AHHHHH!!!!
At the end of this week I'm going to have a whole research paper! It's really hard to believe how long I've come since my very first post, but I'm happy for this entire class and project. It's been a really good time. So without any further delay, I'm going to launch into my post.
The general structure of discussion sections for Finance papers doesn't vary much from the standard way that discussions are written.
As in Nissim and Liu's study on IPO valuation, discussions for results begin with an explanation of the pricing errors for the multiples (ie. why specific multiples preformed in specific ways). Often, as studies from researcher Ashwath Damodaran and Erik Lie suggest, these explanations are rooted in properties of the industry being analyzed, or the types comparable firms obtained within the results. Because methods are integral to the way the results within the study, discussion sections also talk about the way in which the methods were limited and how these limitations contributed to the results obtained within the study. In doing so, finance papers are able to connect their results, not only to a larger context of analysis available within literature reviews, but also to those in methods sections.
This connection allows the future directions sections of finance papers to be especially well-developed, connecting areas of the methods and literature review to suggest future directions in a specific industry or case-study.
I plan on incorporating all of these aspects into my own discussion section. Here's my plan:
First, after reiterating the purpose of my study, I'm going to discuss the implications of my results in the context of my initial question. Then, I'm going to expand the implications of my results to begin explaining why they were a certain way. Essentially, because the firms I picked were not only representative of Snapchat, but most other Social Media IPOs, the results of my study indicate that there is no optimally accurate comparable firm multiple for valuing Social Media IPOs.
To explain the results of my study I am going to include two "levels". The first includes an explanation for how conventional comparable firm multiples fail for Social Media IPOs, and the second is an explanation of how the method I used to pick comparable firms may have been flawed for the Social Media Industry in particular. From then, I'm going to transition into a discussion of the limitations of my paper. The very first limitation rests on one of my explanations: the method for choosing comparable firms. The method I for choosing comparable firms was used in a study on Biotechnology firms, which have a substantial amount of intangible assets (like research and development), similar to Social Media firms. It turns out however, that social media firms have such high investor sentiment and intangible assets that my application of the method was flawed. This was something I could only have seen after my research study, and it draws me to a discussion of future directions.
Ultimately, the method I used within the study is the only one that has ever been used in finance research. Therefore, another means of sorting and finding comparable firm groups would be an interesting avenue for future direction. I also present two or three other avenues for future directions based on other limitations and explanations I came across in my study.
Finally, I'm going to end my paper with a description of the implications of my future directions. This is relatively simple for me: it provides institutional and individual investors a better means for pricing the social media industry as well as other largely growth-oriented industries, which could be incredibly useful in the future with the shift towards more technology based companies carrying lower barriers to entry, more competition, and strong emphasis on growth.
Anywho, that's all I have right now. (645)
Tired As Always,
Akash
At the end of this week I'm going to have a whole research paper! It's really hard to believe how long I've come since my very first post, but I'm happy for this entire class and project. It's been a really good time. So without any further delay, I'm going to launch into my post.
The general structure of discussion sections for Finance papers doesn't vary much from the standard way that discussions are written.
As in Nissim and Liu's study on IPO valuation, discussions for results begin with an explanation of the pricing errors for the multiples (ie. why specific multiples preformed in specific ways). Often, as studies from researcher Ashwath Damodaran and Erik Lie suggest, these explanations are rooted in properties of the industry being analyzed, or the types comparable firms obtained within the results. Because methods are integral to the way the results within the study, discussion sections also talk about the way in which the methods were limited and how these limitations contributed to the results obtained within the study. In doing so, finance papers are able to connect their results, not only to a larger context of analysis available within literature reviews, but also to those in methods sections.
This connection allows the future directions sections of finance papers to be especially well-developed, connecting areas of the methods and literature review to suggest future directions in a specific industry or case-study.
I plan on incorporating all of these aspects into my own discussion section. Here's my plan:
First, after reiterating the purpose of my study, I'm going to discuss the implications of my results in the context of my initial question. Then, I'm going to expand the implications of my results to begin explaining why they were a certain way. Essentially, because the firms I picked were not only representative of Snapchat, but most other Social Media IPOs, the results of my study indicate that there is no optimally accurate comparable firm multiple for valuing Social Media IPOs.
To explain the results of my study I am going to include two "levels". The first includes an explanation for how conventional comparable firm multiples fail for Social Media IPOs, and the second is an explanation of how the method I used to pick comparable firms may have been flawed for the Social Media Industry in particular. From then, I'm going to transition into a discussion of the limitations of my paper. The very first limitation rests on one of my explanations: the method for choosing comparable firms. The method I for choosing comparable firms was used in a study on Biotechnology firms, which have a substantial amount of intangible assets (like research and development), similar to Social Media firms. It turns out however, that social media firms have such high investor sentiment and intangible assets that my application of the method was flawed. This was something I could only have seen after my research study, and it draws me to a discussion of future directions.
Ultimately, the method I used within the study is the only one that has ever been used in finance research. Therefore, another means of sorting and finding comparable firm groups would be an interesting avenue for future direction. I also present two or three other avenues for future directions based on other limitations and explanations I came across in my study.
Finally, I'm going to end my paper with a description of the implications of my future directions. This is relatively simple for me: it provides institutional and individual investors a better means for pricing the social media industry as well as other largely growth-oriented industries, which could be incredibly useful in the future with the shift towards more technology based companies carrying lower barriers to entry, more competition, and strong emphasis on growth.
Anywho, that's all I have right now. (645)
Tired As Always,
Akash
Hey Akash!
ReplyDeleteLet me start off with saying that you're lucky your plan for the discussion section is standard throughout finance papers. Not to say you've got it easy, but you've got the advantage of having lots of models to go off of.
I like how you're thinking ahead about how you're going to connect all of the sections of your paper together and having those connections is going to be especially important in in such a highly technical paper like yours. It'll keep the reader fresh.
I also really like how you seem to be focusing on the more general limitations of your methods and paper instead of the nitty-gritty specifics because it'll help you keep your discussion section concise.
Other than that, it seems like you have a pretty clear idea of what you want to include in your sections and you've figured out how to organize it so that they're clear and short.
Keep it up, bub!
Whaddup bro?!? How was the Spartan Race by the way? It looked like you guys had a fun time with that. Also, I just wanted to say that I related so much with your signature, “tired as always,” as I am sure that most research kids will agree.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, onto your research. Right now, it seems like you have a clear understanding of how you are going to organize you discussion section and transition from one idea to the next. It seems like finance papers have a generally established structure, and so that will make things at least a little bit easier for you. As of right now, it seems like you have what you need to write your discussion section, so I think you are ready to be doing that. If something pops up where you need a second opinion on something, feel free to reach out. Keep up the hard work and I look forward to seeing the end product!
Akash!!! It's been a while since our last Spartan adventure but I am happy to be reading your blog. Although it's my first time familiarizing myself with your research and I am not that familiar with the financial world, let me offer you some advice that I can give you.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I really like how you keep mentioning future research. While this will most likely be near the end of your discussion, I do agree that it is necessary to keep finding limitations in your study that could be accounted for in future studies especially since you couldn't have found some of them until after you conducted the research itself. Replication and continuing studies is what makes research such a powerful tool.
Likewise, I would make sure to keep bringing up your hypothesis/research question to make sure that your reader stays on the same page all the way through your paper. Thus he or she can consider what you are trying to answer consistently as you bring up more and more evidence for your final conclusion. Anyway, keep it up my dude -- you're almost there!!!
You talk about a potential other way of analyzing and thinking about the data, considering that your method is the only one that's ever been used in finance studies. However, that's rather vague, and if you're going to provide a "new direction" it needs to be something more specific than "think differently than anyone else in the field ever has." As in, of course that would be valuable and important, but it's not that helpful if you just put it that way.
ReplyDelete