IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v31y2003i5p413-416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Author's reply

Author

Listed:
  • Rodríguez, Manuel Cano
  • Nickel, Manuel Núñez

Abstract

This issue of Omega contains a commentary by P.L. Brockett, W.W. Cooper, K.H. Kwon, and T.W. Ruefli on the review of Bowman's paradox by Nickel and Rodríguez, published in the February 2002 issue of Omega. In their commentary, the authors describe an article, published in the 1992 issue of Decision Sciences but not covered by the review, and claim that they had previously overcome three of the outstanding problems noted in Nickel and Rodríguez's review. This reply to the commentary proves that the conclusions drawn in the review by Nickel and Rodríguez are relevant in spite of the Brockett et al. arguments against them. In this reply, we show that the paper by Brockett et al. neither explains Bowman's paradox nor resolves its underlying problems. First, the definitions of risk and return measures are mathematically linked, and second, a cross-sectional methodology is used. We also provide our opinion on what would be necessary to bear in mind in order to extend any conclusion from Bowman's paradox to beta's death and vice versa.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodríguez, Manuel Cano & Nickel, Manuel Núñez, 2003. "Author's reply," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 413-416, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:31:y:2003:i:5:p:413-416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(03)00057-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannes M. Lehner, 2000. "Shifts of Reference Points for Framing of Strategic Decisions and Changing Risk-Return Associations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 63-76, January.
    2. Edward H. Bowman, 1984. "Content Analysis of Annual Reports for Corporate Strategy and Risk," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 61-71, February.
    3. Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
    4. James M. Collins & Timothy W. Ruefli, 1992. "Strategic Risk: An Ordinal Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(12), pages 1707-1731, December.
    5. Brockett, Patrick L. & Cooper, William W. & Kwon, K. H. & Ruefli, T. W., 2003. "Commentary on "a review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox by M.N. Nickel and M.C. Rodriguez"," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 409-412, October.
    6. Deephouse, David L. & Wiseman, Robert M., 2000. "Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 463-482, August.
    7. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    8. Timothy W. Ruefli & James M. Collins & Joseph R. Lacugna, 1999. "Risk measures in strategic management research: auld lang syne?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 167-194, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Ooi, Chai-Aun & Hooy, Chee-Wooi, 2022. "Muslim CEOs, risk-taking and firm performance," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Ranjan Das Gupta & Rajesh Pathak, 2018. "Firm’s Risk-Return Association Facets and Prospect Theory Findings—An Emerging versus Developed Country Context," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-32, December.
    4. Henkel, Joachim, 2007. "The Risk-Return Paradox for Strategic Management: Disentangling True and Spurious Effects," CEPR Discussion Papers 6538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. 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.
    6. Núñez-Nickel, Manuel & Cano Rodríguez, Manuel, 2002. "Comportamiento heterocedástico entre rentabilidad y riesgo," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB db021710, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    7. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    8. Pino G. Audia & Henrich R. Greve, 2006. "Less Likely to Fail: Low Performance, Firm Size, and Factory Expansion in the Shipbuilding Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 83-94, January.
    9. Cano Rodríguez, Manuel & Núñez-Nickel, Manuel, 2002. "Is the risk-return paradox still alive?," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb024818, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    10. Núñez-Nickel, Manuel & Cano Rodríguez, Manuel, 2002. "Las tres caras del riesgo estratégico: riesgo sistemático, riesgo táctico y riesgo idiosincrásico," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB db021508, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    11. 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.
    12. Díez-Esteban, José María & García-Gómez, Conrado Diego & López-Iturriaga, Félix Javier & Santamaría-Mariscal, Marcos, 2017. "Corporate risk-taking, returns and the nature of major shareholders: Evidence from prospect theory," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 900-911.
    13. DasGupta, Ranjan & Dhochak, Monika, 2021. "Risk-Antecedents of Firms and Strategic Mediators – New Evidence from a Cross-Country Analysis," American Business Review, Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, vol. 24(1), pages 3-35, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Delis, Manthos D. & Hasan, Iftekhar & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2015. "Firms' risk endogenous to strategic management choices," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 16/2015, Bank of Finland.
    16. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    17. Hsieh, Linda H.Y. & Rodrigues, Suzana B. & Child, John, 2010. "Risk perception and post-formation governance in international joint ventures in Taiwan: The perspective of the foreign partner," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 288-303, September.
    18. Delis, Manthos D. & Hasan, Iftekhar & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2015. "Firms’ risk endogenous to strategic management choices," Research Discussion Papers 16/2015, Bank of Finland.
    19. Brockett, Patrick L. & Cooper, William W. & Kwon, K. H. & Ruefli, T. W., 2003. "Author's response," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 417-421, October.
    20. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.

    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:eee:jomega:v:31:y:2003:i:5:p:413-416. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.