Bank liquidity management through the issuance of bonds in the aftermath of the global financial crisis

Next to deposits, European banks have historically largely used bank obligations such as covered bonds (CB). Their US counterparties, on the contrary, heavily rely on securitization to fund mortgages. We assess how banks’ liquidity and funding position during and after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) affects the decision to issue (private label) mortgage backed securities (MBS), covered bonds or senior unsecured bonds. Since the decisions to issue either instrument are not necessarily independent from each other, we estimate conditional probit and tobit models in order to account for the simultaneous nature of the issuances. We see that neither instrument plays any role in liquidity management during the GFC. In the post-GFC period, banks reach out to issuing MBS when facing short-term illiquidity. Banks could issue MBS as a way to comply with Basel III liquidity regulations. In turn, a bank’s decision to issue CB is not affected by bank’s liquidity and liquidity management occurs instead through managing the amount of CB. The issuance of SUB is also not affected by liquidity. Overall, the paper shows that only MBS have actively been issued as a response to liquidity shortages of banks’ balance sheets and shows that MBS and CB which often are seen as alternative instruments serve different purposes

The Brule-Gering (\u3ci\u3eOligocene-Miocene\u3c/i\u3e) Contact in the Wildcat Ridge Area of Western Nebraska

The contact between the Brule Formation (Oligocene) and the Gering Formation (Miocene) can be readily distinguished in the Wildcat Ridge area, as elsewhere in western Nebraska. At the critical fossiliferous exposures at Castle Rock in Scotts Bluff County, the contact on the south face between the two formations is defined as 129 feet above the base of the Upper Ash bed, which corresponds to the upper portion of Darton\u27s (1899, PI. C, Fig. D, following p. 754) sandy phase in the upper part of the Brule. Certain key beds in the Gering Formation can be traced laterally from a channel facies to a proximal-floodplain facies, then to a distal· floodplain facies, and finally to an interstream-divide facies. The sediments of the latter two facies are massive and very fine-grained, and in wme respects, similar to the argillaceous siltstone of the underlying Whitney Member of the Brule Formation. Significant localities for observing the facies problems of the Gering Formation are to be found along the salient of Wildcat Ridge from Twin Sisters in Banner County to Castle Rock in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska. The geographic location of the type locality of the Gering Formation also is discussed

New subfamily of oreodonts

p. 213-306 : ill. ; 24 cm.Includes bibliographical references

Ticholeptinae, a new subfamily of oreodonts

105 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.Includes bibliographical references

Oreodonts

498 p. : ill. ; 27 cm.pt. 1. Merycoidodontinae, Eporeodontinae, and Leptaucheniinae, three subfamilies of oreodonts, with an appendix to the revision of the Merycoidodontidae -- pt. 2. Summary and conclusions concerning the Merycoidodontidae.Includes bibliographical references (p. 473-490) and index

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.Peer reviewe

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.Peer reviewe

Validity of the Modified Child Psychopathy Scale for Juvenile Justice Center Residents

Adult psychopathy has proven to be an important clinical and forensic construct, but much less is known about juvenile psychopathy. In the present study, we examined the construct validity of the self report modified Child Psychopathy Scale mCPS; Lynam (Psychological Bulletin 120:(2), 209–234, 1997) in a sample of 57 adolescents residing in a Dutch juvenile justice center, aged between 13 and 22 years. The mCPS total score was reliably related to high externalizing problems, low empathy, high anger and aggression, high impulsivity, high (violent) delinquency, and high alcohol/drug use. Unique relations were found for the antisocial-impulsive (mCPS Factor 2), but not the callous-unemotional facet of psychopathy (mCPS Factor 1). Our findings support the validity of the mCPS in that it encompasses the antisocial-impulsive facet of psychopathy, but it is less clear whether the mCPS sufficiently captures the affective-interpersonal facet of psychopathy

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.publishedVersionPeer reviewe