Search results

Prior research indicates a discount for foreclosures sold through the multiple listing service (MLS). The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the effect of foreclosure on house value is consistent over submarkets based on property size in the US single family home market. The paper also tests whether the spillover effect of a nearby foreclosure on the specific property value varies across submarkets.

The full sample is split into four quartiles based on the square feet of all observations. The hedonic pricing models are estimated across full sample and three subsamples, in order to examine the effect of foreclosure on selling price. The number of neighborhood foreclosures within each combination of radii and timing intervals is used to investigate the spillover effect of a nearby foreclosure on the specific property value.

It is found that the quartile with smaller houses have the largest discount associated with a foreclosure of approximately 24 percent, while the medium and larger houses have a discount of approximately 19 percent. The results are robust after including a proxy for property quality. Second, the spillover effects of nearby foreclosures are lowest for small properties and highest for large properties. Adding additional controls for housing quality reduces the observed spillover effect.

The findings on foreclosure discount are consistent with Pennington‐Cross's argument, that the foreclosures in the smaller properties have lower appreciation than the larger ones. The paper's results about spillover effects also support the previous research, implying a greater stigma for foreclosed houses in neighborhoods with larger, more expensive houses.

The paper provides potential explanation for foreclosure discount and spillover effects of nearby foreclosure in the US single family residential markets.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how long a real estate investment trust (REIT) initial public offer (IPO) survives until a merger occurs, and to determine the impact of different firm characteristics that exist at the time of the IPO on that survival in the aftermarket period.

The authors apply an accelerated failure time (AFT) duration model to determine how long the IPO will survive until merger occurs.

The results indicate that the time from the IPO to an eventual merger increases with size, the age of the REIT at IPO, and the percentage of institutional ownership. In contrast, the authors find that the time until merger decreases with increased market performance prior to the time of the offering and with the number of additional IPOs occurring at the time of the IPO.

There is a growing body of research that suggests that IPOs might be motivated by subsequent mergers. An understanding of those characteristics that effect the time until a merger occurs these relationships will enable market participants and capital providers to make better decisions about proceeding with, or evaluating, a REIT IPO.

There is a significant body of research on IPOs in general; however, the findings of this research vary depending upon the industry being examined. Further, there are a limited number of papers on IPO aftermarket survival. This is the only paper on REIT IPO aftermarket survival.

Develops an original 12‐step management of technology protocol and applies it to 51 applications which range from Du Pont’s failure in Nylon to the Single Online Trade Exchange for Auto Parts procurement by GM, Ford, Daimler‐Chrysler and Renault‐Nissan. Provides many case studies with regards to the adoption of technology and describes seven chief technology officer characteristics. Discusses common errors when companies invest in technology and considers the probabilities of success. Provides 175 questions and answers to reinforce the concepts introduced. States that this substantial journal is aimed primarily at the present and potential chief technology officer to assist their survival and success in national and international markets.

The structure of the book is straightforward: we are introduced to the founding group and its students, and we are given compelling portraits of some neglected but important figures, Walton Hamilton and Morris Copeland, who stand in for the first and second generations. Next we proceed to the core of the book, the professional milieu of the institutionalist economists, the “personal, institutional, and programmatic bases” of the movement in the institutionalist academic strongholds – Chicago, Wisconsin, Columbia, Amherst, Brookings, and the National Bureau. Lastly, we get an account of the decline of institutionalism in the late 1930s and early to mid-1940s. Institutionalist economics was undone, Rutherford argues, by the failure of movement economists to reproduce themselves (partly caused by migration to law schools and other disciplines), by the Keynesian revolution's successful co-opting of the under-consumption hypothesis, and by the formalist turn of American economics in the late 1930s, hastened by the arrival of mathematically oriented European intellectuals fleeing Nazi Germany, and by European philosophies of science that reconceived what it meant to be scientific in the sciences of society.

A multidimensional understanding of human nature based on biology can provide a very useful framework of analysis and bring some understanding and coherence to the very fragmented perspectives within moral, political, and legal philosophy. A useful four-part framework of analysis can be based on the evolution of the brain as described by Paul MacLean (1973, 1990) and Sir John Eccles (1989). A similar pattern of development of our mental and moral capacities through experience in childhood was also described by Jean Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1981). This multidimensional understanding of human nature considers the individual, social, rational, and metaphysical perspectives. Because this four-part multidimensional understanding of human nature is based on a naturalized epistemology related to the development of our mental capacities in both evolution and through experience, this pattern can be seen across a wide variety of disciplines. Medical ethics, US constitutional democracy, and legal philosophy will be used as examples of the usefulness of this multidimensional understanding of human nature.

The topic of entrepreneurial intention, which refers to a person’s degree of interest in creating a new business venture, has received close scrutiny in the entrepreneurship literature. The empirical results regarding the relation between emotional intelligence (EI) and entrepreneurial intention were nevertheless mixed across studies. Based on fit theory and trait activation theory, the purpose of this paper is to explain the fundamental reason for the mixed findings in the extant literature thus far.

Random-effects meta-analyses, based on 12 studies (along with 12 effect sizes), were performed to not only investigate the overall relation between EI and entrepreneurial intention but also to examine the moderators (i.e. individualism (vs collectivism), masculinity (vs femininity), power distance, long-term orientation (vs short-term orientation), uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence (vs restraint)) that influence this relation.

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that EI is positively related to entrepreneurial intention; the positive relationship between EI and entrepreneurial intention is stronger in long-term-oriented cultures; and the positive relationship between EI and entrepreneurial intention does not significantly differ based on a culture’s level of collectivism, masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence.

This meta-analysis advances the current understanding of the relation between EI and entrepreneurial intention from cross-cultural perspectives.

This study is a comment on Geoffrey Hodgson’s “Discovering Institutionalism: One Person’s Journey.” In this self-description of the evolution of his thought, Hodgson distinctly acknowledges Thorstein Veblen’s influence on his own institutional perspective. This is the issue that I explore in this study. My argument is that Hodgson can be understood as a Veblenian, but he does not fit in the Veblenian notion that became popular in the mid-twentieth century. I argue that Hodgson’s notion of habits is the strongest Veblen’s influence on him, and his reconstitutive downward and upward causations are in line with Veblen’s institutionalism, albeit without the mid-twentieth century Veblenian writings. I also address the approach to the content of habits as a break between Hodgson’s and Veblen’s institutionalism. By offering an unprecedented Veblenianism, I argue that Hodgson’s institutional economics can be understood as a new institutionalist segmentation.