Search results

This paper aims to determine why so many banks do not recognize in a timely manner the inherent risks and imbalances with their risk/reward decision trade-offs, to elevate the risk conversation by embracing a more strategic and adaptive behavioral perspective and to show how an effective risk management organizational mindset is a definite solution for mitigating risk.

A direct-mail questionnaire survey was designed with the unit of analysis US community bank (under US$1.5bn in assets) and its risk performance. We used quantitative methods using previously tested scales for main constructs and FDIC bank data for performance measures. To gauge the models capacity for determining discriminatory value, results were also measured against relative peer financial performance.

The findings established that an effective risk management process that assimilates risk tolerance, risk propensity and risk practices into a managerial mindset offers a sound solution for mitigating risk. By envisioning risk as a “conceptual model of thinking” and interpreting it as a “predictable business process”, and by offering specific “decision enablers” that complement the corporate mindset, it creates a safety net against unsafe risk practices. As a result, it allows for an appreciation that current financial performance is a direct measure of management’s risk decision capabilities.

The sample size (n = 151), although adequate for our purpose was relatively small, was restricted to US community banks (less than US$1.5bn in assets) and single-informants (CEOs), thereby providing a somewhat narrow focus. Also, the survey was conducted during a slow economic period, and results may be different during a growth period. We see ripe opportunity for further research, especially related to money-center and regional banks and the next level of management as well as the behavioral influences that frame the risk/reward opportunity. Research on other industries, small businesses, etc., would be valuable because risk permeates all decisioning.

From a practitioner perspective, providing guidance on risk oversight allows for improved financial performance. The findings should be of interest to financial industry leaders, policy makers and regulators as understanding how an active orientation of risk tolerance, risk propensity and risk practices are coordinated across the organization is vital. Also, managers need to understand how characteristics of risk management manifest itself within their organization in terms of productivity and financial performance.

This paper is the first comprehensive empirical study that incorporates a conceptual approach that uses outcome history, behavioral influences and operational dimensions to identify risk management capabilities in community banks designed to increase risk/reward awareness.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the variables that drive the rating within the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) list. The list is used in so many different ways throughout academic research that a better understanding of its component parts is essential.

The 2016 list was used as a base and additional variables added. The resulting database was subjected to statistical analysis using the PLS methodology.

The overall finding is that the most significant driver of the ratings system is the impact factor. When this number is not available, the Cabell’s rating may be a weaker proxy.

The researchers used a set of additional variables that were limited in nature. Other variables not included in the study may be included in later work and be found to have some correlation with the ABDC rating.

Given the use of the ABDC list and the paucity of work in this area, the reported research may have significant value; especially for authors working in areas where journals are “crossover” in nature.

The following study suggests that the recrational services sector represents a growing, yet currently understudied, opportunity in the area of international services marketing. For example, personal consumption expenditures in the United States have increased from $50 billion in 1985 to $246.8 billion in 1988. Parry suggests that European consumers have also been presented with an increasingly eclectic array of recreational alternatives during the last decade.

Posits that relationship marketing is often suggested as being the best approach to dealing with suppliers and customers. However, there may be situations where the costs or goals of the parties involved do not require or justify incurring the costs of building a relationship. Presents an empirical analysis of some of the costs that may affect perceptions of a relationship. The independent variables analysed include switching costs, buyer investments, seller investments, and the product’s basis of competitive advantage. The dependent variables include perceptions of the relationship’s value, its expected longevity, and the likelihood of future relationships. Indicates that there are market conditions where the cost of building a relationship may not be worth the investment costs.

The attention of the Board is drawn from time to time to advertisements in trade papers and circulars of preservative substances sold under proprietary names. These consist for the most part of well‐known preservatives or mixtures of preservatives which are easily detected by the analyst in food substances to which they have been added. A new preservative, sold under the name of “Mystin,” for preserving milk and cream has recently been advertised as possessing the advantage that its presence cannot be detected by analysis. Samples have been sent to farmers and milk vendors accompanied by a trade circular from which the following extracts have been taken:—

Some time ago, a writer in these columns entered a plea for a series of reprints of notable books which had been allowed to drop entirely out of print, and certain lists of such works were printed. So far nothing seems to have come of this useful suggestion, and no publisher has had the enterprise to experiment with a few issues on the lines laid down. Instead, every British publisher is engaged in the old, old game of reprinting edition after edition of the same old classics, and venturing no further than the limits of this or that hundred “best books.” The result is that we find publishers tumbling over each other in their eagerness to produce editions of the same hackneyed classics, each slightly different from its fellow in some trifle of price, shape, size, binding or editorial annotation. The book‐shops are filled with these rival reprints, and gradually, because of a craze for over‐daintiness, their stocks are beginning to look more and more like those of the stationers who deal largely in pocket‐books and diaries. Dainty little editions of Shakespeare, Scott, Dickens, Bunyan, and similar chestnuts, abound in every variety of limp leather and gilt‐edged prettiness, and all of them are warranted to survive about half‐a‐dozen readings before their dainty beauty fades, and they are ready for the waste‐paper basket. The leading idea of most of the publishers of these delicate editions seems to be that books are no longer intended to be kept on shelves, but should be carried about like watches or toothpicks. Waistcoat‐pocket dictionaries, fountain‐pen‐pocket editions of “Don Quixote,” and breeches‐pocket editions of the London Directory are all the rage, and people are urged to buy this or that dainty classic with binding designed by Blank, R.A., not because it is a good serviceable edition of a great literary classic, but because it forms such a pretty ornament for the pocket. The sixpenny reprint has been done to death, and now the shilling and two‐shilling net edition of the book possessed by everybody is beginning to go the same way. The literature of England is one of its chief treasures, and we are never weary of boasting of its power, extent, and variety. And our leading publishers, to prove the truth of the boast, keep on multiplying the same limited selection of books in the same way, while hundreds, equally good, are neglected. It never seems to occur to the diligent publishers who issue their trumpery little editions of Shakespeare, printed on thin paper, bound in limp leather, and edited to death by some learned scholar, whose notes smother the original text, that the masterpieces of some other author would come as an absolute novelty, and be hailed as a relief from the never‐ending stock classic. Public Libraries and students of literature are compelled to buy at a great comparative cost such of the older, out‐of‐print hooks as they may desire to possess, while in many cases they are unable to Vol. IV. No. 44, February, 1902.