I observed a
A striking resemblance has been seenbetween the success rates of the Netherlands and that ofthe US. In the study byMartynova and Renneboog (2010) it already became clear found that shareholder protection was almost equal between the US and the Netherlandsin both countries. This correspondedcorresponds to the fact that they both have a success rate is of approximately the 40%.
At least one
More than 1 hedge fund acquired a share in 14 the company in fourteen of the 36 listed companies in my database. Of these, 10 of thosewere working together to achieve certain goals. The hedge funds held a share in the company for an average length of hedge funds holding a share in the company is531 days. Although Brav et al. (2008) considered may find this long-term period, I consider 531 days is still to be seen as to be short-term.
The average percentage of voting power
is initial ranges between 8.06% and the maximum voting power is 10.10%. From By looking at this data, it can be concluded that hedge funds are not generally involved in acquiring controlling blocks of stock. Due to the fact that Because shareholders have an opportunity to go to the OK, they have a fair reasonable chance of getting having their demands fulfilled. The OK likes prefers to solve disputes between shareholders and management by taking enacting provisional measures that improve the dialogue between the two parties. As a consequence, the parties often find compromises. Defensive measures that are taken by the management takes only to oppress shareholders are prohibited, and minority shareholders can change how they are treated by if a majority files an appeal.
Doing an extensive ly study of the shareholder activism undertaken by hedge funds in the Netherlands over a for the past decade required a great deal of precise work. But although Even though I did n’t not use any private information, this study pretty nice gives a provides insight into hedge fund activism in the country.
Example comment for Proofreading & Editing service:
“Since you indicated that you’re allowed to use first-person pronouns, consider using the active voice here. This is a simple way to make your writing clearer and more compelling. Read more about the active voice: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/passive-voice/.”
Example comment for Clarity Check:
“The extent to which this is an obvious consequence of the information you’ve provided is not entirely clear. Try to make this relationship more apparent. Reviewing your linking word choices may help you here.”
Example comment for Proofreading & Editing service:
“This is an example of an inflated phrase. Learn how to recognize such phrases and tighten your writing here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/write-shorter-sentences-clarify-dissertation/.“
Example comment for Structure Check:
“Make sure to include all the important elements of a discussion section. In particular, this section could be strengthened by discussing the limitations of the study in more detail. Read more about structuring your discussion here: https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation-structure/discussion/.”
Along with the edited document, you’ll receive a personal note in which the editor answers your questions and explains how your text has been improved.
Thanks for sending your thesis to Scribbr! Sustainability is an important issue these days, and you’ve done a good job of making a complex topic accessible and engaging.
Overall, your writing is clear, so I’ve focused on bringing the style and tone in line with academic standards. Many small inconsistencies have been corrected, and I’ve made your sentences more concise where appropriate. In the Most Common Mistakes overview, I’ve shared some academic writing tips to help you address these issues in the future.
To answer your question, I’m confident that your literature review chapter could be understood by a reader with little knowledge on the topic. That said, there are a few areas where additional context could be helpful. See my specific suggestions in the comments and checklists.
I hope that this feedback is helpful to you as you revise your thesis. Best of luck finishing up the project!
Language / Grammar / Capitalization
The names of theories, models, disciplines and ideas should generally not take capital letters.
Despite what the
Utility Maximization Model suggests, people do not always act in their own self-interest—a significant finding in Behavioral Economics .
Language / Punctuation / Apostrophes
Apostrophes should not be used to make plurals. This also applies to abbreviations, acronyms and decades.
NGO’s were especially active in the 1970’s .
Academic style / Word choice / Tone
Academic writing is generally more formal than other kinds of writing—avoid casual, everyday language and slang.
A lot of studies have tried to find out why we remember certain photos but not others.
Academic style / Word choice / Repetition and redundancy
Good academic writing is concise—it doesn’t use more words than necessary to make a point. If one or two words can take the place of several, choose the shorter option.
the year of 2018, the researchers interviewed a total of 75 individuals in order to better understand the concept of platform-based work.
Academic style / Conventions / Abbreviations
An acronym should not start a sentence, as this is typically considered too informal. Either revise the sentence so that the acronym no longer comes first, or spell out the full term.
NGOs provided their input during the planning phase.
You’ll also receive an overview of errors to watch out for, with personalized tips to improve your language and academic style.
The goal is to help you recognize your mistakes and become a better writer.
With the Structure Check, your editor provides feedback on structural issues such as repetition and redundancy, transitions between sentences and paragraphs, and the use of headings.
You’ll also receive a Structure Check Report focused on the organization of chapters and sections. The report identifies where you should focus your efforts as you revise the paper.
Tailored to your document type, it gives an overview of elements that are missing or out of place, along with links to in-depth articles that will help improve your structure.
The text has a logical beginning, middle and end.
Feedback editor: Your paper has a clear trajectory with a beginning, middle and end. You’ve done an excellent job of exploring your thesis that democracy always leads to demagogy. Nice work!
The argumentation makes sense.
Feedback editor: You talk about 50 people who disagree with the current political situation, but you do not specify the sources that substantiate this claim. I also recommend that you look at your statement that democracy is the best form of government. The question here is “According to whom?” If this is your own opinion, you need to make that clearer.
The information is presented in a logical order.
Feedback editor: Remember that your readers haven't studied this topic as much as you have. Be sure to give them the information they need to understand your arguments. For example, at the end of the introduction, explain the terms "macropartisanship" and “deterritorialization” to ensure your readers understand these concepts. In addition, I recommend elaborating on the related studies, so your readers have a proper framework for understanding your research.
The information seems valid and reliable based on the argumentation.
The text does not contain any unintentionally contradictory information or arguments.
Feedback editor: In Section 4.1, you state that no respondents were satisfied with the current situation. However, in your conclusion, you say that three respondents had no opinion. Be sure to reconcile these points or make corrections if necessary.
No information that is relevant for further understanding of the text seems to be missing.
The examples used are relevant.
Feedback editor: Yes, absolutely. However, you have included more than enough examples to make your point. In the comments, I've highlighted examples that you might consider deleting to keep your paper focused and concise.
You take into account that the reader might not know everything about this topic.
Feedback editor: You might consider adding more historical background information in Section 3.2 when you discuss democracy in the Middle East. At present, that discussion implies a high level of background information on the part of readers. It’s okay to assume that your readers have some familiarity with the events you’re talking about, but adding a few reminders for readers would be helpful. For example, the first time you refer to Mubarak, you might add an aside telling readers that he was Egypt’s president from 1981 to 2011.
The subject of the document is clear.
The purpose of the document is clear.
Feedback editor: Your goal is clear in principle, but only after reading the entire text. I recommend making this clearer earlier on. You can do so by explaining the factors that led you to form your your hypothesis that democracy always leads to demagogy in the Introduction chapter.
The most important question to be answered in the document is clear.
Feedback editor: Although I understand what you want to say, you have not specifically stated what the final conclusion of your text is. You should therefore take a careful look at my comment on page 54.
The answer to the above question, namely the conclusion, is clear.
The methods used to arrive at this answer are clear.
Terms are explained in a clear and precise manner.
Feedback editor: Yes. However, note that “macropartisanship" and “deterritorialization” need to be explained earlier, as I mentioned in the text logic checklist.
Further important information, such as the study’s limitations and recommendations, is described clearly.
Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.
Editing papers is still the work of people. And we, too, can make mistakes. If you’re not 100% happy with the edit, please let us know so we can find the solution that’s best for you, whether that’s a new edit or a refund.
Read more about our 100% happiness guarantee.
Scribbr is specialized in editing study related documents. We check:
Yes, our editors also work during the weekends and holidays.
Because we have many editors available, we can check your thesis 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, all year round.
If you choose a 72 hour deadline and upload your thesis on a Thursday evening, you’ll have your thesis back by Sunday evening!
Yes, you can upload your thesis in sections.
We try our best to ensure that the same editor checks all the different sections of your thesis. When you upload a new file, our system recognizes you as a returning customer, and we immediately contact the editor who helped you before.
However, we cannot guarantee that the same editor will be available. Your chances are higher if
Please note that the shorter your deadline is, the bigger the risk that your previous editor is not available.
If your previous editor isn’t available, then we will inform you immediately and look for another qualified editor. Fear not! Every Scribbr editor follows the Scribbr Improvement Model and will deliver high-quality work.
However, every editor has a slightly different editing style, so you may notice small inconsistencies in editing choices. As with every proofreading order, be sure to carefully review your editor’s changes and suggestions as you finalize your text to ensure that everything is as you want it.
The Clarity Check is an additional service that you can purchase when you have your thesis proofread and edited by Scribbr.
If you select the Clarity Check, then your editor will provide you with useful feedback to help you improve your reasoning and ensure that what you’ve written is comprehensive and clear.
The editor will provide this feedback using two checklists and in-text comments. Our editors never implement this feedback directly, as it often concerns your ideas and argumentation.
Note that our editors can only consider the internal logic and clarity of your text. They are not subject matter experts and can therefore not check your facts or tell you the content is correct.
You can choose between three set time periods. The editor can edit your paper within 24 hours, 72 hours or 1 week. The deadline is set as soon as you have paid.
Do you need to hand in your paper in four days? Please choose either the 72 hours or 24 hours deadline. All the editing periods include weekends and holidays.
You will receive a notification via text message and email as soon as your paper has been edited.
Check the How it works page for more information.
Our Proofreading & Editing service entails checking for typographical and linguistic errors, appropriate word choice, academic style and consistency. Additionally, your editor will help you become a better writer by providing you with a personalized improvement letter designed to help you recognize and correct your most common mistakes.
Your editor will correct:
Your editor will give you feedback about:
Your editor will proofread your document using Word’s Track Changes. When you receive your text back, you can simply accept all changes.
We accept the following payment methods:
Credit card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Maestro and Diners Club)
Transaction fee of 2% – 3,9%.
Transaction fee of 3,5%.
Transaction fee of 3,2%.
Transaction fee of 2%.
No transaction fee.