Classifying data quality problems in asset management

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015. Making sound asset management decisions, such as whether to replace or maintain an ageing underground water pipe, are critical to ensure that organisations maximise the performance of their assets. These decisions are only as good as the data that supports them, and hence many asset management organisations are in desperate need to improve the quality of their data. This chapter reviews the key academic research on data quality (DQ) and Information Quality (IQ) (used interchangeably in this chapter) in asset management, combines this with the current DQ problems faced by asset management organisations in various business sectors, and presents a classification of the most important DQ problems that need to be tackled by asset management organisations. In this research, eleven semi structured interviews were carried out with asset management professionals in a range of business sectors in the UK. The problems described in the academic literature were cross checked against the problems found in industry. In order to support asset management professionals in solving these problems, we categorised them into seven different DQ dimensions, used in the academic literature, so that it is clear how these problems fit within the standard frameworks for assessing and improving data quality. Asset management professionals can therefore now use these frameworks to underpin their DQ improvement initiatives while focussing on the most critical DQ problems.

The contribution of enterprise systems to core capabilities: the case of asset lifecycle management in the utilities sector

The desire to obtain competitive advantage is a motivator for implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems (Adam & O’Doherty, 2000). However, while it is accepted that Information Technology (IT) in general may contribute to the improvement of organisational performance (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004), the nature and extent of that contribution is poorly understood (Jacobs & Bendoly, 2003; Ravichandran & Lertwongsatien, 2005). Accordingly, Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) assert that it is the application of business and IT capabilities to develop and leverage a firm’s IT resources for organisational transformation, rather than the acquired technological functionality, that secures competitive advantage for firms. Application of the Resource Based View of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) (Teece and Pisano (1998) in particular) may yield insights into whether or not the use of Enterprise Systems enhances organisations’ core capabilities and thereby obtains competitive advantage, sustainable or otherwise (Melville et al., 2004). An operational definition of Core Capabilities that is independent of the construct of Sustained Competitive Advantage is formulated. This Study proposes and utilises an applied Dynamic Capabilities framework to facilitate the investigation of the role of Enterprise Systems. The objective of this research study is to investigate the role of Enterprise Systems in the Core Dynamic Capabilities of Asset Lifecycle Management. The Study explores the activities of Asset Lifecycle Management, the Core Dynamic Capabilities inherent in Asset Lifecycle Management and the footprint of Enterprise Systems on those Dynamic Capabilities. Additionally, the study explains the mechanisms by which Enterprise Systems sustain the Exploitability and the Renewability of those Core Dynamic Capabilities. The study finds that Enterprise Systems contribute directly to the Value, Exploitability and Renewability of Core Dynamic Capabilities and indirectly to their Inimitability and Non-substitutability. The study concludes by presenting an applied Dynamic Capabilities framework, which integrates Alter (1992)’s definition of Information Systems with Teece and Pisano (1998)’s model of Dynamic Capabilities to provide a robust diagnostic for determining the sustained value generating contributions of Enterprise Systems. These frameworks are used in the conclusions to frame the findings of the study. The conclusions go on to assert that these frameworks are free - standing and analytically generalisable, per Siggelkow (2007) and Yin (2003).

Liquidity risk and the performance of UK mutual funds

We examine the role of liquidity risk, both as a stock characteristic as well as systematic liquidity risk, in UK mutual fund performance for the first time. Using four alternative measures of stock liquidity we extract principal components across stocks in order to construct systematic or market liquidity factors. We find that on average UK mutual funds are tilted towards liquid stocks (except for small stock funds as might be expected) but that, counter-intuitively, liquidity as a stock characteristic is positively priced in the cross-section of fund performance. We find that systematic liquidity risk is positively priced in the cross-section of fund performance. Overall, our results reveal a strong role for stock liquidity level and systematic liquidity risk in fund performance evaluation models.

Improving the use of asset-building financial services by Latino immigrants in Langley Park, Maryland

Gemstone Team ANSWER Poverty (Assessing the Need for Services Which Effectively Reduce Poverty)

Asset pricing in created markets

We investigate the applicability of the present-value asset pricing model to fishing quota markets by applying instrumental variable panel data estimation techniques to 15 years of market transactions from New Zealand's individual transferable quota (ITQ) market. In addition to the influence of current fishing rents, we explore the effect of market interest rates, risk, and expected changes in future rents on quota asset prices. The results indicate that quota asset prices are positively related to declines in interest rates, lower levels of risk, expected increases in future fish prices, and expected cost reductions from rationalization under the quota system. © 2007 American Agricultural Economics Association.

Financing of SME's: an asset side story

The main sources of financing for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are equity (internally generated cash), trade credit paid on time, long and short term bank credits, delayed payment on trade credit and other debt. The marginal costs of each financing instrument are driven by asymmetric information (cost of gathering and analysing information) and transactions costs associated with non-payment (costs of collecting and selling collateral). According to the Pecking Order Theory, firms will choose the cheapest source in terms of cost. In the case of the static trade-off theory, firms choose finance so that the marginal costs across financing sources are all equal, thus an additional Euro of financing is obtained from all the sources whereas under the Pecking Order Theory the source is determined by how far down the Pecking Order the firm is presently located. In this paper, we argue that both of these theories miss the point that the marginal costs are dependent of the use of the funds, and the asset side of the balance sheet primarily determines the financing source for an additional Euro. An empirical analysis on a unique dataset of Portuguese SME's confirms that the composition of the asset side of the balance sheet has an impact of the type of financing used and the Pecking Order Theory and the traditional Static Trade-off theory are rejected.

Benchmark Status in Fixed-Income Asset Markets

What is a benchmark bond? We provide a formal theoretical treatment of this concept that relates endogenously determined benchmark status to the location of price discovery and we derive its implications. We describe a rich but little used econometric technique for identifying the benchmark that is congruent with our theoretical framework. We apply this in the context of the US corporate bond market and to the natural experiment that occurred when benchmark status was contested in the European sovereign bond markets after the introduction of the Euro. We show that France provides the benchmark at most maturities in the Euro-denominated sovereign bond market and that IBM provides the benchmark in the 10 year maturity in the US corporate bond market.