The hubris hypothesis of takeovers is a term that describes: a. the overconfidence of leaders in their ability to create value by acquiring another company. b. a strategic plan for building a company through mergers and acquisitions. c. a commitment by managers to continue investing in a strategic plan even after they have received information that the project is failing. d. a manager deciding an acquisition is the right choice for a company because serendipity put the other firm in his or her path.

a. the overconfidence of leaders in their ability to create value by acquiring another company.

Explanation:

The hubris hypothesis -

It means that the average rise in the target of the firm's market value , should always be more than the average reduction in the bidding firm's value , it is considered when there is no gain available to the corporate takeovers .

It is the leader's overconfidence for their ability to create value by acquiring any other company .

Hence , from the given information of the question the correct answer is ( a ) .

i disagree that there is little difference between adult female development and adult male development. sociological studies comparing female and male pathways to adulthood, revelead that there are sustancial differences between them. particularly, female and male differ from timing of marriage, when they began to live with children and the likelihood of combining wife/husband and parent roles.

the anti federalists was a movement that was opposed to the creation of a us federal government. although they were not as organized as the federalists, they also had a large group of leaders, especially in state politics.

the statement "now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people” represents the concerns of the anti federalists.

they strongly believed that the federalists were representing the interests of aristocratic elements of society at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, who lived in a rural society.

their fear for the creation of a strong federal government and the president’s power of veto in their opinion would create a tyrannical rule that would dominate the people. they defended the importance of restraining the government’s power towards people at any cost.