Resolute Holdings Management, Inc. (RHLD) — Reincorporation detail

Why this firm matters

Standard cohort firm (Completed). Included for breadth across destinations and sectors.

Vote outcome — reincorporation proposal

Approval standard: majority of voting power of outstanding shares entitled to vote (written consent under DGCL §228). Meeting type: annual.

Vote totals not yet pulled. Awaiting EDGAR Item 5.07.

Visual evidence — event study around the announcement

Per-firm event-study figures auto-built from event_study_announcement_json in the master database. Each panel is generated deterministically from the same data backing the cohort statistics — no firm-specific tuning, no cherry-picking.

Resolute Management's stock fell dramatically the day the move was announced

**Bottom line.** Resolute Management fell dramatically by nan% on announcement day. Across four different benchmarks for what "normal" should have looked like, the move was statistically indistinguishable from a normal trading day (p = 1.00).

This chart shows four different statistical lenses on what Resolute Management's stock did on the day the reincorporation was announced. Each lens compares the actual move against a different prediction of what "normal" should have looked like — peer firms, the broader market, a single matched competitor, or a raw side-by-side. The gold-edged bar marks the lens used in the cohort summary.

Method

Specifications: synthetic control on a sector peer pool, single-factor market model (S&P 500 benchmark), matched pair against a pre-specified primary peer, and raw differential. Estimation window: 240 trading days ending the day before the announcement. Standard errors via Patell-z (1976).

Resolute Management sits within the typical cohort spread

**Bottom line.** Resolute Management's announcement-day reading is within the inter-quartile range of the 36-firm cohort. Cohort-wide mean is +0.69%; the dispersion is wide and firm-specific.

This chart shows every firm in the cohort that has a computed announcement-day abnormal return — sorted from largest negative to largest positive. Resolute Management is highlighted in gold. The dashed line marks the cohort-wide average, which is essentially zero. Even firms in the same destination state and same statutory regime can have very different reactions.

Method

Same headline-specification methodology applied to every firm in the 36-firm cohort that has 240 trading days of pre-announcement price history.

Data integrity. All figures generated by the same script (perfirm_gallery.py) on every release; SHA-256 verified at deploy time. See also: Cohort-wide event study →.

Event-study abnormal returns — announcement window

Returns around the announcement date.

Event date: 2025-12-26 · Estimation window: 2025-01-13 to 2025-12-24 (240 days)

Specification	Day-0 AR	Inference
Synthetic control (18-donor Financials peer pool)i	-0.99%	no inference
Market model (SPY benchmark)i	nan%	Patell-z p-value = 1.000
Sector-augmented model (SPY + Bank sector ETF (KBE)) HEADLINEi	nan%	Patell-z p-value = 1.000
Matched pair (vs JPM, market-model-adjusted)i	nan%	two-sided p-value = 1.000
Raw differential vs JPMi	-0.69%	no inference

Robustness checks — does the headline result hold up?

Three independent diagnostics that interrogate the headline estimate from different angles. All three pointing the same way = high confidence in the result.

Pre-event drift check: the firm's daily abnormal return drifted by +nan% per day in the pre-event window (p = 1.000). no detectable pre-event drift ✓. — A near-zero slope means the pre-event period was stable, so the day-0 reaction is not contamination from a pre-existing trend.
Donor co-movement check: 9 of 18 peer firms moved in the same direction as the treated firm on the event day (binomial p = 1.1855). — A high concordance means the day was driven by industry-wide news rather than something firm-specific. A low concordance means the firm moved differently from peers (potential firm-specific signal).
Synthetic-control fit quality: pre-event correlation between the firm and its synthetic twin = nan (weak tracking — interpret with caution); R² = — (fraction of pre-event variance explained); Durbin-Watson = nan (some autocorrelation in residuals). — Higher correlation + higher R² + Durbin-Watson near 2 means the synthetic peer was a good match before the event, so the post-event gap is interpretable.

Event-study abnormal returns — vote window

Returns around the shareholder-vote (or written-consent) date.

Event date: 2026-03-02 · T0 source: actual_effective_date_iso · Estimation window: trailing 240 days; 240 valid after NaN drop

Specification	Day-0 AR	Inference
Market model (SPY benchmark) HEADLINEi	+5.43%	Patell-z p-value = 0.512

Long-run abnormal returns & pooled estimates

Buy-and-hold abnormal returns (1 / 3 / 6 / 12 months) and calendar-time portfolio alpha (CTE) post-effective.

No long-run / pooled estimates available for this firm yet — run phase5z_compute_longrun.py on Windows to populate (requires effective date ≥ 3 months ago).

Cohort-level robustness battery

Heckman selection-corrected ATE · Romano-Wolf step-down + BH FDR · pooled BHAR. This firm's reading is shown in context of the full cohort.

Heckman two-step selection correction (controlled-vs-widely-held)

Cohort ATE = +0.94% (SE = 7.06%, n = 2395) after correcting for controller-status selection (inverse Mills ratio = -0.062).

Romano-Wolf step-down + Benjamini-Hochberg FDR (n = 47)

This firm: raw p = 1.000, Romano-Wolf adjusted p = 1.000, BH-FDR adjusted p = 1.000. Multiple-hypothesis correction is computed across the full cohort to control family-wise error rate at alpha = 0.05.

Pooled cohort BHAR (mover firms only)

BHAR_63d: mean = -5.60% (SE = 22.11%, n = 3, p = 0.499) · BHAR_126d: mean = +17.33% (SE = 41.17%, n = 3, p = 0.774)

See Cohort event study → for the full battery and forest plots.

Source filings

Primary-source documents on SEC EDGAR plus IR / search links.

Classification & audit trail

Bucket

B2

Panel eligibility

PANEL_A_post_SB29

Audit status

NEEDS_ACCESSION

Source confidence

VERIFIED_EFFECTIVE

Transaction status

COMPLETED

Audit notes

[2026-04-28] Phase 4I: replaced Google-search IR fallback with direct URL https://www.resoluteholdings.com/investors [ORIGINAL_ACCESSION_FIELD_TEXT] 10-K + written consent (board approval Jan 2, 2026; consent Jan 22, 2026; completed Mar 2, 2026) [2026-04-28] phase5e: no canonical accession found in raw value '10-K + written consent (board approval Jan 2, 2026; consent Jan 22, 2026; completed Mar 2, 2026)'; original narrative moved to audit_notes; edgar_accession_canonical cleared and audit_status flagged NEEDS_ACCESSION for manual EDGAR pull [2026-04-29] phase5j: NEEDS_VOTE_SOURCE -- vote_result=APPROVED but vote_source_8k_accession and vote_source_8k_url empty after multi-round EDGAR pulls; reason: written-consent transaction; no DEF 14C with vote-tally disclosure located in EDGAR after multi-round reviewer search; downgrade A8_vote_source_missing FAIL->WARN per Shane's 2026-04-28 placeholder directive [2026-04-29] phase5r: bucket 'C' -> 'B2' (DE->NV effective 2026-03-02 >= SB29 -> bucket B2) [2026-04-29] phase5w: comprehensive validation by external reviewer across tranches v3 (4-version full residual walk, 269 substantive answers across 52 firms, 0 bucket drifts vs v3.58)
[2026-04-29] v3.75: RECLASSIFICATION — RHLD is WRITTEN_CONSENT not MEETING. Per PRE 14C: Board approved Jan 2, 2026; consenting stockholders delivered written consent Jan 22, 2026; effective March 2, 2026. Standard: DGCL §228 majority-of-voting-power-of-outstanding-shares. vote_mechanism field needs update to WRITTEN_CONSENT.