7482 research outputs found
Sort by
The Problematic Case of Clearinghouses in Complex Markets
Get PDFarticle published in law journalThis Article challenges the academic and policy consensus that clearinghouses adequately mitigate the risks of trading credit derivatives. The Article advances two arguments. First, scholars have devoted little attention to the risks posed by underlying assets (e.g. a mortgage loan) that the credit derivative references and the impact that these have on the clearinghouse. Credit derivatives enable the economic risk of debt to be separated from the legal rights attaching to that debt. This separation impacts the clearinghouse profoundly. As a contract party to each trade it processes, the clearinghouse can be saddled with economic risk of underlying debt without the legal rights necessary to mitigate its exposure. If a clearinghouse cannot manage its risks, the consequences are invariably systemic and enormously costly to the taxpayer. Second, the Article shows that clearinghouse members are subject to complex incentives that: (i) actually encourage risk-taking by subsidizing its cost; (ii) allow parties to shift the private costs of monitoring to the clearinghouse and themselves under-invest in due diligence; and (iii) create undue reliance on information that is impressed by the strategic motives of parties providing it.
This Article, finally, proposes a new paradigm for the clearinghouse. This model seeks to repair the consequences of the separation between economic risks and legal rights enabled by the credit derivative – as well as control the perverse incentives affecting clearinghouse members. With the clearinghouse having better powers to police its exposures, the Article proposes that reform can make the clearinghouse a more robust institution and control lax underwriting standards more broadly
Effects of Dopamine on Reward Learning in Parkinson’s Patients with Impulse Control Disorders
No full textThis study investigated how dopamine agonist medication differentially affects reward learning in Parkinson’s patients with and without Impulse Control Disorders (ICDs). We tested 16 patients (8 female, 5 with ICDs, mean age = 62.1) on and off of their dopamine agonist medication using a dynamic foraging task with probability reversals. We hypothesized that patients with ICDs, but not patients without ICDs, would have worse task performance on medication than off medication. Paired samples t-tests confirmed our hypothesis – that task performance was significantly worse on medication than off for ICD patients [t(4) = 2.86, p = .046], but not for non-ICD patients [t(10) = 1.67, p = .126]. This suggests that ICD patients are more vulnerable to medication effects that cause aberrant reward learning, which could be the basis of their impulse control behaviors.Vanderbilt UniversityPsychologyArts & SciencesThesis completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Program in Psychological Sciences under the advisement of Dr. David Zald
Changes in Motor Performance When Throwing a Ball With and Without Visual Feedback
No full textMentor: Dr. John RieserThis study explored the roles that vision and proprioception play in learning while throw a ball repeatedly to a fixed location. In two experiments, participants threw a baseball to a target 12 meters away while wearing sound-cancelling headphones to block out auditory feedback. In Experiment 1 participants could freely see the target, but as soon as the ball left their hands, their vision of the ball’s flight and landing was occluded by liquid crystal goggles. Measurements of the ball’s distance of travel along the ground and variability of landing locations were recorded to observe participants’ throwing accuracy and consistency across 100 trials. Results show that participants almost always threw short. The throws improved in consistency for the first half of the trials, showing that people can use proprioceptive feedback to improve the consistency of their motor performance. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment1, except half of the participants could see the ball’s flight trajectory. Both groups started out throwing short of the target, but the group with visual feedback threw increasingly closer to the target across the 30 repeated trials. Both groups improved their throwing consistency. Kinematic analysis showed that people depended on the ball’s initial velocity rather than the release angle to regulate the distance the ball traveled.Vanderbilt UniversityPsychological SciencesArts & SciencesThesis completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Program in Psychological Science
Altering Attention in Adjudication
No full textarticle published in law reviewJudges decide complex cases in rapid succession but are limited by cognitive constraints. Consequently judges cannot allocate equal attention to every aspect of a case. Case outcomes might thus depend on which aspects of a case are particularly salient to the judge. Put simply, a judge focusing on one aspect of a case might reach a different outcome than a judge focusing on another. In this Article, we report the results of a series of studies exploring various ways in which directing judicial attention can shape judicial outcomes. In the first study, we show that judges impose shorter sentences when information concerning the cost of incarceration is made available to them. In the second study, we demonstrate that judges assess the credibility of an expert witnesses more favorably when lawyers present an additional expert with similar, albeit notably weaker, credentials. In the third, we show that the format in which prosecutors present forensic testimony can alter judges’ assessments of that testimony’s probative value. Finally, we demonstrate that judges’ willingness to ignore inadmissible evidence in a criminal case is affected by both the gravity of the crime and the severity of police misconduct. In each of these studies, varying the context in which judges review evidence or altering the form in which that evidence is presented shifts judges’ attention and alters their decisions
Burden of Proof: A Review of Math on Trial
No full textarticle published in mathematical journalIn "Math on Trial," Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez write about the abuse of mathematical arguments in criminal trials and how these flawed arguments "have sent innocent people to prison" (p. ix). Indeed, people "saw their lives ripped apart by simple mathematical errors." The purpose of focusing on these errors, despite mathematics "relatively rare use in trial" (p. x), is "that many of the common mathematical fallacies that pervade the public sphere are perfectly represented by these trials. Thus they serve as ideal illustrations of these errors and of the drastic consequences that faulty reasoning has on real lives" (p. x). The author's strategy is to identify common mathematical errors and then illustrate how those errors arose in trials. They seek to accomplish two goals: first, to impress upon the general public the importance of being able to "distinguish whether the numbers brandished in our faces are legitimately providing information or being misused for dangerous ends"; second "to identify the most important errors that have actually occurred" so that such mistakes can be eliminated in the future
Vanderbilt Hustler; Vol. 125 Iss. 18 March 18, 2013
No full textThe official student newspaper at Vanderbilt University
Vanderbilt Hustler; Vol. 125 Iss. 25 April 11, 2013
No full textThe official student newspaper at Vanderbilt University
Vanderbilt Hustler; Vol. 125 Iss. 29 April 25, 2013
No full textThe official student newspaper at Vanderbilt University
Enforcing Effective Assistance After Martinez
No full textarticle published in law journalThis Essay argues that the Court’s effort to expand habeas review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Martinez v. Ryan will make little difference in either the enforcement of the right to the effective assistance of counsel or the provision of competent representation in state criminal cases. Drawing upon statistics about habeas litigation and emerging case law, the Essay first explains why Martinez is not likely to lead to more federal habeas grants of relief. It then presents new empirical information about state postconviction review (cases filed, counsel, hearings, and relief rates), post-Martinez decisions, and anecdotal reports from the states to explain why, even if federal habeas grants increase, state courts and legislatures are unlikely to respond by invigorating state collateral review. The Essay concludes that alternative means, other than case-by-case postconviction review, will be needed to ensure the provision of effective assistance
Contrition in the Courtroom: Do Apologies Affect Adjudication?
No full textarticle published in law reviewApologies usually help to repair social relationships and appease aggrieved parties. Previous research has demonstrated that in legal settings, apologies influence how litigants and juries evaluate both civil and criminal defendants. Judges, however, routinely encounter apologies offered for instrumental reasons, such as to reduce a civil damage award or fine, or to shorten a criminal sentence. Frequent exposure to insincere apologies might make judges suspicious of or impervious to apologies. In a series of experimental studies with judges as research participants, we find that in some criminal settings, apologies can induce judges to be more lenient, but overall, apologizing to a judge is often unhelpful and can even be harmfu