New size measurements in population ecology

In organizational ecology, we find the analysis of the impact exerted by competition between populations on vital ratios to be relatively under-developed. This paper intends to address this issue by developing new competition measurements whose common denominator is to give importance to organizational size. The application of these measurements in the case of competition between organizational forms in a population and their impact on mortality rates, demonstrates the usefulness of modelling competition on them. More specifically, results show how competition levels between firms in a population can be more adequately estimated when rival population mass is used (that is, the aggregate size of the organizations of which it is made up)

Is the risk-return paradox still alive?

To date, the validity of empirical Bowman's paradox papers that employ mean-variance approach for testing the risk/return relationship are inherently unverifiable and their results cannot be generalized. However, this problem can be overcome by developing an econometric model with two fundamental characteristics. The first one is the use of a time series model for each firm, avoiding the traditional cross-sectional analysis. The other one is to estimate a model with a single variable (the firm rate of return), but whose expectation and variance are mathematically related according to behavioral theories hypotheses, forming a heterocedastic model similar to "GARCH". Our results agree with behavioral theories and show that these theories can also be carry out with market measures

Problems with extending conclusions between Bowman's paradox and Beta's death

This issue of Omega contains a commentary by P.L. Brockett, W.W. Cooper, K.H. Kwon, and T.W. Ruefli on the review of Bowman's paradox by Nickel and Rodríguez, published in the February 2002 issue of Omega. In their commentary, the authors describe an article, published in the 1992 issue of Decision Sciences but not covered by the review, and claim that they had previously overcome three of the outstanding problems noted in Nickel and Rodríguez's review. This reply to the commentary proves that the conclusions drawn in the review by Nickel and Rodríguez are relevant in spite of the Brockett et al. arguments against them. In this reply, we show that the paper by Brockett et al. neither explains Bowman's paradox nor resolves its underlying problems. First, the definitions of risk and return measures are mathematically linked, and second, a cross-sectional methodology is used. We also provide our opinion on what would be necessary to bear in mind in order to extend any conclusion from Bowman's paradox to beta's death and vice versa

Survival as a success in the face of a scarcity of resources

From institutional, resource dependence and organizational ecology perspectives, there are two initial requirements for organizational survival: 1) there are sufficient resources in the niche, and 2) the organization can obtain these resources. A new concept, saturation, is created to measure the scarcity of resources by analyzing its influence on survival. However, organizational success also depends on organizational characteristics, which can hinder the securing of the resources necessary for survival. This article researches ownership structure as an organizational characteristic. These influences are tested utilizing data from a population of 1298 Spanish olive oil mills

IS THE RISK-RETURN PARADOX STILL ALIVE?

To date, the validity of empirical Bowman’s paradox papers that employ mean-variance approach for testing the risk/return relationship are inherently unverifiable and their results cannot be generalized. However, this problem can be overcome by developing an econometric model with two fundamental characteristics. The first one is the use of a time series model for each firm, avoiding the traditional cross-sectional analysis. The other one is to estimate a model with a single variable (the firm rate of return), but whose expectation and variance are mathematically related according to behavioral theories hypotheses, forming a heterocedastic model similar to “GARCH”. Our results agree with behavioral theories and show that these theories can also be carry out with market measures.

Author's Reply: Problems With Extending Conclusions Between Bowman's Paradox and Beta's Death.

This issue of Omega contains a commentary by P.L. Brockett, W.W. Cooper, K.H. Kwon, and T.W. Ruefli on the review of Bowman's paradox by Nickel and Rodríguez, published in the February 2002 issue of Omega. In their commentary, the authors describe an article, published in the 1992 issue of Decision Sciences but not covered by the review, and claim that they had previously overcome three of the outstanding problems noted in Nickel and Rodríguez's review. This reply to the commentary proves that the conclusions drawn in the review by Nickel and Rodríguez are relevant in spite of the Brockett et al. arguments against them. In this reply, we show that the paper by Brockett et al. neither explains Bowman's paradox nor resolves its underlying problems. First, the definitions of risk and return measures are mathematically linked, and second, a cross-sectional methodology is used. We also provide our opinion on what would be necessary to bear in mind in order to extend any conclusion from Bowman's paradox to beta's death and vice versa.Risk and return measures; Kinds of risk; Risk adverse; Risk prone;

PROBLEMS WITH EXTENDING CONCLUSIONS BETWEEN BOWMAN’S PARADOX AND BETA’S DEATHK

This issue of Omega contains a commentary by P.L. Brockett, W.W. Cooper, K.H. Kwon, and T.W. Ruefli on the review of Bowman’s paradox by Nickel and Rodríguez, published in the February 2002 issue of Omega. In their commentary, the authors describe an article, published in the 1992 issue of Decision Sciences but not covered by the review, and claim that they had previously overcome three of the outstanding problems noted in Nickel and Rodríguez’s review. This reply to the commentary proves that the conclusions drawn in the review by Nickel and Rodríguez are relevant in spite of the Brockett et al. arguments against them. In this reply, we show that the paper by Brockett et al. neither explains Bowman’s paradox nor resolves its underlying problems. First, the definitions of risk and return measures are mathematically linked, and second, a cross-sectional methodology is used. We also provide our opinion on what would be necessary to bear in mind in order to extend any conclusion from Bowman’s paradox to beta’s death and vice versa.

SURVIVAL AS A SUCCESS IN THE FACE OF A SCARCITY OF RESOURCES

From institutional, resource dependence and organizational ecology perspectives, there are two initial requirements for organizational survival: 1) there are sufficient resources in the niche, and 2) the organization can obtain these resources. A new concept, saturation, is created to measure the scarcity of resources by analyzing its influence on survival. However, organizational success also depends on organizational characteristics, which can hinder the securing of the resources necessary for survival. This article researches ownership structure as an organizational characteristic. These influences are tested utilizing data from a population of 1298 Spanish olive oil mills.

NEW SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN POPULATION ECOLOGY

In organizational ecology, we find the analysis of the impact exerted by competition between populations on vital ratios to be relatively under-developed. This paper intends to address this issue by developing new competition measurements whose common denominator is to give importance to organizational size. The application of these measurements in the case of competition between organizational forms in a population and their impact on mortality rates, demonstrates the usefulness of modelling competition on them. More specifically, results show how competition levels between firms in a population can be more adequately estimated when rival population mass is used (that is, the aggregate size of the organizations of which it is made up).

Consistent estimation of conditional conservatism

In this paper, we propose an econometric model that presents three advantages in relation to the Basu model: (1) it is robust to the aggregation problem; that is, we prove that the Basu model produces inconsistent estimations of conditional conservatism and that this problem is solved with our proposal; (2) it can produce firm-specific measures of conservatism by using time-series; and (3) it completes the understanding of the intercept in the Basu model by breaking it down between unconditional conservatism and the reversion of the differences between market and book values of equity. In other words, we can provide firm-specific measures of both conditional and unconditional conservatism with the same model. We demonstrate all these theoretical assertions using simulated dataAccounting conservatism, Conditional conservatism, Unconditional conservatism, The Basu model, Aggregation effect