Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

A simple template for pitching research

Robert W. Faff
UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Abstract

In this article, I propose a simple new research tool – a template designed for
pitching research. The two-page pitching template begins with four ‘prelimi-
naries’: working title, research question, key papers and motivation. Following
this is the core of the template based on a ‘3-2-1 countdown’, namely THREE
elements – idea, data and tools; TWO questions – What’s new? and So what?;
and ONE bottom line – contribution. The template ends with ‘other’
considerations. Finance and accounting examples are given to illustrate
application of the template.

Key words: New research ideas; Novice researcher advice; Pitch template;
Research mentor advice; Research proposal; Supervisor advice

JEL classification: G00, M00, B40, A20, B00, C00, D00, E00, F00, H00, I00,
J00, L00, Q00, R00, Z00

doi: 10.1111/acfi.12116

1. Introduction

For many individuals, initiating a new piece of research can be very

challenging. Indeed, novice researchers are often daunted by the prospect –
they literally do not know where or how to start research in a meaningful way.

The current article is companion to ‘Pitching Research’ (SSRN ID 2462059). The

current article is also linked to my plenary address to the 2015 AFAANZ conference
(Hobart). The pitching template had its genesis in presentations delivered to a special
session of the IAAER and ACCA Early Career Researchers Workshop held in
conjunction with the joint AMIS IAAER 2013 Conference (June), a plenary session at
the 6th International Accounting and Finance Doctoral Symposium (IAFDS), Bologna,
June 2013, and a one-day workshop ‘Getting Published: Tools and Tricks of the Trade’,
sponsored by IAFDS in Trondheim, Norway, June 2014. The template was exposed
Received 28 January 2015; accepted 28 January 2015 by Tom Smith (Editor in Chief).

© 2015 AFAANZ
312 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

While Stokes (2013), for example, gives general advice on how to come up with
new research ideas, is it possible to assess with any confidence that you have
identified a good/worthwhile research topic? Moreover, can such confidence be
achieved in a timely and efficient manner? To help meet this challenge, in the
current paper, I propose a simple new research tool – a template for pitching
research.1
To give meaningful context to the pitching challenge, imagine that you need
to ‘pitch’ your research proposal to a potential research mentor and that this
person is extremely ‘time poor’. Specifically, imagine that they can only offer

for the very first time to the finance group of students at the 2014 AFAANZ Doctoral
Symposium (Auckland). I have since benefited from the opportunity to present an
extensive series of workshops, partially sponsored by AFAANZ in my role as an
AFAANZ visiting research professor, at Deakin University, 12 August 2014; Monash
University, 14 August 2014; Macquarie University, 21 August 2014; University of
Sydney, 22 August 2014; University of Queensland, 29 August 2014; University of
Ljubljana, 5 September 2014; University of Antwerp, 10 September 2014; University of
Strathclyde, 12 September 2014; University of Western Australia, 19 September 2014;
Latrobe University, 20/21 October 2014; University of South Australia, 22 October
2014; University of Adelaide, 23 October 2014; University of Canberra, 27 October
2014; Australian National University, 28 October 2014; University of Western Sydney,
29 October 2014; University of Otago, 19 November 2014; Victoria University of
Wellington, 21 November 2014; ANZAM Doctoral workshop, UNSW, 1 December
2014; International Corporate Governance Symposium, Pattaya, Thailand, 2 December
2014; AFM Doctoral Symposium, Auckland, 18 December 2014. I thank the following
individuals who have used the template in the very early days of this project and allowed
me to see the outcome of their efforts (listed alphabetically): Marteja Achim, Faisal
Alqahtani, Mattia Anesa, Bayan Arqawi, Ladshiya Atisoothanan, Stacey Beaumont,
Anmol Bhatia, Martin Bierry, Reza Bradrania, Millie Chang, Mardy Chiah, Anamaria
Cociorva, Man Dang, Marion Dupire-Declerck, Paul Gerrans, Liz Hardie, Chloe C-Y
Ho, Md. Nurul Kabir, Fatima Khushnud, Robyn King, Yihui Lan, Nhung Le, Frank
Liu, Marcio Machado, Md Al Mamun, Suyash Mahto, Daniel Murray, Paul Newbury,
Hannah Nguyen, Ngoc Anh Le Nguyen, Phong Nguyen, Trang Nguyen, Kirsten
Nielsen, David Pecha, Judy Qiu, Raluca Ratiu, Saphira Rekker, Dimas Pena Romera,
Ali Sheikhbahaei, Ross Skelton, Marita Smith, Luisa Unda, Xin Wang, Marvin Wee,
Dennis Wellman, Xin Xu, Lexie Yao, Richard Zhang and Angel Zhong. Further, I also
thank the following individuals for suggestions/help on broadening the template’s scope
of appeal: Andrew Ainsworth, Shumi Akhtar, Devraj Basu, Holly Brailsford, Marc De
Ceuster, Timothy Crack, Phil Gharghori, Andrew Grant, Nicole Hartley, Bryan
Howieson, Maria Ishkova, David Johnstone, Petko Kalev, Michael Keefe, Martin
Lally, Yong Li, David Lont, Rand Low, Bouchra M’Zali, Will McKay, Ron McIvor,
Dusan Mramor, Ingrid Nielsen, Barry Oliver, Graham Partington, Shams Pathan,
Joseph Rich, Milind Sathye, Tom Smith, Don Stokes, George Tanewski, Ria Vaportzis,
Martie-Louise Verreynne, Ann Wallin, Terry Walter, Gabby Walters, Geoff Warren and
Sue Wright.

1
Stokes (2013) is freely available at: http://www.cig.ase.ro/revista_cig/Afiseaza
Articol.aspx.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 313

30 minutes of their time, to read, listen and give feedback to you, to form a
judgment on your basic idea. How would you go about meeting this daunting
challenge? What areas/aspects should you cover? In what detail? How can you
best package this information for efficient consumption and assessment? In
such a setting, the pitch template presents one possible solution.
The basic logic is to provide essential, brief information across a broad range of
essential research dimensions that any collaborator would need to know, to make
a reliable assessment of the quality of and potential for the proposal. Notably, it is
assumed that the goal of this exercise was to produce a solid plan which, once
executed, would eventually lead to a quality research paper – published as a fully
refereed article in a highly reputable international academic journal.
There are numerous extant articles/books that give researchers general advice
and valuable insights on how to get their research published and so such a
perspective will not be repeated in any detail here. Two notable recent examples
are Bradbury (2012) and Clarkson (2012).2 A critical distinction exists between
the objective/context of such ‘advice’ papers versus the current paper. Most
notably, articles such as Bradbury (2012) and Clarkson (2012) assume that
researchers already have a well-developed paper, and the advice they then give
is how to enhance and improve from this relatively advanced base. In contrast,
in my paper, I am primarily speaking to researchers who have embryonic
notions which are yet to be formally explored, and for which the researcher is
genuinely unsure of the underlying academic merit.
My primary target audience is novice researchers – whether they are current
doctoral students or (post-PhD) junior academics, with only limited publication
experience in the very early phases of an academic career. My secondary, but
equally important, target audience comprises PhD supervisors, research mentors
and senior research collaborators, as they should seek out all legitimate means to
help fulfil their important leading role in any such research relationship.
The remainder of the current paper evolves as follows. In Section 2, I pitch
‘pitching research’. In Section 3, I then formally present the template and
briefly discuss the underlying philosophy. Section 4 offers advice to the pitcher
and pitchee, as well as advice on different potential adaptations for broader
applications. Section 5 discusses completed pitch examples in finance, account-
ing and corporate governance. The final section concludes.

2. Pitching the ‘Research Pitch’

Imagine that you are an experienced researcher and that I am keen to receive
your advice as my research mentor on a new research idea. Being conscientious
and serious about this task, I have thought long and hard about the challenge that
I face. I know that it is important to get advice/guidance from an experienced
colleague like you, but I also know that you are very busy and extremely time

2
Also see Ashton (1998); Chow and Harrison (1998, 2002); and Zimmerman (1989).

© 2015 AFAANZ
314 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

poor. Thus, to have any chance of getting your valuable attention, I decide to
condense my thoughts into a tight collection of key bites of information – in a
research ‘pitch’. To help me focus on this task, I imagine that I have an (initial)
window of just 30 minutes – so I allow 15 minutes to convey to you what I deem
to be the essential items, which then, hopefully, entices you to respond with
fruitful advice in the remaining time. Even better, if I do succeed, you will be
sufficiently interested to offer to mentor me more extensively (or maybe even
collaborate with me if the project seems to warrant such a partnership).
I figure that initially you will like to know who I am, so I start with my name.
Next I surmise that it would be helpful to set the scene of my pitch with some
relevant context that incrementally builds a picture, flowing as cohesively as
possible. I therefore nominate a ‘field of research’, in this case ‘higher
education’, and I add a time dimension by indicating the date upon which I
completed the pitch plan.
Now it is time to become more specific about my research idea. As is quite
common in such circumstances, I am not totally sure about what my research is
really about and what ‘label’ would be best to use. Moreover, I do not want to
look foolish in your eyes, I know that you would appreciate knowing a working
title – no matter how ‘rough’ it seems right now, as a title is a crucial early
signal from me to you. Accordingly, I indicate to you3 :
(A) Working Title: ‘Pitching Research’
Next, I imagine that it would be good to inform you of the basic research
question that connects with the working title and allows me to develop the
planned focus a little more. I know that a balance is important here – I need to
be informative, but not ‘drown’ you in words – so I aim to keep it to one or two
short sentences. Hence, I indicate:
(B) Basic Research Question: Create a tool/mindset that captures the essential
information needed to give a sound basis for starting a new research project.
Like all researchers, and particularly novice researchers, I really struggle with
getting on top of the relevant literature. I have read far and wide and have
developed a lengthy bibliography – to be sure, I want to impress you, and
momentarily I am tempted to give you this long list, accompanied by a detailed
literature review. Then I think to myself, Will this be counter-productive? With
such detail, when I meet with you I would not have disciplined my thinking to just
a few critical papers. It is better that you are informed about which few ‘key’
papers I really see as pivotal to my pitched idea. I decide that this is a good strategy
for starting a fruitful ‘conversation’ – in fact, I decide to be very disciplined and
keep it to a maximum of three. As it turns out, highlight just one key paper:

3
I use the boxed/shaded text design to clearly highlight the key pieces of information
that I am conveying to you in this imaginary pitch. Also, to aid the later development in
the paper, I attach alphabetic labels to each item . . . ‘(A)’, ‘(B)’, . . .

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 315

(C) Key paper(s): Stokes, D. (2013), ‘Generating Innovative Research Ideas’,

Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 12, No. 2, 145–155.
I tell you that I have chosen this paper because it gives a good contemporary
example of an experienced researcher outlining and discussing a range of
strategies for how to come up with new ideas that might be worth pursuing.
Ordinarily, I would argue that such key papers be very contemporary, be
authored by leaders in the field and be in very high-quality internationally
recognised journals. In this case, I am a bit nervous as Stokes (2013), while
‘fresh’ and from a leading researcher, is published in an obscure journal which
might induce a negative reaction from you. However, in the inevitable
conversation that will ensue between us, I am ready to convince you that Stokes
(2013) is a good choice as a ‘key’ paper for my situation.
At this stage, I imagine that you will be asking yourself: What is the core
academic motivation for this project? To anticipate this concern, I offer the
following:
(D) Motivation/Puzzle: The hardest thing about doing research is starting it.
Finishing the research is also difficult, but unless you begin, finishing is irrelevant.
Novice researchers rarely know where to start – they often suffer from being
overwhelmed. Novice researchers never know what are the essential items of
information that would be convincing to their potential research mentor (or
supervisor). Everyone is busy – especially supervisors and research mentors. Creating
a more effective means to ‘pitch’ a research topic would be beneficial for all concerned.
Again, while I think that I have given a reasonably clear and strong motivation
for the proposed project, I expect that this also will aid an interactive
‘conversation’ between us regarding the relative merits of the proposal.
By now I feel that I have given you enough ‘preliminary’ information – it is time
for me to specify a range of more substantive pieces of the pitch. I want to impress
you with a strong underlying logic and coherent flow tying to the core theme – in
this case, the ‘pitching template’. Moreover, I want to build a ‘crescendo’, so I
decide to formulate a ‘countdown’: I decide that a ‘3-2-1’ ‘countdown’ will
suitably catch your attention, while covering all the necessary bases.
There are THREE core elements that I wish to convey to you: the idea, the
data and the tools. Worried that your attention might already be wandering, I
decide to put this three-dimensional focus under the cheeky banner of the
‘IDioTs’ guide – where the three first letters help spell out the title. Moreover, at
a general level, I find this ‘gimmick’ appealing because it helps me to more
easily remember these core elements about which I feel you will be quite keen
on knowing some details. So, quite succinctly, I spell out my thinking on each
of these elements starting with the basic idea:
(E) Idea: It is all about the ‘pitch’. The relationship between the two parties to the
‘pitch’ is central and critical – hence, I purposefully draw attention to this linkage by
choosing the paired terms ‘pitcher’/’pitchee’. Then, the core idea here is developing a
pitch ‘template’ – a succinctly formatted device that is logically designed, builds in its

© 2015 AFAANZ
316 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

flow and allows a clear and coherent message to be conveyed between the ‘pitcher’ and
the ‘pitchee’.4
Normally in research, we expect to have ‘data’. On this score, I am again
feeling nervous – the nature of data in this project is very unusual.5 I am
convinced this will be a critical point of conversation between us, as I will need
to work hard to convince you that the style of this project, being quite different
and unique, warrants lateral thinking on the role of ‘data’. Confident that we
will inevitably discuss this, I decide to be concise in my description of the ‘data’:
(F) Data: In a sense, the data are the worked examples of the template showing novice
researchers in a very real and practical way ‘proof of concept’ – how it can work in
their field of interest.
To complete the third part of the three-dimensional starting point for the
countdown, I describe the essential tools, flagging to you both a ‘short-term’
and a ‘long-term’ vision as follows:
(G) Tools: The core tool here is the ‘naked’ pitch template itself. This is supplemented
by:

Short term

• advice on use
• a version of the template with ‘cues’

Long term

• evolving library of examples

• expanding set of Internet resources including a Youtube video, appendices,
PowerPoint slides and Prezi presentation template.
• technology-enhanced delivery of template technology via Web-based application.

Armed with knowledge about the idea, data and tools, I now anticipate that
you will want answers to two key questions – epitomising the ‘TWO’ part of the
countdown. The first question that I need to address is ‘What’s new?’ I fully
expect that you will not be impressed unless I can convince you about a
meaningful ‘novelty’ within the project that I propose. If I am only able to offer
a superficial novelty or some type of ‘replication’ of existing research or just, in

4
Note that I have intentionally chosen the generic term ‘pitchee’. In terms of the
baseball metaphor, there are many parties involved – both active and passive: ‘catcher’,
‘batter’, ‘coach’, ‘umpire’, ‘audience’, . . . and depending on the situation, any of these
stakeholders might be thought of as a relevant type of ‘pitchee’.
5
Although the issue of ‘data’ naturally invokes thoughts of quantitative research, it also
applies to qualitative work: for example, see Kaczynski et al. (2014) for a fresh look at
qualitative research in finance.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 317

effect, repeat what someone else has already published, then I anticipate that
you will immediately advise me to seriously modify or even abandon my pitched
project. So, with regard to the novelty question, I offer you the following:
(H) What’s new? First, focusing attention on the common challenge faced by novice
researchers, to initiate a ‘conversation’ [i.e. meaningfully convey essential informa-
tion] with a mentor in a simple and clear way regarding a new research idea. Second,
the novelty is around the simple template device – not new in its constituent parts, but
new in its overall design by bringing together cohesively, essential ingredients that
create a simple ‘synergistic’ package. The template ‘tool’ is a big driver, but this is
inextricably linked to the ‘idea’ as well. The worked examples, as ‘data’, are also very
important for inducing wide take-up of the concept.
Following Faff (2013, pp. 954–5), I am confident that I can meaningfully
apply the ‘Mickey Mouse’ diagram (i.e. Venn diagram), to impress you with my
conceptualisation of the novelty that I am targeting in this pitch. The general
idea is that based on a characterisation of the relevant literature, three circles of
research attention are defined that meaningfully overlap, in ways that have not
been completely explored in the extant literature. Typically, for projects in
which such a characterisation makes sense, the area of novelty is defined by the
triple-intersection zone. Figure 1 depicts a version of Mickey Mouse, relevant
to the current pitch: one of Mickey’s ears is ‘starting research’, his other ear is
‘novice researchers’, and his head is ‘mentoring research’. The intersection of
these three considerations captures the zone of novelty that I am targeting with
the pitching template.
I realise that novelty alone will not suffice – I know that you will be pushing
me hard to identify the inherent importance of my proposed research, that is I
must confront the ‘so what’ or ‘who cares’ question. Absent a strong rebuttal to
the ‘so what’ question, I know that you will tell me my proposed project is
weak. Desperately seeking to avoid such disappointment, here is what I say to
you regarding this second question:
(I) So What? My pitching template research is important because it will lead to major
efficiencies in the research process – efficiencies that can be characterised by
substantial savings in time at the beginning of the research journey – for BOTH
novice and seasoned researchers (mentors). This saving in time will have positive
psychological/motivational effects that help magnify the benefits going forward. These
benefits will manifest in higher quality research outcomes, more timely PhD/paper
completions and helping to create good long-term research habits that will give a
‘sustainability’ dimension.
The bottom line of the countdown (i.e. the number ‘ONE’) is the potential
(incremental) contribution. I understand that contribution is the ‘Holy Grail’
for any research topic. The concept of contribution is highly nebulous making
the challenge supreme, even for the most seasoned researcher. Thus, I feel
somewhat daunted by the prospect of conveying to you, my potential mentor,
what constitutes the core essence of my main contribution. Yes, I am comforted

© 2015 AFAANZ
318 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

A. Starting a B. Novice
new research researchers
project

C. Research
mentoring

Figure 1 Using Mickey Mouse to depict novelty in the ‘pitch’ for the pitching template project.

by the thought that my strong and clear responses to all of the previous
elements of my pitch help to define the contribution. Nevertheless, I feel
compelled to distil this into a short statement about the primary ‘force’, as I see
it. With some trepidation, but also with great conviction, I convey to you my
view of contribution as follows:
(J) Contribution: FREE provision of a simple tool and deep support . . . across the full
spectrum of academic research . . . with many potential applications . . . finance,
accounting, management, CSR, chemistry, physics, healthcare, psychology . . . short-
term and long-term benefits to all researchers. Extensive impact on research that is
NOT discipline constrained.
Tempted to conclude my pitch at this ‘climax’, contribution, I cast my mind
to the possibility that there are other relevant matters – ‘other considerations’ –
to which I might draw your attention. I do this in an attempt to not simply
impress you regarding my deep thinking about my research plans, but also to
maximise the opportunity of gaining the best advice possible from an
experienced researcher like yourself. Accordingly, I decide to group together
several things – like the possibility of collaborating (in some form), the target
journal that I have in mind and a broad consideration of possible research risks.
To this end, I finish my pitch by telling you about these ‘other considerations’:
(K) Other Considerations: No direct Collaboration – but extensive support
‘collaboration’ critical, for example, provision of examples to populate an expanding
library; workshops/seminars/pitch day events

Target Journal: ultimately – highest profile/quality education-type journal, relevant

to higher education/research.

‘Risk’ assessment: (1) ‘competitor’ risk – low; (2) risk of ‘obsolescence’ – low,
involves an issue of enduring concern relevant to ALL research fields; (3) ‘no result’
risk – low.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 319

Other challenge(s)? getting people to ‘listen’ and ‘invest’ a little time reading what is
being offered – the ‘salesman’ dilemma.

Is the scope appropriate? As potential examples expand, exploit the online angle.

Perfect template is unattainable – convince audience of core benefit, encourage

adaptation to personal preference. Need to confront various negative ‘syndromes’:
(a) ‘in-house’ templates/’I already do this!’; (b) too good to be true; (c) too simple to
be useful; (d) nothing new, so little value.

3. Revelation: the pitch template

Ironically, the imagined research pitch described in Section 2 never

explicitly identifies what the pitch template looks like – but, given the
structured nature of the aforementioned discussion, we can deduce logical
unified format. Specifically, the template structure is captured by the bolded
headings in the boxed/shaded segments highlighted in the previous section –
in essence; the template is the compilation of items (A) to (K). Accordingly,
a ‘naked’ version of the pitching template is shown in Figure 2,6 while the
pitch of the ‘pitching project’ itself is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 repeats
the template – this time incorporating a series of prompting questions, as
(non-exhaustive) ‘cues’ to induce the ‘pitcher’ to consider a range of possible
issues under each heading.
Several comments are worth making about the template design and its
underlying philosophy. The first thing to understand about the design of the
template is that it encourages concise answers, given that the ‘pitchee’ is
assumed a very busy person. With this in mind, a maximum of 2 pages (say,
1000 words, all inclusive) are envisaged. For a knowledgeable ‘pitchee’, this
limit will provide ample material to induce probing questions, leading to an
informed judgment – and more detail can be called for in a targeted
manner, as directed by the pitchee.
Second, I assume that there is a ‘sufficient’ level of preliminary discussion
between pitcher/pitchee relating to any potential research question before the
template exercise is fully engaged. Third, the task of pitching a new research
idea is extraordinarily challenging – the template is not a ‘magic wand’.
Pitching is best thought of as a dynamic/evolving and iterative process, in
which the ‘path’ to a completed pitch is nonlinear and unpredictable.
Undoubtedly, the very first draft of the pitch will be rough and raw – there
is no shame. It is good to air your ideas early, so that they might flourish or die
– whichever is appropriate. Fourth, ‘connectivity’ is important. It is not simply
a matter of giving a logical ‘answer’ to each template item in isolation – the real

6
A softcopy WORD version of the template is available at http://www.busi-
ness.uq.edu.au/staff/details/robert-faff.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 320

© 2015 AFAANZ
Pitcher’s Name FoR category Date Completed
(A) Working Title
(B) Basic Research Question
(C) Key paper(s)
(D) Motivation/Puzzle
THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea?
(F) Data?
(G) Tools?
TWO Two key questions
(H) What’s New?
(I) So What?
ONE One bottom line
(J) Contribution?
(K) Other Considerations

Figure 2 Template for pitching research

R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336
 Pitcher’s Name Robert Faff FoR category Higher Education Date Completed 18/12/2014
(A) Working Title “Pitching Research”
(B) Basic Research Question Create a tool/mindset that captures the essential information needed to give a sound basis for starting a new research project
(C) Key paper(s) Stokes, D., (2013), “Generating Innovative Research Ideas”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 12, 145-155.
(D) Motivation/Puzzle The hardest thing about doing research is starting it. Finishing the research is also difficult, but unless you begin, finishing is irrelevant. Novice researchers rarely
know where to start – they often suffer from being overwhelmed. Novice researchers never know what are the essential items of information that would be
convincing to their potential research mentor (or supervisor). Everyone is busy – especially supervisors and research mentors. Creating a more effective means to
“pitch” a research topic would be beneficial for all concerned.
THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide

© 2015 AFAANZ
(E) Idea? Its all about the “pitch”. The relationship between the two parties to the “pitch” is central and critical – hence, I purposefully draw attention to this linkage by
choosing the paired terms “pitcher”/“pitchee”. Then, the core idea here is developing a pitch “template” – a succinctly formatted device that is logically designed,
builds in its flow and allows a clear and coherent message to be conveyed between the “pitcher” and the “pitchee”
(F) Data? Normally in research we expect to see “data”. The nature of data in this project is very different. In a sense the data are the worked examples of the template
showing novice researchers in a very real and practical way “proof of concept” – how it can work in their field of interest.
(G) Tools? The core tool here is the “naked” pitch template itself. This is supplemented by:
Short term: • advice on use; • a version of the template with “cues”
Long term: • evolving library of examples; • expanding set of Internet resources including a Youtube video; appendices; PowerPoint slides and Prezi
presentation template; • technology enhanced delivery of template technology via web-based application.
TWO Two key questions
(H) What’s New? Novelty can be thought of in a few ways. First, focusing attention on the common challenge faced by novice researchers: to initiate a “conversation” [i.e.
meaningfully convey essential information] with a mentor in a simple and clear way regarding a new research idea. Second, the novelty is around the simple
template device – not new in its constituent parts, but new in its overall design by bringing together cohesively, essential ingredients that create a simple
“synergistic” package. The template “tool” is a big driver, but this is inextricably linked to the “idea” as well. The worked examples, as “data”, are also very
important for inducing wide takeup of the concept.
(I) So What? My pitching template research is important because it will lead to major efficiencies in the research process – efficiencies that can be characterised by substantial
savings in time at the beginning of the research journey – for BOTH novice and seasoned researchers (mentors). This saving in time will have positive
psychological/motivational effects that help magnify the benefits going forward. These benefits will manifest in: higher quality research outcomes; more timely
PhD/paper completions and help create good long-term research habits that will give a “sustainability” dimension.
ONE One bottom line
(J) Contribution? FREE provision of a simple tool and deep support … across the full spectrum of academic research … with many potential applications … finance, accounting,
management, CSR, chemistry, physics, healthcare, psychology … short-term and long-term benefits to all researchers. Extensive impact on research that is NOT
discipline constrained
(K) Other Considerations No direct Collaboration – but extensive support “collaboration” critical eg provision of examples to populate an expanding library; workshops/seminars/pitch day
events
Target Journal: ultimately - highest profile/quality education-type journal, relevant to higher education/research.
R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

“Risk” assessment: (1) “competitor” risk - low; (2) risk of “obsolescence” – low, involves an issue of enduring concern relevant to ALL research fields; (3) “no
result” risk – low.
Other challenge(s)? getting people to “listen” and “invest” a little time reading what is being offered – the “salesman” dilemma.
Is the scope appropriate? As potential examples expand, exploit the online angle.
Perfect template is unattainable – convince audience of core benefit, encourage adaptation to personal preference. Need to confront various negative
“syndromes”: (a) “in house” templates/“I already do this!”; (b) Too good to be true; (c) Too simple to be useful; (d) Nothing new, so little value.

Figure 3 Pitching the ‘Pitch’ project – a template example

321
 Pitcher’s Name Your name herea FoR category Field of research? Date Completed Insert date here
322

(A) Working Title Succinct/informative title here

(B) Basic Research Question IN one sentence, define the key features of the research question.
(C) Key paper(s) Identify the key paper(s) which most critically underpin the topic (just standard reference details). Ideally one paper, but at most 3 papers. Ideally, by “gurus” in
the field, either recently published in Tier 1 journal(s) or recent working paper e.g. on SSRN.
(D) Motivation/Puzzle IN one short paragraph (say a max of 100 words) capture the core motivation – which may include identifying a “puzzle” that you hope to resolve.
THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea? Identify the “core” idea that drives the intellectual content of this research topic. If possible, articulate the central hypothesis(es). Identify the key dependent
(“explained”) variable and the key test/independent (“explanatory”) variable(s). Is there any serious threat from endogeneity here? If so, what is the identification

© 2015 AFAANZ
strategy? EG: is there a natural experiment or exogenous shock that can be exploited? Is there any theoretical “tension” that can be exploited?
(F) Data? (1) What data do you propose to use? e.g. country/setting; Why? Unit of analysis? Individuals, firms, portfolios, industries, countries …? sample period;
sampling interval? Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual, … Type of data: firm specific vs. industry vs. macro vs. …?
(2) What sample size do you expect? Cross-sectionally? In Time-series/longitudinal?
(3)Is it a panel dataset?
(4) Data Sources? Are the data commercially available? Any hand-collecting required? Are the data to be created based on your own survey instrument? Or by
interviews? Timeframe? Research assistance needed? Funding/grants? Are they novel new data?
(5) Will there be any problem with missing data/observations? Database merge issues? Data manipulation/”cleansing” issues?
(6) Will your “test” variables exhibit adequate (“meaningful”) variation to give good power? Quality/reliability of data?
b
(7) Other data obstacles? E.g. external validity? construct validity?
(G) Tools? Basic empirical framework and research design? Is it a regression model approach? Survey instrument issues/design? Interview design? Econometric software
needed/appropriate for job? Accessible through normal channels? Knowledge of implementation of appropriate or best statistical/econometric tests?
Compatibility of data with planned empirical framework? Is statistical validity an issue?
TWO Two key questions
(H) What’s New? Is the novelty in the idea/data/tools? Which is the “driver”, and are the “passengers” likely to pull their weight? Is this “Mickey Mouse” [i.e. can you draw a
simple Venn diagram to depict the novelty in your proposal?]
(I) So What? Why is it important to know the answer? How will major decisions/behaviour/activity etc be influenced by the outcome of this research?
ONE One bottom line
(J) Contribution? What is the primary source of the contribution to the relevant research literature?
(K) Other Considerations Is Collaboration needed/desirable? – idea/data/tools? (either internal or external to your institution)
Target Journal(s)? Realistic? Sufficiently ambitious?
“Risk ” assessment [“low” vs. “moderate” vs. “high”: “no result” risk; “competitor” risk (ie being beaten by a competitor); risk of “obsolescence”; other risks?
Are there any serious challenge(s) that you face in executing this plan? What are they? Are they related to the Idea? The Data? The Tools? Are there ethical
considerations? Ethics clearance?
Is the scope appropriate? Not too narrow, not too broad.
R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

a The suggested ‘cues’ should be deleted and replaced by the best available ‘answers’ in relation to the proposed research topic.
b Clarkson (2012) argues that four dimensions of validity constitute the ‘cornerstone of scientific rigour’: (a) internal validity – Do we have a
fully-specified model?; (b) construct validity – Do we have compelling linkage between empirical proxies and economic variables?; (c) statistical
validity – Do we have appropriate data, sampling and tests?; and (d) external validity – Will our results be generalizable?

Figure 4 Pitching template with cues

 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 323

challenge is to think deeply about the flow and connection that will create a
strong and tight theme. Other things equal, evidence of a tight theme is
evidence of deeper understanding – as such, ‘connectivity’ will ultimately have a
big bearing on the success of the pitch.
Fifth, the core of the template is built around the ‘3-2-1’ countdown: THREE
elements (idea–data–tools); TWO questions (What’s new?, So what?); and
ONE bottom line (contribution).7 Is this design ‘perfect’? The answer must be
no. Does it matter that the design is not perfect? Again, the answer must be no.
In terms of the specifics, getting (even close to) unanimity over the ‘ideal’ design
of such a template is impossible – the nature of research is highly individu-
alistic. But it is important that the template design has all the major bases
covered, such that its ‘adaptive’ use will benefit in a vast number of
circumstances.8
Sixth, building on the theme that ‘perfection’ is not the objective, I encourage
a mindset that sees the template as an ideal device for starting a ‘conversation’.
The interactive benefits that come from the resultant pitcher/pitchee dialogue
unlock the deeper longer term advantage that can be gained from using the
tool. Paradoxically, a meritorious pitch might be one that, at face value, looks
weak with many apparent ‘flaws’ to ‘myopic’ eyes. But, because such a pitch is
completed with sincerity and to the best of the pitcher’s ability, it deserves
applause and encouragement. In contrast, a pitch that prima facie looks solid
might in fact be ‘poor’ if it is deemed that the pitcher has disingenuously
adopted a hasty ‘box filling’ mentality. In other words, a judgment on the
‘success’ of any given template application is context specific, depending on the
mix of circumstances at play for a given pitcher.

4. Some advice on using the pitch template

4.1. Advice to pitchers

Bring a positive attitude to the task. Treat the pitch template as your
‘friend’, here to help you start a conversation with a relevant expert – a
supervisor, a mentor and a potential collaborator. Among other things, I
argue that this offers a big potential payoff in the form of self-learning from
the exercise itself and gaining better, more targeted feedback on your ideas.
But, please take early and serious heed of the potential ‘deal breakers’ as
discussed in the previous section. Discipline yourself to be concise and
focused – ‘less is more’, at least until ‘more’ is requested. Think of it from
the pitchee’s point of view – What would you like to know if you were on

7
For a similar development, see Section 2 of Faff (2013).
8
In other words, the basic building blocks are here – individual users are encouraged to
creatively adapt the template to suit their personal preferences.

© 2015 AFAANZ
324 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

the ‘other side’? View the pitch as a starting point only – do not suffer from
the pitfall of ‘perfectionism’ – particularly at such an early stage of the
research process, just get your core ideas down in writing. Embrace the
benefit that the template gives in terms of organising your thoughts in a
concise/structured way.
Ultimately, with regard to the pitch exercise, everything that you write/
every thought that you deem relevant/worthy should be orchestrated
towards the likely contribution. Among other things, as discussed above, a
meaningful contribution should tell us something new.9 But, as Faff (2013)
argues, novice researchers often fall for the ‘trap’ of taking a very literal
interpretation of the word ‘new’.10 Then, the critical follow-up question is
‘so what’? – Why is it important to know the answer? Is it likely to have
important ‘first-order’ impact or only ‘second-order’ effects? How will major
decisions/behaviour/activity and or other relevant phenomenon be influenced
by the outcome of this research? If it is not sufficiently important, then no
one will care.11

9
One useful angle on novelty is to consider what compatible concepts/approaches exist
in other fields that might have new traction when combined in your chosen area – see
Gippel (2013) for a broad discussion of such influences in a ‘revolution’ in finance.
10
Consider a hypothetical illustration, in which a series of single country studies are
historically common across a given literature. Viewing this situation, novice
researchers can naively fall for the trap of excitedly targeting the ‘missing’ country
study. That is, while the relevant literature already documents clear and consistent
evidence for country ‘X’, country ‘Y’ and country ‘Z’, a perceived ‘gap’ is identified
because nothing has been published in the author’s chosen setting of country ‘A’.
Yes, in the narrow literal sense, generating a test for country A is ‘new’. However,
the novelty is likely to be deemed trivial – the fallacy here is that an informed reader
of these studies (with minimal effort) might be able to take a synthesised view of the
collective extant literature and reasonably infer what will be applicable to country ‘A’
(and, indeed, to a range of other similar countries). Thus, to establish meaningful
novelty in such a single country study, the researcher needs to make a compelling
case as to why it is dangerous to extrapolate the distilled evidence from X, Y and Z
to country A (or to other similar jurisdictions).
11
Building on the previous discussion, one potentially fruitful way of successfully
invoking a ‘novelty’ dimension into a single country study is to identify some unusual
(e.g. financial) market behaviour or unusual relevant phenomenon or unique institu-
tional feature or regulatory event(s) that would meaningfully distinguish the chosen new
country setting from prior research. For example, see Gippel et al. (2015) who,
motivated by endogeneity concerns, explore the possibility of a ‘natural experiment’
strategy. Such a strategy could help achieve the novelty requirement in a single country
setting. Recent interesting examples of single country studies in the broad area of finance
and accounting research are Carrera and Carmona (2013) – Spain; Duong and Izan
(2012) – Australia; Hao et al. (2014) – China; Min and Verhoeven (2013) – Korea;
Takeda and Wakao (2014) – Japan; Tarca et al. (2013) – Germany; and Yeh et al.
(2014) – Taiwan.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 325

4.2. Advice to pitchees

As a ‘pitchee’, it is crucial that you know how to help the pitcher get the best
from the exercise. So, start by putting yourself in the shoes of the pitcher – re-
assess all the preceding material from that alternative perspective! Then, above
all, be supportive and encouraging. But, please also be vigilant and pro-active
on the question of potential ‘deal breakers’ – this is where your experience and
expertise are vitally important! Any genuine effort – that produces a seriously
completed pitch, however ‘flawed’ it may be – is a success! In the embryonic
stages, these exercises help us more quickly and efficiently move on a positive
research trajectory. As such, the pitch template offers big advantages to you,
the pitchee. Used wisely, if nothing else, it can help save you more time and
avoid much frustration.
As a pitchee, you have a ‘duty of care’ to the potential pitcher. As such, you
should help devise a ‘pre-pitch’ strategy in which the chance of an early/any
repeated ‘dead end(s)’ for your protege is minimised. Accordingly, pitchers will
want early guidance on what ideas are worth thinking more about and which
ones are not. They will want guidance on how to efficiently generate a ‘pool’ of
potential ‘leads’. In this regard, emphasise very early on to the pitcher the need
to follow a ‘smart’ approach to reading the literature (e.g. ‘cocktail glass’
approach)12 and to quickly run ideas past you. Also, encourage the pitcher to
locate recent survey articles written by leading researchers in the field relating
to their broad topic areas of interest.13

12
Imagine a fancy cocktail glass that is very broad at the top, narrows down to a small
diameter – say, a third the way from the bottom and then fans out at the base – but
much less so than the top. Such a glass is depicted in Figure 5. Symbolically, drinking
from the full cocktail glass is like beginning the literature search on a broad topic – there
is typically a big literature to traverse, characterized by the big diameter at the top of the
glass. As you spend time reading, filtering of the papers takes place, coincident with the
refinement of the potential topic – quite likely an iterative process. Like the slow
consumption of the cocktail (savouring the taste), the drink level descends toward the
narrow part of glass – analogous to the narrowing in ones thinking about which papers
within the relevant literature are the most important and critical foundation stones for
your research topic. When you get to the narrow part of the glass, you have identified
the small set of papers that really help you focus your attention on what is currently
‘known’ and what is still unknown. These are the ‘key’ papers. Later, should the project
advance, an expanded set of the most relevant papers is identified as your reference list –
like the cocktail glass, these represent the foundation upon which the paper (glass) rests.
13
Recent examples of review articles include the following: Benson et al. (2014) –
finance; Benson et al. (2015) and Gipper et al. (2013) – accounting; Berkman and
Comerton-Forde (2011) – market microstructure; Brown et al. (2011) – corporate
governance; Chenhall and Smith (2011) – management accounting; Ferguson and Seow
(2011) – accounting information systems; and Trotman et al. (2011) – judgment and
decision-making research in accounting. Moreover, an excellent general source of review
articles spanning a broad range of discipline areas is Annual Reviews (http://
www.annualreviews.org/).

© 2015 AFAANZ
326 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

Wide-ranging initial literature search

Filtering of
literature toward
evolving research
queson

KEY RESEARCH PAPERS

Narrow literature base

Figure 5 The cocktail glass approach to reading/filtering the literature.

For pitchees, particularly novice/junior pitchees, it is important to note

that a typical pitcher has a perceived/actual ignorance about the technical
aspects of the topic and, hence, a fear of looking foolish in your eyes.
Therefore, it is crucial to be supportive at every possible opportunity. Once
a completed pitch is in hand, identify the strengths/weaknesses. Applaud the
strengths! Make it clear why such aspects are deemed strengths. Offer
guidance on the weaknesses – specific or general. Aim to help develop the
pitch to be uniformly strong.

4.3. Advice on alternative ways of using/adapting the pitch template

Faff (2015) is designed as the ‘clearing house’ for the broader ‘pitching
research’ program. As such, Faff (2015) is the best source of up-to-date
developments/applications/resources regarding alternative uses of the pitch
template. Accordingly, the current section gives only brief guidance around ten
alternative aspects relating to ways in which the pitch template can be used/
adapted.
First, the primary design of the template assumes a private ‘in-house’
discussion between the pitcher and pitchee. To contrast this ‘private’ pitch,

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 327

there is also the possibility of a ‘public’ pitch. The public pitch could, for
example, be designed around a ‘pitch day’ competition.14
Second, assuming a more public-type pitch scenario, the pitcher would be
attracted to enhanced presentation versions, rather than relying on the
standard PowerPoint technology. Accordingly, I have begun experimenting
with the Prezi presentation format to more effectively present the pitch
template to a bigger audience.15
Third, the primary underlying philosophy assumes that a ‘real’, but as yet
unexplored, topic is being pitched. For clarity, let us label this case an ‘ex
ante’ pitch. It assumes that the topic is ‘owned’ by the pitcher.16 To contrast
the ex ante pitch, an ‘ex post’ version also makes sense. The simplest
example of the ex post case is a ‘reverse-engineered’ pitch. Fourth, regarding
the reverse-engineered pitch, two basic variants present themselves. On the
one hand, we have the ‘owned’ ex post case in which the pitcher is applying
the pitch to their own current in-progress project or possibly even their own
completed/published work. The motivation for doing this is either as an in-
process check on the direction/focus of the research or simply as an exercise
in practicing pitching techniques. Alternatively, the ‘pitcher’ might be an
independent ‘third party’ reverse engineering someone else’s existing work.17
This latter case makes sense as an exercise in practicing pitching techniques

14
An institutional-based example of the public pitch day occurred at LaTrobe
University on 20/21 October 2014 in which 9 accounting and finance PhD students
presented pitches to an in-house audience comprising students and supervisors. A
‘themed’ example of the public pitch day is planned for 27 February 2015 sponsored by
SIRCA. On this day, selected novice researchers from around Australia and New
Zealand will gather to present pitches that propose the use of SIRCA data, to an invited
audience comprising the students and a SIRCA panel of academic experts. A similar
themed event, sponsored by CIFR, is planned with a ‘policy/regulation’ focus (May
2015, Sydney). Two conference-based examples of public pitch events involve a
dedicated stream of pitch presenters: 6th Financial Markets and Corporate Governance
conference (April 2015, Fremantle) and 10th Accounting and Management Information
Systems conference (June 2015, Bucharest).
15
To this end, a generic version is available online. Please access the Prezi template at
https://prezi.com/0h9e_9vol1le/pitchtemplate_master_withcues_1/.I am very grateful to
Lexie Yao and Rand Low for advice and help in creating this generic version.
16
Of course, ‘airing’ your ideas publicly too early can be dangerous/risky as your
competitors might be in a position to execute the research more quickly than you
can. The issue of ultimate ‘ownership’ is never clear-cut as it is quite common/
conceivable that researchers independently come up with very similar ideas on a
contemporary basis.
17
The second finance example referred to later, in Section 5, is a case in point.

© 2015 AFAANZ
328 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

– most likely instigated by the ‘pitchee’ (e.g. supervisor or course

instructor).18
Fifth, the pitchee might be either a ‘passive’ participant – a mentor giving
advice as an ‘external consultant’ – or a (potentially) ‘active’ participant – a
collaborator who might take on a role as co-author should the idea develops
into a fully fledged research project/paper. Clearly, the expected degree/depth/
duration of advice coming from the pitchee will differ substantially between the
passive/active contexts.
Sixth, the standard design of the template is one in which no funding
consideration is explicitly accommodated. In contrast, the pitch template could
be adapted to act as a complementary tool relating to a grant application
process. In this granting case, the working title might explicitly flag the scheme,
while under ‘other considerations’, one might add items such as total $budget,
major budget item breakdown, budget justification elements and grant team
makeup/task allocation.19
Seventh, the template can be adapted for journal referring/thesis examination
purposes. This would require converting the philosophy from an ex ante to a
fully ex post mode. For example, the ‘so what’ question would broach the
subject of whether there is demonstrable ‘economic importance’ attaching to
the statistically significant findings reported in the completed research. This
would naturally lead into the issue of (delivered) contribution. Further, in the
case of the journal review, ‘other considerations’ would now cover issues such
as whether the targeted journal is appropriate and a good ‘fit’, also, whether the
chosen scope is appropriate. On the other hand, partly for reasons of the blind
review process, concerns about collaboration and various research risks would
be irrelevant.
Eighth, the entire focus to date has been around academic research. A
version of the template could be devised that gives more consideration to ‘real
world’ or industry-driven imperatives. Given commercial in-confidence con-
cerns, this would very much be with an in-house/private setting in mind. Ninth,
the template comes with a set of terms that might be obscure in some
disciplines/fields – for example, in the sciences. Template guides for such other
areas can be devised to aid such applications.20 Tenth, future work can target

18
For the course instructor, the pitch ‘assignment’ could easily be incorporated as part
of the formal assessment within a research-based university subject for credit (e.g.
‘Scientific Method’ subject). Indeed, the author incorporates this type of assessable
pitching activity (individually and as a group assignment) in a PhD level course titled
‘The Research Process’, as part of the AFAANZ PhD Coursework Program. For
further details of this program, visit the AFAANZ website: http://www.afaanz.org/
19
Notably, AFAANZ are experimenting with directly incorporating the template as
part of their 2015–2016 call for grant applications from the AFAANZ Research Fund.
20
One example of such a guide is available for mechanical engineering, with many
thanks to Suyash Mahto. For further details, see Faff (2015).

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 329

more advanced technology applications of the pitch template that better utilise
Web-based template design and delivery.21

5. Pitch template examples in finance and accounting

5.1. Finance examples22

5.1.1. Preliminaries

Figure 6 presents a completed template for a hypothetical finance pitch, with

a working title: ‘Explaining the Trade-off Theory Puzzle with a Unified Theory
of Capital Structure’ (Item (A)). The title gives a reasonable insight into what
the key thrust is – an ambitious plan to, in some way, combine competing
theories on capital structure into a ‘unified’ design. In terms of item (B), the
basic research question is clearly articulated: ‘Can we meaningfully articulate
and test a ‘unified’ theory of the capital structure decision?’ In terms of pitch
item (C), three key papers are identified: Warr et al. (2012), Faulkender et al.
(2012) and Dang et al. (2012). Given that this hypothetical pitch was devised in
early 2013, the key papers were highly contemporary at the time of writing.
Further, two of three papers are published in the top 4 finance journals – one in
Journal of Financial Economics and the other in Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis. As such, the notion of quality ‘foundational’ papers is
satisfied. In terms of pitch item (D), the motivation/puzzle is expressed as a
quote from Hovakimian and Li (2011, p. 44):
In the context of dynamic tradeoff models of capital structure with fixed
adjustment costs and infrequent rebalancing, the magnitudes of the estimates
suggest that it takes more than ten years for a firm to adjust to its target capital
structure. These long adjustment times suggest that either adjusting to target capital
structure is not a high priority goal for an average firm or that the empirical models
currently used in the literature are not well-suited to identify the ways in which firms
facing various tradeoffs manage their debt ratios. Understanding the reasons behind
the relatively low economic importance of target debt ratios in partial-adjustment
and debt-equity choice models is a priority for future capital structure research.
[emphasis added]
The key elements of this quote are italicised, suggesting that a puzzle exists in
the capital structure literature. Indeed, connecting to the working title of the

21
These technology-based applications are being explored by the author – refer to Faff
(2015) for the latest update on this innovation.
22
To conserve space, a second finance pitch example is available online (http://
www.business.uq.edu.au/supplementary-material-pitching-research) and relates to
financial flexibility, credit re-ratings and corporate decisions. It is a ‘reverse engineering’
exercise relating to the existing paper by Agha and Faff (2014), and I am very grateful to
Saphira Rekker for completing this ‘third-party’ template.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 Pitcher’s Name Robert Faff FoR category Corporate Finance Date Completed 28/4/2013
330

(A) Working Title “Explaining the Trade-off Theory Puzzle with a Unified Theory of Capital Structure”
(B) Basic Research Question Can we meaningfully articulate and test a “unified” theory of the capital structure decision?

(C) Key paper(s) Warr, R., Elliot, W., Koeter-Kant, J. and Oztekin, O., (2012), Equity Mispricing and Leverage Adjustment Costs, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis 47, 589-616.
Faulkender, Flannery, Hankins & Smith (2012), Cash Flows and leverage Adjustments, Journal of Financial Economics, 103, 632-646.
Dang, V., Kim, M. and Shin, Y., (2012), Asymmetric capital structure adjustments: New evidence from dynamic threshold models. Journal of Empirical

© 2015 AFAANZ
Finance 19, 465-482.
(D) Motivation/Puzzle Quoting Hovakimian and Li (2011, JCF, p. 44): “In the context of dynamic tradeoff models of capital structure with fixed adjustment costs and infrequent
rebalancing, the magnitudes of the estimates suggest that it takes more than ten years for a firm to adjust to its target capital structure. These long
adjustment times suggest that either adjusting to target capital structure is not a high priority goal for an average firm or that the empirical models
currently used in the literature are not well-suited to identify the ways in which firms facing various tradeoffs manage their debt ratios. Understanding the
reasons behind the relatively low economic importance of target debt ratios in partial-adjustment and debt-equity choice models is a priority for future
capital structure research.”
Puzzle: Why are there slow speeds of adjustment (SOA) when it seems that target leverage should and does matter?
THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea? “Core” idea: Suppose that a typical firm follows tradeoff theory in the long run, but pecking order (PO) and/or market timing (MT) in the short term. In
empirical work, if we ignore this possibility, the estimated (overall) speed of adjustment parameter is biased downwards towards zero since it is an
average of the positive speed of adjustment that applies to the scenarios applicable for tradeoff theory and the zero speed of adjustment that applies to the
scenarios applicable to pecking order/timing. When TO /PO /MT theories are blended into a “unified” model (“UTOPOT”), the puzzle might be resolved.
Central hypothesis(es): a range of conditional hypotheses that capture the unified nature of the UTOPOT model
Theoretical “tension”: exploit the differential predictions of TO /PO /MT theories to identify conditions when each prevail/dominate
(F) Data? (1) Country/setting: US,. Why? Because we can! Big bang for buck. Unit of analysis: individual firms. Sampling: annual. Type: mainly firm specific.
(2) Expected sample size: > 50,000 firm years; Cross-sectional: several 1000’s; Sample period: 1951-2012; unbalanced panel data
(3) Data source (s): Compustat/CRSP/…? No hand-collecting required. Timeframe: given database subscriptions at UQ, no major time delays (1 week
for core dataset); Research assistance needed?: “minor” assistance; Funding/grants ?: not essential for viability, but potential opportunities;
(4) Standard data – nothing novel, high quality data from Compustat/CRSP etc
(5) Will there be any problem with missing data /observations?: nothing major, just standard issues – work through carefully eg banks exclusion, outliers
& winsorising, standard merge issues etc
(6) Will your test variables exhibit adequate (“meaningful”) variation to give good power?: yes, since “blending” variables used in prior literature
(G) Tools? Basic empirical framework : regression model approach focusing on partial adjustment, standard in the literature. Aim to enhance SOA model – via
dummy-variable and non-linear modelling, possibly including switching and/or threshold models.
Econometric software needed/appropriate for job?: SAS and/or Stata – licenses held at UQ. Panel data modelling, endogeneity and clustered standard
R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

errors etc make the setting complex BUT doable.

Knowledge of implementation of appropriate or best statistical/econometric tests?: yes, but “learning curve” and/or collaboration
Compatibility of data with planned empirical framework?: yes, building on rich recent empirical literature applying similar models

Figure 6 Pitching a capital structure project – a template example

© 2015 AFAANZ
TWO Two key questions
(H) What’s New? IDEA is novel – blend/unify/integrate existing theories to explain Leverage Policy puzzle; data standard, tools standard
IDEA is the “driver”, and data/tools are the “passengers”: US setting with half century of data – strong; leading edge application of panel data methods,
probably encompassing switching/threshold methods – strong. Data/Tools are STRONG passengers.
(I) So What? Getting a reliable answer to the question will help us better understand the behaviour of firms in making their capital structure decisions – in what
circumstances the incentives/drivers lead to a particular theory dominating the others and so, consistent with maximizing shareholder wealth. It gives a
realistic chance of resolving a major finance puzzle. Restores faith in corporate finance theories – collectively.
ONE One bottom line
(J) Contribution? Primary source of the contribution: simple idea that resolves a big puzzle. “Harmonises” big 3 financing decision theories.
(K) Other Considerations Is Collaboration needed/desirable?
– idea: no;
– data: no;
– tools: maybe, in relation to switching/threshold modelling and sophisticated panel data and endogeneity issues?
Target Journal(s)? Tier 1 finance. Realistic? Yes, given Warr et al (2012, JFQA).
“Risk ” assessment:
– “no result” risk: LOW – theoretical tension between three theories justifies most (all?) outcomes, though some will be more interesting than others;
– “competitor” risk (ie being beaten by a competitor): MEDIUM/HIGH – is very topical and crowded research space – need to keep an eye out for key
academics in this area eg authors of key papers above;
– risk of “obsolescence”: LOW – financing decision a key pillar of the finance discipline > 50 years since M&M gave birth to modern finance theory;
– other risks?: too big?

Figure 6 (continued)
R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336
331
332 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

pitch, the final entry in Item (D) of this pitch showcases the existence of the
motivating ‘puzzle’ with the question: ‘Why are there slow speeds of adjustment
(SOA) when it seems that target leverage should and does matter?’

5.1.2. IDioTs guide

Item (E) of the completed template identifies the ‘core’ idea. Suppose that a
typical firm follows trade-off theory in the long run, but pecking order (PO)
and/or market timing (MT) in the short term. In empirical work, if we ignore
this possibility, the estimated (overall) speed of adjustment parameter is biased
downwards towards zero as it is an average of the positive speed of adjustment
that applies to the scenarios applicable for trade-off theory and the zero speed
of adjustment that applies to the scenarios applicable to pecking order/timing.
When TO/PO/MT theories are blended into a ‘unified’ model (‘UTOPOT’), the
puzzle might be resolved. Item (E) of the pitch concludes with (i) a broad
statement regarding the nature of the central hypothesis(es), namely that they
would comprise of a range of conditional hypotheses that capture the unified
nature of the UTOPOT model, and (ii) highlighting the theoretical ‘tension’,
namely to exploit the differential predictions of TO/PO/MT theories to identify
conditions when each prevails/dominates. Clearly, there is much open for
discussion here between the pitcher and pitchee; for example, it is not clear
what are the differential drivers of the short- vs. long-term decision-making. In
this regard, the hypothetical discussion would likely embrace issues such as
transaction costs, the notion of a target range of leverage and so on.
Item (F) of the completed pitch template addresses many dimensions of the
data: (1) identifies the USA as the chosen country/setting and individual firms
as the unit of cross-sectional analysis and annual time series sampling; (2)
suggests an expected unbalanced pooled sample size exceeding 50,000 firm
years encompassing the period 1951–2012 (current at the time of writing the
original pitch); (3) suggests the data sources are the usual suspects for this type
of research (Compustat/CRSP/. . .), with no hand collection of any data
envisaged, no major time delays, . . ..; (4) notes that these data are ‘standard’
and recognised as high quality; (5) notes no major challenges/problems with the
data/sample, but identifies the standard filtering practices, for example
excluding banks, winsorising and standard merge issues; and (6) anticipates
adequate power of the tests, in line with a mature prior literature.
Item (G) of the completed pitch template comments on the anticipated
toolkit. It begins by noting that a conventional empirical framework of
regressions built around the partial adjustment model forms the foundation, as
well as dummy-variable and nonlinear modelling, possibly including switching
and or threshold type models. In terms of econometric software, SAS and/or
Stata are identified. The entry for Item (G) also clearly acknowledges a
challenging empirical set-up, for example panel data modelling, endogeneity
and clustered standard errors. Moreover, a ‘learning curve’ and/or collabora-

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 333

tion is flagged. Finally, this template item claims a compatibility of data with
planned empirical framework – as it builds on a rich recent empirical literature
applying similar models.

5.1.3. What’s new? So what?

Item (H) in the completed pitch claims that the idea is novel (the ‘driver’)
by blending/unifying/integrating existing theories to explain the leverage
policy puzzle. The pitch further states that the data and tools are standard,
but strong passengers. Item (I) in the completed pitch responds to the ‘so
what’ question by arguing that getting a reliable answer to the chosen
research question will help us better understand the behaviour of firms in
making their capital structure decisions – under what circumstances do the
incentives/drivers lead to a particular theory dominating the others and so, be
consistent with maximising shareholder wealth. The claim is that the research
proposal gives a realistic chance of resolving a major puzzle – and perhaps
play a part in restoring faith in corporate finance theories – collectively. Of
course, the latter claim is quite extreme and unlikely to ever be delivered
upon. Aspirational goals like this still have value, especially if they are
acknowledged as such.

5.1.4. Contribution

The contribution, Item (J), will have ‘DNA’ links to the idea, to the data
and to the tools. The contribution will be defined in terms of the novelty
and the importance of the question posed. Notably, however, the contri-
bution is not simply the ‘summation’ of all the parts – it will benefit from
synergies created by a smart overall experimental design. In the completed
pitch of Figure 6, the bottom line primary source of the contribution is
claimed to be a simple idea that (helps) resolve(s) a big puzzle. If successful,
this research will go a long way to ‘harmonising’ the big 3 theories on the
corporate financing decision.

5.1.5. Other considerations?

The final item in the completed pitch template is Item (K), looking for any
forgotten ‘snags’ or obstacles. Regarding the question of whether collaboration
is needed/desirable, the answers are idea/data: no and tools: maybe (in relation
to switching/threshold modelling and sophisticated panel data and endogeneity
issues). Regarding the target journal(s), an ambitious goal of Tier 1 finance is
nominated – no doubt, a point of discussion between pitcher and pitchee. The
final ‘risk assessment’ entries in item (K) claim the following: (i) low ‘no result’
risk – theoretical tension between three theories justifies most outcomes,
although some will be more interesting than others; (ii) medium/high

© 2015 AFAANZ
334 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

‘competitor’ risk – capital structure research is highly popular; and (iii) low risk
of ‘obsolescence’ – as the financing decision is a core pillar of the finance
discipline.

5.2. Further pitch template examples

In this same issue of Accounting & Finance, Ratiu (2015), Unda (2015), and
Beaumont (2015) are three companion ‘letters-type papers that provide
illustrative examples of completed pitch templates on accounting and gover-
nance topics. Specifically, Ratiu’s (2015) pitch relates to intangible asset
impairments by banks and the GFC; Unda (2015) looks at board of directors’
characteristics and credit union financial performance, while Beaumont (2015)
pitches a topic on executive remuneration and firm financial performance.23
Moreover, these papers each give a brief commentary on their pitch and then
offer some key personal reflections on the pitch exercise itself.24

6. Conclusion

This paper presents a simple ‘pitching’ template designed to allow a

researcher (the ‘pitcher’) to succinctly and cohesively convey the core elements
of an empirical research proposal, hoping to convince a research mentor (the
‘pitchee’) that the project is viable and highly worthwhile. The template is built
around a core 3-2-1 ‘countdown’ design. Three represents the three essential
ingredients: idea, data and tools. Two represents the two basic questions a
researcher has to convincingly answer: ‘What’s new?’ and ‘So what?’ One
represents the ‘Holy Grail’, the (incremental) contribution.
Having read the current paper and assuming that you want to enhance this
experience further, what should you do now? Here are a range of suggestions.
First, I recommend that you access Faff (2015) for the latest developments
regarding the ‘pitching research’ program – this SSRN companion paper will
be updated on a regular basis. Second, why not take up the ‘pitching
challenge’? Actively apply the template to your own situation by either ‘reverse
engineering’ an existing project in progress or better still test it out against a
brand new idea. Only then can you truly judge the merits of the approach for
yourself. Third, on the assumption that you do see the long-term benefits of the
template tool, then make it a habit. Fourth, share your experiences of the

23
For an up-to-date report on the growing library of template examples across a range
of academic disciplines, see Faff (2015).
24
Importantly, readers should note that, on advice from the editor, the style of ‘pitch
letter’ paper (individually) is not normally within the scope of Accounting & Finance.
However, read in conjunction with the current paper, Ratiu (2015), Unda (2015) and
Beaumont (2015) collectively represent a novel design – a type of article ‘cluster’, in this
case designed to illustrate the pitching concept in a more engaging manner.

© 2015 AFAANZ
 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336 335

template with your colleagues and your research network. And finally, help me
source alternative pitch examples in new topic areas, so that I can continue
expanding the ‘proof of concept’ and so reach out to the broader research
community.

References

Agha, M., and R. Faff, 2014, An investigation of the asymmetric link between credit re-
ratings and corporate financial decisions: “Flicking the switch” with financial
flexibility, Journal of Corporate Finance 29, 37–57.
Ashton, J., 1998, Writing accounting research for publication and impact, Journal of
Accounting Education 16, 247–260.
Beaumont, S., 2015, An investigation of the short and long run relations between
executive cash bonus payments and firm financial performance: a pitch, Accounting
and Finance 55, doi: 10.1111/acfi.12113.
Benson, K., R. Faff, and T. Smith, 2014, Fifty years of finance research in the Asia
Pacific Basin, Accounting and Finance 54, 335–363.
Benson, K., P. Clarkson, T. Smith, and I. Tutticci, 2015, A review of accounting
research in the Asia Pacific region, forthcoming, Australian Journal of Management
40, 36–88.
Berkman, H., and C. Comerton-Forde, 2011, Market microstructure: a review from
down under, Accounting and Finance 51, 50–78.
Bradbury, M., 2012, Why you don’t get published: an editor’s view, Accounting and
Finance 52, 343–358.
Brown, P., W. Beekes, and P. Verhoeven, 2011, Corporate governance, accounting and
finance: a review, Accounting and Finance 51, 96–172.
Carrera, N., and S. Carmona, 2013, Educational reforms set professional boundaries:
the Spanish audit function, 1850–1988, Abacus 49, 99–137.
Chenhall, R., and D. Smith, 2011, A review of Australian management accounting
research: 1980–2009, Accounting and Finance 51, 173–206.
Chow, C., and P. Harrison, 1998, Factors contributing to success in research and
publications: insights of ‘influential’ accounting authors, Journal of Accounting
Education 16, 463–472.
Chow, C., and P. Harrison, 2002, Identifying meaningful and significant topics for
research and publication: a sharing of experiences and insights by ‘influential’
accounting authors, Journal of Accounting Education 20, 183–203.
Clarkson, P., 2012, Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective,
Accounting and Finance 52, 359–376.
Dang, V., M. Kim, and Y. Shin, 2012, Asymmetric capital structure adjustments: new
evidence from dynamic threshold models, Journal of Empirical Finance 19, 465–482.
Duong, L., and H. Y. Izan, 2012, Consequences of riding takeover waves: Australian
evidence, International Review of Finance 12, 399–434.
Faff, R., 2013, Mickey Mouse and the IDioT principle for assessing research
contribution: discussion of ‘is the relationship between investment and conditional
cash flow volatility ambiguous, asymmetric or both?’, Accounting and Finance 53,
949–960.
Faff, R., 2015, Pitching Research. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=2462059 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462059.
Faulkender, M., M. Flannery, K. Hankins, and J. Smith, 2012, Cash flows and leverage
adjustments, Journal of Financial Economics 103, 632–646.

© 2015 AFAANZ
336 R. W. Faff/Accounting and Finance 55 (2015) 311–336

Ferguson, C., and P.-S. Seow, 2011, Accounting information systems research over the
past decade: past and future trends, Accounting and Finance 51, 235–251.
Gippel, J., 2013, A revolution in finance?, Australian Journal of Management 38, 125–
146.
Gippel, J., T. Smith, and Y. Zhu, 2015, Endogeneity in accounting and finance research:
natural experiments as a state-of-the-art solution, Abacus, forthcoming and available
at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2512098 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2512098
Gipper, B., B. Lombardi, and D. Skinner, 2013, The politics of accounting standard-
setting: a review of empirical research, Australian Journal of Management 38, 523–551.
Hao, X., J. Shi, and J. Yang, 2014, The differential impact of the bank–firm relationship
on IPO underpricing: evidence from China, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 30, 207–232.
Hovakimian, A., and G. Li, 2011, In search of conclusive evidence: how to test for
adjustment to target capital structure, Journal of Corporate Finance 17, 33–44.
Kaczynski, D., M. Salmona, and T. Smith, 2014, Qualitative research in finance,
Australian Journal of Management 39, 127–135.
Min, B.-S., and P. Verhoeven, 2013, Outsider board activity, ownership structure and
firm value: evidence from Korea, International Review of Finance 13, 187–214.
Ratiu, R. V., 2015, Financial reporting of European banks during the GFC: a pitch,
Accounting and Finance 55, doi: 10.1111/acfi.12115.
Stokes, D., 2013, Generating innovative research ideas, Journal of Accounting and
Management Information Systems 12, 145–155.
Takeda, F., and T. Wakao, 2014, Google search intensity and its relationship with
returns and trading volume of Japanese stocks, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 27,
1–18.
Tarca, A., R. Morris, and M. Moy, 2013, An investigation of the relationship between
use of international accounting standards and source of company finance in Germany,
Abacus 49, 74–98.
Trotman, K., H. Tan, and N. Ang, 2011, Fifty-year overview of judgment and decision-
making research in accounting, Accounting and Finance 51, 278–360.
Unda, L., 2015, Board of directors characteristics and credit union financial
performance: a pitch, Accounting and Finance 55, doi: 10.1111/acfi.12114.
Warr, R., W. Elliot, J. Koeter-Kant, and O. Oztekin, 2012, Equity mispricing and
leverage adjustment costs, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 47, 589–616.
Yeh, C.-Y., S.-K. Yeh, and R.-R. Chen, 2014, Liquidity discount in the opaque market:
the evidence from Taiwan’s Emerging Stock Market, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 29,
297–309.
Zimmerman, J. L., 1989, Improving a manuscript’s readability and likelihood of
publication, Issues in Accounting Education 4, 458–466.

© 2015 AFAANZ