@article{20863,
  abstract     = {{This article examines and extends research on the relation between the capital asset pricing model market beta, accounting risk measures and macroeconomic risk factors. We employ a beta decomposition approach that nests competing models with different business risk proxies and allows to frame cross-model comparison. Because model tests require estimated independent variables resulting in measurement error, we empirically estimate three comparable model specifications with instrumental variable estimators and for the first time provide thorough instrument diagnostics in this setting. Correcting for the heretofore neglected weak instruments problem we find that growth risk (i.e., the risk of firm sales variations that are inconsistent with the market wide trends), is the business risk that explains cross-sectional variations in market beta best.}},
  author       = {{Schlueter, Tobias and Sievers, Sönke}},
  issn         = {{0924-865X}},
  journal      = {{Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting (VHB-JOURQUAL 4 Ranking B)}},
  keywords     = {{CAPM, Cost of capital, Accounting beta, Intrinsic business risk, Growth risk, Instrumental variables}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{535--570}},
  title        = {{{Determinants of market beta: the impacts of firm-specific accounting figures and market conditions}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s11156-013-0352-1}},
  year         = {{2013}},
}

@article{5108,
  abstract     = {{This study integrates the government in the context of company valuation. Our framework allows to analyze and to quantify the risk-sharing effects and conflicts of interest between the government and the shareholders when firms follow different financial policies. We provide novel evidence that firms with fixed future levels of debt might invest more than socially desirable. Economically, this happens if the gain in tax-shields is big enough to outweigh the loss in the unlevered firm value. Our findings have implications for the practice of investment subsidy programs provided by the government to avoid fostering investments beyond the socially optimal level. }},
  author       = {{Kreutzmann, Daniel and Sievers, Sönke and Mueller, Christian}},
  journal      = {{Applied Financial Economics (VHB-JOURQUAL 4 Ranking C)}},
  keywords     = {{corporate tax claim, company valuation, optimal investment, cost of capital}},
  number       = {{11}},
  pages        = {{977--989}},
  publisher    = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  title        = {{{Investment distortions and the value of the government's tax claim}}},
  doi          = {{10.1080/09603107.2013.786161}},
  volume       = {{23}},
  year         = {{2013}},
}

@techreport{20869,
  abstract     = {{This study provides evidence of significant biases in multi-year management forecasts by analyzing a proprietary dataset on venture-backed start-ups in Germany. We find that revenues and expenses are highly overestimated in each of the investigated one- to five-year-ahead planning periods. Furthermore, entrepreneurs underestimate one-year-ahead profit forecasts but clearly overestimate their profit forecasts for all longer-term forecast horizons. Additional analyses reveal that teams with prior management experience issue even more overestimated forecasts and misrepresent their forward-looking information. In contrast, greater asset verifiability and corporate lead investors are associated with lower levels of forecast errors. All key results hold if bias is either measured by traditionally comparing forecasts to ex-post realizations or by using a cross-sectional projection approach based on historical accounting data developed by prior research.}},
  author       = {{Sievers, Sönke and Mokwa, Christopher Frederik}},
  keywords     = {{Management forecasts, Forecasting biases, Venture-backed start-ups, Projection methods}},
  pages        = {{42}},
  title        = {{{Biases in Management Forecasts of Venture-Backed Start-Ups: Evidence from Internal Due Diligence Documents of VC Investors}}},
  doi          = {{10.2139/ssrn.1714399}},
  year         = {{2012}},
}

@techreport{20870,
  abstract     = {{This study shows how venture capital investors can identify potential biases in multi-year management forecasts before an investment decision and derive significantly more accurate failure predictions. By advancing a cross-sectional projection method developed by prior research and using firm-specific information in financial statements and business plans, we derive benchmarks for management revenue forecasts. With these benchmarks, we estimate forecast errors as an a priori measure of biased expectations. Using this measure for our proprietary dataset on venture-backed start-ups in Germany, we find evidence of substantial upward forecast biases. We uncover that firms with large forecast errors fail significantly more often than do less biased entrepreneurs in years following the investment. Overall, our results highlight the implications of excessive optimism and overconfidence in entrepreneurial environments and emphasize the relevance of accounting information and business plans for venture capital investment decisions.}},
  author       = {{Sievers, Sönke and Mokwa, Christopher Frederik}},
  keywords     = {{Management forecast biases, cross-sectional projection models, venture-backed start-ups, failure prediction, overoptimism, overconfidence}},
  pages        = {{31}},
  title        = {{{The Relevance of Biases in Management Forecasts for Failure Prediction in Venture Capital Investments}}},
  doi          = {{10.2139/ssrn.2100501}},
  year         = {{2012}},
}

@article{5193,
  abstract     = {{We study the predictive ability of individual analyst target price changes for post-event abnormal stock returns within each recommendation category. Although prior studies generally demonstrate the investment value of target prices, we find that target price changes do not cause abnormal returns within each recommendation level. Instead, contradictory analyst signals (e.g., strong buy reiterations with large target price decreases) neutralize each other, whereas confirmatory signals reinforce each other. Further, our analysis reveals that large target price downgrades can be explained by preceding stock price decreases. However, upgrades are not preceded by stock price increases, thereby demonstrating asymmetric analyst behavior when adjusting target prices to stock prices. Our results suggest that investors should treat recommendations with caution when they are issued with large contradictory target price changes. Thus, instead of blindly following a recommendation, investors might put more weight on the change in the corresponding target price and consider transaction costs.}},
  author       = {{Kanne, Stefan and Klobucnik, Jan and Kreutzmann, Daniel and Sievers, Sönke}},
  journal      = {{Financial Markets and Portfolio Management (VHB-JOURQUAL 3 Ranking C)}},
  keywords     = {{Analyst recommendation, Target price, Stock performance, Trading strategy}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{405--428}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{To buy or not to buy? The value of contradictory analyst signals}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s11408-012-0196-z}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2012}},
}

@article{5195,
  abstract     = {{This article analyses 336 German venture capital transactions from 1990 to 2005 and seeks to determine why selected financial securities differ across deals. We find that a broad array of financial instruments is used, covering straight equity, mezzanine and debt‐like securities. Based on the chosen financial securities’ upside potential and downside protection characteristics, we provide an explanation for the differing use of these securities. Our results show that investors’ deal experience, adverse selection risks and economic prospects in the public equity market influence the selection of financial securities. }},
  author       = {{Hartmann-Wendels, Thomas and Keienburg, Georg and Sievers, Sönke}},
  journal      = {{European Financial Management (VHB-JOURQUAL 4 Ranking B)}},
  keywords     = {{venture capital, capital structure, contract theory, deal experience}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{464--499}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  title        = {{{Adverse selection, investor experience and security choice in venture capital finance: evidence from Germany}}},
  doi          = {{10.1111/j.1468-036X.2010.00568.x}},
  volume       = {{17}},
  year         = {{2011}},
}

@article{20877,
  author       = {{Sievers, Sönke and Homburg, Carsten and Lorenz, Michael}},
  journal      = {{Controlling & Management Review (VHB-JOURQUAL 4 Ranking C)}},
  title        = {{{Unternehmensbewertung in Deutschland:  Verfahren, Finanzplanung und Kapitalkostenermittlung}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s12176-011-0096-5}},
  year         = {{2011}},
}