varies with the firm's industry, the severity of the financial fine, and the extent of the governance improvements the N/DPA mandates.
- 2629451-004 : There is no systematic price momentum beyond the three core N/DPA event dates, which the authors read as evidence that the market is reasonably efficient with respect to N/DPA information.
- 2629451-005 : Investors react negatively to impending N/DPA driven changes in the period before the agreement is executed, but once the N/DPA is executed they generally treat it as a positive event for the firm.
- 2629451-006 : Investors treat the expiration of an N/DPA term as a negative event for the firm.
- 2629451-007 : The combination of a positive market reaction at the start of the N/DPA term and a negative reaction at its end is evidence that the governance changes N/DPAs mandate actually matter to firm value.
- 2629451-009 : The study's hand-selected dataset covers all institutions that executed N/DPAs from 1993 to 2015, a population of 330 agreements, of which 94 involved publicly traded firms usable for stock price test
- 2629451-010 : The U.S. financial corporations subject to N/DPAs collectively exceed $690 billion in market capitalization and more than $20 trillion in assets under management, making N/DPA governance intervention
- 2629451-011 : This is the first study to examine stock price reactions to non- and deferred prosecution agreements, using all publicly available N/DPAs across several industries from 1993 to 2015 (N=330).
- 2629451-012 : The event study design is appropriate for N/DPAs because the wrongdoing event is identifiable through the execution of a reasonably standardized agreement and because information about the firm's wron
- 2629451-015 : Pre-announcement leaks about a pending N/DPA, including leaks by prosecutors, should not move markets significantly because leaked details carry no certainty or finality as to final terms or fine amou
- 2629451-026 : The data support Hypothesis 2: the market reacts positively at the DOJ announcement and at the start of the N/DPA term and negatively at the end of the term.
- 2629451-029 : The data support Hypothesis 3: the market reacts positively when N/DPA governance changes become mandatory at the start of the term and negatively when they cease to be mandatory at its end.
- 2629451-030 : The paired positive reaction at the start and negative reaction at the end of the N/DPA term is direct evidence that N/DPA mandated governance changes matter to investors.
- 2629451-032 : Market reaction to N/DPAs is industry specific, supporting the hypothesis that investors in some industries are more sensitive to N/DPA effects than investors in others.
- 2629451-033 : Because the market reacts positively both to N/DPA announcements and to the governance improvements taking effect, the DOJ's escalation of N/DPA executions beginning in 2002 could be justified on mark
- 2629451-036 : Despite wide-ranging criticism of N/DPAs on authority, fairness, and expertise grounds, scholars agree that N/DPAs do influence corporate governance.
- 2629451-037 : The existing literature has barely engaged the financial market implications of N/DPAs, which is the gap this study fills.
- 2629451-039 : Prior coding of all publicly available N/DPAs from 1993 to 2013 across more than 230 governance categories shows that N/DPAs have a substantial effect on corporate governance.