WELL,
Today's been a really long day. I ran a crazy long race with my friends, and it was pretty actually really exhausting. The problem was that I only had like 5 glasses of water before the race, and I ended up cramping a bit farther than halfway through. AT LEAST I FINISHED THOUGH.
Anyways, I'm going to start my blog post and talk for a bit because I really want to keep my mind off of what's going to happen to my body tomorrow.
So far I've already finished an outline of my results section, and I'm working on writing my results section up currently.
For the most part, among all finance studies that handle comparable firm multiples, the results section is rather short. Usually this is because researchers (such as Guo, Nissim, and Kim) simply present the general accuracy of the multiples and then move on to the discussion section to talk about whichever multiple performed the best and the reasons for its performance.
Because I am writing to a more lay, and less technical audience, however, my results section will greatly expand upon the format of the results section for most finance papers.
First, I will present the findings for the comparable firms of each of the five firms I analyzed within my section. The information will be in a table and will have each column as a different firm and its comparable firms. Thus, the table allows someone looking at the firms to determine which are more alike and which are more different. For example, Facebook and LinkedIn have a common comparable firm.
Next, I will establish the threshold for an effective multiple. Although this will only take a sentence, it is essential for later parts of the results section, which will use this threshold to draw conclusions from the data.
After establishing a threshold, I will begin presenting all of the data I have collected for the five firms. This will consist of five tables each with the harmonic mean, mean, median, and average accuracy of each of the multiples.
After establishing the table, I will then begin to make the first of my conclusions from the data in my results section. To determine which of the three methods (harmonic mean, mean, or median) is the best, I will present a table of p-values for paired two-tailed significance tests for the estimates. I was not able to conduct independent, multi sample significance tests, as the methods were not entirely independent of one another and relied on a common set of data that varied between successive trials.
Because my table shows that there is not significant difference between any of the three methods, to determine which multiple is the best, I will present a two figures. The first figure is to determine whether any multiple is significantly better than the others. I used the average error for each multiple (because the three methods were essentially the same), and performed significance tests two determine if the errors were different than one another. This would indicate that the multiple that caused these errors was significantly different from the others. Since each firm was a different "trial", the different trials are not independent of one another. Thus, I had to perform a paired two-tailed t-test for these values. My results show that no multiple is significantly different from the others.
The final figure in my study shows a comparative bar chart of the overall error of each of the multiples (taken using an average of averages) against the maximum threshold for error (15% error). The chart clearly shows how no multiple is even close to being considered effective. Thus, the final two figures helps me reach my ultimate conclusion in my results section: that no multiple is more effective than the others, and no multiple is effective at valuing Social Media IPOs.
Anywhoozies, that's all I have for now. I'm going to go sleep. (657)
Night,
Akash
Today's been a really long day. I ran a crazy long race with my friends, and it was pretty actually really exhausting. The problem was that I only had like 5 glasses of water before the race, and I ended up cramping a bit farther than halfway through. AT LEAST I FINISHED THOUGH.
Anyways, I'm going to start my blog post and talk for a bit because I really want to keep my mind off of what's going to happen to my body tomorrow.
So far I've already finished an outline of my results section, and I'm working on writing my results section up currently.
For the most part, among all finance studies that handle comparable firm multiples, the results section is rather short. Usually this is because researchers (such as Guo, Nissim, and Kim) simply present the general accuracy of the multiples and then move on to the discussion section to talk about whichever multiple performed the best and the reasons for its performance.
Because I am writing to a more lay, and less technical audience, however, my results section will greatly expand upon the format of the results section for most finance papers.
First, I will present the findings for the comparable firms of each of the five firms I analyzed within my section. The information will be in a table and will have each column as a different firm and its comparable firms. Thus, the table allows someone looking at the firms to determine which are more alike and which are more different. For example, Facebook and LinkedIn have a common comparable firm.
Next, I will establish the threshold for an effective multiple. Although this will only take a sentence, it is essential for later parts of the results section, which will use this threshold to draw conclusions from the data.
After establishing a threshold, I will begin presenting all of the data I have collected for the five firms. This will consist of five tables each with the harmonic mean, mean, median, and average accuracy of each of the multiples.
After establishing the table, I will then begin to make the first of my conclusions from the data in my results section. To determine which of the three methods (harmonic mean, mean, or median) is the best, I will present a table of p-values for paired two-tailed significance tests for the estimates. I was not able to conduct independent, multi sample significance tests, as the methods were not entirely independent of one another and relied on a common set of data that varied between successive trials.
Because my table shows that there is not significant difference between any of the three methods, to determine which multiple is the best, I will present a two figures. The first figure is to determine whether any multiple is significantly better than the others. I used the average error for each multiple (because the three methods were essentially the same), and performed significance tests two determine if the errors were different than one another. This would indicate that the multiple that caused these errors was significantly different from the others. Since each firm was a different "trial", the different trials are not independent of one another. Thus, I had to perform a paired two-tailed t-test for these values. My results show that no multiple is significantly different from the others.
The final figure in my study shows a comparative bar chart of the overall error of each of the multiples (taken using an average of averages) against the maximum threshold for error (15% error). The chart clearly shows how no multiple is even close to being considered effective. Thus, the final two figures helps me reach my ultimate conclusion in my results section: that no multiple is more effective than the others, and no multiple is effective at valuing Social Media IPOs.
Anywhoozies, that's all I have for now. I'm going to go sleep. (657)
Night,
Akash
Hey Akash!
ReplyDeleteWoohoo! Good job on finishing the Spartan Race, but yeah... hydration is key 🔑. I really like how you're conveying the meaning of your research in a clearer manner than when we used to meet with Mrs. Haag about it, and you're on top of it with that results section outline.
I had a few questions about what you had as an outline for your results section... how do establish the "threshold" for an effective multiple? Is this calculated from the data itself (like the error term, perhaps) or from a source in your literature review? You may want to spend more than a sentence on this justification, since your reader will want to completely understand this criteria.
For your statistical analysis, I see that you're planning on doing a paired 2-sample t-test, which sounds perfect. Are you going to compare one to each of the other ones, as t-tests are limited in comparing only 2 samples (hence the name lol)? I get that this would work, but you're going to have to do it several times and get a few p-values, if I'm not mistaken. You might want to look into ANOVA (analysis of variance) statistics, which can give you multivariate models and p-value. This might be better for you if you can pull it off (you might need R studio :-o).
Either way, I think you did a nice job explaining your results in terms of key figures. I would've liked a bit more on the sources, even if your research is pretty novel.
Keep up the fantastic work! You're lioooon order...🦁
Yash
(268)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAkash,
ReplyDeleteAll of these financial terms went over my head. It obviously is not your fault. After all, this is the first time I am looking at your blog, and also I’m stupid, so…
But it is still important to remember that your AP reader may be overwhelmed because he or she is not so fluent in all these financial terms (which I am sure you explained in your lit. review).
Going off of the previous point, be careful not to confuse and bombard you reader with too many graphs and tables. You should use all your visual aids as a supplement, not as a substitute for what you write in your result section.
Overall, I think you have a great project, and I am really INTERESTed in reading your whole paper so I can DEPRECIATE your results and not feel unACCOUNTED for. (Bet you didn’t see all these puns INCOMEing).
Hi Akash,
ReplyDeleteI keep going in and out of sleep because my body actually cant keep me stable. Hopefully you are feeling better (although its probably worse for you). This is the first time I've stumbled across your blog, so I find this effective multiple rather confusing. Is there actually no difference between these 5 variables? Why can't you just use all 5 for your analysis? The ultimate conclusion of your results is inconclusive, but I still think you need to explain why you used the p-value you did because you got inconclusive results. With 5 variables and some getting lost in the process, you may have a mess brewing on your hands. Make sure to simplify it.
-
Ashwath V.