The impact of the institutional environment on the value relevance of fair values

Most prior studies attribute valuation discounts on certain fair valued assets to measurement error or bias. We argue that institutional differences across countries (e.g., information environment or market sophistication) affect investors’ ability to process and impound fair value information in their valuation. We predict that the impact of the institutional environment on value relevance is particularly pronounced for reported fair values of assets designated at fair value through profit or loss (hereafter, “FVO assets”), for which investor experience is lowest and complexity is highest. Using a global sample of IFRS banks, we find that FVO assets are generally less value relevant than held-for-trading assets (HFT) and available-for-sale assets (AFS). By partitioning countries into market- and bank-based economies to proxy for institutional differences, we find that the valuation discount on FVO assets is more pronounced in bank-based economies. Additional tests suggest that this valuation discount is attenuated by a richer firm-level information environment and the presence of institutional investors with fair value experience

How safe are organs from deceased donors with neoplasia? The results of the Italian Transplantation Network

Guidelines for donor selection have changed to expand the donor pool, considering potential donors affected by a neoplasm. Aim of this retrospective study is to look at the use of organs from donors with a current or history of neoplasm within the Italian Transplant Network. Data, collected and validated by Italian National Health Institute for the time interval 2006-2015, have been reviewed retrospectively by mean of multivariable pivot tables. Donors with neoplasia represented about 5% of all donors, resulting in about 4% of all transplants. Donors presented a benign neoplasm in 29.08% of cases, a malignancy with variable risk of transmission in 69.75% while in 1.34% the nature of neoplasm could not be assessed. Considering all procedures, rate of transmission of a malignancy was 0.03% (10 cases) of all 29858 transplants of the time interval. Notably, cases of transmission were not from donors of this pool, but from donors that, according to our protocols, had no elements of suspect at time of donation. As recipient safety is always the priority and as guidelines have set exclusion criteria for donors with some specific types of malignancy, these results show that use of this type of donors is safe and improve organ pool. Furthermore represent basis for improvement and standardization of donor assessment protocols suggesting that efforts in data collection systems, to produce complete and homogeneous data, are mandatory