Syndicate content

Recent comments

  • Reply to: Are good school principals born or can they be made?   4 hours 25 min ago
    Thank you very much for sharing this work. It's a good example of how school management can be strengthened to good effect. 
  • Reply to: Are good school principals born or can they be made?   14 hours 55 min ago

    The Brazilian Experience

    Thank you for your excellent post about the importance of improving School Management.

    Here in Brazil, Instituto Unibanco develops, in partnership with local governments, the Jovem de Futuro program, that offers School Management training for principals within the state's public upper-secondary schools network.

    "The results point unequivocally to a positive impact of the Project on learning in Language and Mathematics in public schools. The impact magnitude in both subjects is 5 points on the Saeb Scale or 15% of a standard deviation. Although the impact size varies depending on the state in which the Project was deployed, this effect is a reflection of statistical fluctuations from measurement errors.

    Five more points in learning in schools benefited by Jovem de Futuro is not insignificant, especially considering how much a Brazilian student has learned throughout the high school stage. Five points in learning are 80% of what is typically learned in a high school year, and therefore the effect of the program is similar to what would happen if High School were to have one more year. Or yet, five points in three years is more than 23 of the 27 Brazilian states have improved in proficiency over the last decade."

    See more at: https://observatoriodeeducacao.org.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/Impacto-Jovem-de-Futuro.pdf

  • Reply to: The Puzzle with LARCs   1 week 23 hours ago
    The unpredictability of side effects for each individual is challenging - for sure. And, yes, implants and IUDs require removals by a trained professional, these are not diffucult - in fact, quick and routine procedures, which can take as little as a few minutes. It's important to remember that switching is costly regardless of your modern method - with the pill, you may need to adjust the dosage; you have to wait till the end of the cycle with an injectable before choosing another method, etc. Clinician competence and responsiveness are important, no doubt, but so is the importance of trying these more effective methods, which are not more likely to be discontinued than other methods by their adopters...
  • Reply to: The Puzzle with LARCs   1 week 23 hours ago

    I have learned a lot.

  • Reply to: Why don’t economists do cost analysis in their impact evaluations?   1 week 2 days ago

    I am pleased to share some of my recent papers (WPS) on CBA/BCA and Investment Analysis. All these four papers provide better insight into the analysis:
    1. A New Method to Estimate IRR and NPV and NPV is not an Appropriate Criterion: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2899648
    2. IRR Performs Better than NPV: A Critical Analysis of Multiple IRR and Mutually Exclusive Investments: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2913905
    3. The Controversial Reinvestment Assumption in CBA and Capital Investment Analysis: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2918744
    4. MIRR is a Spurious criterion and should not be used in cost-benefit analysis and investment analysis http://ssrn.com/abstract=2942456
    A summary of the findings follows:
    a. A new method is introduced to estimate NPV and IRR from the Capital Amortization Schedule (CAS). The new method is more transparent and explain better the NPV and IRR.
    b. The new method exposes that the NPV is the unutilized net cash flow (NCF) and if fully utilized it will become zero at a discount rate equal to IRR. NPV is not a good criterion as it indicate incomplete information on return of capital (ROC) and the return on invested capital (ROIC).
    c. IRR is most appropriate to select and rank mutually exclusive investments as explained in the paper listed two.
    d. Paper 3 provides evidence that reinvestment of intermediate income in the estimation of IRR is a fallacy and therefore IRR remains as the best criterion. This is again reinforced by the results from paper 1 listed above.
    e. MIRR is a spurious criterion because it assumes reinvestment (which is a fallacy) and MIRR also cannot solve the problem of multiple IRR as presumed. MIRR estimate is boundless with increasing investment rate (IR). MIRR is based on modified NCF (MNCF) and the MNCF distorts the cash flow and the results as explained in the paper no; 4 listed above.
    Based on these analytical evidence, Investment analysts and decision makers may wish to move away from the conventional wisdom of preferring NPV and using MIRR as a criterion so also the authors of all published works and finance and economic texts.
    Appreciate comments.
    Regards
    Dr Kannan Arjunan, PhD (Economics), MBA (Finance), CAIIB Brisbane, Australia