| Course | GB815 Applied Research Topics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Research prospectus |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB815 Unit 10
Did Franchise Loans Fare Better? A Unit 10 Research Prospectus on SBA Loans to New Businesses
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB815: Applied Research Topics
Unit 10 Research Prospectus
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The loan counts, hours and Harrowgate Community Bank are composite and illustrative; the data sources, methods and studies cited are real, and no review board has acted.
Summary
The study sets the decade-long charge-off record of startup SBA 7(a) loans made in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska during fiscal 2010 to 2014 side by side for franchise units and independent businesses matched on industry, loan size and approval year. It uses public loan records and state business registries, requires no permissions, will take about 620 hours over fourteen months and asks the committee to approve the design and the data plan.
The Problem and Its Warrant
Community bank loan committees commonly treat franchise affiliation as a sign of lower risk when approving loans to new businesses. The belief rests largely on unsourced claims. The most direct study, by Bates (1995), drew on Census records of businesses launched in the mid-1980s and reported lower survival for the franchise group, even though those units began with more capital. Research on franchisors shows that young franchise systems are fragile (Shane, 1996). The Unit 3 evidence map found that the comparison lenders most need, loan outcomes for franchise and independent new businesses, has almost no published evidence. The Unit 8 brief identified four audiences whose decisions would change with the answer: loan committees, small business advisors, prospective franchisees and SBA lender policy staff.
Research Question
For startup borrowers in the four states whose SBA 7(a) loans were approved between the 2010 and 2014 fiscal years, was the ten-year write-off rate for franchise units higher or lower than for independent startups matched on industry, loan amount and year of approval?
The question is descriptive. It asks whether the rates differ, not whether franchising causes any difference, because owners who choose franchises may differ from other owners in ways no record captures.
Design
The design is a matched cohort comparison. The cohort consists of all new-business loans in the defined states and years, about 2,610 loans in the Unit 5 trial download, of which about 540 carry a franchise code. Each franchise loan will be matched to up to three independent loans in the same three-digit industry, the same approval year and a similar loan-size band, which the trial data suggest will yield about 1,500 matched independent loans. Matching prevents the comparison from reflecting the concentration of franchises in particular industries, such as restaurants and personal services.
Data
The primary source is the SBA's public 7(a) loan data, which record approval date, amount, guaranteed share, industry, a franchise code, a new-business indicator and loan status, including charge-off date. Franchise status will be checked by comparing borrower names with the brand names listed in state disclosure filings, following the validation plan written after the Unit 6 seminar. A secondary outcome, whether the business remained registered, will come from the four states' business entity records. Glennon and Nigro (2005) and DeYoung et al. (2008) used SBA loan records for studies of default, which supports their use here.
Analysis
The primary analysis will estimate the cumulative probability of charge-off over ten years for franchise and matched independent loans, using survival curves that account for loans paid off early, which leave the risk set without charging off. A proportional hazards model will estimate the difference in charge-off risk while adjusting for loan size, guaranteed share, state and approval year within matched sets. Results will be reported as hazard ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals and as differences in ten-year charge-off rates. Two sensitivity analyses are planned: the comparison will be run with franchise classifications as reported and as corrected, and franchise loans will be divided by the age of the franchise system, from disclosure documents, to see whether young systems drive the result.
The design answers the lender's question with records anyone can check, and it says in advance what it cannot claim.
Feasibility
The roughly 620-hour budget built in Unit 7 includes data preparation, classification correction, linkage to state records, matching, analysis and writing. At about ten hours a week, the study would take fourteen months. The trial download confirmed that the data can be obtained and that the key fields are populated. Linkage to state records is the most time-consuming step and carries the main risk of delay; if it proves slower than estimated, the secondary outcome can be limited to one state without affecting the primary analysis.
Why the Prospectus Is Ready
The term's work has answered the questions a committee would ask before approving a study. The evidence map in Unit 3 showed the gap is real. The appraisal in Unit 4 showed which existing studies deserve weight and why none answers this question. The data audit in Unit 5 showed the records exist, are free and can be tested. The seminar in Unit 6 removed the study's one hidden dependence on another person. The narrowing ledger in Unit 7 recorded what the question gave up, so that no one will claim it back. The relevance brief in Unit 8 named who will use the answer and how it could be misused. And the comparison matrix in Unit 9 showed the choice survives different weightings of the criteria.
Limitations
The study compares loans, not businesses: a business can repay its loan and close, or default and survive. It covers SBA-guaranteed loans, which go to borrowers who may not qualify for conventional credit, so results may not apply to other small business lending. It cannot support causal claims. And franchise classifications, even corrected, may contain errors that the two-version sensitivity analysis is meant to reveal rather than eliminate.
Ethics
The data are public, but they include borrowers' names and addresses. No individual borrower will be identified in any report, and results will be presented only in aggregate. A determination from the university's institutional review board on whether the study involves human subjects research will be requested before analysis begins; no determination has yet been made.
Timeline and Request
Months one and two: download, clean and document the loan data. Months three through five: correct franchise classifications. Months six through nine: link to state records and form matched sets. Months ten through twelve: analysis. Months thirteen and fourteen: writing. The committee is asked to approve the research question, the design and the data plan. If the committee prefers a narrower first stage, the study could begin with Missouri alone, which holds about two-fifths of the loans in the trial download, and add the other states once the linkage method has been proven on one state's records.
References
Bates, T. (1995). A comparison of franchise and independent small business survival rates. Small Business Economics, 7(5), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01302738
DeYoung, R., Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2008). Borrower-lender distance, credit scoring, and loan performance: Evidence from informational-opaque small business borrowers. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2007.07.002
Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2005). Measuring the default risk of small business loans: A survival analysis approach. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37(5), 923-947. https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2005.0051
Shane, S. A. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangements and their implications for firm growth and survival: A study of new franchisors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 216-234. https://doi.org/10.2307/256637
Reading the GB 815 Unit 10 instructions
The closing GB815 unit turns the whole term into a prospectus a committee could sign off on. Begin with a single page that gives the question, the design, the data, the hours and the approval requested. Present the problem and its warrant, drawing on your evidence map and relevance brief. State the research question in one sentence and say whether it is descriptive or causal. Describe the design, including how comparisons are made fair. Specify the data and how weaknesses identified in your audit will be handled. Set out the analysis, including sensitivity checks, before any data are analyzed. Show feasibility with an hour estimate and the main risk of delay. State limitations and the ethics review you will request. End with a timeline and the approval sought. About twelve pages under standard prospectus headings, with a timeline chart, is common.
Inside the GB815 Unit 10 example
The summary states the question, design, data, hours and request. The warrant section draws on Bates's survival comparison, Shane on young systems, the Unit 3 map's empty default cell and the Unit 8 audiences. The question is stated as descriptive. The matched cohort design pairs about 540 franchise loans with up to three independents each, and the margin note explains why. Data come from SBA records and state registries, with the franchise code checked against disclosure filings, as Glennon and Nigro and DeYoung and colleagues used such records. The analysis specifies survival curves, a hazard model and two sensitivity checks, with the highlighted sentence on verifiable records. Feasibility, readiness across the term's units, limitations, ethics, a timeline and a narrower first-stage option close it.
Where the points sit in the GB815 Unit 10 rubric
Points in the GB815 prospectus depend on whether a committee could approve it as written. Instructors give credit for a summary that states the question, design, data, effort and request on one page. The warrant should draw on the term's evidence rather than general claims. A question stated in one sentence, clearly descriptive or causal, is essential. The design earns significant marks when it explains how the comparison is made fair. Data plans should address the weaknesses found in the audit. Specifying analysis and sensitivity checks in advance shows integrity. Feasibility must be estimated concretely, with the main risk named. Limitations and ethics should be honest about what has and has not been approved, and a realistic timeline completes the work.
GB815 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB815 prospectuses paste earlier units together, producing repetition and inconsistent figures. Others state a causal question that the design cannot answer. Warrant sections often rely on general statements rather than the candidate's own evidence map. Data weaknesses found earlier are sometimes forgotten. Analysis plans are left vague, inviting later adjustment. Feasibility is stated without an estimate of hours or a named risk. Ethics sections may claim approvals not yet sought. Summarize on one page, ground the warrant in your evidence, state the question in one sentence, make the comparison fair, address data weaknesses, fix the analysis, estimate effort, state limits and ethics honestly and give a timeline. If your earlier units are complete, our writers can help you assemble the prospectus.
Get a GB815 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Gather your earlier units, the comments each drew and the Unit 10 prospectus template with its rubric. One question sits on the first page of the prospectus composed from them, earlier work is rewritten into a single argument, analysis is specified before data arrive and the scope of approval is spelled out. First sample free, delivery typically 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB815 papers and MBA samples
- GB815 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB815 Unit 2: Direction Feasibility Memo
- GB815 Unit 3: Evidence Mapping Exercise
- GB815 Unit 4: Study Quality Appraisal
- GB815 Unit 5: Data Source Audit
- GB815 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB815 Unit 7: Scope Narrowing Exercise
- GB815 Unit 8: Practitioner Relevance Brief
- GB815 Unit 9: Comparison Matrix
- GB794 Unit 10: Marketing Research Paper
- GB793 Unit 10: Management Research Paper
- GB792 Unit 10: Finance Research Paper
- GB791 Unit 10: Scholarly Accounting Paper
GB815 Unit 10 questions, answered
How is a prospectus different from a full proposal?
A prospectus is shorter and earlier. It states the question, warrant, design, feasibility and limits clearly enough for someone to approve the direction, while a full proposal adds the complete literature review, detailed methods and instruments. In many programs the prospectus decides whether the proposal gets written, so clarity and feasibility weigh more than exhaustive coverage.
Should the prospectus reuse text from earlier units?
It should reuse the substance and rewrite the prose. Earlier units answered narrower prompts, and pasting them together produces repetition, shifting terminology and contradictions. A prospectus that carries forward figures such as the hour estimate and linkage rate while restating them in one voice reads as a single argument rather than an assembly.
Does the prospectus need ethics approval before submission?
Usually not; approval of human-subjects work typically follows a proposal, not a prospectus. The prospectus states what review the design will require and when it will be sought. Studies using only public records about firms may need a determination rather than full review, but that decision belongs to the institution, and the prospectus says so.
Where can I find a free GB815 Unit 10 sample paper?
A complete GB815 Unit 10 research prospectus is on this page, proposing a matched comparison of ten-year charge-offs on SBA loans to new franchise and independent businesses.
What is a matched cohort comparison?
It compares a group with a characteristic, here franchise borrowers, against similar units without it, matched on factors such as industry, year and loan size, so that differences are less likely to reflect those factors.