stock repurchase announcements: a test of market ... - Asbbs.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ASBBS E-Journal, Volume 4, No.1, 2008 Publishing in Management Journals Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion.” MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion. Retrieved December 11, 2007 from http://www.mla.org/pdf/task_force_tenure_promo.pdf. Murphy, L.. (2007, February 23). “Like countless other assistant professors before me, I walked right into the trap.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 53, Issue 25, C3. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i25/25c00301.htm. Nelson, C. (2004, January-February). “Tenure Expectations.” Academe. Retrieved December 8, 2007 from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/JF/LTE/nels.htm. Shaviro, S. (2004, May 27). “Publishing and tenure.” Digital digs. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://alexreid.typepad.com/digital_digs/2004/05/publishing_and_.html. “The Emerald Management Reviews 400: Accredited Journal Coverage List: General Management” (2004). Emerald Management Reviews. Retrieved October 4, 2004, from http://miranda.emeraldinsight.com/v1=373004/cl=89/nw=1/rpsv/reviews/coverage/genmanageme nt. Withey, L. (2007,Winter-Spring). “A Review of the MLA Report on Evaluating Scholarship.” The Exchange Online: The Newsletter of the Association of American University Presses. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://aaupblog.aaupnet.org/?p=26. APPENDIX Schools Ranked by Number of Articles Published in Each Tier Accompanied by Peer Rating Peer # Tier 1 Peer # Tier Peer # Tier 3 School Rating Arts School Rating 2 Arts School Rating Arts Penn 4.6 13.08 Penn 4.6 15.70 NYU 3.8 8.75 TX 4.1 11.75 Harvard 4.9 12.67 BC 3.6 6.17 IL 4 11.75 MI 4.6 11.08 PSU 3.8 6.04 MI 4.6 10.92 OSU 3.7 10.83 MI 4.6 5.67 WA 3.9 10.75 PSU 3.8 10.23 Cornell 4.6 5.50 Harvard 4.9 10.25 Rutgers 3.3 10.17 ASU 3.3 4.17 Stanford 4.9 10.25 MD 3.7 10.17 NM 2.6 4.13 TX A&M 3.5 10.13 Stanford 4.9 9.61 Pitt 3.4 4.08 ASU 3.3 8.75 IL 4 9.39 Portland 3.7 3.67 NYU 3.8 8.45 Boston U 3.4 9.39 GA Tech 4 3.58 Columbia 4.7 8.28 MIT 4.9 9.33 ME 2.6 3.50 WI 4.2 7.92 FSU 3.1 8.77 GA 3.5 3.17 MD 3.7 7.75 USC 3.9 8.77 Santa Clara 4 3.03 MI ST 3.5 7.15 Columbia 4.7 8.50 Carnegie Mellon 4.3 3.00 Cornell 4.6 6.70 IN 3.8 8.25 Cal Northridge 3.1 2.93 USC 3.9 6.67 TX A&M 3.5 7.32 Northwestern 4.4 2.75 PSU 3.8 6.25 Cornell 4.6 6.87 AL-Birm 2.8 2.67 Emory 4 6.23 CT 3.2 6.50 VA 4.3 2.50 MIT 4.9 5.58 MI ST 3.5 6.17 OSU 3.7 2.50 Boston U 3.4 5.50 NYU 3.8 5.33 Case Western 3.6 2.50 Purdue 3.8 5.42 GA St 2.7 5.03 Auburn 3 2.50 MN 3.8 5.17 DE 3.2 4.83 Loyola Marymount 3.8 2.33 OSU 3.7 5.08 BC 3.6 4.67 Cal Irvine 3.6 2.33 GA Tech 4 5.00 Case Western 3.6 4.58 Wake Forest 3.5 2.33 Cal Davis 3.8 5.00 LSU 2.9 4.42 MD 3.7 2.33 Cal Berkley 4.8 4.50 ASU 3.3 4.31 MI ST 3.5 2.33 IN 3.8 4.50 WA 3.9 4.25 George WA 3.4 2.25 CT 3.2 4.33 George Mason 3 4.25 Boston U 3.4 2.20 Cal Irvine 3.6 4.25 Cal Irvine 3.6 4.20 Temple 2.9 2.20 Chicago 4.6 4.00 UCFL 2.4 4.17 USC 3.9 2.17 Rutgers 3.3 4.00 Northwestern 4.4 4.08 Harvard 4.9 2.00 42
Fekula and Hornyak WA St Louis 4.1 3.50 NV 2.5 4.00 Stanford 4.9 2.00 BYU 3 3.42 VA 4.3 3.83 Rochester tech 4.1 2.00 Northwestern 4.4 3.42 WI 4.2 3.83 WA 3.9 2.00 NC 4.2 3.42 Miami 3.2 3.83 Hood 3 2.00 FL 3.6 3.33 OK 3 3.78 NV 2.5 2.00 Case Western 3.6 3.17 TX 4.1 3.67 Nat Louis 1.9 2.00 Carnegie Mellon 4.3 3.08 Emory 4 3.65 MIT 4.9 2.00 KY 3 3.08 GA Tech 4 3.58 Old Dominion 2.7 2.00 OK 3 3.00 Carnegie Mellon 4.3 3.50 Duquesne 2.6 2.00 S. Carolina 3 3.00 IL Chi 3.1 3.42 SIU 2.6 2.00 Cinn 2.7 2.92 WA ST 3 3.33 St Thomas 2.5 2.00 CO Denver 2.7 2.83 Houston 2.6 3.25 VA Tech 3.4 1.92 BC 3.6 2.83 ASU West #N/A 3.17 OK 3 1.67 Rice 4.2 2.67 Vanderbilt 4.1 3.08 IL Tech 2.9 1.67 Temple 2.9 2.67 Cal Riverside 3.2 3.00 Penn 4.6 1.50 FSU 3.1 2.50 BYU 3 3.00 Rice 4.2 1.50 IL Chi 3.1 2.50 Witchita St 2.3 3.00 Richmond 4.2 1.50 NC St 3.1 2.50 CO 3.5 2.94 Villanova 4.2 1.50 GA St 2.7 2.50 Temple 2.9 2.83 Creighton 4.1 1.50 OR 3.4 2.17 MN 3.8 2.67 MO 3.3 1.50 Pitt 3.4 2.17 Cinn 2.7 2.67 Chapman 3.2 1.50 NC-Charlotte 3.6 2.00 Notre Dame 3.9 2.58 DE 3.2 1.50 San Jose St 3.3 2.00 Tulane 3.5 2.57 American 3 1.50 Miami 3.2 2.00 KY 3 2.53 BYU 3 1.50 Naval Post Grad 1 2.00 Yale 4.9 2.50 WA ST 3 1.50 Memphis 2.4 2.00 Duke 4.6 2.50 TX Tech 2.7 1.50 Duke 4.6 1.92 Cal Davis 3.8 2.50 CO Denver 2.7 1.50 Notre Dame 3.9 1.92 FL 3.6 2.50 MN 3.8 1.33 UT 3.1 1.92 OR 3.4 2.50 MA 3.3 1.33 LA Tech 2.2 1.92 George WA 3.4 2.50 George Mason 3 1.33 VA Tech 3.4 1.83 CO Denver 2.7 2.50 Marquette 2.9 1.33 TX Arling 2.5 1.83 GA 3.5 2.42 USFL 2.6 1.33 Syracuse 3.4 1.83 Wake Forest 3.5 2.37 New Haven 2.3 1.33 NE 3.2 1.75 Rice 4.2 2.33 N. IA 3.2 1.25 AZ 3.6 1.67 Dartmouth 4.4 2.25 KY 3 1.25 Yale 4.9 1.58 TX Arling 2.5 2.25 LSU 2.9 1.25 UCLA 4.3 1.58 Georgetown 4 2.20 TX-Dal 2.7 1.25 GA 3.5 1.58 NC 4.2 2.17 FL Int 2.3 1.25 VA 4.3 1.50 SMU 3.1 2.17 SD ST 2.3 1.25 Tulane 3.5 1.50 New Orleans 2.3 2.17 TX Arling 2.5 1.17 American 3 1.50 Cal Berkley 4.8 2.00 NC 4.2 1.08 Houston 2.6 1.50 VA Tech 3.4 2.00 IN 3.8 1.08 IA 3.7 1.42 Denver 2.6 2.00 UCFL 2.4 1.08 UCFL 2.4 1.37 Saginaw Valley 2.6 2.00 New Orleans 2.3 1.08 Richmond 4.2 1.33 MO St Louis 2.5 2.00 Columbia 4.7 1.00 Vanderbilt 4.1 1.33 E TN ST 2 2.00 Dartmouth 4.4 1.00 MO 3.3 1.33 Upper IA 2 2.00 Georgetown 4 1.00 TN 3.2 1.33 Thunderbird #N/A 2.00 IA 3.7 1.00 SUNY Buf 3.1 1.33 MO 3.3 2.00 NC-Charlotte 3.6 1.00 Clark 3 1.33 NC St 3.1 1.92 Tulane 3.5 1.00 AR 2.8 1.33 UCLA 4.3 1.83 KS 3.4 1.00 Northeastern 3 1.33 WA St Louis 4.1 1.83 OR 3.4 1.00 SD ST 2.3 1.25 TN 3.2 1.83 St Joseph's 3.4 1.00 George WA 3.4 1.25 OK St 2.7 1.83 Rutgers 3.3 1.00 Wake Forest 3.5 1.17 Tulsa 2.6 1.83 San Jose St 3.3 1.00 Drexel 3 1.17 NM St 2.6 1.83 Baylor 3.2 1.00 WA ST 3 1.17 Chicago 4.6 1.75 NE 3.2 1.00 NC-Greensboro 2.7 1.17 Clemson 3.1 1.69 TN 3.2 1.00 FL Int 2.3 1.17 Appalachian St 3.5 1.67 N. IA 3.2 1.00 Cleveland St 2.2 1.17 S. Carolina 3 1.67 IL Chi 3.1 1.00 St Mary's 3.6 1.00 Northeastern 3 1.67 TX-San Ant 3.1 1.00 Cal Riverside 3.2 1.00 Drexel 3 1.58 Clark 3 1.00 MI-Dearborn 3 1.00 New Haven 2.3 1.50 SUNY-New Paltz 3 1.00 MN-ST Mankato 2.8 1.00 Mercer 3.7 1.33 CSU 2.9 1.00 NM 2.6 1.00 Pepperdine 3.2 1.33 OR-St 2.9 1.00 Saginaw Valley 2.6 1.00 TX-San Ant 3.1 1.33 Rider 2.9 1.00 Wayne St 2.6 1.00 Loyola Chi 2.8 1.33 Suffolk 2.9 1.00 MT ST 2.6 1.00 DePaul 2.8 1.33 DePaul 2.8 1.00 LA-Laf 2.1 1.00 FL Atlantic 2.2 1.33 Loyola Chi 2.8 1.00 Thunderbird 1 1.00 UT St 2.6 1.28 SW-MO 2.8 1.00 ASBBS E-Journal, Volume 4, No.1, 2008 43
Page 1 and 2: ASBBS eJournal Volume 4, No.1, 2008
Page 3 and 4: THE SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI
Page 5 and 6: Deductibility of investment fees…
Page 13 and 14: Mellon Bank, N.A. v. United States,
Page 15 and 16: Browning Questions for consideratio
Page 17 and 18: Browning to fully realize each of t
Page 19 and 20: Browning email and document exchang
Page 21 and 22: Browning VirtualOfficeInternational
Page 23 and 24: Dhareshwar and Bacon poor earnings
Page 25 and 26: Dhareshwar and Bacon 10 11-Apr-07 G
Page 27 and 28: Dhareshwar and Bacon 28 20-Jul-07 C
Page 29 and 30: Dhareshwar and Bacon study as it is
Page 31 and 32: Dhareshwar and Bacon AER 0 -0.02 -0
Page 33 and 34: Dhareshwar and Bacon shows the exis
Page 35 and 36: Fekula and Hornyak of qualit y rese
Page 37 and 38: Fekula and Hornyak order of authors
Page 39 and 40: Fekula and Hornyak Cumulative % of
Page 41 and 42: Fekula and Hornyak 3 Figure 3 allow
Page 43: Fekula and Hornyak Alonso, C.J., Da
Page 47 and 48: Fekula and Hornyak VA Commonwealth
Page 49 and 50: Grady, Maniam and Leavell economic
Page 51 and 52: Grady, Maniam and Leavell my brothe
Page 53 and 54: Grady, Maniam and Leavell Financial
Page 55 and 56: Grady, Maniam and Leavell security
Page 57 and 58: Grady, Maniam and Leavell Berghel,
Page 59 and 60: Mining for Knowledge..Higher Ed sho
Page 61 and 62: Mining for Knowledge..Higher Ed hea
Page 63 and 64: Mining for Knowledge..Higher Ed Ano
Page 65 and 66: Mining for Knowledge..Higher Ed Sol
Page 67 and 68: Kehoe and Whitten of no trust betwe
Page 69 and 70: Kehoe and Whitten economies. So why
Page 71 and 72: Kehoe and Whitten your view, what i
Page 73 and 74: Kehoe and Whitten system. Two facto
Page 75 and 76: Kehoe and Whitten Soon-Yond, Hong (
Page 77 and 78: King and Case Brigadier General or
Page 79 and 80: King and Case The Morning Report Bo
Page 81 and 82: King and Case Since soldiers were g
Page 83 and 84: King and Case It is evident from th
Page 85 and 86: King and Case example, officers who
Page 87 and 88: King and Case In an effort to contr
Page 89 and 90: King and Case The first control act
Page 91 and 92: King and Case APPENDIX - REPORT 1 A
Page 93 and 94: King and Case APPENDIX - REPORT 3 A
Page 95 and 96:
King and Case APPENDIX - REPORT 5 A
Page 97 and 98:
Kinsler and Bacon The purpose of th
Page 99 and 100:
Kinsler and Bacon The study selects
Page 101 and 102:
Kinsler and Bacon AA Alcoa July 12,
Page 103 and 104:
Kinsler and Bacon ELON -0.00155802
Page 105 and 106:
Kinsler and Bacon Chart 1: AVERAGE
Page 107 and 108:
Kinsler and Bacon Marks, Kenneth R.
Page 109 and 110:
Koyame-Marsh with Angola and Congo
Page 111 and 112:
Koyame-Marsh in the 1980s while the
Page 113 and 114:
Koyame-Marsh Table B1. Congo’s Ke
Page 115 and 116:
Koyame-Marsh UNITA’s war against
Page 117 and 118:
Koyame-Marsh Given the fact that fo
Page 119 and 120:
Koyame-Marsh Box 2. Selected Socio-
Page 121 and 122:
Koyame-Marsh CONCLUSION The paper a
Page 123 and 124:
Koyame-Marsh Nations Homepage, 12 A
Page 125 and 126:
MacArthur, Houmes and Stranahan vol
Page 127 and 128:
MacArthur, Houmes and Stranahan OLi
Page 129 and 130:
MacArthur, Houmes and Stranahan Kei
Page 131 and 132:
Lavin was in prior years. When I go
Page 133 and 134:
THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION OF QUALITY:
Page 135 and 136:
Spiritual Dimension ..Biblical Pers
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
HOUSING INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
Page 145 and 146:
Table 1. Summary Statistics of Soci
Page 147 and 148:
Property Taxes in Indiana new housi
Page 149 and 150:
Property Taxes in Indiana In 20 03
Page 151 and 152:
ABSTRACT Major trends in hotel gues
Page 153 and 154:
Hotel Guestroom Technology The impa
Page 155 and 156:
Hotel Guestroom Technology ourselve
Page 157 and 158:
Hotel Guestroom Technology booking
Page 159 and 160:
Hotel Guestroom Technology Most peo
Page 161 and 162:
Hotel Guestroom Technology Minibar
Page 163 and 164:
AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ACCOUN
Page 165 and 166:
Accounting for Income Taxes 1920-19
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH MODELING: A LONG
Page 175 and 176:
Growth …Analysis of Harley-Davids
Page 177 and 178:
Growth …Analysis of Harley-Davids
Page 179 and 180:
FIRM EXPANSION AND REGIONAL DEVELOP
Page 181 and 182:
Importance of Geographic Space and
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
INNOVATIVE HRM: HOW HR ACTIVITIES C
Page 201 and 202:
Innovative HRM intention would be t
Page 203 and 204:
strategy implementation best. It se
Page 205 and 206:
Innovative HRM It must be noted tha
Page 207 and 208:
approach to compensation does not o
Page 209 and 210:
Allied Signal, Dupont, Honeywell, B
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 5: General Schemata of BSC:
Page 213 and 214:
Innovative HRM where open communica
Page 215:
Zomorrodian, A (1999) “Learning O
show all

stock repurchase announcements: a test of market ... - Asbbs.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?