Why do hospitalized older adults take risks that may lead to falls?

Background: The behaviour of hospitalized older adults can contribute to falls, a common adverse event during and after hospitalization. Objective: To understand why older adults take risks that may lead to falls in the hospital setting and in the transition period following discharge home. Design: Qualitative research. Setting and participants: Hospital patients from inpatient medical and rehabilitation wards (n = 16), their informal caregivers (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 33) recruited from Southern Health hospital facilities, Victoria, Australia. Main variables studied: Perceived motivations for, and factors contributing to risk taking that may lead to falls. Main outcome measures: Semi-structured, in depth interviews and focus groups were used to generate qualitative data. Interviews were conducted both 2 weeks post-hospitalization and 3 months post-hospitalization. Results: Risk taking was classified as; (i) enforced (ii) voluntary and informed and (iii) voluntary and mal informed. Five key factors that influence risk taking behaviour were (i) risk compensation ability of the older adult, (ii) willingness to ask for help, (iii) older adult desire to test their physical boundaries, (iv) communication failure between and within older adults, informal care givers and health professionals and (v) delayed provision of help. Discussion and Conclusion: Tension exists between taking risks as a part of rehabilitation and the effect it has on likelihood of falling. Health professionals and caregivers played a central role in mitigating unnecessary risk taking, though some older adults appear more likely to take risks than others by virtue of their attitudes.

An Analysis of the Association Between Firm Risk, Executive Share Options and Accounting Performance: Some Australian Evidence

This paper examines whether the financial performance of the firm is associated with the risk-taking propensity of executives, which is inferred from the structure of their share option portfolio. The objective of this paper is to determine if executives have greater risk bearing preferences when they have more share options than shares in their firm. In turn, executives' risk-taking preferences suggest that these decision-makers adopt value-increasing strategies. The results of this study support this notion. The results of the study of 182 Australian firms demonstrate that the negative relationship between firm risk and firm performance is weaker when executives hold a higher proportion of share options than shares in their investment in the firm. These results hold implications for executives' compensation contracts. That is, executives who share in their firms' risk via share options are more likely to undertake risky activities with high-expected performance outcome.

An investigation on the risk perceptions of Australian property fund Managers

Recent empirical and analytical studies have demonstrated that downside risk appears as an intuitively appealing risk measure in which it is more consistent with investors’ behaviour. Conversely, qualitative studies into the behaviour of investors, particularly real estate investors, have been relatively limited. This study seeks to address this shortfall and aims to examine the perceptions of property fund managers towards risk. A survey was conducted to investigate the risk perceptions of property fund managers and determine whether they only require compensation for bearing with higher downside risk. The acceptance level of downside risk is also examined. The findings reveal that downside risk is more consistent with how investors individually perceive risk. However, there is also a gap between theoretical assertions and practice in which downside risk is not commonly used in the practice. The results give an insight into the knowledge base of property investors towards risk, particularly downside risk.

Behaviours of property investors: an investigation on the risk perceptions of Australian property fund managers

Recent finance and real estate empirical and analytical studies have demonstrated that downside risk appears as an intuitively appealing risk measure in which it is more consistent with investors' behaviours. Conversely, qualitative studies into the behaviours of investors, particularly real estate investors, have been relatively limited. This study seeks to address this shortfall and aims to examine the behaviours of property fund managers towards downside risk. A survey was conducted in order to investigate the risk perceptions of property fund managers and determine whether they only require compensation for bearing with higher downside risk. The acceptance level of downside risk in the property funds industry in Australia is also examined. The findings reveal that downside risk is more consistent with how investors individually perceive risk. However, there is also a gap between theoretical assertions and practice in which downside risk is not commonly used in the practice. The results give an insight into the knowledge base of property investors towards downside risk.

Listed property trusts and downside systematic risk sensitivity

Purpose: This paper aims to identify and examine the determinants of downside systematic risk in Australian listed property trusts (LPTs).

Design/methodology/approach: Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and lower partial moment-CAPM (LPM-CAPM) are employed to compute both systematic risk and downside systematic risk. The methodology of Patel and Olsen and Chaudhry et al. is adopted to examine the determinants of systematic risk and downside systematic risk.

Findings: The results confirm that systematic risk and downside systematic risk can be individually identified. There is little evidence to support the existence of linkages between systematic risk in Australian LPTs and financial/management structure determinants. On the other hand, downside systematic risk is directly related to the leverage/management structure of a LPT. The results are also robust after controlling for the LPTs' investment characteristics and varying target rates of return.

Practical implications: Investors and real estate analysts should conscious with the higher returns from high leverage and internally managed LPTs. Although there is no evidence that these higher returns are related to higher systematic risk, there could be the compensation for higher downside systematic risk.

Originality/value: This study provides invaluable insights into the management of real estate risk in Australian LPTs with implications for REITs in other countries. Unlike previous studies of systematic risk in REITs or LPTs, this is the first study to assess downside systematic risk and explore the determinants of downside systematic risk in LPTs.

Executive equity risk-taking incentives and audit pricing

Using a large sample of U.S. firms spanning the period 2000-2010, we document a strong positive association between the sensitivity of CEO compensation portfolio to stock return volatility (vega) and audit fees. We also show that the positive association between vega and audit fees is weaker in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) period. In supplementary tests, we show that the relation between vega and audit fees is stronger for firms with older CEOs and in firms where the CEO is also chairman of the board. Collectively, our results suggest that audit firms incorporate executive risktaking incentives in the fees they charge for their services.

Insider sales and the effectiveness of clawback adoptions in mitigating fraud risk

In recent years, firms (and lawmakers) have sought to mitigate the dysfunctional effects of incentive-based executive compensation by adopting clawbacks. However, extant clawbacks (whether firm-initiated or as mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act) do not go far enough in that they seem to allow executives to retain trading profits linked to sales of their own companies' shares at a time of inflated earnings (Fried and Shilon, 2011). In this paper, we examine the moderating effect of insider sales on the relation between firm-initiated clawback-adoptions and fraud risk. Our results indicate that clawback-adopting firms experience a decrease in fraud risk following adoption relative to non-adopters during the same time period. However, this decrease in fraud risk for the clawback-adopting firms is materially weakened in the presence of insider trading. At this time (July 2014), the SEC is still working on rules for implementing clawbacks (one of nearly half of the rules yet to be completed under Dodd-Frank). Our findings suggest that clawback rules (as and when issued by the SEC) need to address insider sales for clawbacks to be fully effective in mitigating the risk of fraudulent financial reporting.