Pension Risk Matters : Pension Risk News & Analysis : Investment Governance, Inc. : Pension Risk & Investment

 

With all the brouhaha about pension problems around the world, it is worth noting who is being held accountable for the woes and who is identified as being able to implement solutions. The results to date are intriguing to say the least and showcased below. Click to take the pension survey and add your voice. We will run the survey for awhile longer and then report final numbers.

• Nearly 70 percent of respondents strongly agree that a pension crisis looms.
• U.S. Congress (57 percent), board members (50 percent), Chief Executive Officers (43 percent), regulators (36 percent) and plan fiduciaries (36 percent) are identified as responsible for the pension crisis. Write-in answers point blame to lobbyists, Wall Street executives and those "who pushed the 401k lie."
• When asked who can fix things, respondents express faith in U.S. Congress (36 percent), plan fiduciaries (36 percent), regulators (36 percent), governors and other state officials (29 percent), Chief Executive Officers (29 percent) and board members (21 percent). Write-in answers include a preference for a national solution, new regulation, ethical people and the securities industry to step up to the plate. 
• Nearly 70 percent of respondents fear a Social Security crisis. One respondent suggests the removal of the Social Security cap so that FICA contributions increase as taxable income goes up.
• Eight out of ten respondents agree that "most people are ill-equipped to invest their own money for retirement planning purposes."
• Only 14 percent of respondents support "generous pension packages" for corporate and government leaders during hard economic times. One person questions the use of the word "generous," adding that "decent pensions for time served" make sense. Another person writes that executives often get paid for failure. Yet another survey-taker said that lumping together corporate and government executives is not a good idea.

My first reaction is one of puzzlement. If certain decision-maker categories are identified as pension "culprits" and then subsequently classified by survey-takers as those likely to solve problems, what is preventing action now and why aren't people upset about supposed inaction? 

In a related survey conducted by KPMG, analysts document a loss of purchasing power for many pensioners and a painful hit to the bottom line for UK sponsors. "The lost decade for pensions? " cites "growing life expectancies, disappointing equity returns and higher demands for cash" as some of the reasons that have led to almost a doubling of British defined benefit plans being closed or frozen when comparing 2000 to 2008. Authors of the study conclude that regulations can "help to ensure adequate future private sector benefit provision." While other studies suggest a similar panacea, I only invite readers to ponder whether excess regulation got us into this mess in the first place. Think perverse incentives, subsidized costs and compliance mandates that do not map back to economic reality.

Retirement plans, properly structured and managed, offer a lifeline to employees around the world. In contrast, poor governance could pit Jack against the giant but with no hope of a fairy tale ending.

Once again, let us know what you think. Click here to take this six question survey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Investment Governance, Inc. wants to hear what you think about the current state of retirement readiness. Click here to answer a short survey of six questions. The survey is identical to one we ran a few years ago with one exception. This time, we added a question about whether corporate and government leaders should receive generous pension packages during hard economic times.

I will post results to this blog in a few weeks.

To refresh your memory, the results of the original survey are shown below.

• Sixty-two (62) percent of respondents said there is a pension crisis looming.
• When asked who was responsible for the crisis, board members (32%), chief executive officers (30%), governors and other state officials (27%), pension consultants (24%), plan fiduciaries (38%), regulators (33%) and U.S. Congress (41%) took the blame.
• When asked who can fix things, 54% of respondents listed the U.S. Congress first, followed by plan fiduciaries (34%), regulators (29%), board members (28%), chief executive officers (25%) and governors and other state officials (25%).
• A whopping seventy-five (75) percent of respondents acknowledged a Social Security crisis.
• Fifty (50) percent of survey-takers strongly agreed that most people are ill-equipped to invest their own money for retirement planning purposes with thirty-two (32) percent moderately agreeing that people are literate with respect to retirement readiness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A colleague called me the other day, after attending a recent Connecticut event that addressed "too big to fail" concerns on the part of state regulators. In response to her comment about the large crowd size, I queried her about whether a forum on investment ethics would likely be a similar draw. Somewhat surprising to me she said "no" with nary a hesitation in her voice. Teasing her for more information, she simply declared that the topic of ethics is boring. Is she right?

Is ethics too dry to appeal, even to those tasked with compliance and investment best practices? Should we even compare ethics hounds to those of us who watched the silver spaceship-like balloon, floating above the Colorado countryside a few weeks ago, wondering if Balloon Boy was safely tucked inside? (Go on, admit it. You took at least one peek to hear whether a 6-year old really can fly, unsupervised, 8,000 feet above ground.)

Let's assume for a moment that celebrity and quirky news stories trump discussions about ethics and governance. Should we care? 

I've long maintained that carrying out one's professional duties with integrity does indeed impose a need to pay attention to what is right. Yet recognizing that one should be "ethical" is a necessary but insufficient condition. One can acknowledge the need to act properly yet do nothing about it, exposing ultimate beneficiaries to potential ruin. Then there are those who embrace the mantra but are blind to the gap between "investment best practices" and compliance. One can adhere to the letter of the law and yet fail miserably in terms of improving internal controls (and much more) so that investment risk is mitigated.

Since compensation levels are in the headlines of late, I'd like to repost an article that my colleague Wayne Miller and I wrote several years ago. Though written for retirement plan executives, the issues we discuss in "Do Fiduciaries Need Better Incentives to Make the Retirement System Work?" ring true today and will apply tomorrow. The primary assertion is that individuals behave according to incentives in place. The rewards must be clearly positive and attainable for anyone who rightly walks the extra mile on behalf of beneficiaries (mutual fund investors, retirement plan participants, etc).

What will entice my friend to race to a meeting to learn more ethical behavior, along with hundreds of others? Free wine and cheese or a true belief that comprehensive risk management is simply the only course of action for high-integrity stewards of other people's monies? Alas, she may not soon have a choice. Regulators and politicians will not be handed the next Madoff scandal on their watch.

According to her October 27, 2009 speech to attendees of the SIFMA Annual Conference, the SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has created a new Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation and has its sights set on "new products - particularly those related to retirement investing." She emphasizes the need for "simple, clear disclosure" in lieu of "complex fee arrangements or product descriptions...Already on the radar screen are target date funds and securitized life settlements."  Click to read "The Road to Investor Confidence."

Is the SEC focus a faux reward? Comply and stay out of trouble (a carrot of sorts) but not necessarily map actions to best practices (hence one runs into a proverbial brick wall with attendant pain). How will good players be differentiated from bad but lucky investment professionals? Alas, this is a topic for another day.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Philosopher George Santayana once said that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If Nikolai Kondratiev were still alive, he might agree. An advocate of  long duration boom-bust periods, this Russian economist is credited for giving life to what is oft-described as a Kondratieff wave. His study of  American, English and French prices and interest rates from the 18th century led him to believe that an economic cycle is likely to repeat every 60 years, occuring as four distinct phases (inflationary growth, recessionary stagflation, mild growth and then depression). Click here and here for an interesting overview of Kondratieff's theories, applied to modern times.

As we launch into a new year, full of hope for a respite from what can only be described as a roller-coaster horrible, one wonders what lessons will be learned and acted upon. The Pension Governance team, not surprisingly, votes for a renewed (or for some organizations, a de novo) emphasis on enterprise risk management wherein plan sponsors hunker down to identify and properly measure the alphabet soup of nasties that can roil either a defined contribution or defined benefit plan. As I wrote several years ago, "Risk comes in many forms and ignoring it, while emphasizing returns, makes little sense." Click to read "Pension Risk Management: Necessary and Desirable" (Journal of Compensation Benefits, March/April 2006),

Importantly, a holistic risk management process must go well beyond benchmarking against point-in-time numbers alone. A June 9, 2008 article proves this point with respect to traditional pension plans. In "Surplus hits $111 billion," Pensions & Investments writer Rob Kozlowski chronicles a two-year rise in excess funding for the top 100 U.S. corporate schemes. Just six months later, Barrons reporter Dimitra Defotis cites a Credit Suisse report that has S&P 500 companies facing a "pension deficit of at least $200 billion," the "largest shortfall since 2002, when pension liabilities exceeded assets by a record-setting $218 billion in the aftermath of the dot-com bust." See "The Math Doesn't Add Up" (December 8, 2008). Owners of defined contribution plans are taking it on the chin as well. As USA Today reporter Christine Dugas lays out, more companies are dropping the 401(k) match at the same that plan participants have been hit with large negative returns. See "401(k) losses: Older investors' retirement funds hit hard" (October 31, 2008).

Questions abound, though not directed to any particular plan or organization. What could have been done differently to minimize the ill-effects of a systemic meltdown? What was the role of intermediaries in terms of advice-giving? Was there proper diversification? Was too much latitude given to asset managers? Was scant attention paid to risks relating to internal controls, valuation and restrictions on being able to liquidate particular holdings? Were investments in some cases not truly suitable for beneficiaries?

If New Year's Day marks an opportunity for a fresh look at life, why not make 2009 the year of the comprehensive pension risk manager?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 23, 2006, this blog asked "Is There a Pension Crisis?" wherein readers were requested to take a five question survey. On April 22, 2006, we reported the survey results in a post entitled "Retirement Blame Game Survey". Plan fiduciaries came up high on the list according to 38% of respondents. In the current sub-prime crisis environment, when many clamor for more regulation, it is interesting to note that U.S. Congress (41%), regulators (33%) and governors and state officials (31%) were seen as "culpable" for problems with the retirement system a few years ago. Perhaps not surprising, 54% of respondents in 2006 ranked the U.S. Congress highest when asked about who can fix things. Plan fiduciaries (regulators) were cited by 34% (29%) of survey-takers as empowered to make changes. A whopping 75% of questionnaire participants agreed that a Social Security crisis is upon us.

We'd love to get your feedback now, more than two years after we launched the original "pension crisis" survey. Click here to answer five short questions. Your responses will be kept private.

In the meantime, we asked a few folks what they think.

• Mr. Steven Fowler writes: "The public pensions are the hardest hit. The plans base their decisions on outdated and unrealistic life expectancy assumptions. Additionally, all pension plans are going to come under significant pressure as the baby boomer generation enters the retirement phase. This will create a significant draw on pension monies while also reducing cash inflows at a time when it could take several years to recoup losses related to the recent market downturn."
• Mr. Larry Steinberg writes: "Pensions, public and private, were in trouble before the stock market dropped 50% in value. Now it will only get worse, especially for people who are counting exclusively on those monies and have not saved elsewhere. Union pensions could actually be the worst off because they are not held to the same rules as private pensions." (Editor's Note: Taft-Hartley Act plans are considered ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plans. I have asked Mr. Steinberg for clarification.
• Mr. Earl Butler writes: "The short answer is Yes, especially when you consider public pension plans. Most plans for firemen and police officers are overly generous and not fiscally grounded in reality. Given the second wave of the financial crisis (i.e. the tax revenue shortfall at the municipality level), it is foreseeable that either these plans will need to be revised or injected with capital as part of a stimulus package."
• Mr. Sanjay Bhasin writes: "The pension industry is currently hit with a double whammy. Increased longevity of pensioners is a fact of life. This has been reinforced by the recent issuance of the VBT2008 by the Society of Actuaries. However, not every pension scheme recognizes this, thereby leaving a 'hole' in its liabilities. Unless duration-matched, the assets of pension schemes are vulnerable to sharp swings in market conditions. If equities are deemed the best long-term inflation hedge and source of long-term economic growth, plan sponsors will have to live with the short-term volatility that comes with a heavy concentration in stocks. Higher liabilities and plunging asset values do not make for a happy future for the pension industry. Available data suggests that the situation is similar for most of the developed world. Consider that in the UK, nearly 8,000 funds being monitored have swung from a 10% surplus to a 10% deficit in the past year. Clearly, plan sponsors - whether private or public - have a problem on their hand, especially as relates to defined benefit schemes. Looking at things a different way begs the question. How realistic is it to require short-term valuations of very, very long-term assets and liabilities? The average duration of pension liabilities (active/retired/deferred) is clearly 20+ years. While the problem certainly cannot be ignored, does it make sense to lose sleep over monthly or quarterly fluctuations due to changing market conditions? There are sophisticated solutions (none of them inexpensive) to tackle the pension problem. However, a simple (rather simplistic) approach is to recognize longevity more accurately, and to the extent possible, duration-match assets. Equity investors are, by definition, exposed to market cycles and they should hope that the current downturn will be followed by an appropriate upturn. I will worry about myself when I am closer to receiving my pension. In the meanwhile, I do worry about my friends who are reaching pensionable age. More than the underlying assets of their pension schemes, the issue is whether the plan sponsor will survive the present crisis."

Well said gentlemen. Thank you for your erudite observations. For anyone else who wants to comment on the state of the pension industry, email PG-Info@pensiongovernance.com. We want to hear from you!

Don't forget to take our short (only five questions) pension crisis survey. Click here to begin.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to "Europe Tries to Handle Political Fallout of Pension Cuts" by Carter Dougherty (New York Times, August 5, 2008), we learn that the "third rail of politics" is clearly a global pain point for legislators. Changes that include raising the retirement age (such as in Italy and Germany) or extending the service requirements for government workers (such as in France) could be figuratively lethal for those in power. Dougherty warns that European workers have cause to worry, stating that "Forty percent of Belgians over 75" will "live in poverty by 2016" according to official statistics.

The article describes the creation of the Pensioner Party by a disgruntled German retiree, now focused on electing candidates who will advocate for a "more generous pension system." Google lists a URL for "The Pensioners Party," a UK registered political party with stated objectives that include the removal of means testing, payment of higher benefits and various other assorted freebies. Milton Friedman is calling out to us - "There is no free lunch." National Public Radio reports that an Israeli Pensioners Party is "shaking up the balance of power after winning seven seats in the country's parliament." See "In Israel, Pensioners Party Surprises With Gains" by Eric Westervelt, April 2, 2006.

Unfortunately, the "graying" of global populations and financial reality make it extremely difficult to do anything but acknowledge that change is imminent. The recission of hard-fought reform to avoid public outcry and political fallout is only going to exacerbate an already serious situation. Numerous countries, especially those with entrenched state plans, are being squeezed due to dramatic demographic shifts and benefit largess. In response, countries such as Sweden and Poland are urging individuals to participate in employee-directed plans. Germany has offered a tax incentive for private savers. One would hope that retirees, counting on promises made and possibly facing limited work opportunities, will have "enough" to survive. 

The political ramifications, in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, are huge. Do not be surprised if older voters are soon fighting at the ballot box with younger workers who feel the crush of large retirement plan IOUs. The sad truth is that real people are going to get hurt. That is why the crisis must be recognized and managed, sooner than later. Time is a luxury that few countries can afford.

Editor's Note: The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) presents detailed information about retirement plan issues in a variety of countries. Click to access any or all of these AARP research publications (free to the public).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A few weeks ago, en route to speak at a valuation conference about hedge fund issues, I sat next to a health-conscious surgeon. For nearly an hour, he spoke passionately about spiraling hospital and pharmaceutical costs, due in large part to what he described as an obesity epidemic. He offered several compelling examples of procedures that could have been done at a much lower cost, had patients been smaller in girth. Though I consider myself a healthy person (low-fat diet, regular exercise), I do admit to a few pounds of excess baggage. You can therefore imagine my discomfort as I munched on my Power Bar, wondering - Is he addressing non-skinny people like me or outright weight-challenged children and adults?

It was no surprise then that this Sunday's New York Times addressed this problem, said to be costing employers big-time. In her piece, reporter Kelley Holland links to an "aha moment" map, courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Based on 2006 data, all but four of fifty states clearly struggle with obesity, with at least 20 percent of adults having a Body Mass Index ("BMI") in excess of 30. (According to the Department of Health and Human Services, BMI is a gauge of body fat. BMI numbers above 25 place an individual in the overweight category. Use the online calculator to get a rough estimate of your BMI.) Holland continues to grab attention with some sobering statistics.

• More than 25 cents of every dollar spent on medical services is due to excess weight complications (based on research conducted by Emory University Professor Kenneth Thorpe).
• The corporate tab for too many muffins is $45 billion per year (according to a Conference Board report). See Medical News Today, April 10, 2008.
• Obesity links to chronic health problems more than smoking or excess drinking (based on Rand Corporation research by economist Roland Sturm).

 "Waistlines Expand Into a Workplace Issue" is a scary read. Citing examples of employers that offer incentives to visit the gym and otherwise slim down, Holland writes that more needs to be done, despite the fact that it is a "sensitive" issue. While I'm the last to make a value judgement about weight, some disturbing thoughts come to mind.

• How are longevity patterns (and the related cost of offering healthcare benefits and a traditional pension) impacted when plan participants are officially deemed overweight?
• Do employers experience lower costs if their pension plan covers mostly unhealthy participants?
• For employers that offer both health insurance and a defined benefit plan, do they deem an "optimal" mix of healthy versus not so healthy plan participants? (This assumes that healthier individuals who live longer push pension costs up but keep a lid on healthcare benefit expenses.)
• Should employers figuratively serve "in loco parentis" or does this expose them to allegations of discrimination?

Ban the coffee cake. Carrots anyone? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Derobing is certainly a novel way to draw attention to "anemic" benefits. According to "Seniors strip in pension protest" by Stacey Zenin (theage.com.au, May 16, 2008), several hundred retirees took off a few pieces of clothes to campaign for a "fair go for pensioners." Believing that the current federal budget does too little to add to post-employment financial security, seniors clamor for "between $70 and $100 extra per week in their pensions." Not unique to Down Under, the problem of financing retirement benefits is fast reaching crisis proportion for numerous governments. Balancing a budget is tough going without considering changes in tax policies and benefit levels.

For an interesting take on the Australian pension system, check out "Risk-Based Supervision of Pension Funds in Australia" by Graeme Thompson, February 1, 2008, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4539.

Editor's Notes:

1. This blogger had the pleasure of working with Mr. Graeme Thompson on a Chilean pension project, done in conjunction with Dr. Roberto Rochas of the World Bank.

2. Check out the pension risk management section of the Social Science Research Network.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's edition, New York Times reporter Robert Pear describes a recent action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") that gives employers free rein to cut back benefits for persons 65 and older. (See "Many Retirees May Lose Benefits From Employers.") The rationale seems to be that, once eligible for Medicare, senior workers should transition fully or partially out of private benefit programs because they are otherwise covered. Quoting EEOC Chair, Naomi C. Earp, the goal is to encourage plan sponsors to continue voluntarily providing and maintaining health benefits. Premiums deemed "too high" and the fact that people are living so much longer than ever before is creating havoc with corporate bottom lines. As a result, "many employers refuse to provide retiree health benefits or even to negotiate the issue." In some cases, if they are unable to contain costs for benefits offered to older workers, companies may decide to cut back altogether. This means that younger workers would be exposed - no employer provided coverage, no Medicare.

According to the December 26,2007 Federal Register, the new policy protects plan sponsors from legal threats of age discrimination in the event that they create a two-class benefits program. The "Appendix to Sec. 1625.32--Questions and Answers Regarding Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits With Medicare and State Health Benefits" provides additional information. The upshot is that employers now enjoy flexibility to (a) provide retiree healthcare benefits “only to those retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare" (b) modify, reduce or eliminate benefits upon an employee's 65th birthday and (c) decrease or eliminate health benefits for the spouse or children of a retiree of a certain age.  

How many companies rush to the door remains to be seen. As employers struggle to attract and retain good workers, including those with a bit of gray, providing or reinstating diminished benefits may come to pass. Only time will tell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to its May 12, 2006 press release, Fidelity Investments expands its offering to deliver "defined benefit plan sponsors increased investment flexibility and greater access to and control of plan data to help them identify and mitigate financial and fiduciary risks."

In today's Investment News, reporter Kathie O'Donnell writes that Fidelity Investments will replace its traditional pension plan for over 30,000 participants and instead offer them a "retiree health reimbursement plan and a beefed up profit-sharing plan." O'Donnell adds that Fidelity's in-house studies suggest the need to address the health care gap, the company match will increase to 7% from 5% and profit-sharing contributions will continue.

For some reason, today's headline stood out, causing me to wonder. Might it make sense to ask pension advisors, consultants and money managers what plan(s) they offer to their employees and why?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As retirement plan losses mount, the inevitable finger pointing ensues. In a recent survey of visitors to this blog, an overwhelming 96 percent of people agree that a pension crisis looms large. What's interesting is that multiple parties are getting the blame, with the lion's share going to U.S. Congress, plan fiduciaries, pension consultants, governors, regulators and board members.

Here are the results so far.

"Assuming you think there is a pension crisis, who do you think is responsible?" (Respondents were allowed to pick more than one answer.)

Attorneys: 10 percent
Auditors: 14 percent
Board Members: 31 percent
Chief Executive Officers: 24 percent
Employees: 17 percent
Governors and Other State Officials: 31 percent
Money Managers: 10 percent
Pension Consultants: 34 percent
Plan Fiduciaries: 45 percent
Regulators: 38 percent
Retirees: 7 percent
Shareholders: 3 percent
Taxpayers: 7 percent
U.S. Congress: 41 percent
Honorable Mention: IRS, Unions, Actuaries

When asked who can fix things, U.S. Congress, board members, plan fiduciaries and regulators took the lead. Interestingly, while pension consultants and state legislators are cited as part of the problem, they are not given much credit for being part of the solution. Only 21 (18) percent of respondents pick pension consultants (state politicians) as likely rescuers. Perhaps this stems from a feeling that the "pension crisis" must be addressed at the top in terms of tax, financial and accounting incentives and constraints.

Regarding Social Security, 76 percent worry about a current crisis.

An eye-popping 96 percent of respondents agree that "most people are ill-equipped to invest their own money for retirement planning purposes". The sorry state of financial literacy has been discussed in several posts and countless articles elsewhere by investment pundits. Regulators are clearly concerned too. On April 11, IMF Director Hausler emphasized the exposure of retail investors to a wide array of complex risks, adding that a "low level of financial literacy, combined with extensive risk taking, is politically an explosive brew."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Valuation and risk professional Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, CFA, AVA, FRM will moderate a panel of esteemed retirement plan experts at the forthcoming 42nd annual meeting of the Eastern Finance Association at the Sheraton Society Hill in Philadelphia on April 20 from 10:15 a.m. to noon. (The hotel is located at 1 Dock Street in Philadelphia.)

Months away from sweeping Congressional reform and accounting standards that will dramatically impact the financial health of Corporate America, a diverse and seasoned panel of experts will talk about plan termination, 401K plan design, pension governance, fiduciary compliance, ERISA litigation trends, liability-driven investing and pension risk management with respect to shareholder value and employee productivity and morale. With over $10 trillion and 100 million plan participants at risk, conference producer Dr. John Finnerty describes this presentation as "an urgent call to our 850 financial members who are helping finance leaders, at all levels, grapple with the real challenges that post-retirement benefits present". Moderator Dr. Mangiero concurs. "CEOs and CFOs alike are quickly realizing how vulnerable they are to pension problems that can force rating downgrades, invite litigation and higher regulatory compliance costs, increase the cost of capital and otherwise impede corporate growth. For more than a few companies, pensions have become a veritable albatross."

Panelists include Mr. I. Lee Falk, Senior Counsel (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), Mr. Wayne H. Miller, CEO (Denali Fiduciary Management), Mr. James V. Morris, Senior Vice President (SEI Global Institutional Group) and Mr. Norman Jackson, Deputy Regional Director (United States Department of Labor - Employee Benefits Security Administration's Philadelphia Regional Office).

The general public is invited. There is a nominal fee of $50, payable at the door. The Eastern Finance Association is a non-profit organization. Its members include college and university professors, officers of financial institutions and organizations, and others interested in finance and the objectives of the EFA. The Association sponsors The Financial Review, a journal that publishes original empirical, theoretical, and methodological research providing new insights into issues of importance in all areas of financial economics.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link