Valuation Model. AMC expressly accepts and acknowledges, and agrees to comply with and be bound by, the provisions of Section 3.13 of the Agreement.
Valuation Model. Lender hereby agrees to provide to Borrower a copy of its Valuation Model on or before the Closing Date. In connection with Lender's provision of the Valuation Model to Borrower, Borrower, Guarantor and Lender each expressly acknowledge and agree as follows:
Valuation Model. 15 3.14. Exhibit G......................................................... 16 4.
Valuation Model. 19 3.14. Exhibit G....................................................................................... 20 3.15. Payment of Excess Cash Flow..................................................................... 20 3.16. Exhibit J....................................................................................... 21
Valuation Model. 20 3.14 EXHIBIT G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Valuation Model. Although the injury risk model did not provide overtly conclusive results regarding pitcher well- being, the hypothesis that there is a premium on pitchers who do not exhibit knee collapse still required testing. The first econometric model used tested WAR values against the same regressors shown earlier, as well as including Injured List days as an independent variable. Equation 5 = 0 + 1 + 2 + ′3 + 4 + Model 7: WAR (Intercept) 2.24*** (0.26) Age -0.04*** (0.01) Knee Collapse -0.21** (0.08) Injured List Days -0.00*** (0.00) R2 0.05 Adj. R2 0.04 Num. obs. 3156 RMSE 1.66 ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Standard errors are reported in parenthesis. Team fixed effects are included, but not shown. As shown, the WAR of a given pitcher in the sample is about one fifth less if they exhibit the knee collapse. This coefficient was statistically significant within the sample. A result such as this does have a lot of meaning for MLB teams. A fifth less of a win is quite substantial, especially for the sample, where the average WAR was 1.00. The next step is to establish why knee collapse has a statistically significant effect on WAR, if this effect is just limited to WAR, and whether adding different variables causes more of a decrease, an increase, or a change in statistical significance. To begin, I decided to move away from WAR as an entire unit and more towards individual statistics that have either direct or indirect effects on WAR. The first dependent variable examined was innings pitched. Equation 6: = 0 + 1 + 2 + ′3 + 4 − Model 8: Innings Pitched (Intercept) 126.74*** (9.88) Age -1.49*** (0.27) Knee Collapse -10.92*** (2.84) Injured List Days -0.17*** (0.03) R2 0.03 Adj. R2 0.02 Num. obs. 3159 RMSE 62.53 ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Standard errors are reported in parenthesis. Team fixed effects are included, but not shown. This model suggests that pitchers who exhibit the knee collapse tend to throw about 11 less innings than those who do not exhibit the knee collapse. This is equivalent to about one and a half starts less for starters, and approximately 5 appearances for bullpen arms. Finally, I sought to investigate further why knee collapse leads to a lower WAR and workload. The first dependent variable tested in isolation was walks, as free bases can lead to both more runs (lower WAR) and less innings pitched (higher pitch counts). Equation 7: = 0 + 1 + 2 + ′3 − Model 9: Walks (Intercept) 86.64*** (6.41) Age -0.86*** (0.11) Knee Collapse 2.15 (...
Valuation Model. Although the injury risk model did not provide overtly conclusive results regarding pitcher well- being, the hypothesis that there is a premium on pitchers who do not exhibit knee collapse still required testing. The first econometric model used tested WAR values against the same regressors shown earlier, as well as including Injured List days as an independent variable. Equation 5 𝑊𝐴𝑅 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝐾𝑛𝑒𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 + 𝛽2𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝛽′3𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑚 + 𝛽4𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑𝐿𝑖𝑠𝑡𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 + 𝜀𝑖 Model 7: WAR (Intercept) 2.24*** (0.26) Age -0.04*** (0.01) Knee Collapse -0.21** (0.08) Injured List Days -0.00*** (0.00) R2 0.05 Adj. R2 0.04 Num. obs. 3156 RMSE 1.66 ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Standard errors are reported in parenthesis. Team fixed effects are included, but not shown. As shown, the WAR of a given pitcher in the sample is about one fifth less if they exhibit the knee collapse. This coefficient was statistically significant within the sample. A result such as this does have a lot of meaning for MLB teams. A fifth less of a win is quite substantial, especially for the sample, where the average WAR was 1.00. The next step is to establish why knee collapse has a statistically significant effect on WAR, if this effect is just limited to WAR, and whether adding different variables causes more of a decrease, an increase, or a change in statistical significance. To begin, I decided to move away from WAR as an entire unit and more towards individual statistics that have either direct or indirect effects on WAR. The first dependent variable examined was innings pitched. Equation 6: 𝐼𝑃 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝐾𝑛𝑒𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 + 𝛽2𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝛽′3𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑚 + 𝐵4𝐼𝐿𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 − 𝜀𝑖 Model 8: Innings Pitched (Intercept) 126.74*** (9.88) Age -1.49*** (0.27) Knee Collapse -10.92*** (2.84) Injured List Days -0.17*** (0.03) R2 0.03 Adj. R2 0.02 Num. obs. 3159 RMSE 62.53 ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Standard errors are reported in parenthesis. Team fixed effects are included, but not shown. This model suggests that pitchers who exhibit the knee collapse tend to throw about 11 less innings than those who do not exhibit the knee collapse. This is equivalent to about one and a half starts less for starters, and approximately 5 appearances for bullpen arms. Finally, I sought to investigate further why knee collapse leads to a lower WAR and workload. The first dependent variable tested in isolation was walks, as free bases can lead to both more runs (lower WAR) an...
Valuation Model. DCF approach has been adopted for this valuation, i.e. the free cashflow of the entity is the quantitative indicator for the enterprise’s expected income, and the corresponding Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) model has been adopted for calculating the discount rate.
Valuation Model. In connection with Lender's use of the Valuation Model, Borrower, Guarantor and Lender each expressly acknowledge and agree as follows:
Valuation Model. The Agent shall have received a valuation model specific to the Provider Acquisition in accordance with Section 7.12(k)(i)(A) of the Credit Agreement.
