Stock Price Analysis of Bayer and Monsanto

This assignment requires an analysis of the stock price trends for both Bayer and Monsanto companies. The provided data includes daily closing prices and percentage changes over a specific period. Students need to examine these figures, identify any notable fluctuations or patterns in the stock prices, and attempt to explain the factors that might be influencing these trends within the context of the market performance.

Hypothesis testing and
essay

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A...........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
(A) Efficient market hypothesis and Random Walk hypothesis................................................1
INTERPRETATION OF PORTFOLIO OUTCOMES...................................................................2
(B) Calculation of average monthly logarithmic return of portfolio A and B............................2
c. Development of Hypothesis....................................................................................................7
D Application of T test................................................................................................................7
E. Discussion of findings............................................................................................................8
F Comparison of results with previous research.........................................................................8
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................10
PART B..........................................................................................................................................16
INTRODUCTION:........................................................................................................................16
Study on Bayer- Monsanto merger deal:..................................................................................16
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................21
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................24

PART A
INTRODUCTION
Analysing the changes and variation took place in the stock market of UK which brings
information among investors and stakeholder for the purpose of investment decisions. In the
present report, there will be discussion based on various portfolio which will be compared with
the FTSE 100 index determining various outcomes through test like, regression and T-test
analysis. Further, this report will also reflect consist of recommendations based on Monsanto
investors as per currency decisions and reforms undertaken by Bayer. Along with this, there will
be analysis on the portfolios of various industries which will be analysed as per examining their
efficiency in performing operations in the capital market. Thus, the efficient portfolio has been
suggested to the investors in making appropriate investment in organisations.
(A) Efficient market hypothesis and Random Walk hypothesis
Efficient Market Hypothesis:
To identify the efficiency of market in context with share value which always reflect the
full information. This determination helps in analysing the efficiency of market on the basis of
intrinsic value of share which were being adjusted instantaneously and rationally to the
announcement of new information (Hamid & et.al., 2017). However, as per considering the
framework of FAMA, which has categorised the s market in 3 segmentations such as:
 Weak form efficient: This is the market which represents all historical data as well as
forecasted price movements in application of various statistical tools. It represents the
extra returns made on portfolios (Emenike, 2017). It includes analysis relevant with rate
of return, trading volumes, sequence of past prices etc.
 Semi-strong form efficient: This market is consisting of all information which
determines the current stock prices which reflects all historical information which are
publicly available such as annual financial disclosures, dividend pay outs, merger plans
etc.
 Strong form efficient market: This is the market which has the strong data based on
which it becomes tough to bit the market (Malhotra, Tandon & Tandon, 2015). It
comprises of current stock value as well as historical data which are along with publicly
available information regarding operations.
Random walk hypothesis:

This theory determines that the stock market prices of portfolio will as per the stock
market price which evolve the changes in prices randomly which is unclear and cannot be
predicted (Beskos & et.al., 2015). Considering the opinion of various authors which insist
various disputes in several areas such as:
 The ensured collective rational will not perform individually.
 There has been limits on the benefits based on allocative efficiency.
 Market rationality will never be implied through market efficiency (Sakai & Hukushima,
2016).
INTERPRETATION OF PORTFOLIO OUTCOMES
(B) Calculation of average monthly logarithmic return of portfolio A and B
As per analysing the average monthly returns on the portfolios there will be analysis as
listed in the Appendix A with consideration of following justification such as:
Appendix A
Interpretation:
Considering the above graph on which it can be said that there has been randomly
selected organisation in the portfolios which has reflected the outcomes. Looking through the
data set it can be said that there has been rise in the level of portfolio returns in the beginning as
the companies were performing well during that period. similarly, as per analysing the constant

outcomes determined after such peek return on which it can be said that firm has managed their
resources in that manner which brings it a constant return.
Ascertaining the graphical determination on the basis of Portfolio B presentation it can be
said that there are various obstacles which in turn has the outcomes as rise in the level of returns
payable by the companies. Thus, it reflected the three phase such as rise in return, constant
returns for the long period as well as huge downfall. Thus, making investment in this portfolio
will bring a huge risk in connection with having the inapproprioate and inadequate management
of all the operations. the outcomes are unstable and which is not being recommended for
planning the investment in these firms. It can be said that efficiency of this portfolio is not up to
the mark as well as have better performance.

On the basis of above listed outcomes it can be said that the portfolios have appropriate
growth in the period of 2.6 years. However, as per comparing the outcomes on which Portfolio A
has reflected the effective outcomes than Portfolio B. there has a negative fall in the outcomes of
Portfolio B which is not a favourable sign as per making the investing decisions in those
companies. Moreover, it will be suggested to the professionals of such organisation is that they
must have control over their resources and develop effective dividend policies which will be
attractive and effective for them in bringing optimum returns.
Descriptive analysis:

Interpretation: as per analysing the descriptive statistics on the portfolio on which
various outcomes has been determined and demonstrated. The mean value of Portfolio A is
0.0565 while Portfolio B has 0.0094.s It states that Portfolio A will be most profitable and
efficiency for in bringing fruitful returns to the investors. Considering the standard deviation
which states the adequate outcomes in Portfolio A it is 0.22669while in Portfolio B it is 0.311.
NMC Health
Appendix B
Rentokil
Appendix C

ITRK
Appendix D
DCC
Appendix E
FRES

Appendix F
As per the above listed analysis it can be said that there has been selection of 5 random
organisations through the portfolios which have reflected the outcomes based on various issues.
In case of NMC health it can be seen that if FTSE will have changed slightly then stock will be
change by -0.11. Thus, rate of change in NMC will be higher than index. On other hand, in case
of Rentokil if FTSE change by 0.1 points firm stock may change by 0.09 points. In case ITRK
beta value is 1.32 for -0.3608 unit change in FTSE. This means that in case index generate better
return stock will give good return to investor. In case of DCC beta value is 1.06 and this again
reflect stock is highly sensitive in nature and if market move upward stock will definitely
perform well. Last stock is FRES and its beta value are 0.25 which reflect that if market will be
green moderate but positive change can be observed in stock.
c. Development of Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant mean difference between return generated by portfolio A and
portfolio B.
H1: There is significant mean difference between return generated by portfolio A and portfolio
B.
D Application of T test
Appendix G:

E. Discussion of findings
As per analysing the outcomes which are listed in the above table insists that portfolio B is
generating higher return in specific direction then portfolio A. The one tail level of significance
is 0.025<0.05 which means that there is significant mean difference between both variables or
portfolio A and B. Similarly, relevant time period it is observed that FTSE generate return of
163.98% but portfolio B generate return of 27% in which firms are selected by considering
technical analysis charts (Auger‐Méthé & et.al., 2015). However, as per considering the Efficient
market hypothesis it can be said that there is effective rise in the market share of the
organization. Thus, Portfolio is needed to have appropriate outcomes and return payable over the
operations.
F Comparison of results with previous research
The impacts incurred in the huge fluctuations in the capital market is basically based on
reforms which affected the market share value of the businesses. Efficient market hypothesis
theory failed to cover impact of market size, volatility, shareholder’s expectations, cyclical
fluctuations and asset bubbles (Efficient Markets Hypothesis, 2018). However, it has been
analyzed here that there has been changes in the UK’s most of the stocks as well as their beta
value in the operations.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Auger‐Méthé, M. & et.al., (2015). Differentiating the Lévy walk from a composite correlated
random walk. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 6(10). 1179-1189.
Beskos, A. & et.al., (2015). Asymptotic Analysis of the Random-Walk Metropolis Algorithm on
Ridged Densities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02577.
Emenike, K. O. (2017). Empirical test for weak-form efficient market hypothesis of the Nigerian
stock exchange (Doctoral dissertation).
Hamid, K. & et.al., (2017). Testing the weak form of efficient market hypothesis: Empirical
evidence from Asia-Pacific markets.
Malhotra, N., Tandon, K., & Tandon, D. (2015). Testing the Empirics of Weak Form of Efficient
Market Hypothesis: Evidence from Asia-Pacific Markets. IUP Journal of Applied
Finance. 21(4).
Sakai, Y., & Hukushima, K. (2016). Eigenvalue analysis of an irreversible random walk with
skew detailed balance conditions. Physical Review E. 93(4). 043318.
Online
Efficient Markets Hypothesis. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/efficient-
markets-hypothesis/>.

APPENDIX
A.
Portfolio A Portfolio B
1 1.039410934 1.05715499
2 -0.010964529 0.038410868
3 -0.004123523 0.001913018
4 0.016617919 0.015639435
5 0.002558905 0.044680426
6 -0.063090335 0.040155931
7 0.665847617 0.23692173
8 -0.020966433 0.02080516
9 0.006387608 -0.032772321
10 0.001560742 -0.000903552
11 -0.011512092 0.017340513
12 0.016646334 0.0338278
13 0.015010258 0.010970252
14 -0.0094646 -0.002328037
15 0.011354274 0.037471176
16 -0.015984602 -0.007043148
17 0.006704887 0.005177386
18 -0.02015949 0.032425064
19 0.01091321 -0.015264501
20 0.000564824 0.011180609
21 -0.003559127 -0.005050646
22 0.010581645 -1.220417869
23 0.005763589 0.100927503
24 -0.015732559 -0.089225309
25 -0.002487451 0.024367071
26 0.023293918 -0.014281844
27 -0.018513205 -0.148935453
28 -0.00511273 0.06838012
29 0.008274954 0.01238033
163.98% 27%
B.
Portfolio A Portfolio B

Mean 0.05654555 Mean 0.009445059
Standard Error 0.042096505
Standard
Error 0.057853899
Median 0.001560742 Median 0.01238033
Mode #N/A Mode #N/A
Standard
Deviation 0.226696615
Standard
Deviation 0.31155278
Sample Variance 0.051391355
Sample
Variance 0.097065135
Kurtosis 14.60800863 Kurtosis 13.07449009
Skewness 3.847618751 Skewness -0.89089106
Range 1.102501269 Range 2.277572859
Minimum -0.063090335 Minimum -1.220417869
Maximum 1.039410934 Maximum 1.05715499
Sum 1.639820942 Sum 0.273906705
Count 29 Count 29
Confidence
Level(95.0%) 0.086230781
Confidence
Level(95.0%) 0.11850834
B. NMC Health:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.37547
R Square 0.140978
Adjusted R Square 0.13447
Standard Error 157.7833
Observations 134
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 539315.0869 539315.1 21.66309 7.81E-06
Residual 132 3286216.21 24895.58
Total 133 3825531.297

Coefficie
nts
Standard
Error t Stat
P-
value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
Interce
pt 887.3159
177.427944
5
5.0009
93
1.78E-
06
536.34
59
1238.2
86
536.34
59
1238.2
86
FTSE -0.11685
0.02510509
9
-
4.6543
6
7.81E-
06
-
0.1665
1
-
0.0671
9
-
0.1665
1
-
0.0671
9
C. Rentokil:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.898343
R Square 0.80702
Adjusted R Square 0.805558
Standard Error 25.49631
Observations 134
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 358840.8 358840.8 552.0103 5.37E-49
Residual 132 85808.16 650.0618
Total 133 444649
Coefficie
nts
Standar
d Error t Stat
P-
value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
Intercept -425.994
28.670
7
-
14.858
2
5.81E-
30
-
482.70
7 -369.28
-
482.70
7 -369.28
FTSE 0.095313
0.0040
57
23.494
9
5.37E-
49
0.0872
88
0.1033
38
0.0872
88
0.1033
38
D. ITRK:
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.114235
R Square 0.01305
Adjusted R Square 0.005573
Standard Error 1716.404
Observations 134
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 5141852 5141852 1.745341 0.188749
Residual 132 3.89E+08 2946044
Total 133 3.94E+08
Coefficie
nts
Standa
rd
Error t Stat
P-
value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
Intercept
5470.81
7
1930.1
03
2.8344
69
0.0053
13
1652.8
82
9288.7
52
1652.8
82
9288.7
52
FTSE -0.3608
0.2730
99
-
1.3211
1
0.1887
49
-
0.9010
1
0.1794
22
-
0.9010
1
0.1794
22
E. DCC:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.854554
R Square 0.730262
Adjusted R Square 0.728219
Standard Error 352.5459
Observations 134
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 44416365 44416365 357.3647 2.24E-39
Residual 132 16406100 124288.6
Total 133 60822465
Coefficie Standa t Stat P-value Lower Upper Lower Upper

nts
rd
Error 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept -940.654
396.43
92
-
2.3727
6
0.0190
99
-
1724.8
5
-
156.45
8
-
1724.8
5
-
156.45
8
FTSE 1.060406
0.0560
94
18.904
09
2.24E-
39
0.9494
47
1.1713
66
0.9494
47
1.1713
66
F. FRSE:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.511872
R Square 0.262013
Adjusted R Square 0.256422
Standard Error 232.8743
Observations 134
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 2541509 2541509 46.86499 2.59523E-10
Residual 132 7158417 54230.43
Total 133 9699926
Coeffici
ents
Standard
Error t Stat
P-
value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
Interc
ept
-
468.299 261.868
-
1.788
3
0.076
021
-
986.3002
119
49.7014
27
-
986.3002
119
49.70142
701
FTSE
0.25365
7 0.037053
6.845
801
2.6E-
10
0.180362
556
0.32695
121
0.180362
556
0.326951
211
G. T-test:
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
1.039410934 1.05715499
Mean 0.021443215
-
0.027973153
Variance 0.016238249 0.05855275

Observations 28 28
Pooled Variance 0.037395499
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 54
t Stat 0.956148106
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.171629263
t Critical one-tail 1.673564906
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.343258525
t Critical two-tail 2.004879288

PART B
INTRODUCTION:
This part of the study will help in analysing the efficiency of business in respect with
acquisition of firm. In relation with these requirements, I have determined various methods and
challenges that will be helpful in making adequate analysis on financial environment in firm. It
consosist of market value, capitalization, liquidation as well as various analysing techniques.
Analysing the requirements of the firm in making effective control over operational practices as
well as management of activities bringing the appropriate ascertainment over capital structure
and costs of capital of entity (Hameed, Kang & Viswanathan, 2010). Bayer has proposed to bid
Monsanto as per implicating various techniques and strategies to attract the shareholders of
Monsanto. Professionals has planned to offer the shareholder effective share prices of the units
as 122 USD to 125 USD. Thus, it has been analysed here that, such reforms will be appropriate
in making the successive growth of organisation after acquisition. It can be said that such
improvements will be helpful to the firm in generating the appropriate amount of revenue as well
as for investors in terms of having profitable returns on their investments.
Study on Bayer- Monsanto merger deal:
Influences of capital structure on investor wealth
As per considering the capital structure irrelevancy theory on which the approach derived
the opinion that the valuation of the entity will not have any influences on the capital structure.
Leverage status of entity is high or lower debts which will not affect the market value. Moreover,
the valuation of entity will have impacts only as per the depending operating profits of the
business in each practice (Ukhriyawati, Ratnawati & Riyadi, 2017). Considering the optimal
capital structure on which it can be said that there have been appropriate rise and increment in
the operational practices as well as allocation of sources in each business activities. Monitoring
solvency of business on the basis of its debts or equity ratio which will be appropriate in
examining the facts as well as determining the capacity in making payments to al the liabilities of
firm.
Ascertaining the recent changes and the announcements made by Bayer’s with respect to
obtain the ownership of Monsanto which have proposed ideas among shareholders that there
they will rise the share price of entity from $122 to $125. Thus, such reforms will be appropriate
and adequate in bringing the suitable revenue generation as well as development of various

activities which will be adequate and suitable for making qualitative changes in operations
(Cummins & Harrington, eds., 2013). Moreover, with the influences of the terms that the firm
finance its assets with the help of two aspects and factors such as debt or equity. It comprised
with the influences of various theories which are associated with the business such as Modigliani
Miller approach (Dickinson, 2011). Thus, this model brings the appropriate determination of the
analysis is that the market value of entity will have impacts on the future growth of business.
Thus, there will be successive development of capital structure of entity.
Respecting the announces made by Bayer that they will rise the share price as $122 to
$125 that will be better in bringing the wealth to business. Rise in capital gathering will have
positive influences in the operational aspects of the business (Edmans, 2011). Therefore, the
allocation of funds in various operational activities will be adequate in bringing the qualitative
returns to the investors. However, the collection of capital gains through the investments made
by investors will not require to make any taxable payments. Thus, the operational changes in
various activities will be adequate and appropriate in meeting the gains at the right time. It
assumes that the actual costs of debt are comparatively lower than the nominal cost of debts just
because of taxable benefits.
As per assuming the rise in the share price which will be helpful to the business in s
generating the appropriate amount of revenue will be enough and adequate as per making the
operating efforts as well as do not bother any impact of tax payments (García-Meca, López-
Iturriaga & Tejerina-Gaite, 2017). Thus, Bayer will not be bound to make payments of any taxes
levied over such operations.
Moreover, there has been three approaches which have been presented for valuation of
the firm:

Relative valuation approach: It helps in forecasting the value of assets based on
existing relevant elements. The value of sales, earning, book value as well as cash flows will be
analysed on the pricing method that helps in bringing appropriate information about estimation.
Contingent claim: This technique is approached towards using options on pricing
models in measuring value of assets which shares all the option characteristics on equity. It is
considered as the future derivatives on which its future payoff depends on the value of another
operating asset.
Discounted cash flow: This is the techniques of analysing the investment in any new
project of company by evaluating the present value. It will be based on determining the cash
flows on the discounting factors for periodical basis and which will help in identifying the
present value of estimated cash flows.
Influences of cost of capital on investor wealth
Application of the adequate costs of capital which will be appropriate in bringing the
satisfactory control over operations which will be helpful in developing proper capital budgeting.
Preparation of various budgets and analysing the operational requirements of the entity on which
cost of capital plays main role (Megginson, 2017). Investing in new activities on the business
will be very profitable and adequate as per bringing the suitable revenue generation as well as
determination of various facts. There will be influences of weighted average costs for capital
which will be appropriate and influence to the operations of the business. thus, to analyse the
liquidity of business investors will have appropriate determination of the facts.
Shareholder’s mainly seek for the information relevant with the financial disclosure and
the rate of return being facilitated by the organisation on their invested funds. Considering the
various other factors which are also incorporated with the market value, beta value, rate of
return, risk free rate as well as risk premium (Verstein, 2017). Thus, influences of such elements
will be helpful in making appropriate changes in operational practices and analyse the efficiency
of business in meeting debts on the right time.
Brayer has decided to make acquisition of the ownership of Monsanto with respect to
making changes in the share prices Thus, such influences will be appropriate and adequate as per
uplifting the capital structure of firm. Defemination of the capital asserts pricing model will be
appropriate techniques in analysing the efficiency of the business in making appropriate debts
payments to the investors (Cummins & Harrington, eds., 2013). Thus, the proper valuation

determination will be appropriate in bringing the satisfactory information among the
stakeholders in analysing approximate changes in operations.
Similarly, as per considering the funds collected through equity and debts will have
positive impacts on the revenue such as the taxes will not be levied. Thus, there will be
satisfactory operating profit which will be utilised in the further expansion and expenses of the
organisation. Considering the impacts of various operational influences on which determining
the firm in leveraged or underleveraged (Dickinson, 2011). Cost of capital will be appropriate
information for the investors in relation with judging the asset value of the firm. Determination
will suggest them the right time to disposed of the shares or to obtain them. It will be based on
expert decisions which ensures them to purchase and sale the shares of entity.
Asset based valuation techniques
Moreover, there are various areas which are needed to be examined by the professionals
before taking any action in respect of acquisition such as:
Liquidation basis: Analysing the business liquidity based on its current assets and
liabilities which were required to be analysed and ascertained as per having effective investment
decisions.
Book value: This can be estimated as per analysing the total amount of a company is
worth as per all assets are being sold and liabilities were paid back on which it doesn’t
considered the ability of assets in creating the cash flows.

Replacement cost basis: It consists of analysing the replacement costs of various assets
in different ages which will be difficult in representing the theoretical maximum on which an
investor will make payment.
Future earning based valuation:
There have been various techniques which determines the security asset value of the firm
in the period such as:
 Price to earning valuation: This method uses company’s current share price, relevant
with its net per share earnings.
 Discounted future earning cash flows: It estimated or predicts the future cash flows
which underlies company’s on going generated discounts. It helps them in estimating the
present value for potential investment.
 Dividend valuation: This is the appropriate which will be helpful in representing the
future dividends which are being discounted at the required rate of return on equity.
 Market capitalization: It has been evaluated by multiplying the current market value of
firm with the total numbers of outstanding shares.
Suggesting various methods of funding
As per analysing the business requirements and the operational changes which are to be
made in relation with acquiring the organisation. Thus, with influences of these changes and
variation on which it can be said that there are various sources of funding which are available for
the growth as well as capital generation of the business (Hameed, Kang & Viswanathan, 2010).
Capital and funds will be gathered by the business professionals which will infortunes the better
gains and operational advantages to individual. Bayer and Monsanto will have appropriate
capital structure as they gather the amount of funds through various sources such as equity, bank
loan, governmental grants, retained earnings as well as through operation activities.

Analysing the various sources which are stated in the market on which generating funds
through sources such as equity will be very effective. Thus, it will have positive impacts in
creating the identity in the market as well as generating the appropriate amount of funds through
selling the ownership on the proportionate way (Ukhriyawati, Ratnawati & Riyadi, 2017). Thus,
business is not bound to make any taxable payments as well as there will be various allowances
to the entity. It has positive impacts on making dividend payments to the investors. On a similar
instinct it can be said that the professional will have suitable amount of capital gains as per their
requirements from banks and financial institutions. Thus, they can borrow funds for the
operational activities as well as for the investing requirements. In relation with making the
qualitative changes in the operations which will be appropriate in bringing the proper control on
utilisation and allocation of resources.
Apart from these there are various other sources too which will have influences in meeting
the initial requirements of the business. It includes credits, capital of venture, personal savings of
the owners, subsidies as well as tax exemptions. Financial stability and viability will have
positive influences which in turn will be adequate and useful in meeting the gains at the right
time. Along with this, implication the influences of merger and acquisition which will be helpful
in bringing the appropriate financial gains to business (García-Meca, López-Iturriaga & Tejerina-
Gaite, 2017). Thus, there will be reduction in the cost of production as well as generation of
fruitful revenue through such operations. donations on the other side, do not require any
verification and ascertainment of operations. Merger, plays main role in dividing the work
among huge workforce which were already trained and skilled with the appropriate business
efforts.
CONCLUSION
Considering the above study, it can be said that Efficient Market Hypothesis will have not
effective influences in the outcomes. Thus, impacts of various factors which has made variations

in the operations and theory. On the other side, report also consist of the current changes and
plans undertaken by the Brayer in relation with rising the market share 122USD to 125USD.
This will be helpful in generating the appropriate amount of capital for business.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Cummins, J. D. & Harrington, S.E. eds., (2013). Fair rate of return in property-liability
insurance. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dickinson, V., (2011). Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. The Accounting
Review. 86(6). pp.1969-1994.
Edmans, A., (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and
equity prices. Journal of Financial economics. 101(3). pp.621-640.
García-Meca, E., López-Iturriaga, F. & Tejerina-Gaite, F., (2017). Institutional investors on
boards: Does their behavior influence corporate finance? Journal of Business
Ethics. 146(2). pp.365-382.
Hameed, A., Kang, W. & Viswanathan, S., (2010). Stock market declines and liquidity. The
Journal of Finance. 65(1). pp.257-293
Megginson, W. L., (2017). Privatization, state capitalism, and state ownership of business in the
21st century. Foundations and Trends® in Finance. 11(1-2). pp.1-153.
Ukhriyawati, C. F., Ratnawati, T. & Riyadi, S., (2017). The Influence of Asset Structure, Capital
Structure, Risk Management and Good Corporate Governance on Financial Performance
and Value of the Firm through Earnings and Free Cash Flow as an Intervening Variable in
Banking Companies Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of
Business and Management. 12(8). p.249.
Verstein, A., (2017). Wrong-Termism, Right-Termism, and the Liability Structure of Investor
Time Horizons. Seattle UL Rev. 41. p.577.

APPENDIX
Bayer
Monsanto:
Bayer Monsanto
Date Adj Close
rate of
return Adj Close
rate of
return
02-01-15 98.670654 #REF! 2862.27124 #REF!
05-01-15 95.352142 -3.36% 2839.60059 -0.79%
06-01-15 96.443527 1.14% 2756.80664 -2.92%
07-01-15 96.443527 0.00% 2676.29468 -2.92%
08-01-15 101.68303 5.43% 2580.57349 -3.58%
09-01-15 98.801079 -2.83% 2500.48926 -3.10%
12-01-15 100.67861 1.90% 2590.74463 3.61%
13-01-15 103.38577 2.69% 2663.98511 2.83%
14-01-15 102.03264 -1.31% 2720.68579 2.13%
15-01-15 105.21894 3.12% 2926.81445 7.58%
16-01-15 108.01394 2.66% 2880.14185 -1.59%
19-01-15 108.2757 0.24% 2803.5271 -2.66%
20-01-15 108.10091 -0.16% 2754.81079 -1.74%
21-01-15 107.57739 -0.48% 2815.50366 2.20%
22-01-15 107.48955 -0.08% 2831.61572 0.57%
23-01-15 111.85596 4.06% 2749.7251 -2.89%
26-01-15 113.0343 1.05% 2711.32275 -1.40%
27-01-15 111.41941 -1.43% 2807.28198 3.54%
28-01-15 112.81602 1.25% 2721.68408 -3.05%
29-01-15 112.42295 -0.35% 2762.17773 1.49%
30-01-15 111.8116 -0.54% 2739.69702 -0.81%
02-02-15 112.68471 0.78% 2807.37671 2.47%
03-02-15 113.20911 0.47% 2793.59302 -0.49%
04-02-15 113.25258 0.04% 2784.75366 -0.32%
05-02-15 111.59331 -1.47% 2697.20728 -3.14%
06-02-15 109.36708 -1.99% 2688.31934 -0.33%
09-02-15 106.17989 -2.91% 2679.00391 -0.35%
10-02-15 108.05742 1.77% 2681.80811 0.10%
11-02-15 107.92611 -0.12% 2778.76514 3.62%
12-02-15 109.97842 1.90% 2764.98145 -0.50%
13-02-15 110.41499 0.40% 2733.51807 -1.14%
16-02-15 109.49841 -0.83% 2634.51782 -3.62%
17-02-15 109.71668 0.20% 2623.72925 -0.41%
18-02-15 109.19228 -0.48% 2576.01099 -1.82%
19-02-15 108.974 -0.20% 2539.4148 -1.42%
20-02-15 108.71224 -0.24% 2528.57788 -0.43%
23-02-15 110.28367 1.45% 2521.11621 -0.30%
24-02-15 111.76811 1.35% 2531.28711 0.40%
25-02-15 111.15676 -0.55% 2549.77564 0.73%
26-02-15 115.26143 3.69% 2591.6001 1.64%
27-02-15 115.3049 0.04% 2631.19092 1.53%
02-03-15 115.17358 -0.11% 2735.22949 3.95%
03-03-15 114.7805 -0.34% 2777.14868 1.53%
04-03-15 115.69798 0.80% 2801.86328 0.89%
05-03-15 116.43977 0.64% 2851.33984 1.77%
06-03-15 116.70152 0.22% 2894.49536 1.51%
09-03-15 118.79733 1.80% 2893.87695 -0.02%