Translational perspectives on perfusion-diffusion mismatch in ischemic stroke

Magnetic resonance imaging has tremendous potential to illuminate ischemic stroke pathophysiology and guide rational treatment decisions. Clinical applications to date have been largely limited to trials. However, recent analyses of the major clinical studies have led to refinements in selection criteria and improved understanding of the potential implications for the risk vs. benefit of thrombolytic therapy. In parallel, preclinical studies have provided complementary information on the evolution of stroke that is difficult to obtain in humans due to the requirement for continuous or repeated imaging and pathological verification. We review the clinical and preclinical advances that have led to perfusion–diffusion mismatch being applied in phase 3 randomized trials and, potentially, future routine clinical practice

The Impact of Institutional Differences on Derivatives Usage

This paper examines the influence of institutional differences on risk management practices in the US andthe Netherlands. This comparison is interesting because the Dutch firms' institutional setting differs fromthe US setting with respect to shareholder orientation, international trade, disclosure regulation, andreliance on financial markets. In contrast with previous comparisons, we apply a matching and weightingstrategy that corrects for differences over industry and size classes across the Dutch and US samples.After these corrections, the remaining results can be attributed more directly to institutional differences.We find that due to the greater openness of the Netherlands, Dutch firms hedge more financialrisk, especially more currency risk, than US firms. Dutch firms, however, show a lower level of concernover derivatives usage, which is consistent with having less active minority shareholders and less strictdisclosure requirements than the US has. Dutch firms focus le ss on stabilizing accounting earnings withderivatives than US firms, which is likely attributable to the strong shareholder orientation in the USversus the stakeholder orientation in the Netherlands. Whereas Dutch firms tend to rely almostexclusively on OTC-transactions, US firms use exchange-traded derivatives and more counter-parties.This results in US firms imposing stricter requirements on counter-party rating for derivativestransactions. This distinction can be attributed to the differences in the financial environments betweenthe US and the Netherlands. These, and other results, strongly suggest that institutional differencesbetween the US and the Netherlands have an important impact on risk management practices andderivatives use across US and Dutch firms.hedging;risk management;derivatives;international finance

A Firm-Specific Analysis of the Exchange-Rate Exposure of Dutch Firms

We examine the relationship between exchange-rate changes and stockreturns for a sample of Dutch firms over 1994-1998. We find that over50% of the firms are significantly exposed to exchange-rate risk.Furthermore, all firms with significant exchange-rate exposure benefitfrom a depreciation of the Dutch guilder relative to a trade-weightedcurrency index. This result confirms that firms in open economies,such as the Netherlands, exhibit significant exchange-rate exposure.We collect unique information on the most relevant individualcurrencies for each firm with respect to their influence on firmvalue. Our results indicate that the use of a trade-weighted currencyindex and the use of individual exchange rates are complements. Wealso measure the determinants of exchange-rate exposure. As expected,we find that firm size and the foreign sales ratio are significantlyand positively related to exchange-rate exposure. In contrast with ourhypothesis, off-balance hedging using derivatives has no significanteffects. Finally, in line with theory, we find that exposure issignificantly reduced through on-balance sheet hedging, i.e. throughforeign loans and by producing in factories abroad.risk management;The Netherlands;foreign exchange rates;international finance;exposure measurement

The Impact of Institutional Differences on Derivatives Usage: A Comparative Study of US and Dutch Firms

This paper tests the influence of institutional differences on risk management practices.Several survey studies have investigated derivatives usage for risk management purposes in the US (see, among others, Bodnar, Hayt, Marston and Smithson, 1995 and Bodnar, Hayt and Marston, 1996, 1998).In this paper, we compare derivative practices of US and Dutch firms.This comparison is interesting because the institutional setting for Dutch firms differs from the US setting with respect to shareholder orientation, international trade, disclosure regulation, and the reliance on financial markets.In a number of survey studies additional countries have been studied, such as New Zealand (Berkman, Bradbury and Magan, 1997), Sweden (Alkebäck and Hagelin, 1999) and Germany (Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1999).In contrast with these papers, we facilitate a comparison by applying a matching and a weighting strategy, which corrects for different distributions over industry and size classes in the Dutch and US samples.After these corrections, the remaining results can be attributed to institutional differences.We find that Dutch firms hedge more financial risk. Because of the greater openness of the Netherlands, Dutch firms experience far more foreign exchange exposure and hedge more currency risk.US firms have more concerns regarding derivative usage, which may be linked to the stricter disclosure requirements in the US.US firms also focus more on accounting earnings, which may be attributable to the shareholder orientation in the US versus the stakeholder orientation in the Netherlands.Whereas Dutch firms tend to rely on OTC-transactions, US firms use exchange-traded derivatives and therefore require a higher counter party rating for derivatives transactions. This distinction can be accredited to the differences in the financial environments between the US and the Netherlands.The aforementioned results indicate that institutional differences between the US and the Netherlands have a significant effect on the risk management practices and derivatives use of US and Dutch firms.risk management;hedging;derivatives

The Impact of Institutional Differences on Derivatives Usage:A Comparative Study of US and Dutch Firms

This paper tests the influence of institutional differences on risk management practices.Several survey studies have investigated derivatives usage for risk management purposes in the US (see, among others, Bodnar, Hayt, Marston and Smithson, 1995 and Bodnar, Hayt and Marston, 1996, 1998).In this paper, we compare derivative practices of US and Dutch firms.This comparison is interesting because the institutional setting for Dutch firms differs from the US setting with respect to shareholder orientation, international trade, disclosure regulation, and the reliance on financial markets.In a number of survey studies additional countries have been studied, such as New Zealand (Berkman, Bradbury and Magan, 1997), Sweden (Alkebäck and Hagelin, 1999) and Germany (Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1999).In contrast with these papers, we facilitate a comparison by applying a matching and a weighting strategy, which corrects for different distributions over industry and size classes in the Dutch and US samples.After these corrections, the remaining results can be attributed to institutional differences.We find that Dutch firms hedge more financial risk. Because of the greater openness of the Netherlands, Dutch firms experience far more foreign exchange exposure and hedge more currency risk.US firms have more concerns regarding derivative usage, which may be linked to the stricter disclosure requirements in the US.US firms also focus more on accounting earnings, which may be attributable to the shareholder orientation in the US versus the stakeholder orientation in the Netherlands.Whereas Dutch firms tend to rely on OTC-transactions, US firms use exchange-traded derivatives and therefore require a higher counter party rating for derivatives transactions. This distinction can be accredited to the differences in the financial environments between the US and the Netherlands.The aforementioned results indicate that institutional differences between the US and the Netherlands have a significant effect on the risk management practices and derivatives use of US and Dutch firms.

A Firm-Specific Analysis of the Exchange-Rate Exposure of Dutch Firms

We examine the relationship between exchange-rate changes and stock returns for a sample of Dutch firms over 1994-1998. We find that over 50% of the firms are significantly exposed to exchange-rate risk. Furthermore, all firms with significant exchange-rate exposure benefit from a depreciation of the Dutch guilder relative to a trade-weighted currency index. This result confirms that firms in open economies, such as the Netherlands, exhibit significant exchange-rate exposure. We collect unique information on the most relevant individual currencies for each firm with respect to their influence on firm value. Our results indicate that the use of a trade-weighted currency index and the use of individual exchange rates are complements. We also measure the determinants of exchange-rate exposure. As expected, we find that firm size and the foreign sales ratio are significantly and positively related to exchange-rate exposure. In contras

The Impact of Institutional Differences on Derivatives Usage

This paper examines the influence of institutional differences on risk management practices in the US and the Netherlands. This comparison is interesting because the Dutch firms' institutional setting differs from the US setting with respect to shareholder orientation, international trade, disclosure regulation, and reliance on financial markets. In contrast with previous comparisons, we apply a matching and weighting strategy that corrects for differences over industry and size classes across the Dutch and US samples. After these corrections, the remaining results can be attributed more directly to institutional differences. We find that due to the greater openness of the Netherlands, Dutch firms hedge more financial risk, especially more currency risk, than US firms. Dutch firms, however, show a lower level of concern over derivatives usage, which is consistent with having less active minority shareholders and less strict disclosure requirements than the US has. Dutch firms focus le ss on stabilizing accounting earnings with derivatives than US firms, which is likely attr