Who goes, who stays?

The merger announcement between DeWaal Pharmaceuticals and BioHealth Labs was front-page news. Pictures of CEO Steve Lindell and chairman Kaspar van de Velde had appeared in newspapers around the world. Two months later, the press had moved on to a new story, and the hard labor of integration loomed. Steve had worked tirelessly to clear regulatory hurdles, and all signs pointed toward approval in the near future. Now Steve was feeling pressure to attack the real challenge of the merger: bringing together two very different cultures as quickly and efficiently as possible. DeWaal was an established drug-maker based in the Netherlands, and BioHealth, headquartered just north of New York City, had in recent years become competitive at the highest tier of the market. The first step in integrating the two companies was to select the top layers of management for the new company. At the moment, there were some 120 people on two continents for about 65 senior-level jobs. Steve's urgency was not without cause: talented people from both sides were jumping ship, and BioHealth's stock price had dipped 20% after the initial euphoria over the deal had worn off. Complicating matters was confusion over who was really in charge: Steve wanted to take leadership and move ahead rapidly, but he was often disarmed by Kaspar's charming persuasiveness. As the two men attempt to work through the important personnel issues during a lunch meeting, they quickly hit a roadblock. How can they come to agreement about who goes and who stays? Four commentators offer advice in response to this fictional case.     

Does it matter who pays for bond ratings? Historical evidence

We test whether Standard and Poor's (S&P) assigns higher bond ratings after it switches from investor-pay to issuer-pay fees in 1974. Using Moody's rating for the same bond as a benchmark, we find that when S&P charges investors and Moody's charges issuers, S&P's ratings are lower than Moody's. Once S&P adopts issuer-pay, its ratings increase and no longer differ from Moody's. More importantly, S&P only assigns higher ratings for bonds that are subject to greater conflicts of interest, measured by higher expected rating fees or lower credit quality. These findings suggest that the issuer-pay model leads to higher ratings.     

Pivot tables for mortality analysis, or who needs life tables anyway?

Actuarial life-table analysis has long been used by life insurance medical directors for mortality abstraction from clinical studies. Ironically, today's life actuary instead uses pivot tables to analyze mortality. Pivot tables (a feature/function in MS Excel) collapse various dimensions of data that were previously arranged in an "experience study" format. Summary statistics such as actual deaths, actual and expected mortality (usually measured in dollars), and calculated results such as actual to expected ratios, are then displayed in a 2-dimensional grid. The same analytic process, excluding the dollar focus, can be used for clinical mortality studies. For raw survival data, especially large datasets, this combination of experience study data and pivot tables has clear advantages over life-table analysis in both accuracy and flexibility. Using the SEER breast cancer data, we compare the results of life-table analysis and pivot-table analysis.     

Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual risk

This study examines vaccination hesitancy or refusal following the 2013 polio outbreak in Israel, based on two theoretical models. The first is Sandman’s theoretical model, which holds that risk perception is comprised of hazard plus outrage. The second model is the affect heuristic that explains the risk/benefit confounding. It aims to expose the barriers that inhibited parental compliance with OPV vaccination for their children. The study employed mixed methods – a questionnaire survey (n = 197) and content analysis of parents’ discussions in blogs, Internet sites, and Facebook pages (n = 2499). The findings indicate that some parents who normally give their children routine vaccinations decided not to give them OPV due to lack of faith in the health system, concerns about vaccine safety and reasons specific to the polio outbreak in Israel. Some vaccinated due to a misunderstanding, namely, they believed that OPV was supposed to protect their children, when it was actually for overall societal well-being. This study highlights the difficulty of framing the subject of vaccinations as a preventive measure, especially when the prevention is for society at large and not to protect the children themselves. The findings of this study are important because they provide a glimpse into a situation that can recur in different places in the world where a disease considered to have been ‘eradicated’ returns, and the public is required to take measures which protect the public but which might put individuals at risk. The conclusions from the analysis of the findings of this study are that the public’s risk perception is based on a context-dependent analysis, which the communicating body must understand and respect.     

Which firms engage small, foreign, or state banks? And who goes Islamic? Evidence from Turkey

We study a representative dataset from Turkey that identifies firm–bank connections. Banks in Turkey differ not only in size and nationality, but also in ownership and orientation (non-Islamic versus Islamic)—resulting in at least six distinct bank types. We estimate a multinomial logit of the choice by the firm of bank type. We document a strong correspondence between bank type and firm characteristics that is not always the same as has been documented so far for US datasets. For example, small firms engage large rather than small banks. Young, large, multiple-bank, and industry-diversified firms, that are located in or close to Istanbul, team up with foreign banks. Islamic banks mainly deal with young, multiple-bank, industry-focused and transparent firms.