Actus Reus In Recklessness And Common Assault Law Essay

Actus Reus In Recklessness And Common Assault Law Essay Maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that the guilty act on its own will not make a person criminally liable unless it was done with a guilty state of mind. The majority of crimes are brought about by a mixture of actions and are referred to as the guilty acts these represent the physical elements of a crime (actus reus).The mental elements are the thoughts or guilty state of mind (mens rea). If actus reus and mens rea are known and there is no valid defence, the defendant will be found guilty. It is the task of the prosecution to demonstrate together the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt to the agreement of the judge and jury. If the proof is not found then the defendant will be acquitted. The actus reus covers all the exterior elements of an offence and consists of conduct, circumstances, and consequences. These are divided into two categories: Conduct crimes and Result crimes Conduct crimes consist of conduct and circumstance and are those in which the actus reus is concerned with prohibited behaviour in spite of its consequences, an example of this would be to drive when you have been disqualified. Result crimes are those where the guilty act requires proof that the conduct caused the outlawed consequence, for example, the actus reus of criminal damage is that the property owned by another person is damaged, and another example is the act of killing someone or committing murder. As result crimes are concerned with causing the consequences the prosecution must show that it was the defendants behaviour that caused the result or circumstances to occur, they have to provide a clear, unbroken causal link. Causation requires a two stage test: Factual causation, the defendants act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence. This simply means that the consequence would not have occurred without the defendants actions. R v.White (1910) 2 KB 124(CA) this case deals with but for test. The test establishes multiple factual causes of death. Legal causation can be established by showing that defendants act was an operating and substantial cause of death. It may not be the sole or main cause but it must make a significant contribution. R v. Cheshire (1991) 1WLR 844 (CA), R v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (CA). R v. Smith (1959) Legal causation also deals with fault, assigning blame, and responsibility. The defendant will be liable for the all foreseeable consequences or results of their actions. R v. Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 (CA), R v. Marjoram (1999) (CA). There is no liability in criminal law for omissions unless that failure to act was whilst you are under a duty to act. The duty to act can arise in several ways: Duty arising from statute for example s.170 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 places a duty on the driver involved in an accident to report it to the police or provide details to of the other people involved. Contractual duty, if someone fails to so something under a legally binding contract that they are contracted to do they may be criminally liable if any harm or injury occurs as a result of their failure to act. R v. Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 (Assizes) concerned a duty to act, contract Parental duty to act and a duty towards family members, this is a common law duty that members of a family owe to each other to care for each others welfare. R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134 concerning duty to care, R v. Harris and Harris (1993) Reliance or voluntary assumption of care, R v. Stone and Dobson (1977) CA Supervening fault or dangerous situation, this is where the defendant does nothing to avert a dangerous situation resulting from their conduct. R v. Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978 in relation to situation created by the defendant. The mens rea deals with the guilty state of mind. There are two states of mind which either together or separately can form the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence. These are Intention and Recklessness. Direct intention is where the defendants purpose is to cause death, mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Indirect intent which is also known as oblique or foresight intent is where the unlawful consequence as a result of the defendants conduct is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain although its not the defendants purpose. R v. Woollin (1999) 1 AC 82 (HL) oblique intention, virtual certainty. Recklessness is where the defendant takes an unjustified and unreasonable risk. There are two known types of recklessness, subjective and objective. The law tends to concentrate on subjective tests. R v. G (2004) 1 AC 1034 (HL) subjective recklessness, criminal damage R v.Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396 (CA) subjective recklessness and interpretation of malicious. The Cunningham test applies to all offences other than criminal damage. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea When the defendant commits the actus reus of an offence, for liability to occur it must be shown that they also had the correct mens rea at the time the actus reus was committed. The guilty act and guilty state of mind must coincide. Problems have cropped up where the actus reus has been performed, then the mens rea comes into play, and also where the mens rea is present first and then the actus reus follows In order to overcome these problems the courts have used several approaches in order to secure a conviction where the actus reus is complete prior to the mens rea being present, and with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The approaches that they have used are called continuing acts and a chain of events. Continuing act is where the actus reus is committed over a period of time and the mens rea is present at some point during it commission. Continuing acts Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)1 QB 439 (DC) The defendant accidentally stopped his car on a policemans foot, (actus reus) when he realised this he didnt take it off (mens rea).It was a continuous act as he had actus reus when he ran over his foot and this only stopped when the car was moved and then the mens rea when he refused to move it. The defendant was subsequently found guilty of assault. R v. Kaitamaki (1985) AC 147 He penetrated the victim (actus reus) and when he realised she objected to the penetration he did not withdraw at which point mens rea was present. It was held that the actus reus of rape was a continuing act, and when he realised she objected he formed the mens rea the actus reus was still continuing and so there was coincidence. The defendant was found guilty of rape. R v. Miller (1983) 2 AC 161 (HL) The defendant fell asleep on a mattress in a house whilst smoking a cigarette. When he woke up he noticed that the mattress was smouldering he left it and decided to go to another part of the house. He made no attempt whatsoever to stop the damage and due to this the house caught on fire. The act which caused the (actus reus) dropping of the cigarette happened when the defendant was asleep and the (mens rea) recklessness, damage to property occurred when he awoke. It was held that the defendants failure to do anything about putting the fire out was the actus reus and this coincided with the appropriate mens rea. Chain of events This is the second approach that deals with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The defendant will be found to be criminally liable if the guilty act and guilty state of mind are present even if they do not coincide during the series of events. R. v Church (1966) 1 QB 59 (CA) The defendant took the victim to a van in order to have sex with her. The victim made fun of him so the defendant knocked her unconscious (mens rea). The defendant believed she was dead so he threw her into a river in order to get rid of the victim. The victim then died (actus rea). The defendants conduct was viewed as a series of acts designed to cause GBH or death. The actus reus and mens rea were present during the chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter R v. Thabo Mali (1954) PC (South Africa) The defendants took the victim to a hut and beat him over the head intending to kill him. They believed they had killed him so they rolled him over a cliff. The victim did not die from the beating or being rolled of the cliff but died of exposure. It was held that the actus reus and mens rea was present throughout. The actus reus consisted of a series of acts and the mens rea was present at some time during the chain of events. They were found guilty of murder. R v. Le Brun (1991) CA The defendant knocked the victim (his wife) unconscious. Whilst he was moving her she knocked her head on the kerb and this fractured her skull. She later died of the injury. It was held that the original unlawful act and the act causing death (actus reus) and the (mens rea) were all part of the same chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. My own example Im employed as a female plasterer on a building site. After finishing work one evening and on my way home I realised that I had left something behind, so I head back too the site. The site has never been secured properly and the workforces have been complaining about this for some time. Whilst back on site a stranger approaches me and threatens to cause me some harm. As he is coming towards me I deliver a powerful kick into his stomach which causes him to fall back and trip over an item on the floor. He bangs his head on the ground and I also use my hawk to batter him over the head several times to ensure he does not get up again in a hurry. There is a great deal of blood on the floor and he does not appear to be breathing. I feel that he may be dead. I drag his body too the back of the worksite and hide it amongst some very tall weeds. I go back to the area where the blood is, clean up, and then leave the site. This example illustrates how the actus reus and mens rea are all part of the same chain of events and were present throughout Task 1(b) Common assault does not involve physical contact. It is an offence under s39 of The Criminal Justice Act 1998. The actus reus of common assault is when the defendant causes the victim to apprehend (expect) immediate unlawful violence. This can be carried out by conduct, deeds, menacing silence, words, or a failure to act. R v. Ireland (1998) AC 147 (HL) The defendant made several silent calls to the victims, these occurred during the evening. They eventually suffered from psychiatric illnesses (depression, stress, anxiety). The House of Lords decided that words can amount to an assault and that silence calls could be seen as communicating a threat. The defendant was found guilty of assault. R v. Constanza (1997) 2 Cr App R 492(CA) The defendant stalked the victim by following her home, turning up to her home address uninvited, writing offensive words on her front door, making several silent phone calls and sending her over 800 letters. The last letter was hand-delivered and this led to the defendant being found guilty of assault. The victim suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the defendants actions. The mens rea of common assault is the intention to cause apprehension of immediate violence or subjective recklessness as to the assault. Battery involves the use of physical force. The actus reus of battery is the infliction of force or violence, this includes slight touching. The actus reus is made up of three elements which consist of direct and indirect physical contact, non-consensual and physical contact. R. v Haystead (2000) 3 All ER 890 (DC) This case concerns indirect contact. The defendant punched a mother holding her baby. The baby dropped and the defendant was convicted of battery on the baby. Battery requires non-consensual touching, the victim can consent to contact (express) or contact is implied, day to day contact. Battery deals with minor physical contact resulting in minor injuries for example grazes, minor bruising, slight cuts, and black eyes. Collins v Wilcox (1984) 1 WLR 1172 (DC) this case gave examples of implied consent, agreed back slapping, seizing a hand in friendship and jostling on the underground. The mens rea of battery is exactly the same as assault, intention to make physical contact or subjective recklessness as to such contact. Unlawful malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is the most serious of all the non-fatal offences and is found in s18 OAPA 1861. Section 18 covers GBH by omission. The actus reus is that the defendant must have unlawfully wounded a person or caused grievous bodily harm. It involves deep repeated cuts, minor cuts, bones penetrating the skin. Serious injury includes mental injury and most recently the transmission of diseases. R v. Ireland, Burstow (1998) AC 147 (HL) As in Ireland above. Both defendants stalked the victims with unwanted attention for over 3 years. The victims suffered from psychiatric injuries as a result of the ongoing acts. The house of lords in both cases concluded that harm to a persons mind that amounted to a recognised medical condition would fall under the category of bodily harm. R v Dica (2004) QB 1257 (CA) The defendant who was HIV positive had unprotected sex with several women. The defendant was fully aware that he was infected but he did not inform the victims of his condition. The court of appeal accepted that a person could be liable for recklessly infecting another person with HIV. The mens rea of GBH with intent is that the defendant must have intention to wound or cause GBH. Recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding (malice) and intention to resist or prevent arrest. Strict Liability offences are those in which the defendant may not have intended or known about the consequences of their actions or the circumstances. The defendant does not need to have a guilty state of mind in relation to all parts of the actus reus (guilty act). Strict liability cases make up half the cases appearing before the courts. Defences for strict liability are those that are applicable to actus reus.   Defences that are probably relevant to actus reus include automatism and duress and also foreseeability is quite important as well. Strict liability offences are mainly created by statute and regarded as regulatory offences and public safety/public interest offences. The offences that are covered are quite extensive and include parking offences, road traffic offences, health and safety, dangerous drugs, dangerous weapons, sexual offences, environmental pollution, possession and the control of dangerous and non-dangerous animals. Sweet v Parsley (1970) HL This case is an important case on strict liability where the need for mens rea in most criminal cases was spelt out and where it was suitable for the presumption for mens rea to be dispensed with. Harrow LBC v. Shah (2000) 1 WLR 83 (DC) The defendant was found guilty of selling a lottery ticket to a young person under the age of 16. The defendant was unaware of the persons age when selling the ticket. R v Marriot (1971) the defendant was found guilty after police searched his home and found a tiny amount of cannabis on a knife. His defence told the court that he had not been aware of what the substance on the blade was, he appealed against the decision and was still convicted. It was held that the accused was guilty if he knew that there was a substance on his knife even if he did not know what the substance was. R v Deyemi (2007) CA the defendants were caught with a stun gun, which they believed to be a torch. It was held that the prosecution only had to prove that they possessed the stun gun, and the stun gun was forbidden by the act. The prosecution did not have to prove that the defendants knew that it was an illegal weapon Alphacell v Woodward (1972) HL the defendants were charged with causing pollution to a river. The pollution occurred as a result of a pipe becoming blocked from their factory and the waste product entered a nearby river. FJH Wrothwell v Yorkshire Water Co. (1984), the defendant who was the director of the company  carelessly poured 12 gallons of herbicide into drains. These drains led into a river. Smedleys v Breed (1974) AC 839 A big manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food and Safety Act 1990) when some tins were found to contain a caterpillars The arguments in favour of strict liability are: They help to prevent environmental pollution People may be prevented from owning unlawful weapons and drugs The public is protected against unsafe structures Helps to encourage people to really improve standards so they will not be prosecuted for committing a criminal offence

NEP: The Art and Science of Purchasing Coali

National Electric Power is a multinational energy company with a variety of energy assets. NEP is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, and has a service area of approximately 197,500 square miles in Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. In 2001, NEP had revenues of $61.3 billion and carried $47 billion in assets, making them the largest electricity generator in the United States. Deon Houston, vice president for the National Electric Power (NEP) Commodity Trading Division, was in the process of producing her annual sourcing report for the company’s three-year plan. While NEP seems to have had success using the competitive bidding process, reverse auctions may be the wave of the future. Mrs. Houston was wondering if the reverse auction sourcing approach would work for purchasing the company’s coal requirements.Questions1. As purchasing manager for NEP, what is your evaluation of the various alternativ es open to Deon for the purchase of coal?2. As the purchasing manager for NEP, what recommendations would you make to Deon regarding the purchase of coal?3. What unique internal costs might be incurred when outsourcing? What can be done to minimize them? What should NOT be done to minimize them?4. Comment on this quote (in detail! With examples!): the power of a supply chain member [is] the ability to control the decision variables in the supply strategy of another member in a given chain at a different level of the supply chain. It should be different from the influenced member’s original level of control over their own supply strategy.5. Discuss the pros and cons of the major supplier evaluation processes. What would lead you to choose one of them (what situational characteristics)?

The Foolproof Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment Strategy

The Foolproof Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment Strategy Earplugs are the most often used to keep the sound level down. It's extremely important to get the most suitable sort of personal protective equipment for your ears to safeguard them from the loud noises. It is extremely important for people to prevent damage to their eyes, so it's important to have the right kind of eye protection while in a workplace that could possibly be dangerous to the eyes. Each individual paragraph should concentrate on a specific component of the thesis. The main purpose of the body paragraphs is to fully demonstrate the thesis statement. These words and phrases may be used. There's no particular style for the introduction, but background information is easily the most frequent procedure of approach. Todd's qualifications and experience are stated at the start of the resume example to make sure the reader reads the remainder of the resume. Don't be worried about a few of them being rather ab stract their principal aim is to reveal to you the basic principles that you'll have the ability to transfer to your own writing. Even the smartest folks forget sometimes. A holistic approach to assessment needs to be adopted so any one particular part of evidence covers more than one learning outcome and lots of assessment criteria. Get the Scoop on Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment Before You're Too Late Download a duplicate of the template now, make the essential modifications, and print it on paper so that you can use it straight away. In a way, checklists can likewise be deemed as a reminder because it reminds us on what things to do and what still has to be accomplished. The template is printed-ready with the crystal clear and understandable information that's simple to use. It helps you perform the maintenance through the checklist noted. Identify different kinds of equipment and their uses There are several different forms of office equipment. It is imperative to c omprehend why machine and equipment safe guards must be employed on machines. Explain why various sorts of equipment are chosen for tasks Different forms of equipment are used and chosen for different tasks because not 1 part of equipment can do every single endeavor, therefore it is always fantastic to have all the relevant kinds of office equipment to finish a task. Material handling equipment is utilized to improve output, control expenses, and maximize productivity. Your equipment plays a crucial role in your organization. Office equipment is frequently one of the largest costs of any company. Personal Protective Equipment is of big significance in workplaces throughout the world. Overall, it is very important in workplaces all over the world. Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment Explained Using NFL jerseys is quite common. Locating a cheap NFL jersey has been a daunting undertaking for a number of the hardcore fans despite the team they support for. With personalized je rseys of the NFL, you are certain that you've got the ideal design. The plan of the Kilt Hanger is ideal for the whole Prince Charlie outfit. The Debate Over Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment A little step of progress might already lead to a large decrease in school bag weights. Sometimes employing a hook statement can be effective, but it's not required. An operator or maintenance worker should be offered with a dress code. A very simple inventory list greatly assists in the true inventory and ought to act as your basis for comparison after a true inventory count. The Battle Over Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment and How to Win It The introduction usually starts out with some kind of background info. You should offer information which is related to your thesis. It will vary dependent on the subject of discussion and the thesis statement that's created. After writing the whole essay, have a quick break and reread it from front to back. PPE personal protective equipment ne eds to be considered a secondary field of defense against equipment hazards. The Kilt Kit was made to be tossed around. Understanding Essay Samples of Heavy Equipment Any operation that's done for the concern of the car is quite much needed to execute. Tire selection may have a significant effect on production and unit price. Caterpillar demanded wage freezes and a decrease in the expense of living adjustments. Air pollution from car is the significant contributor of premature deaths throughout the world. 3 Give example of the way to deal with problems For some problems you'll be able to ask members of staff should they understand how to resolve the problem if not you may inform your manager and the IT Support team about the issue and they'll do there best to correct the problem to get things running smoothly again so you can carry on with your job. In this manner, you're conscious of each region of the equipment that's in good or not in good shape. They besides portion t he topic of waiting. Because of these individuals would desire to eliminate the beach for the goal of necessitating a quieter and loosen uping atmosphere. As a consequence, you get a wonderful deal of free time and completed homework. The corporation's extensive advertising campaign is going to be utilized to make product awareness through the usage of trade journals, direct mail advertising, and other ways. Thus, it monitored the progress of the said project. It is strong, resilient and definitely focused on the future.

The use of Inter-Temporal Capital Asset Pricing Model conditions in the market - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1511 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Narrative essay Did you like this example? According to Merton (1973) inter-temporal capital asset pricing model (ICAPM), the conditional expected excess return on the stock market should be a linear function of the stock markets conditional variance as well as a hedging component which captures the investors motive to hedge for future investment opportunities: where Et[Rt+1] and Vart[Rt+1] are the expectation and the variance of the market excess return which are conditional on the information available at the beginning of the return period denoted as time t, while ÃÆ' Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢MF,t is the conditional covariance between the expected excess return and variation in the investment opportunity set. J (W,F,t) is the indirect utility function in wealth W and any variables F, describing the evolution of the investment opportunity set over time. The term [-JwwW/Jw] is associated with the coefficient of relative risk aversion which is usually assumed to be positive, whereas the other term is the adjustm ent to the conditional risk premium arising from innovations to the state variables that describe variation in the investment opportunity set. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The use of Inter-Temporal Capital Asset Pricing Model conditions in the market" essay for you Create order Since Jw is positive, the sign of the adjustment component is determined by (1) By ignoring the hedging component under certain circumstances, the original ICPAM extends to a more general model which can be approximately expressed as where ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ³ describes the coefficient of relative risk aversion of the representative investor and ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¼ should be equal to zero. To put it another way, the investor who bears more risk would require higher risk premium for compensation. This risk-return trade-off is known as the first fundamental law of finance in financial economics (Ghysels, Santa-Clara and Valkanov, 2005). However, in spite of the great contribution of Mertons research, it is exploratory which does not include hypotheses test. This positive risk-return trade-off has been proved to be hard to find in the data by previous literature. The main difficulty in testing the ICAPM relation is the way to filter the unobservable market conditional variance from the raw data of past returns. Thus, the conflicting findings of past empirical literature result mostly from the different approaches to model the conditional variance. Generally, it can be classificated into three types of models namely ARIMA, GARCH type models, Markov switching models and a pretty new approach-MIDAS. The remainder part of this section reviews the representative work with each type of models more specifically. French, Schwert and Stambaugh (1987) find evidence that the expected market risk premium is positively related to the predictable stock market volatility in a generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) approach. Also, they observe a strong negative relation between unexpected stock market returns and unexpected change in the stock market volatility which they interpret as the indirect proof of a positive ex ante risk-return relation by using a univariate autoregressive integrated-moving average (ARIMA) model. To start with, they d ecompose estimates of monthly volatility into predictable and unpredictable components by ARIMA model. The variance of monthly return is computed as the sum of the squared daily returns added by twice the sum of the products of adjacent returns, owing to the autocorrelation of daily returns especially at lag one caused by non-synchronous trading of securities (Fisher 1966, Scholes and Williams 1977): , where Nt is the number of days and rit is daily return in month t. Compared with the rolling 12-month standard deviation (Officer 1973 and Merton 1980), the accuracy of this standard deviation estimate is increased not only for any particular interval but also for any month by sampling more frequently and using merely within-month returns. Besides, the adjacent rolling 12-month estimators share 11 returns while non-overlapping data of returns is adopted in their estimates above. By plotting the monthly standard deviation estimates, they suggest the first differences of lnÃÆ' Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢mt follow a third-order moving average process: . The conditional variance forecast is constructed as , where Thus, they regress excess returns on the predictable components of the stock market variance and contemporaneous unexpected changes in market variance as follows: , where Consequently, the estimates of both regressions above do not provide any evidence of a positive ex ante risk-return relation but rather a reliable evidence of negative relation between excess holding period returns and the unpredictable component of volatility. If the positive relation between expected excess return and predictable volatility dose exist, the upward unpredictable change in volatility is likely to increase future expected excess returns and decrease current stock prices. The magnitude of this negative relation is too large to be attributed solely to the leverage effects (Black 1976 and Christie 1982), so French et al. regard the negative relation as indirect proof of ICAPM. In their second approach, the GARCH-in-mean model (Engel, Lilien and Robins 1987) is employed to estimate the ex ante relation between risk premiums and volatility. The conditional variance and risk-return relation are estimated as: and respectively, where As a result, a stron g positive relation between expected risk premiums and volatility is perceived which is consistent with the interpretation of ARIMA results. Overall, though their work does not include other variables which also have impact on expected risk premiums along with other measures of time-varying risk, they does great contribution to the empirical analysis of ICAPM. However, from Nelson (1991)s perspective, there are several important limitations regarding the application of the GARCH models in asset pricing. The GARCH models rule out the results that there is a negative relation between stock market returns and the changes in volatility of returns by assumption. But empirically, investigation in this field since Black (1976) dose report a negative correlation that volatility is prone to go up in response to lower return than expected and vice versa. Another weakness arises from the non-negative constraints imposed on the parameters which the estimated coefficients often violate and ma y in turn inappropriately restrict the dynamics of the conditional variance process. What is worse, it is difficult to examine the persistence of shocks to conditional variance due to the lack of agreement for measuring persistence. Aimed at these objections that ordinary GARCH model cannot meet, Nelson (1991) put forward an alternative model called Exponential GARCH or EGARCH. By using the EGARCH model, they find evidence of a negative but insignificant relation between the expected risk premium and conditional variance. This result stands in contradiction with the positive relation found by other researchers such as French, Schwert and Stambaugh (1987) who adopt the standard GARCH-M model. In addition, the estimated AR root they obtained indicates a large extent of persistence of shocks in daily data. To sum up, having said the EGARCH model overcomes some of the limitations of ordinary GARCH models, nevertheless, with respect to the simplicity and flexibility, ARIMA model used by French et al. (1987) may be preferable especially when presenting the conditional variance. Similarly, Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle (1993) argue that the standard GARCH-M is misspecified. In logic, they suggest although the rational risk-averse investors may require a relatively higher risk premium in general within a given time period when the security is more risky, it is not necessarily the case across time. For one thing, investors may be more able to live with particular types of risk during time periods which are relatively more risky. For another, investors may prefer saving relatively more if with the expectation of more risky future. According to Glosten et al. (1993), if all the productive assets available for transferring wealth to the future carry risk and no risk-free investment opportunities are available, then the price of the risky asset may be raised significantly, thereby reducing the risk premium. Based on the conflicting predictions about the risk-return re lationship above, they consider a more general specification of the GARCH-M model that is known as the Threshold-GARCH or TARCH model. The most advanced feature about the TRACH model is to allow for such asymmetry that positive and negative unpredicted returns have different influences on the conditional variance. They also introduce some dummy variables in the modified GARCH-M model to characterize seasonal patterns in volatility, following the procedures proposed by Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle (1988). The nominal interest rate is incorporated into the prediction of the conditional variances. As a consequence, a weak but significantly negative relation between conditional expected monthly return and conditional variance of monthly return is observed. Besides, they combine the EGARCH-M model suggested by Nelson (1991) with the modifications mentioned above for robustness. The result remains unchanged with the EGARCH-M model integrating seasonal effects or nominal interest rat e or both. By the revised GARCH-M model they also find that the time series properties of monthly excess returns are substantially different from the reported properties of daily excess returns. First, persistence of conditional variance in excess returns is quite low in monthly data. That is inconsistent with Nelson (1991)s finding of high persistence in daily data. In addition, positive and negative unanticipated returns have significantly different effects on future conditional variance. That is, a positive unexpected return is supposed to have a negative impact on future conditional variance whereas a negative unanticipated return is expected to have a positive impact on the conditional variance. In contrast, Engle and Ng (1993) report that positive and negative unexpected returns both lead to the increase in future conditional variance in spite of different effects.