Sustainability reporting is a major, and contentious, topic. I wholeheartedly encourage academics to engage in topics like this — they matter. In theory, such engagement makes academic work extremely relevant. Consultants produce reports but sometimes these are over-optimistic, biased, or just plain wrong. This means academics can have an important place in improving the quality…
Category: Total Q
Not All Papers Must Feature Firm Performance
Today I’m discussing another paper that uses Total Q. I won’t spend too long on that. I have said plenty elsewhere about how bad Total Q is as a measure of firm performance. In this post, I want to somewhat sympathize with the authors of a paper that uses Total Q. I will tell a…
A Total Q Mystery: Understanding Academic Marketing
I was disappointed to read Du and Osmonbekov‘s 2020 paper in the International Journal of Research in Marketing, see here. The authors clearly don’t mind hard work and I’m sure they have useful empirical skills. Still they aren’t young researchers making errors or rushing a paper to the market. They can do better. It is…
Adjusting For Unrecorded Intangibles Is Hard
I have previously written about the good, and not so good, parts of Alexander Edeling’s, Shuba Srinivasan’s, and Dominique M. Hanssens’ 2020 review paper on the marketing finance interface, see here. Here I will comment on a specific assertion they make that strikes me as misleading. It is important to highlight this as I fear…
Total Q Measures Investment Opportunities Not Firm Value
Papers in finance can sometimes get a hefty citation count boost when they get picked up in marketing. Peters and Taylor‘s 2017 paper on Total q is a nice paper. They make the very reasonable assertion that their Total q measures investment opportunities better than current Tobin’s q approximations. While I’m not a finance person…
