Economic historians should thank Larry Neal for his careful revision of the United States railroad investment series for the period between 1897 and 1914 [5]. However, the second major part of his article concerning the determinants of investmenit behavior over this period suffers from deficiencies of interpretation and requires further analysis which is the object of this note. Neal's thesis is that financial models, incorporating interest rates and cash flow variables, better explain railroad investment expenditures over this period than crude acceleration type mechanisms. In fact, he argues the time period 1897 to 1914 logically can be divided into two periods at the year 1907. In the earlier period (1897-1907) Neal argues that both easy access to external funds and the better use of internal funds are the primary explanations for investment behavior, while this was not the case after 1907. This thesis directly contradicts the earlier discussion of railroad investment made by Jan Kmenta and Jeffrey Williamson (K-W) [4]. The K-XV hypothesis purports that external costs were not important during this period and some sort of acceleration mechanism can best explain investment behavior. It is demonstrated below that the dominant determinant of long run railroad investment behavior over this period is the acceleration principle as asserted by K-W but that outside (as opposed to Neal's inside) financial conditions (the demand for financial instruments) contributed to the cyclical fluctuations of investment expenditures in the period prior to 1907.

It appears to a widely held view that corporations with similar operational characteristics ought to have similar financial characteristics. For example, one might expect that the financial characteristics of two drug companies would be similar. This seems entirely reasonable. Unfortunately however, there does not appear to be any quantitative analysis of this point in the literature. Furthermore, discussions with our financial colleagues lead to the conclusion that, if such financial differentiation of corporations were possible, it is by no means obvious what the variables of differentiation would be. Consequently, such an analysis was undertaken and is described in this paper. The basic question asked is whether the statistical grouping of corporations by their financial characteristics is similar to their predetermined, external, industrial classification.

A recent article in this journal [1] described a model for the computation of taxadjusted true yields to maturity on discount bonds and explained the use of a computer routine implementing this model. Unfortunately, the translation of the computer program into equation form contained a number of notational errors. In addition, there was an equals sign missing from the third equation [1, page 267]. As a result, the reader, in attempting to implement the model as it was formulated in the original article, will probably fail.

Several recent studies have been conducted to determine the level of job satisfaction, and the determinants thereof, among accountants.' All these studies utilized the Maslow theory, which is based on a hierarchy of needs.2 Maslow's theory has sometimes been criticized on philosophical, methodological and hierarchical grounds. The theory states that human needs are ordered; that is they range from lower-order to higher-order needs. As one need is adequately fulfilled, the individual moves to the next

Journal Article Apologia for a Lemma Get access W. M. Gorman W. M. Gorman London School of Economics Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 1971, Page 114, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296627 Published: 01 January 1971

Abstract The article compares Opinion 15 with a financial reporting method for convertible debt. Corporate capital structures often include such securities as convertible debentures, convertible preferred stocks, and stock warrants. In many cases, these instruments possess a dramatic potential for suddenly creating a huge in crease in the number of outstanding common shares and a severe dilution in earnings per share (EPS). In 1969 the Accounting Principles Board of the AICPA issued its lengthy Opinion 15, which utilized the common stock equivalent concept in prescribing when and how the dilutive effects on EPS in such cases should be shown on the face of the income statement. In order to illustrate some of the implications of this controversial Opinion and to offer a solution to the complex problems of satisfactorily reporting convertible securities in the financial statements of issuers, this article focuses on convertible debentures (CVDs). CVDs are unsecured bonds that may be exchanged for common stock of the issuer at the option of the holder at a certain ratio and during a specified period.