Synthesis, crystal structure and magnetic properties of three unprecedented tri-nuclear and one very rare tetra-nuclear copper(II) Schiff-base complexes supported by mixed azido/phenoxo/nitrato or acetato bridges

Three novel mixed bridged trinuclear and one tetranuclear copper(II) complexes of tridentate NNO donor Schiff base ligands [Cu-3(L-1)(2)(mu(LI)-N-3)(2)(CH3OH)(2)(BF2)(2)] (1), [Cu-3(L-1)(2)(mu(LI)-NO3-I kappa O.2 kappa O')(2)] (2), [Cu-3(L-2)(2)(mu(LI)-N-3)(2)(mu-NOI-I kappa O 2 kappa O')(2)] (3) and [Cu-4(L-3)(2)(mu(LI)-N-3)(4)(mu-CH3COO-I kappa O 2 kappa O')(2)] (4) have been synthesized by reaction of the respective tridentate ligands (L-1 = 2[1-(2-dimethylamino-ethylimino)-ethyl]-phenol, L-2 = 2[1-(2-diethylamino-ethylimino)-ethyl]-phenol, L-3 = 2-[1-(2-dimethylamino-ethylimino)-methyl]-phenol) with the corresponding copper(II) salts in the presence of NaN3 The complexes are characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction analyses and variable-temperature magnetic measurements Complex 1 is composed of two terminal [Cu(L-1)(mu(LI)-N-3)] units connected by a central [Cu(BF4)(2)] unit through nitrogen atoms of end-on azido ligands and a phenoxo oxygen atom of the tridentate ligand The structures of 2 and 3 are very similar, the only difference is that the central unit is [Cu(NO1)(2)] and the nitrate group forms an additional mu-NO3-I kappa O 2 kappa O' bridge between the terminal and central copper atoms In complex 4, the central unit is a di-mu(L1)-N-3 bridged dicopper entity, [Cu-2(mu(L1)-N-3)(2)(CH3COO)(2)] that connects two terminal [Cu(L-3)(mu(L1)-N-3)] units through end-on azido; phenoxo oxygen and mu-CH3COO-1 kappa O center dot 2 kappa O' triple bridges to result in a tetranuclear unit Analyses of variable-temperature magnetic susceptibility data indicates that there is a global weak antiferromagnetic interaction between the copper(II) ions in complexes 1-3, with the exchange parameter J of -9 86, -11 6 and -19 98 cm(-1) for 1-3, respectively In complex 4 theoretical calculations show the presence of an antiferromagnetic coupling in the triple bridging ligands (acetato, phenoxo and azido) while the interaction through the double end-on azido bridging ligand is strongly ferromagnetic.

Carbonyl compound dependent hydrolysis of mono-condensed Schiff bases: a trinuclear Schiff base complex and a mononuclear mixed-ligand ternary complex of copper(II)

Two Schiff bases, HL1 and HL2 have been prepared by the condensation of N-methyl-1,3-propanediamine (mpn) with salicylaldehyde and 1-benzoylacetone (Hbn) respectively. HL1 on reaction with Cu(ClO4)(2)center dot 6H(2)O in methanol produced a trinuclear Cu-II complex, [(CuL1)(3)(mu(3)-OH)](ClO4)(2)center dot H2O center dot 0.5CH(2)Cl(2) (1) but HL2 underwent hydrolysis under similar reaction conditions to result in a ternary Cu-II complex, [Cu(bn)(mpn)ClO4]. Both complexes have been characterised by single-crystal X-ray analyses, IR and UV-Vis spectroscopy and electrochemical studies. The partial cubane core [Cu3O4] of 1 consists of a central mu(3)-OH and three peripheral phenoxo bridges from the Schiff base. All three copper atoms of the trinuclear unit are five-coordinate with a distorted square-pyramidal geometry. The ternary complex 2 is mononuclear with the square-pyramidal Cu-II coordinated by a chelating bidentate diamine (mpn) and a benzoylacetonate (bn) moiety in the equatorial plane and one of the oxygen atoms of perchlorate in an axial position. The results show that the Schiff base (HL2) derived from 1-benzoylacetone is more prone to hydrolysis than that from salicylaldehyde (HL1). Magnetic measurements of 1 have been performed in the 1.8-300 K temperature range. The experimental data clearly indicate antiferromagnetism in the complex. The best-fit parameters for complex 1 are g = 2.18(1) and J = -15.4(2) cm(-1).

How often does direct real estate increase the risk-adjusted performance of the US mixed-asset portfolio?

The “case for real estate” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. The argument is typically made by comparing efficient frontiers of portfolio with real estate to those that exclude real estate. However, most investors will have held inefficient portfolios. Thus, when analysing the real estate’s place in the mixed-asset portfolio it seems illogical to do so by comparing the difference in risk-adjusted performance between efficient portfolios, which few if any investor would have held. The approach adopted here, therefore, is to compare the risk-adjusted performance of a number of mixed-asset portfolios without real estate (which may or not be efficient) with a very large number of mixed-asset portfolios that include real estate (which again may or may not be efficient), to see the proportion of the time when there is an increase in risk-adjusted performance, significant or otherwise using appraisal-based and de-smoothed annual data from 1952-2003. So to the question how often does the addition of private real estate lead to increases the risk-adjusted performance compared with mixed-asset portfolios without real estate the answer is almost all the time. However, significant increases are harder to find. Additionally, a significant increase in risk-adjusted performance can come from either reductions in portfolio risk or increases in return depending on the investors’ initial portfolio structure. In other words, simply adding real estate to a mixed-asset portfolio is not enough to ensure significant increases in performance as the results are dependent on the percentage added and the proper reallocation of the initial portfolio mix in the expanded portfolio.