18693 research outputs found
Sort by
CFO Narcissism and the Power of Persuasion Over Analysts: A Mixed-Methods Approach
No full textWe study the role of CFO narcissism in the intent and ability to positively influence sell-side analysts’ perceptions of the firm. Consistent with narcissists casting favorable impressions on others, we find CFO narcissism is associated with overly optimistic analyst valuations. We then study public persuasion attempts by analyzing conference call transcripts and private persuasion attempts through a laboratory study. In the conference call setting, we show that narcissistic CFOs use more persuasive language and are more inclined to call on bearish analysts, both of which we link to price target revisions following the call. In the lab study, we simulate a one-on-one conversation and find that narcissists are especially more likely to use coercive methods to induce higher valuations from analysts. Collectively, we show that narcissistic CFOs use persuasion to favorably influence analysts’ perceptions of firm value
Exploring the Relationship Between Architectural Accuracy and Gameplay Flow and Its Impact on Player Immersion
No full textThis thesis topic discusses the relationship between architectural accuracy and gameplay flow and the impact it has on the player’s immersion. The researcher created two levels, a control and a test level, to compare a level that is focused primarily on architectural accuracy and another level that breaks down or “warps” the architectural accuracy in favor of improving gameplay flow. The researcher aimed to explore the important aspects of level building, specifically the aesthetics, architectural accuracy, and gameplay in each space and how those qualities affect the player’s immersion
Who Regulates Abortion Now?
No full textContrary to both conventional wisdom and recent Supreme Court pronouncements, abortion is not simply a matter of state oversight. For a quarter century now, the federal government has been intimately involved in “regulating” abortion through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval and continued oversight over mifepristone and other abortion medications. This Article considers the extent to which federal abortion law both coexists and conflicts with state law, as it does with most areas of medicine. We evaluate which body of law is better able at achieving the goals of modern medicine that is evidence-based, ethical, consistent, and individualized
A Novel Approach To Model The Pion Structure Using Advanced Polynomial Functions
No full textIn the coming years, new experiments at the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will provide unprecedented insight into the building blocks of matter. To make the most of these opportunities, scientists must reduce uncertainties in the theoretical models that connect what we observe in experiments to what is happening inside particles like protons and pions. A critical part of these models involves describing how a particles momentum is shared among its internal components – quarks and gluons.
This work focuses on improving how we model the internal structure of the pion. We propose a new approach using smooth, flexible mathematical curves – called B´ezier curves – to describe this structure without overly rigid assumptions. Integrating this method into commonly used analytical tools allows us to study how different modeling choices affect our results. As future experiments deliver more data, our approach will help uncover a broader understanding of the pions inner structure and the forces that hold nuclei together
Liquidity Provision in a One-Sided Market: The Role of Dealer-Hedge Fund Relationships
No full textDuring the bond market liquidity crisis of March 2020, dealers connected with corporate bond trading hedge funds charged lower transaction costs on bonds subject to mutual fund fire sales. This effect was particularly strong in bonds with limited alternative buyers, such as insurance companies. Further, dealers with stronger hedge fund connections committed less capital to inventories. Despite selling equities and U.S. Treasuries, hedge funds purchased corporate bonds in March 2020, partly due to the widening CDS-bond basis. Our findings suggest that hedge fund connections help dealers overcome search frictions and increase their willingness to provide liquidity in a one-sided market
Breaking Kayfabe
No full textThe membership of the Supreme Court affects how it decides cases. This maxim is well accepted among the public. But it is exceedingly rare for Supreme Court opinions to acknowledge this fact, even when it provides the best explanation for the Court’s behavior. And in the unusual instance in which Supreme Court opinions do refer to changes in the Court’s membership, it is jarring. This Article explores two questions that flow from these uncontroversial facts. First, why does it happen so rarely? Second, why does it happen at all?
To answer these questions, the Article looks to an unusual source: professional wrestling. Wrestlers have a term for the official story told to the audience, the fiction the performers maintain for the benefit of the show: kayfabe. While kayfabe was once a strict trade code of silence, nowadays just about everyone knows that wrestling is staged. Yet even today, because it is essential to the performance, wrestlers rarely “break” kayfabe—and betray the fiction—in the ring. Nevertheless, breaking kayfabe is more common than it once was, in part because performers can break kayfabe to advance their strategic goals in and out of the ring.
It is the same with judicial opinions. Judges adhere to a norm analogous to kayfabe when they refuse to explain the Court’s behavior by reference to changes in the Court’s composition. Judicial kayfabe demands that opinions explain the Court’s behavior according to legal rules and principles, even when criticizing it. This norm leads to some unusually artificial opinions that seem oblivious to the political forces that influence and constitute the Court’s membership. Kayfabe also causes readers to be jarred by Supreme Court opinions that break this norm. Although such opinions are unusual, they are most frequent in the most ideologically charged and high-profile cases.
Viewing judicial opinions through the lens of kayfabe helps explain the reasons for both the norm and its transgression. Most of the time, kayfabe promotes legitimacy and the public’s faith in the Court’s decision-making. But in the biggest cases, those benefits are outweighed by the costs that the fiction imposes. This Article therefore offers a qualified defense of breaking kayfabe, arguing that it is appropriate when the stakes are highest and alternative explanations for the Court’s behavior are weak