The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is the discipline by which enterprises monitor, analyze, and control risks from across the enterprise, with the goal of identifying underlying correlations and thus optimizing the risk-taking behavior in a portfolio context. This study analyzes the valuation implications of ERM Maturity. We use data from the industry leading Risk and Insurance Management Society Risk Maturity Model over the period from 2006 to 2011, which scores firms on a five-point maturity scale. Our results suggest that firms that have reached mature levels of ERM are exhibiting a higher firm value, as measured by Tobin's Q. We find a statistically significant positive relation to the magnitude of 25 percent. Upon decomposition of the maturity score, we find that the most important aspects of ERM from a valuation perspective relate to the level of top–down executive engagement and the resultant cascade of ERM culture throughout the firm. Firms that have successfully integrated the ERM process into both their strategic activities and everyday practices display superior ability in uncovering risk dependencies and correlations across the entire enterprise and as a consequence enhanced value when undertaking the ERM maturity journey ceteris paribus.

Offenders' Risk-Taking Attitude Inside and Outside the Prison Walls

It has long been assumed that risk taking is closely associated with criminal behavior. One reason for placing criminals behind bars-aside from punishment and protecting the public-is to prevent them from engaging in further risky criminal activities. Limited attention has been paid to whether being inside or outside prison affects offenders' risk-taking behaviors and attitudes. We compared risk-taking behaviors and attitudes in five risk domains (ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational, social) among 75 incarcerated offenders (i.e., offenders who are currently in prison) and 45 ex-offenders (i.e., offenders who have just been released from prison). Ex-offenders reported higher likelihood of engaging in risky behavior, driven largely by a willingness to take more risks in the recreational and ethical domains. Benefits attributed to risk taking as well as risk perception did not differ between incarcerated and ex-offenders, indicating that the opportunity to take risks might underlie behavioral risk intentions. Our results also indicate that risk-taking activities are better predicted by the expected benefits rather than by risk perception, aside from the health/safety domain. These results highlight the importance of studying the person and the environment and examining risk taking in a number of content domains.

When opportunity matters: Comparing the risk taking attitudes of prisoners and recently released ex-prisoners

Risk-taking tendencies and environmental opportunities to commit crime are two key features in understanding criminal behavior. Upon release from prison, ex-prisoners have a much greater opportunity to engage in risky activity and to commit criminal acts. We hypothesized that ex-prisoners would exhibit greater risk-taking tendencies compared to prisoners who have fewer opportunities to engage in risky activity and who are monitored constantly by prison authorities. Using cumulative prospect theory to compare the risky choices of prisoners and ex-prisoners our study revealed that ex-prisoners who were within 16 weeks of their prison release made riskier choices than prisoners. Our data indicate that previous studies comparing prisoners behind bars with nonoffenders may have underestimated the risk-taking tendencies of offenders. The present findings emphasize the central role played by risk-taking attitudes in criminal offending and highlight a need to examine offenders after release from prison.

Taking risks with translational research

The recent bankruptcy filing by deCODE, a company with an exceptional pedigree in associating genetic variance with disease onset, highlights the commercial risks of translational research. Indeed, deCODE's approach was similar to that adapted by academic researchers who seek to connect genetics and disease. We argue here that neither a purely corporate nor purely academic model is entirely appropriate for such research. Instead, we suggest that the private sector undertake the high-throughput elements of translational research, while the public sector and governments assume the role of providing long-term funding to develop gifted scientists with the confidence to attempt to use genetic data as a stepping stone to a truly mechanistic understanding of complex disease.