This paper estimates hedge fund and mutual fund exposure to newly proposed measures of macroeconomic risk that are interpreted as measures of economic uncertainty. We find that the resulting uncertainty betas explain a significant proportion of the cross-sectional dispersion in hedge fund returns. However, the same is not true for mutual funds, for which there is no significant relationship. After controlling for a large set of fund characteristics and risk factors, the positive relation between uncertainty betas and future hedge fund returns remains economically and statistically significant. Hence, we argue that macroeconomic risk is a powerful determinant of cross-sectional differences in hedge fund returns.
{"title":"Macroeconomic Risk and Hedge Fund Returns","authors":"Turan G. Bali, Stephen J. Brown, M. Çaglayan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2343256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2343256","url":null,"abstract":"This paper estimates hedge fund and mutual fund exposure to newly proposed measures of macroeconomic risk that are interpreted as measures of economic uncertainty. We find that the resulting uncertainty betas explain a significant proportion of the cross-sectional dispersion in hedge fund returns. However, the same is not true for mutual funds, for which there is no significant relationship. After controlling for a large set of fund characteristics and risk factors, the positive relation between uncertainty betas and future hedge fund returns remains economically and statistically significant. Hence, we argue that macroeconomic risk is a powerful determinant of cross-sectional differences in hedge fund returns.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128282208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We find that the stock market underreacts to stock-level liquidity shocks: liquidity shocks are not only positively associated with contemporaneous returns, but they also predict future return continuations for up to six months. Long-short portfolios sorted on liquidity shocks generate significant returns of 0.70% to 1.20% per month that are robust across alternative shock measures and after controlling for risk factors and stock characteristics. Furthermore, we show that investor inattention and illiquidity contribute to the underreaction: while both are significant in explaining short-term return predictability of liquidity shocks, the inattention-based mechanism is more powerful for the longer-term return predictability.
{"title":"Liquidity Shocks and Stock Market Reactions","authors":"Turan G. Bali, Lin Peng, Yannan Shen, Yi Tang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2055472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2055472","url":null,"abstract":"We find that the stock market underreacts to stock-level liquidity shocks: liquidity shocks are not only positively associated with contemporaneous returns, but they also predict future return continuations for up to six months. Long-short portfolios sorted on liquidity shocks generate significant returns of 0.70% to 1.20% per month that are robust across alternative shock measures and after controlling for risk factors and stock characteristics. Furthermore, we show that investor inattention and illiquidity contribute to the underreaction: while both are significant in explaining short-term return predictability of liquidity shocks, the inattention-based mechanism is more powerful for the longer-term return predictability.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122181954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Diabetes is one of the most common, rapidly-growing life-threatening medical conditions in the United States today: Nearly 26 million Americans had diabetes in 2011, up from 24 million in 2007; and epidemiologists estimate that by 2020, nearly 12 percent of Americans or 39.2 million people will have diabetes. Diabetes is the underlying cause of death of over 70,000 Americans a year and a contributor to an additional 160,000 deaths. Diabetes also exacts a large toll on the U.S. economy. This study analyzes these economic effects and assesses whether continuing the Special Diabetes Program, which funds research into treating and curing Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) through the National Institutes of Health, could contribute to meaningfully ameliorating the adverse economic effects associated with diabetes. We found that treating people with diabetes cost Americans $128 billion in 2007 or about 0.9 percent of GDP; and we estimate that by 2020, these medical costs will reach $410 billion or an estimated 1.8 percent of a projected GDP of $23.4 trillion in 2020. We further estimate that the productivity losses associated with missed work, permanent disabilities and premature deaths from diabetes and its complications totaled $65 billion in 2007 or 0.5 percent of U.S. GDP in that year. We further estimate that by 2020, these non-medical, economic costs will reach $196 billion or more than 0.8 percent of projected GDP in that year. The NIH currently provides $150 million per-year to support research into T1D, as well as additional funds through other grant programs, and we cannot know if this research will ultimately produce better treatments for the disease. However, after 15 years of NIH support for T1D research, the likelihood of additional breakthroughs should increase if the program is maintained. We further project that if such those advances reduce the incidence and severity of T1D by 10 percent by 2020, the savings in medical costs would exceed $2.6 billion per-year, including $1.9 billion in savings for Medicare and Medicaid, plus another $2.2 billion in annual non-medical economic savings, for a total savings of $4.8 billion a year. In this scenario, the advances would produce an annual rate of return of 163 percent year after year. We also estimate that if spillovers from these advances reduce the incidence and severity of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) by 5 percent in 2020, that would save nearly $17.4 billion per-year in medical costs, including more than $12.3 billion per-year in Medicare and Medicaid costs, plus nearly $7.5 billion per-year in non-medical economic costs. Based on this analysis, we conclude that federal support for research in T1D should continue.
{"title":"Diabetes Research and the Public Good: Federal Support for Research on Type 1 Diabetes","authors":"R. Shapiro, Nam D. Pham","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2542171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2542171","url":null,"abstract":"Diabetes is one of the most common, rapidly-growing life-threatening medical conditions in the United States today: Nearly 26 million Americans had diabetes in 2011, up from 24 million in 2007; and epidemiologists estimate that by 2020, nearly 12 percent of Americans or 39.2 million people will have diabetes. Diabetes is the underlying cause of death of over 70,000 Americans a year and a contributor to an additional 160,000 deaths. Diabetes also exacts a large toll on the U.S. economy. This study analyzes these economic effects and assesses whether continuing the Special Diabetes Program, which funds research into treating and curing Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) through the National Institutes of Health, could contribute to meaningfully ameliorating the adverse economic effects associated with diabetes. We found that treating people with diabetes cost Americans $128 billion in 2007 or about 0.9 percent of GDP; and we estimate that by 2020, these medical costs will reach $410 billion or an estimated 1.8 percent of a projected GDP of $23.4 trillion in 2020. We further estimate that the productivity losses associated with missed work, permanent disabilities and premature deaths from diabetes and its complications totaled $65 billion in 2007 or 0.5 percent of U.S. GDP in that year. We further estimate that by 2020, these non-medical, economic costs will reach $196 billion or more than 0.8 percent of projected GDP in that year. The NIH currently provides $150 million per-year to support research into T1D, as well as additional funds through other grant programs, and we cannot know if this research will ultimately produce better treatments for the disease. However, after 15 years of NIH support for T1D research, the likelihood of additional breakthroughs should increase if the program is maintained. We further project that if such those advances reduce the incidence and severity of T1D by 10 percent by 2020, the savings in medical costs would exceed $2.6 billion per-year, including $1.9 billion in savings for Medicare and Medicaid, plus another $2.2 billion in annual non-medical economic savings, for a total savings of $4.8 billion a year. In this scenario, the advances would produce an annual rate of return of 163 percent year after year. We also estimate that if spillovers from these advances reduce the incidence and severity of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) by 5 percent in 2020, that would save nearly $17.4 billion per-year in medical costs, including more than $12.3 billion per-year in Medicare and Medicaid costs, plus nearly $7.5 billion per-year in non-medical economic costs. Based on this analysis, we conclude that federal support for research in T1D should continue.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115340212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines how proprietary costs of mandatory disclosure influence the decision to exclude registration rights in private placements. Registration rights oblige the issuer to register with SEC in a three-to-seven-month period subsequent to private placements, therefore pre-committing the issuer to mandatory disclosure. I find that, at the industry level, industries dominated by players with “product differentiation strategy” have a larger proportion of private placements without registration rights than product markets dominated by players with “low cost strategy”. The finding is consistent with the theoretical prediction from Darrough (1993) that product differentiation discourages firms from the pre-commitment to disclosure of firm-specific information. Within the same industry, a larger proportion of private placements exclude registration rights when mandatory reporting standards impose higher proprietary costs. Finally, at the firm level, firms with higher abnormal profitability are more likely to exclude registration rights in private placements to protect their abnormal profitability from competition.
{"title":"Strategic Posture and Registration Rights in Private Placements","authors":"Vicki Wei Tang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1762285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1762285","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines how proprietary costs of mandatory disclosure influence the decision to exclude registration rights in private placements. Registration rights oblige the issuer to register with SEC in a three-to-seven-month period subsequent to private placements, therefore pre-committing the issuer to mandatory disclosure. I find that, at the industry level, industries dominated by players with “product differentiation strategy” have a larger proportion of private placements without registration rights than product markets dominated by players with “low cost strategy”. The finding is consistent with the theoretical prediction from Darrough (1993) that product differentiation discourages firms from the pre-commitment to disclosure of firm-specific information. Within the same industry, a larger proportion of private placements exclude registration rights when mandatory reporting standards impose higher proprietary costs. Finally, at the firm level, firms with higher abnormal profitability are more likely to exclude registration rights in private placements to protect their abnormal profitability from competition.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130913435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article we will describe models, theory, and numerical methods for pricing derivative securities.
在本文中，我们将描述衍生品证券定价的模型、理论和数值方法。
{"title":"Option Pricing: Theory and Numerical Methods","authors":"V. Babich, B. Kamrad","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1616948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1616948","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we will describe models, theory, and numerical methods for pricing derivative securities.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127421956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We discuss the nature of risk valid factors should represent. The Campbell's (1993) ICAPM extended with heteroskedastic asset returns guides us to identify the risk; we show that many of empirically well-established factors contain information about the future changes in the investment opportunity set and that is why these factors are strongly priced across assets. Specifically, we show that size, momentum, liquidity (trading strategy based factors), industrial production growth, and inflation (macroeconomic factors) factors as well as both short- and long-run market volatility factors are significantly priced because they all have information about the changes in the future market volatility which characterizes the future investment opportunity set in our model. The time-series studies show that the above-mentioned factors do predict the market volatility and the cross-sectional studies show that these factors are priced due to their predictability on the future market volatility. Both studies are consistent and strongly support the relationship between the stock market volatility and the priced factors. By revealing the nature of risk the empirically well-established factors represent, we provide an explanation why we observe so many empirically strong factors in the literature.
{"title":"Cross-Section of Equity Returns: Stock Market Volatility and Priced Factors","authors":"Bumjean Sohn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1364834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1364834","url":null,"abstract":"We discuss the nature of risk valid factors should represent. The Campbell's (1993) ICAPM extended with heteroskedastic asset returns guides us to identify the risk; we show that many of empirically well-established factors contain information about the future changes in the investment opportunity set and that is why these factors are strongly priced across assets. Specifically, we show that size, momentum, liquidity (trading strategy based factors), industrial production growth, and inflation (macroeconomic factors) factors as well as both short- and long-run market volatility factors are significantly priced because they all have information about the changes in the future market volatility which characterizes the future investment opportunity set in our model. The time-series studies show that the above-mentioned factors do predict the market volatility and the cross-sectional studies show that these factors are priced due to their predictability on the future market volatility. Both studies are consistent and strongly support the relationship between the stock market volatility and the priced factors. By revealing the nature of risk the empirically well-established factors represent, we provide an explanation why we observe so many empirically strong factors in the literature.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126937166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper questions the notion that expatriates should adjust to their host country, by showing that adjustment and its consequences are affected by cosmopolitanism and expected assignment duration. A study of 260 expatriates in the U.S. reveals that cosmopolitans expecting shorter (longer) assignments adjust more (less) to both work and non-work aspects of their host country, and that this is associated with increased well-being. In contrast, for non-cosmopolitans, more well-being occurs when longer (shorter) expected assignments are accompanied by increased (decreased) work and non-work adjustment. Further, from the findings emerges a clash between two aspects of successful expatriation - well-being and professional success: while non-work adjustment is not always associated with well-being, work adjustment is positively related to assignment performance across conditions and subjects.
{"title":"Cosmopolitanism, Assignment Duration, and Expatriate Adjustment: The Trade-Off between Well-Being and Performance","authors":"A. Grinstein, Luc Wathieu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1353128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1353128","url":null,"abstract":"This paper questions the notion that expatriates should adjust to their host country, by showing that adjustment and its consequences are affected by cosmopolitanism and expected assignment duration. A study of 260 expatriates in the U.S. reveals that cosmopolitans expecting shorter (longer) assignments adjust more (less) to both work and non-work aspects of their host country, and that this is associated with increased well-being. In contrast, for non-cosmopolitans, more well-being occurs when longer (shorter) expected assignments are accompanied by increased (decreased) work and non-work adjustment. Further, from the findings emerges a clash between two aspects of successful expatriation - well-being and professional success: while non-work adjustment is not always associated with well-being, work adjustment is positively related to assignment performance across conditions and subjects.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130195026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reena Aggarwal, Isil Erel, René M. Stulz, Rohan Williamson
We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared to U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.
{"title":"Differences in Governance Practices between U.S. And Foreign Firms: Measurement, Causes, and Consequences","authors":"Reena Aggarwal, Isil Erel, René M. Stulz, Rohan Williamson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1001454","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1001454","url":null,"abstract":"We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared to U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114667740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How capital structure, dividend policy and corporate governance vary across countries has been the focus of recent studies, but how resources are reallocated in response to poor performance has not received as much attention. This paper argues that the market for corporate control and the formal bankruptcy/liquidation processes of a country are two key mechanisms through which corporate assets are reallocated. Ideally, an economy would only allow the best users of economic resources to retain the right to use those assets and sub-optimal use would result in either a take-over by a more proficient owner or an asset sale. We present preliminary evidence that equity market delistings occur more frequently in countries with strong shareholder rights. Furthermore, both strong creditor and shareholder rights increase the use of bankruptcy, relative to acquisitions, as a mechanism to resolve financial distress. We also present preliminary evidence that these mechanisms are not as effective in Japan.
{"title":"Who Survives? A Cross-Country Comparison","authors":"Leora F. Klapper, Sandeep Dahiya","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.995218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.995218","url":null,"abstract":"How capital structure, dividend policy and corporate governance vary across countries has been the focus of recent studies, but how resources are reallocated in response to poor performance has not received as much attention. This paper argues that the market for corporate control and the formal bankruptcy/liquidation processes of a country are two key mechanisms through which corporate assets are reallocated. Ideally, an economy would only allow the best users of economic resources to retain the right to use those assets and sub-optimal use would result in either a take-over by a more proficient owner or an asset sale. We present preliminary evidence that equity market delistings occur more frequently in countries with strong shareholder rights. Furthermore, both strong creditor and shareholder rights increase the use of bankruptcy, relative to acquisitions, as a mechanism to resolve financial distress. We also present preliminary evidence that these mechanisms are not as effective in Japan.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121700688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-05-16DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.20159919
Christine L. Porath, A. Erez
In three experimental studies, we provide an empirical test of how rudeness affects task performance and helpfulness. Different forms of rudeness (rudeness instigated by a direct authority figure, rudeness delivered by a third-party offender, and imagining a situation in which a perpetrator was rude) converged to produce the same effects. Results from these studies showed that rudeness reduced performance on routine tasks as well as creative tasks. We also found that rude behavior decreased helpfulness. We examined the processes that mediated the rudeness-performance relationship and found evidence that disruption to cognitive processes fully mediated the rudeness-performance relationship.
{"title":"Does Rudeness Really Matter?: The Effects of Rudeness on Task Performance and Helpfulness","authors":"Christine L. Porath, A. Erez","doi":"10.5465/AMJ.2007.20159919","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.20159919","url":null,"abstract":"In three experimental studies, we provide an empirical test of how rudeness affects task performance and helpfulness. Different forms of rudeness (rudeness instigated by a direct authority figure, rudeness delivered by a third-party offender, and imagining a situation in which a perpetrator was rude) converged to produce the same effects. Results from these studies showed that rudeness reduced performance on routine tasks as well as creative tasks. We also found that rude behavior decreased helpfulness. We examined the processes that mediated the rudeness-performance relationship and found evidence that disruption to cognitive processes fully mediated the rudeness-performance relationship.","PeriodicalId":322512,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121270429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：