I observed a
A striking resemblance has been seenbetween the success rates of the Netherlands and that ofthe US. In the study byMartynova and Renneboog (2010) it already became clear found that shareholder protection was almost equal between the US and the Netherlandsin both countries. This correspondedcorresponds to the fact that they both have a success rate is of approximately the 40%.
At least one
More than 1 hedge fund acquired a share in 14 the company in fourteen of the 36 listed companies in my database. Of these, 10 of thosewere working together to achieve certain goals. The hedge funds held a share in the company for an average length of hedge funds holding a share in the company is531 days. Although Brav et al. (2008) considered may find this long-term period, I consider 531 days is still to be seen as to be short-term.
The average percentage of voting power
is initial ranges between 8.06% and the maximum voting power is 10.10%. From By looking at this data, it can be concluded that hedge funds are not generally involved in acquiring controlling blocks of stock. Due to the fact that Because shareholders have an opportunity to go to the OK, they have a fair reasonable chance of getting having their demands fulfilled. The OK likes prefers to solve disputes between shareholders and management by taking enacting provisional measures that improve the dialogue between the two parties. As a consequence, the parties often find compromises. Defensive measures that are taken by the management takes only to oppress shareholders are prohibited, and minority shareholders can change how they are treated by if a majority files an appeal.
Doing an extensive ly study of the shareholder activism undertaken by hedge funds in the Netherlands over a for the past decade required a great deal of precise work. But although Even though I did n’t not use any private information, this study pretty nice gives a provides insight into hedge fund activism in the country.
Example comment for Proofreading & Editing service:
“Since you indicated that personal pronouns can be used in your thesis, consider using the active voice here. This is a simple way to make your writing clearer and more compelling. You can read more about the active voice here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/prefer-active-passive-sentence-constructions/.”
Example comment for Proofreading & Editing service:
“This is an example of an inflated phrase. Learn how to recognize such phrases and tighten your writing here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/write-shorter-sentences-clarify-dissertation/.“
Example comment for Structure Check:
“Please ensure that your discussion section meets all the requirements included in this checklist. In particular, you have not yet discussed the study limitations: https://www.scribbr.com/thesis/writing-conclusion-discussion-thesis/#what-does-the-discussion-look-like.”
Du modtager et personligt forbedringsbrev, designet til at hjælpe dig med at genkende og rette dine mest hyppige fejl.
Vores mål er at hjælpe med at gøre dig til bedre skribent.
I enjoyed reading and editing your thesis. I found your topic very interesting! Even though your paper was already rather well-written, I’ve made many adjustments to improve the academic quality of the text.
Based on your work, I’ve provided some concrete tips to help you recognize and correct your most common mistakes. These suggestions are intended to help you become a better writer.
Word-level grammatical and spelling mistakes
Sentence-level grammatical mistakes
Style and academic tone
I hope you find my comments helpful as you finalize your thesis. Good luck accepting all the changes!
The document is organized in such a way that the central theme is apparent to the reader.
Editor feedback: I recommend introducing your central theme – the need for pharmaceutical trials to include more diverse participants – earlier in your paper. This way, your reader understands what your paper is about from the very beginning. See my comments for specific suggestions.
The text is organized in a logical and appropriate manner (chapters, sections and paragraphs).
Editor feedback: You’ve done a nice job of forming sections with clear themes. However, it’s not always clear how your sections support the main goal of your paper. As you revise, be sure to clearly link each section to your central theme or research question. This will help you build strong, interconnected arguments.
The text is without repetition.
Editor feedback: You've struck a nice balance between restating main ideas to help your readers follow along and avoiding unnecessary repetition that might distract or bore readers. Great job!
The text is without redundancies.
Editor feedback: I didn’t spot any extraneous material in your thesis.
The titles and headings are adequate, correct and consistent.
Editor feedback: A strong title should be informative, striking and appropriate. Your title is definitely striking. However, it could be more informative. I recommend rephrasing your title to specify the central theme of your paper. For more tips, check out this article: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/forging-good-titles-in-academic-writing/.
The preface is no longer than four or five paragraphs.
Editor feedback: Great job with this section – you've thanked those people who played an especially important role in your work, and you've kept the tone professional throughout.
Only people who have actually helped have been thanked.
The thanks follow a functional order. Those who have contributed the most are named first.
The use of first and last names is consistent.
The preface is personal but is nevertheless written in a professional style.
The preface ends with your name, place name and the date at the time of writing.
Editor feedback: Typically, a preface should end with your name and the date and place of writing.
The abstract is a maximum of one A4 sheet of paper.
Editor feedback: You should be able to cut your abstract down to one page by single-spacing the text and removing the title/author information.
The abstract is placed after the preface and before the table of contents.
The objective is specified in the abstract.
Editor feedback: You simply write that you conducted your study to prove your hypotheses. Be more specific. What was the goal of your study?
The problem statement is given in the abstract.
The research questions or hypotheses are included in the abstract.
Editor feedback: You have hinted at the research questions that you formulate in your literature review, but you have not explicitly presented them. I have suggested a place where it would be helpful to add them.
The methodology and approach of your research are briefly explained.
A summary of the most important results is given.
The conclusion is given (the answer to your research question / problem statement).
Editor feedback: Be sure to clearly answer the research question in the abstract. The abstract should read like a miniature version of the entire paper.
The results have been discussed and explained (discussion).
Suggestions for follow-up research are presented.
Editor feedback: At the end of the abstract you should add a summary of the recommendations that you have included in chapter 7. This summary should include your ideas for future research.
Any recommendations are concisely discussed.
The abstract clarifies what the thesis is about (also for those without prior knowledge).
The introduction of the research is written with a stimulating topic.
Editor feedback: Opening with the broad significance of the topic will be helpful here.
The topic is limited.
The scientific relevance is demonstrated (not applicable to all theses).
The practical relevance is demonstrated.
Editor feedback: Here, you should describe the study’s relevance to pharmaceutical companies, along with any other practical applications.
The most important scientific articles about the topic are summarized (not applicable to all theses).
Editor feedback: I recommend summarizing the articles in your literature review, rather than simply listing them, as this will help your readers understand the starting point for your research.
The objective is formulated.
The problem statement is formulated.
The conceptual framework is determined.
The research questions or hypotheses are formulated.
Editor feedback: You have not mentioned your research questions in the “study objectives” section of the introduction (where they should typically be included). In my comments, I suggested an appropriate place to add them.
The research design is described briefly.
Editor feedback: You have not explained how your research is conducted. In my comments, I recommended a place in the “study objectives” section where you could add a brief explanation of your methodology.
The thesis overview is added.
Editor feedback: However, note that a thesis overview typically only covers the remaining sections; it’s not necessary to outline the Introduction for a second time here.
The research questions have been answered.
Editor feedback: You’ve answered two of your three research questions, but the answer to the final research question seems to be missing (see my in-text comment). I also recommend restating the research questions in the Conclusion; this will remind readers of exactly what questions you’ve been focusing on and will demonstrate that you’ve definitely answered those questions.
The main question or problem statement has been answered.
The hypotheses have been confirmed or refused.
The right verb tense has been used.
No issues are interpreted.
Editor feedback: I recommend avoiding interpretation (including giving your own opinion or making a call for further research) in the early sections of this chapter. Instead, stick to answering the research questions and addressing the hypotheses. I've left comments where the text veered in this direction. Save these elements for the Discussion.
No new information has been given.
Editor feedback: On page 181, you mention two cases (sickle cell disease and Tay-Sachs) that you have not mentioned in any previous chapter . Be sure not to mention new findings in the Conclusion. Either go back to an earlier chapter and make note of these instances, or else delete the reference from the Conclusion.
No examples are used.
No extraneous information is provided.
No passages from the results have been cut and pasted.
Editor feedback: Much of this section takes sentences from previous sections, almost verbatim. The conclusion should use varied language and go beyond simply summarizing the main points. I have provided further comments on this in the document.
The validity of the research is demonstrated.
New insights are explained.
Editor feedback: Rather than comparing, contrasting and synthesizing the analyses, this section essentially summarizes the reviews. Consider focusing more on the analysis piece here.
The limitations of the research are discussed.
Editor feedback: The research limitations are not discussed. Instead, the limitations of big data analytics are discussed. Consider this difference as you finalize your paper.
It is indicated whether expectations were justified.
Editor feedback: Consider elaborating on this in the discussion section.
Possible causes and consequences of the results are discussed.
Suggestions for possible follow-up research are made.
Editor feedback: Consider adding this aspect.
No issues have been interpreted.
There are no suggestions for follow-up research that are too vague.
Vil du kontakte os direkte? Intet problem, vi er altid til rådighed for dig.
Scribbr er specialiseret i at læse korrektur på studierelaterede dokumenter. Vi checker:
Ja, når du uploader dit dokument, kan du skrive dine præferencer i punkt 4.
Hvis du ikke ved om du vil skrive på amerikansk, australsk eller britisk engelsk, vil korrekturlæseren vælge amerikansk, australsk eller britisk engelsk, baseret på det engelske du p.t. bruger. Hvis korrekturlæseren har nogle spørgsmål om dette, kontakter vi dig.
Ja, vores korrekturlæsere arbejder i weekender og ferier.
Da vi har mange korrekturlæsere til rådighed, kan vi checke din afhandling 24 timer i døgnet og 7 dage om ugen. Også i weekender og ferier.
Vælger du en deadline på 72 timer og uploader du din afhandling en torsdag aften? Så har du din afhandling tilbage søndag aften!
Vi accepterer følgende betalingsmetoder:
Transaktionsgebyr på 3,5%.
Kreditkort (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Maestro og Diners Club)
Transaktionsgebyr på 2% – 3,9%.
Transaktionsgebyr på 1,8%.
Transaktionsgebyr på 2%.
Du kan vælge mellem tre faste tidsperioder. Korrekturlæseren kan læse korrektur på din afhandling indenfor 24 timer, 72 timer eller 1 uge. Deadlinen er fastsat så snart du har betalt.
Skal du aflevere din afhandling om fire dage? Vælg venligst deadline på enten 72 timer eller 24 timer. Alle perioder du kan få læst korrektur, inkluderer weekender og ferier.
Du vil modtage en notifikation via sms eller email så snart der er læst korrektur på din afhandling.
Se Hvordan det fungerer-siden for mere information.