Financial investment via ADRs in Mexico and South America

American depository receipts (ADRs) are dollar-denominated, negotiable instruments issued by a depository bank to represent ownership of a foreign security in the bank's possession. They are the primary method employed by Latin American corporations to raise equity capital in the United States. One flequently overlooked aspect about ADRs is that their investment performance provides a gauge not only on management's performance but also a measure of the foreign government's ability to provide a political, legal, economic and social climate that is conducive to international investment. This paper investigates the returns and risks associated with foreign investment in Mexico and South America. First, we show that the weekly returns to Latin American stocks are weakly correlated with the U.S. stock market which suggests that they can reduce the risk of a portfolio that is fully diversified within the U.S. market. Second, we find that ADRs from this region are more risky than U.S. common stocks. However, we find little evidence that foreign exchange rate risk should be a major factor in the investment decision. Third, we examine the effects of the devaluation of the Mexican peso and show that political factors can significantly increase the risk and reduce the return to foreign investment. Finally, the results show that investors do not pay a significantly larger relative transaction cost premium for investing in Mexican and South American equity vis-à-vis U.S. common stock. We conclude that ADRs provide the ability for the U.S. investor to realize potentially superior gains from companies located in these emerging economies. However, the willingness by the U.S. investor to disinvest means that politicians and managers have a powerful incentive to continue reforms that lead to improved standards of living for their citizens and employees.     

Statistical Inference and Forensic Evidence: Evaluating a Bullet Lead Match

This experiment tested the ability of undergraduate mock jurors (N=295) to draw appropriate conclusions from statistical data on the diagnostic value of forensic evidence. Jurors read a summary of a homicide trial in which the key evidence was a bullet lead "match" that was either highly diagnostic, non-diagnostic, or of unknown diagnostic value. There was also a control condition in which the forensic "match" was not presented. The results indicate that jurors as a group used the statistics appropriately to distinguish diagnostic from non-diagnostic forensic evidence, giving considerable weight to the former and little or no weight to the latter. However, this effect was attributable to responses of a subset of jurors who expressed confidence in their ability to use statistical data. Jurors who lacked confidence in their statistical ability failed to distinguish highly diagnostic from non-diagnostic forensic evidence; they gave no weight to the forensic evidence regardless of its diagnostic value. Confident jurors also gave more weight to evidence of unknown diagnostic value. Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.     

Public administration planning in developing countries a Bayesian decision theory approach

Decisionmaking under uncertainty is visualized as a game against nature. The policymaker is the player and has a set of alternatives or strategies from which he desires to choose the most effective. He is confronted with a variety of possible states of nature that may evolve after his decision is made. The key states of nature are identified and their interactive relationship to the strategy options are specified. Important roles in the resulting analysis are played by the probabilities of successful project initiation and implementation. It is shown that neglect of the inherent uncertainty aspects leads to evaluations (benefit-cost ratios) of proposed reforms and projects which can be seriously upward biased.     

A comparative cost analysis of commodity foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the National School Lunch Program

Schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program receive a portion of their federal funding as commodity foods rather than cash payments. This research compared the product costs and estimated total procurement costs of commodity and commercial foods from the school district perspective using data from 579 Minnesota ordering sites in school year (SY) 2008–2009. Though comparison of product prices indicates that commercial foods were an average of 17 percent more expensive than equivalent commodity foods, once full estimated procurement costs were included, the commercial products became 9 percent less expensive per food case than commodity products. Base case results were sensitive to the cost of risk to hold inventory. When this input was tested at zero, the estimated cost to procure commercial foods was 2 percent higher per case than commodity foods, though total commercial procurement costs remained less than commodity costs by 3 percent. It is estimated that Minnesota schools collectively spent an additional $1.7 to $3.7 million to procure USDA commodity foods in SY 2008–2009. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to Conceptualize Disability and Functioning in Psychological Injury and Law

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) is the World Health Organization’s classification of human functioning and disability. The ICF is addressed as an important development in healthcare and of specific importance for informing assessment in forensic psychology. The utility of the conceptual framework of the ICF to inform case conceptualization in psychological injury and law is explored. Future prospects for the ICF in psychological healthcare are reviewed, including the need for more research on the intersection of the ICF and the psychological–legal context.