Controlling for Variable Liquidity and Selection Bias in Indices of Private Asset Market Values

Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Fisher ◽  
Dean H. Gatzlaff ◽  
David M. Geltner ◽  
Donald R. Haurin
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 742-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhan ◽  
Rebecca M. Doerfler ◽  
Jeffrey C. Fink

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-353
Author(s):  
Kang, Won-Chul ◽  
kim, won-hee

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-289
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Liziński ◽  
Marcin Bukowski ◽  
Anna Wróblewska

Projects for flood protection are increasingly the subject of investment projects in the field of water management. This is related to the increasing frequency of worldwide threats caused by extreme weather conditions, including extremely high rainfall causing floods. Technical and nontechnical flood protection measures are also increasing in importance. In the decision-making process, it is necessary to take into account both the costs and benefits of avoiding losses, including an analysis of social benefits, whose valuation of non-market goods is an essential element. A comprehensive account of projects in the field of flood protection based on the estimated costs and benefits of the investment allows the economic efficiency from a general social point of view to be determined. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of investment projects have mainly taken into account only categories and market values. The aim of the article is to identify the possibilities to expand the values of non-market assessments and categories formulated on the basis of the theoretical economics of the environment. 


2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (05) ◽  
pp. 343-343

We have to report marginal changes in the empirical type I error rates for the cut-offs 2/3 and 4/7 of Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 of the paper “Influence of Selection Bias on the Test Decision – A Simulation Study” by M. Tamm, E. Cramer, L. N. Kennes, N. Heussen (Methods Inf Med 2012; 51: 138 –143). In a small number of cases the kind of representation of numeric values in SAS has resulted in wrong categorization due to a numeric representation error of differences. We corrected the simulation by using the round function of SAS in the calculation process with the same seeds as before. For Table 4 the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.180323 to 0.153494. For Table 5 the value for the cut-off 4/7 changes from 0.144729 to 0.139626 and the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.114885 to 0.101773. For Table 6 the value for the cut-off 4/7 changes from 0.125528 to 0.122144 and the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.099488 to 0.090828. The sentence on p. 141 “E.g. for block size 4 and q = 2/3 the type I error rate is 18% (Table 4).” has to be replaced by “E.g. for block size 4 and q = 2/3 the type I error rate is 15.3% (Table 4).”. There were only minor changes smaller than 0.03. These changes do not affect the interpretation of the results or our recommendations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document