Figure 1From “Programmatic M&A: the claim that outlived its test”
The strongest number, and its label
The decade-level split in the nearest academic test runs in the claim's direction: as untested medians the paper itself files as a non-reported analysis.
Figure 1The strongest number, and its label
Source: Laamanen & Keil (2008), robustness note: median excess market returns per year over 10–13 years, 611 U.S. serial acquirers (1990–99); the paper prints the buckets as 'over 10' (173 firms) and '4–9' (438 firms), which partition the full 611. Its prose calls the split significant; the analysis is non-reported and no test statistic for it appears in the article. Descriptive medians; the authors disclaim causality.

Source and evidence
Each line names a claim related to this exhibit, its source, and how it was checked.
- A LK08-C1 Laamanen and Keil studied 5,518 acquisitions by 611 active U.S. acquirers from 1990 to 1999 using three-year excess market returnsLaamanen & Keil (2008), Strategic Management Journal 29(6)
- A LK08-C2 Over the 10 to 13 year horizon, 173 frequent acquirers had median excess returns of 12.6% per year versus -3.9% for 438 less frequent acquirers; the split was descriptive and non-reportedLaamanen & Keil (2008), robustness note
Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.
From the essay
Growth that compounds
Programmatic M&A: the claim that outlived its test
Every banker deck says the winners do many small deals. The claim's own shop published the null first, and the nearest test answers with conditions.
Read the essayThis exhibit belongs to an essay: the numbers live here, the argument lives there.
Cite or embed
Contact
Bring the question you're working on.
Research, a guest lecture, or a commercial question.


