<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Does EVA and beat ROA and ROE in explaining the stock returns in Indian scenario? : an evidence using mixed effects panel data regression model</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Agrawal, Ashita</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Mohanty, Pitabas</namePart>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <dateIssued>2019</dateIssued>
    <issuance>monographic</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marcform">print</form>
    <extent>p.103-134.</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>We study a panel data of 1,700 Indian firms listed in either National Stock Exchange (NSE) or Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) for the period 2001 to 2016 to see if economic value added (EVA) explains the annual stock returns of these Indian firms better than return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). Using mixed effect model, we find that EVA does explain the annual stock returns of these Indian firms better than ROA and ROE. - Reproduced.</abstract>
  <subject>
    <topic>Stock exchange</topic>
  </subject>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <name>
      <namePart>Management and Labour Studies</namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">190903</recordCreationDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
