The Journal of Finance

Payments for Order Flow on Nasdaq

Published: 2/1999,  Volume: 54,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00098  |  Cited by: 50

Eugene Kandel, Leslie M. Marx

We present a model of Nasdaq that includes the two ways in which marketmakers compete for order flow: quotes and direct payments. Brokers in our model can execute small trades through a computerized system, preferencing arrangements with marketmakers, or vertical integration into market making. The comparative statics in our model differ from those of the traditional model of dealer markets, which does not capture important institutional features of Nasdaq. We also show that the empirical evidence is inconsistent with the traditional model, which suggests that preferencing and vertical integration are important components in understanding Nasdaq.

Liquidity Cycles and Make/Take Fees in Electronic Markets

Published: 1/11/2013,  Volume: 68,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01801.x  |  Cited by: 145

THIERRY FOUCAULT, OHAD KADAN, EUGENE KANDEL

We develop a model in which the speed of reaction to trading opportunities is endogenous. Traders face a trade‐off between the benefit of being first to seize a profit opportunity and the cost of attention required to be first to seize this opportunity. The model provides an explanation for maker/taker pricing, and has implications for the effects of algorithmic trading on liquidity, volume, and welfare. Liquidity suppliers’ and liquidity demanders’ trading intensities reinforce each other, highlighting a new form of liquidity externalities. Data on durations between trades and quotes could be used to identify these externalities.

On the Exclusion of Assets from Tests of the Mean Variance Efficiency of the Market Portfolio

Published: 3/1984,  Volume: 39,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03860.x  |  Cited by: 21

SHMUEL KANDEL

This paper presents an analysis of the testability of the mean variance efficiency of a market index when the returns on some components of the index itself are not perfectly observable. The results are basically not supportive of the notion that mean variance efficiency is testable on a subset of the assets. Bounding the market share of the missing asset and its expected return is not sufficient to produce a valid test. When the variance of the missing asset is bounded, and the amount of wealth that might be missing is small, it is possible, in principle, to reject correctly the mean variance efficiency of a market index.

The Geometry of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of the Zero‐Beta Return

Published: 6/1986,  Volume: 41,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1986.tb05040.x  |  Cited by: 10

SHMUEL KANDEL

This paper explores geometric relations, in mean‐variance space, among the sample frontier, the maximum likelihood estimator, and two other estimators of the zerobeta return. It is also demonstrated that a partition of the portfolio space is determined by a family of parabolas; the zeros of each parabola are the maximum likelihood estimators associated with all portfolios on the parabola. This observation is the basis for an additional interpretation of the statistic of the Likelihood Ratio Test of portfolio efficiency without a riskless asset.

DISCUSSION

Published: 7/1987,  Volume: 42,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04572.x  |  Cited by: 0

SHMUEL KANDEL

Effects of Market Reform on the Trading Costs and Depths of Nasdaq Stocks

Published: 2/1999,  Volume: 54,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00097  |  Cited by: 233

Michael J. Barclay, William G. Christie, Jeffrey H. Harris, Eugene Kandel, Paul H. Schultz

The relative merits of dealer versus auction markets have been a subject of significant and sometimes contentious debate. On January 20, 1997, the Securities and Exchange Commission began implementing reforms that would permit the public to compete directly with Nasdaq dealers by submitting binding limit orders. Additionally, superior quotes placed by Nasdaq dealers in private trading venues began to be displayed in the Nasdaq market. We measure the impact of these new rules on various measures of performance, including trading costs and depths. Our results indicate that quoted and effective spreads fell dramatically without adversely affecting market quality.

Mean‐Variance Spanning

Published: 9/1987,  Volume: 42,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb03917.x  |  Cited by: 285

GUR HUBERMAN, SHMUEL KANDEL

The authors propose a likelihood‐ratio test of the hypothesis that the minimum‐variance frontier of a set of K assets coincides with the frontier of this set and another set of N assets. They study the relation between this hypothesis, exact arbitrage pricing, and mutual fund separation. The exact distribution of the test statistic is available. The authors test the hypothesis that the frontier spanned by three size‐sorted stock portfolios is the same as the frontier spanned by thirty‐three size‐sorted stock portfolios.

Portfolio Inefficiency and the Cross‐section of Expected Returns

Published: 3/1995,  Volume: 50,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb05170.x  |  Cited by: 116

SHMUEL KANDEL, ROBERT F. STAMBAUGH

The Capital Asset Pricing Model implies that (i) the market portfolio is efficient and (ii) expected returns are linearly related to betas. Many do not view these implications as separate, since either implies the other, but we demonstrate that either can hold nearly perfectly while the other fails grossly. If the index portfolio is inefficient, then the coefficients and from an ordinary least squares regression of expected returns on betas can equal essentially any values and bear no relation to the index portfolio's mean‐variance location. That location does determine the outcome of a mean‐beta regression fitted by generalized least squares.

On the Predictability of Stock Returns: An Asset‐Allocation Perspective

Published: 6/1996,  Volume: 51,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb02689.x  |  Cited by: 411

SHMUEL KANDEL, ROBERT F. STAMBAUGH

Sample evidence about the predictability of monthly stock returns is considered from the perspective of a risk‐averse Bayesian investor who must allocate funds between stocks and cash. The investor uses the sample evidence to update prior beliefs about the parameters in a regression of stock returns on a set of predictive variables. The regression relation can seem weak when described by usual statistical measures, but the current values of the predictive variables can exert a substantial influence on the investor's portfolio decision, even when the investor's prior beliefs are weighted against predictability.

Real Interest Rates and Inflation: An Ex‐Ante Empirical Analysis

Published: 3/1996,  Volume: 51,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05207.x  |  Cited by: 49

SHMUEL KANDEL, AHARON R. OFER, ODED SARIG

We develop a method of measuring ex‐ante real interest rates using prices of index and nominal bonds. Employing this method and newly available data, we directly test the Fisher hypothesis that the real rate of interest is independent of inflation expectations. We find a negative correlation between ex‐ante real interest rates and expected inflation. This contradicts the Fisher hypothesis but is consistent with the theories of Mundell and Tobin, Darby and Feldstein, and Stulz. We also find that nominal interest rates include an inflation risk premium that is positively related to a proxy for inflation uncertainty.

Mimicking Portfolios and Exact Arbitrage Pricing

Published: 3/1987,  Volume: 42,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb02546.x  |  Cited by: 150

GUR HUBERMAN, SHMUEL KANDEL, ROBERT F. STAMBAUGH

We characterize the sets of mimicking positions with returns that can serve in place of factors in an exact K ‐factor arbitrage‐pricing relation for a set of N assets. All of the sets are K ‐dimensional nonsingular linear transformations of each other. We interpret three examples of such transformations and discuss empirical considerations. We provide conditions under which the mimicking positions can be expressed as portfolios, and we characterize the relation between mimicking portfolios and the minimum‐variance frontier.

Tests of Asset Pricing with Time‐Varying Expected Risk Premiums and Market Betas

Published: 6/1987,  Volume: 42,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb02564.x  |  Cited by: 92

WAYNE E. FERSON, SHMUEL KANDEL, ROBERT F. STAMBAUGH

Tests of asset‐pricing models are developed that allow expected risk premiums and market betas to vary over time. These tests exploit the relation between expected excess returns and current market values. Using weekly data for 1963 through 1982 on ten common stock portfolios formed according to equity capitalization, a single‐risk‐premium model is not rejected if the expected premium is time varying and is not constrained to correspond to a market factor. Conditional mean‐variance efficiency of a value‐weighted stock index is rejected, and the rejection is insensitive to how much variability of expected risk premiums is assumed.

TRENDS IN PRIVATE PENSION FUNDS*

Published: 5/1961,  Volume: 16,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02830.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene Miller

DISCUSSION

Published: 7/1985,  Volume: 40,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb05015.x  |  Cited by: 0

EUGENE FLOOD

COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE*

Published: 6/1972,  Volume: 27,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1972.tb00984.x  |  Cited by: 88

Eugene F. Fama

THE PROFITABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL MERGER*

Published: 12/1970,  Volume: 25,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1970.tb00886.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene Oral Poindexter

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES: THEORY AND SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE*

Published: 3/1966,  Volume: 21,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1966.tb02953.x  |  Cited by: 12

Eugene F. Brigham

AN APPRAISAL OF CORPORATE WORKING FUND REQUIREMENTS*

Published: 12/1953,  Volume: 8,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1953.tb01190.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene C. Yehle

RISK, RETURN AND EQUILIBRIUM: SOME CLARIFYING COMMENTS

Published: 3/1968,  Volume: 23,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb02996.x  |  Cited by: 194

Eugene F. Fama

A BEHAVIORAL THEORY APPROACH TO FIRM INVESTMENT AND ACQUISITION DECISIONS*

Published: 6/1971,  Volume: 26,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1971.tb01734.x  |  Cited by: 0

E. Eugene Carter

Capital Gains, Dividend Yields, and Expected Inflation

Published: 2/2003,  Volume: 58,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.00530  |  Cited by: 13

Eugene A. Pilotte

One explanation for the negative relationship between short‐horizon stock returns and inflation is that inflation proxies (inversely) for expected future real output. In this paper, I examine the possibility that inflation also proxies for variation in real price/dividend ratios (excess returns). I show that when the covariance between real price/dividend ratios and inflation is nonzero, the relationship between returns and expected inflation differs for the two components of returns: dividend yields and capital gains returns. My empirical evidence demonstrates that dividend yields and capital gains are related differently to expected inflation in U.S. and foreign markets.

A NOTE ON THE MARKET MODEL AND THE TWO‐PARAMETER MODEL

Published: 12/1973,  Volume: 28,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01449.x  |  Cited by: 27

Eugene F. Fama

Stock Returns, Expected Returns, and Real Activity

Published: 9/1990,  Volume: 45,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb02428.x  |  Cited by: 1195

EUGENE F. FAMA

Measuring the total return variation explained by shocks to expected cash flows, time‐varying expected returns, and shocks to expected returns is one way to judge the rationality of stock prices. Variables that proxy for expected returns and expected‐return shocks capture 30% of the variance of annual NYSE value‐weighted returns. Growth rates of production, used to proxy for shocks to expected cash flows, explain 43% of the return variance. Whether the combined explanatory power of the variables—about 58% of the variance of annual returns—is good or bad news about market efficiency is left for the reader to judge.

A SIMULTANEOUS EQUATION APPROACH TO FINANCIAL PLANNING: COMMENT

Published: 9/1973,  Volume: 28,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01431.x  |  Cited by: 5

E. Eugene Carter

REPLY

Published: 3/1976,  Volume: 31,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1976.tb03205.x  |  Cited by: 35

Eugene F. Fama

DISCUSSION

Published: 5/1970,  Volume: 25,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1970.tb00509.x  |  Cited by: 1

Eugene M. Lerner

Efficient Capital Markets: II

Published: 12/1991,  Volume: 46,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1991.tb04636.x  |  Cited by: 4756

EUGENE F. FAMA

Dissecting Anomalies

Published: 7/19/2008,  Volume: 63,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01371.x  |  Cited by: 1559

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

The anomalous returns associated with net stock issues, accruals, and momentum are pervasive; they show up in all size groups (micro, small, and big) in cross‐section regressions, and they are also strong in sorts, at least in the extremes. The asset growth and profitability anomalies are less robust. There is an asset growth anomaly in average returns on microcaps and small stocks, but it is absent for big stocks. Among profitable firms, higher profitability tends to be associated with abnormally high returns, but there is little evidence that unprofitable firms have unusually low returns.

Taxes, Financing Decisions, and Firm Value

Published: 6/1998,  Volume: 53,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00036  |  Cited by: 635

Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French

We use cross‐sectional regressions to study how a firm's value is related to dividends and debt. With a good control for profitability, the regressions can measure how the taxation of dividends and debt affects firm value. Simple tax hypotheses say that value is negatively related to dividends and positively related to debt. We find the opposite. We infer that dividends and debt convey information about profitability (expected net cash flows) missed by a wide range of control variables. This information about profitability obscures any tax effects of financing decisions.

The Equity Premium

Published: 4/2002,  Volume: 57,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.00437  |  Cited by: 821

Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French

We estimate the equity premium using dividend and earnings growth rates to measure the expected rate of capital gain. Our estimates for 1951 to 2000, 2.55 percent and 4.32 percent, are much lower than the equity premium produced by the average stock return, 7.43 percent. Our evidence suggests that the high average return for 1951 to 2000 is due to a decline in discount rates that produces a large unexpected capital gain. Our main conclusion is that the average stock return of the last half‐century is a lot higher than expected.

Size and Book‐to‐Market Factors in Earnings and Returns

Published: 3/1995,  Volume: 50,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb05169.x  |  Cited by: 1439

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

We study whether the behavior of stock prices, in relation to size and book‐to‐market‐equity (BE/ME), reflects the behavior of earnings. Consistent with rational pricing, high BE/ME signals persistent poor earnings and low BE/ME signals strong earnings. Moreover, stock prices forecast the reversion of earnings growth observed after firms are ranked on size and BE/ME. Finally, there are market, size, and BE/ME factors in earnings like those in returns. The market and size factors in earnings help explain those in returns, but we find no link between BE/ME factors in earnings and returns.

Business Cycles and the Behavior of Metals Prices

Published: 12/1988,  Volume: 43,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb03957.x  |  Cited by: 324

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

The theory of storage says that the marginal convenience yield on inventory falls at a decreasing rate as inventory increases. The authors test this hypothesis by examining the relative variation of spot and futures prices for metals. As the hypothesis implies, futures prices are less variable than spot prices when inventory is low, but spot and futures prices have similar variability when inventory is high. The theory of storage also explains inversions of “normal” futures‐spot price relations around business‐cycle peaks. Positive demand shocks around peaks reduce metal inventories and, as the theory predicts, generate large convenience yields and price inversions.

Value versus Growth: The International Evidence

Published: 12/1998,  Volume: 53,  Issue: 6  |  DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00080  |  Cited by: 1400

Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French

Value stocks have higher returns than growth stocks in markets around the world. For the period 1975 through 1995, the difference between the average returns on global portfolios of high and low book‐to‐market stocks is 7.68 percent per year, and value stocks outperform growth stocks in twelve of thirteen major markets. An international capital asset pricing model cannot explain the value premium, but a two‐factor model that includes a risk factor for relative distress captures the value premium in international returns.

REPLY

Published: 12/1968,  Volume: 23,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00325.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene M. Lerner, Willard T. Carleton

The Corporate Cost of Capital and the Return on Corporate Investment

Published: 12/1999,  Volume: 54,  Issue: 6  |  DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00178  |  Cited by: 139

Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French

We estimate the internal rates of return earned by nonfinancial firms on (i) the initial market values of their securities and (ii) the cost of their investments. The return on value is an estimate of the overall corporate cost of capital. The estimate of the real cost of capital for 1950–96 is 5.95 percent. The real return on cost is larger, 7.38 percent, so on average corporate investment seems to be profitable. A by‐product of calculating these returns is information about the history of corporate earnings, investment, and financing decisions that is perhaps more interesting than the returns.

LEVERAGE, DIVIDEND POLICY, AND THE COST OF CAPITAL

Published: 3/1968,  Volume: 23,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb02999.x  |  Cited by: 33

Eugene F. Brigham, Myron J. Gordon

WHAT RATE OF RETURN CAN YOU “REASONABLY” EXPECT?

Published: 5/1973,  Volume: 28,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01771.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene M. Lerner, Peter L. Bernstein

The Value Premium and the CAPM

Published: 9/19/2006,  Volume: 61,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.01054.x  |  Cited by: 337

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

We examine (1) how value premiums vary with firm size, (2) whether the CAPM explains value premiums, and (3) whether, in general, average returns compensate β in the way predicted by the CAPM. Loughran's (1997) evidence for a weak value premium among large firms is special to 1963 to 1995, U.S. stocks, and the book‐to‐market value‐growth indicator. Ang and Chen's (2005) evidence that the CAPM can explain U.S. value premiums is special to 1926 to 1963. The CAPM's more general problem is that variation in β unrelated to size and the value‐growth characteristic goes unrewarded throughout 1926 to 2004.

CORPORATE FINANCIAL STRATEGIES AND MARKET MEASURES OF RISK AND RETURN

Published: 5/1973,  Volume: 28,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01777.x  |  Cited by: 54

William J. Breen, Eugene M. Lerner

EFFICIENT CAPITAL MARKETS: A REVIEW OF THEORY AND EMPIRICAL WORK*

Published: 5/1970,  Volume: 25,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1970.tb00518.x  |  Cited by: 1967

Burton G. Malkiel, Eugene F. Fama

The CAPM is Wanted, Dead or Alive

Published: 12/1996,  Volume: 51,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05233.x  |  Cited by: 199

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

Kothari, Shanken, and Sloan (1995) claim that βs from annual returns produce a stronger positive relation between β and average return than βs from monthly returns. They also contend that the relation between average return and book‐to‐market equity (BE/ME) is seriously exaggerated by survivor bias. We argue that survivor bias does not explain the relation between BE/ME and average return. We also show that annual and monthly βs produce the same inferences about the β premium. Our main point on the β premium is, however, more basic. It cannot save the Capital asset pricing model (CAPM), given the evidence that β alone cannot explain expected return.

The Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns

Published: 6/1992,  Volume: 47,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x  |  Cited by: 5968

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

Two easily measured variables, size and book‐to‐market equity, combine to capture the cross‐sectional variation in average stock returns associated with market β , size, leverage, book‐to‐market equity, and earnings‐price ratios. Moreover, when the tests allow for variation in β that is unrelated to size, the relation between market β and average return is flat, even when β is the only explanatory variable.

FINANCING DECISIONS OF THE FIRM

Published: 5/1966,  Volume: 21,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1966.tb00221.x  |  Cited by: 20

Eugene M. Lerner, Willard T. Carleton

Luck versus Skill in the Cross‐Section of Mutual Fund Returns

Published: 9/21/2010,  Volume: 65,  Issue: 5  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01598.x  |  Cited by: 1336

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

The aggregate portfolio of actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds is close to the market portfolio, but the high costs of active management show up intact as lower returns to investors. Bootstrap simulations suggest that few funds produce benchmark‐adjusted expected returns sufficient to cover their costs. If we add back the costs in fund expense ratios, there is evidence of inferior and superior performance (nonzero true α ) in the extreme tails of the cross‐section of mutual fund α estimates.

CAPITAL BUDGETING DECISIONS UNDER IMPERFECT MARKET CONDITIONS—A SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

Published: 9/1969,  Volume: 24,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1969.tb00386.x  |  Cited by: 3

Joseph S. Moag, Eugene M. Lerner

Average Returns, B/M, and Share Issues

Published: 11/11/2008,  Volume: 63,  Issue: 6  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01418.x  |  Cited by: 152

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

The book‐to‐market ratio (B/M) is a noisy measure of expected stock returns because it also varies with expected cashflows. Our hypothesis is that the evolution of B/M, in terms of past changes in book equity and price, contains independent information about expected cashflows that can be used to improve estimates of expected returns. The tests support this hypothesis, with results that are largely but not entirely similar for Microcap stocks (below the 20th NYSE market capitalization percentile) and All but Micro stocks (ABM).

LONG‐TERM GROWTH IN A SHORT‐TERM MARKET

Published: 6/1974,  Volume: 29,  Issue: 3  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1974.tb01488.x  |  Cited by: 16

Eugene F. Fama, James D. MacBeth

LEVERAGE, DIVIDEND POLICY AND THE COST OF CAPITAL: REPLY

Published: 9/1970,  Volume: 25,  Issue: 4  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1970.tb00563.x  |  Cited by: 3

Eugene F. Brigham, Myron J. Gordon

Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies

Published: 3/1996,  Volume: 51,  Issue: 1  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05202.x  |  Cited by: 4400

EUGENE F. FAMA, KENNETH R. FRENCH

Previous work shows that average returns on common stocks are related to firm characteristics like size, earnings/price, cash flow/price, book‐to‐market equity, past sales growth, long‐term past return, and short‐term past return. Because these patterns in average returns apparently are not explained by the CAPM, they are called anomalies. We find that, except for the continuation of short‐term returns, the anomalies largely disappear in a three‐factor model. Our results are consistent with rational ICAPM or APT asset pricing, but we also consider irrational pricing and data problems as possible explanations.

Session Topic: Finance and Investment: Refereed Papers II

Published: 5/1974,  Volume: 29,  Issue: 2  |  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1974.tb03066.x  |  Cited by: 0

Eugene F. Brigham, Stuart I. Greenbaum, Mukhtar M. Ali