Do Some Business Models Perform Better than Others?

This paper defines four basic business models based on what asset rights are sold (Creators, Distributors, Landlords and Brokers) and four variations of each based on what type of assets are involved (Financial, Physical, Intangible, and Human). Using this framework, we classified the business models of all 10,970 publicly traded firms in the US economy from 1998 through 2002. Some of these classifications were done manually, based on the firms' descriptions of sources of revenue in their financial reports; the rest were done automatically by a rule-based system using the same data. Based on this analysis, we first document important stylized facts about the distribution of business models in the U.S. economy. Then we analyze the firms' financial performance in three categories: market value, profitability, and operating efficiency. We find that no model outperforms others on all dimensions. Surprisingly, however, we find that some models do, indeed, have better financial performance than others. For instance, Physical Creators (which we call Manufacturers) and Physical Landlords have greater cash flow on assets, and Intellectual Landlords have poorer q's, than Physical Distributors (Wholesaler/Retailers). These findings are robust to a large number of robustness checks and alternative interpretations. We conclude with some hypotheses to explain our findings.business models; performance

Do Some Business Models Perform Better than Others?

This paper defines four basic business models based on what asset rights are sold (Creators, Distributors, Landlords and Brokers) and four variations of each based on what type of assets are involved (Financial, Physical, Intangible, and Human). Using this framework, we classified the business models of all 10,970 publicly traded firms in the US economy from 1998 through 2002. Some of these classifications were done manually, based on the firms' descriptions of sources of revenue in their financial reports; the rest were done automatically by a rule-based system using the same data. Based on this analysis, we first document important stylized facts about the distribution of business models in the U.S. economy. Then we analyze the firms' financial performance in three categories: market value, profitability, and operating efficiency. We find that no model outperforms others on all dimensions. Surprisingly, however, we find that some models do, indeed, have better financial performance than others. For instance, Physical Creators (which we call Manufacturers) and Physical Landlords have greater cash flow on assets, and Intellectual Landlords have poorer q's, than Physical Distributors (Wholesaler/Retailers). These findings are robust to a large number of robustness checks and alternative interpretations. We conclude with some hypotheses to explain our findings.business models; performance

Do Some Business Models Perform Better than Others?

This paper defines four basic business models based on what asset rights are sold (Creators, Distributors, Landlords and Brokers) and four variations of each based on what type of assets are involved (Financial, Physical, Intangible, and Human). Using this framework, we classified the business models of all 10,970 publicly traded firms in the US economy from 1998 through 2002. Some of these classifications were done manually, based on the firms' descriptions of sources of revenue in their financial reports; the rest were done automatically by a rule-based system using the same data. Based on this analysis, we first document important stylized facts about the distribution of business models in the U.S. economy. Then we analyze the firms' financial performance in three categories: market value, profitability, and operating efficiency. We find that no model outperforms others on all dimensions. Surprisingly, however, we find that some models do, indeed, have better financial performance than others. For instance, Physical Creators (which we call Manufacturers) and Physical Landlords have greater cash flow on assets, and Intellectual Landlords have poorer q's, than Physical Distributors (Wholesaler/Retailers). These findings are robust to a large number of robustness checks and alternative interpretations. We conclude with some hypotheses to explain our findings

Serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer's disease

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising fluid biomarker of disease progression for various cerebral proteopathies. Here we leverage the unique characteristics of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network and ultrasensitive immunoassay technology to demonstrate that NfL levels in the cerebrospinal fluid (n = 187) and serum (n = 405) are correlated with one another and are elevated at the presymptomatic stages of familial Alzheimer's disease. Longitudinal, within-person analysis of serum NfL dynamics (n = 196) confirmed this elevation and further revealed that the rate of change of serum NfL could discriminate mutation carriers from non-mutation carriers almost a decade earlier than cross-sectional absolute NfL levels (that is, 16.2 versus 6.8 years before the estimated symptom onset). Serum NfL rate of change peaked in participants converting from the presymptomatic to the symptomatic stage and was associated with cortical thinning assessed by magnetic resonance imaging, but less so with amyloid-β deposition or glucose metabolism (assessed by positron emission tomography). Serum NfL was predictive for both the rate of cortical thinning and cognitive changes assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination and Logical Memory test. Thus, NfL dynamics in serum predict disease progression and brain neurodegeneration at the early presymptomatic stages of familial Alzheimer's disease, which supports its potential utility as a clinically useful biomarker

Evaluating the Dimensionality of First-Grade Written Composition

Purpose—We examined dimensions of written composition using multiple evaluative approaches such as an adapted 6+1 trait scoring, syntactic complexity measures, and productivity measures. We further examined unique relations of oral language and literacy skills to the identified dimensions of written composition. Method—A large sample of first grade students (N = 527) was assessed on their language, reading, spelling, letter writing automaticity, and writing in the spring. Data were analyzed using a latent variable approach including confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Results—The seven traits in the 6+1 trait system were best described as two constructs: substantive quality, and spelling and writing conventions. When the other evaluation procedures such as productivity and syntactic complexity indicators were included, four dimensions emerged: substantive quality, productivity, syntactic complexity, and spelling and writing conventions. Language and literacy predictors were differentially related to each dimension in written composition. Conclusions—These four dimensions may be a useful guideline for evaluating developing beginning writer’s compositions

Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene cluster

A wide variety of enzymatic pathways that produce specialized metabolites in bacteria, fungi and plants are known to be encoded in biosynthetic gene clusters. Information about these clusters, pathways and metabolites is currently dispersed throughout the literature, making it difficult to exploit. To facilitate consistent and systematic deposition and retrieval of data on biosynthetic gene clusters, we propose the Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene cluster (MIBiG) data standard.Chemistry and Chemical Biolog

Current status and future prospects for cultured limbal tissue transplants in Australia and New Zealand

Cultured limbal tissue transplants have become widely used over the last decade as a treatment for limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD). While the number of patients afflicted with LSCD in Australia and New Zealand is considered to be relatively low, the impact of this disease on quality of life is so severe that the potential efficacy of cultured transplants has necessitated investigation. We presently review the basic biology and experimental strategies associated with the use of cultured limbal tissue transplants in Australia and New Zealand. In doing so, we aim to encourage informed discussion on the issues required to advance the use of cultured limbal transplants in Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, we propose that a collaborative network could be established to maintain access to the technology in conjunction with a number of other existing and emerging treatments for eye diseases