Contributions published at Quantitative Finance (Marc Chesney)

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

Background: The principles of biomedical ethics – autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice – are of paradigmatic importance for framing ethical problems in medicine and for teaching ethics to medical students and professionals. In order to underline this significance, Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress base the principles in the common morality, i.e. they claim that the principles represent basic moral values shared by all persons committed to morality and are thus grounded in human moral psychology. We empirically investigated the relationship of the principles to other moral and non-moral values that provide orientations in medicine. By way of comparison, we performed a similar analysis for the business & finance domain. Methods: We evaluated the perceived degree of "morality" of 14 values relevant to medicine (n1 = 317, students and professionals) and 14 values relevant to business & finance (n2 = 247, students and professionals). Ratings were made along four dimensions intended to characterize different aspects of morality. Results: We found that compared to other values, the principles-related values received lower ratings across several dimensions that characterize morality. By interpreting our finding using a clustering and a network analysis approach, we suggest that the principles can be understood as "bridge values" that are connected both to moral and non-moral aspects of ethical dilemmas in medicine. We also found that the social domain (medicine vs. business & finance) influences the degree of perceived morality of values. Conclusions: Our results are in conflict with the common morality hypothesis of Beauchamp and Childress, which would imply domain-independent high morality ratings of the principles. Our findings support the suggestions by other scholars that the principles of biomedical ethics serve primarily as instruments in deliberated justifications, but lack grounding in a universal "common morality". We propose that the specific manner in which the principles are taught and discussed in medicine – namely by referring to conflicts requiring a balancing of principles – may partly explain why the degree of perceived "morality" of the principles is lower compared to other moral values.

null

null

null

This paper combines the concept of market sidedness with excess option demand (changes in open interest) to solve the empirical challenge of separating directional from uninformed trading motives in widely available, unsigned options data. Our measure of options market sidedness persistently predicts the sign and strength of stock returns. Trading strategies conditional on the measure are highly profitable. For instance, when the measure indicates positive (negative) information, out-of-the-money calls (puts) generate returns of 27% (32%) over roughly four weeks. Risk-adjusted returns of a long-short equity strategy yield more than 2%. An increase in directionally informed demand predicts a decrease in option liquidity and increases in pricing inefficiency.

This paper provides evidence that demand for equity index options has predictive power for future volatility beyond current and lagged volatility in publicly available data. The predictive power increases prior to macroeconomic announcements and exhibits a positive relation with investor uncertainty about macroeconomic news. Straddle positions that trade on the volatility informed index option demand yield annualized Sharpe Ratios that are up to twice as large as the Sharpe Ratios on a long index investment. Sharpe Ratios increase with the amount of volatility informed trading in the options market. In times of high volatility, the demand for straddle positions contains significantly more information and has an impact on option liquidity levels.

Negotiation research usually distinguishes between integrative and distributive outcomes. Integrative outcomes satisfy the negotiation parties' most important interests (by trading off less important for more important issues). In contrast, distributive outcomes require negotiators to give up their most important interests (as they make concessions on both less and more important issues). Integrative outcomes are more beneficial, but do they offer greater satisfaction? In this research, we hypothesized that satisfaction with integrative versus distributive outcomes depends on whether people negotiate interest-based or value-based issues. Three experiments consistently revealed that people in interest-based negotiations were more satisfied with integrative outcomes, whereas those in value-based negotiations tended to be more satisfied with distributive outcomes.

null