on the other hand, sometimes, you have to give something a name just to get going. imho, it'd rather call some funny thing/irregularity that i find 'dark matter' or state a new formula where planets rotate around some fictional points in spacetime to have a basis for something new. or for something to falsifiy.
i for one think that this very process is the true essence of science.
this phenomenon is not only linked to size. usually, pure stock mergers go at a discount (for the bidding company) because investors are anticipating that they are being tricked and their interest are being dilluted. see myers and majluf (1984) and myers (1984) for further reference on this.
sometimes it feels good to be a wee bit of a finance nerd...;)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure these developments make up for a new and interesting twist in the current doping bruhaha in endurance sports, i.e., pro cycling...
Last time I checked, the PNAS was a non-referreed publication, which in turn questions the credibility of the results for me
> Maybe we're at that point again?
maybe.
on the other hand, sometimes, you have to give something a name just to get going. imho, it'd rather call some funny thing/irregularity that i find 'dark matter' or state a new formula where planets rotate around some fictional points in spacetime to have a basis for something new. or for something to falsifiy.
i for one think that this very process is the true essence of science.
...but they still make me use this strange piece of software...
this phenomenon is not only linked to size. usually, pure stock mergers go at a discount (for the bidding company) because investors are anticipating that they are being tricked and their interest are being dilluted. see myers and majluf (1984) and myers (1984) for further reference on this.
;)
sometimes it feels good to be a wee bit of a finance nerd...