Staggered state tax changes supply the variation in this GB792 Unit 9 research design proposal, which asks whether leverage responds and builds only on freely available filings. Searches like "gb 792 unit 9 assignment example", "gb792 unit 9 sample" and "gb792 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished GB792 Unit 9 research design proposal looks like
Nine pages in six sections. Opening the proposal, the introduction gives the question and its lineage: Heider and Ljungqvist's 2015 evidence that leverage rose after state tax increases but did not fall after cuts. Section two gives the hypotheses, including that asymmetry. Section three specifies data: the SEC's Financial Statement Data Sets, built from XBRL filings since 2009, headquarters states from EDGAR filing headers, and state rate histories from a published compilation, checked against statutes. Section four sets out the estimator, a staggered difference-in-differences with event-time leads and lags. Section five lists threats with a response to each. A feasibility section closes the document, with a table giving each variable, its source, its XBRL tag and the share of firm-years where it is missing.
How a GB792 Unit 9 example is structured
The proposal is ordered so a committee can stop at any section for a named reason. Lineage comes first and briefly, positioning the study as an extension into a later period with different data rather than a claim of novelty. Hypotheses are directional and include the asymmetry, since a design able to detect only symmetric responses would miss the most interesting prior finding. Data precedes method deliberately: a candidate without a subscription database must show the variables exist before any estimator matters. Why a conventional two-way fixed effects regression is set aside gets its own paragraph in the method section, which cites Goodman-Bacon's 2021 decomposition of its bias under staggered timing and adopts Callaway and Sant'Anna's estimator instead. Threats follow in order of severity, led by apportionment: a firm's taxable income is divided among states by formula, so headquarters location measures exposure imperfectly.
A question with a lineage
Heider and Ljungqvist found leverage responded to tax increases and not to cuts. The proposal extends that question into years covered by machine-readable filings.
Data without a subscription
XBRL-based statements, EDGAR headers and published state rate histories supply every variable. The feasibility table reports the missing share tag by tag.
Why not two-way fixed effects
Under staggered adoption, the conventional estimator can use earlier-treated firms as controls for later ones. The proposal adopts an estimator built for heterogeneous timing.
Apportionment weakens the treatment
States tax a share of income set by formula, often weighted toward sales. Headquarters location therefore measures exposure with error, biasing estimates toward zero.
Tax changes are not random
Legislatures raise rates when budgets tighten, which may coincide with weaker local economies. Pre-trend tests and a comparison of neighboring counties across state lines are proposed.
Where marks go in GB792 Unit 9
Proposals naming data the candidate cannot obtain fail feasibility at once, and at this level a committee asks for the access route before reading the method. Designs that apply a two-way fixed effects regression to staggered treatment without acknowledging recent econometric work invite pointed questions, since the problem is now widely known. Threats listed as a generic paragraph, noting only that endogeneity may be a concern, earn almost nothing; each threat needs its mechanism and a response. Hypotheses predicting only an effect, with no sign or asymmetry, leave results impossible to interpret. Prior work misdescribed, for instance claiming the 2015 study found symmetric responses, is caught quickly. Missing variable definitions and a timeline in calendar dates instead of stages account for smaller deductions.
Get a GB792 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Describe the finance question your Unit 9 design addresses and the data sources genuinely open to you, plus the proposal guidelines and rubric. The design produced for you places the study in its lineage, proves each variable exists before specifying the estimator and answers every threat with a mechanism and a response. The first custom sample is free and usually lands inside 24-48h.
GB792 Unit 9 questions, answered
What if the candidate has library access to CRSP and Compustat?
Then the proposal names them and uses them, since their coverage and consistency beat XBRL-based data. This sample assumes no subscription because many doctoral business candidates lack one, and feasibility is judged on actual access. Either way, the feasibility table remains, listing each variable's source and the share of observations where it is missing.
Why propose an extension rather than an original question?
Many sections favor a feasible extension over an ambitious question the data cannot answer. Extending a published design into a new period, with new data and an updated estimator, still contributes: it tests whether a finding holds and whether it survives modern methods. The proposal states its contribution in exactly those terms rather than overstating novelty.
Does the proposal include preliminary results?
No, and it explains why. A design proposal commits to specifications before results are seen, which protects against choosing whichever estimator produces the preferred answer. The sample reports only descriptive feasibility figures, such as how many firm-years have usable debt tags, and leaves all estimation for later units, where the committee can compare results against the specifications fixed here.