IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v12y1991i3p231-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk‐return associations: Paradox or artifact? An empirically tested explanation

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Wiseman
  • Philip Bromiley

Abstract

This study tests Fiegenbaum and Thomas's suggestion that Bowman's risk‐return paradox may be due to measuring risk by variance in data that have trends. Results indicate that trends in ROA and ROE cannot explain the pattern of risk‐return associations found in previous research.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Wiseman & Philip Bromiley, 1991. "Risk‐return associations: Paradox or artifact? An empirically tested explanation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 231-241, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:12:y:1991:i:3:p:231-241
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250120306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120306
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.4250120306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Xu & Vermeulen, Freek, 2021. "High risk, low return (and vice versa): the effect of product innovation on firm performance in a transition economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Metin Coskun & Gulsah Kulali, 2016. "Relationship between Accounting Based Risk and Return: Analysis for Turkish Companies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(4), pages 240-240, March.
    3. Farrukh Mahmood & Robert M. Kunst, 2023. "Modeling nonlinear in Bowman’s paradox: the case of Pakistan," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2357-2372, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:12:y:1991:i:3:p:231-241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.