@article{tang_li_mallik_zhang_clerac_yee_whangbo_mungalimane_holmes_2011, title={Synthesis and Characterization of Di- and Trivalent Pyrazolylborate beta-Diketonates and Cyanometalates}, volume={50}, ISSN={["1520-510X"]}, DOI={10.1021/ic200464t}, abstractNote={The syntheses, structures, and magnetic properties of a series of di- and trivalent hydridotris(3,5-dimethylpyrazol-1-yl)borate (Tp*) cyanomanganates are described. Treatment of tris(acetylacetonate)manganese(III) [Mn(acac)(3)] with KTp* and tetra(ethyl)ammonium cyanide affords [NEt(4)][(Tp*)Mn(II)(κ(2)-acac)(CN)] (1), as the first monocyanomanganate(II) complex; attempted oxidation of 1 with iodine affords {(Tp*)Mn(II)(κ(2)-acac(3-CN))}(n) (2) as a one-dimensional chain and bimetallic {[NEt(4)][(Tp*)Mn(II)(κ(2)-acac(3-CN))](2)(μ-CN) (3) as the major and minor products, respectively. A fourth complex, [NEt(4)][(Tp*)Mn(II)(η(2)-acac(3-CN))(η(1)-NC-acac)] (4), is obtained via treatment of Mn(acac(3-CN))(3) with KTp* and [NEt(4)]CN, while [NEt(4)](2)[Mn(II)(CN)(4)] (5) was prepared from manganese(II) trifluoromethanesulfonate and excess [NEt(4)]CN. Tricyanomanganate(III) complexes, [cat][(Tp*)Mn(III)(CN)(3)] [cat = NEt(4)(+), 7; PPN(+), 8], are prepared via sequential treatment of Mn(acac(3-CN))(3) with KTp*, followed by [NEt(4)]CN, or [cat](3)[Mn(III)(CN)(6)] with (Tp*)SnBu(2)Cl. Magnetic measurements indicate that 1, 2, and 4 contain isotropic Mn(II) (S = (5)/(2); g = 2.00) centers, and no long-range magnetic ordering is found above 1.8 K. Compounds 7 and 8 contain S = 1 Mn(III) centers that adopt singly degenerate spin ground states without orbital contributions to their magnetic moments.}, number={11}, journal={INORGANIC CHEMISTRY}, author={Tang, Minao and Li, Dongfeng and Mallik, Uma Prasad and Zhang, Yuan-Zhu and Clerac, Rodolphe and Yee, Gordon T. and Whangbo, Myung-Hwan and Mungalimane, Amshumali and Holmes, Stephen M.}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={5153–5164} }
 @article{li_vukina_1998, title={Effectiveness of dual hedging with price and yield futures}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1096-9934"]}, DOI={10.1002/(SICI)1096-9934(199808)18:5<541::AID-FUT3>3.0.CO;2-B}, abstractNote={Futures price contracts and options on price futures have been used for quite some time to manage price risk. However, similar market-based instruments for managing yield risk have not been available. Instead, fed­ eral agricultural support programs such as deficiency payments and non­ recourse loan programs along with subsidized crop yield insurance pro­ grams have served as alternatives to market-based risk management mechanisms. On 2 June 1995, the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) launched an interesting innovation into the agricultural markets, namely the quantity-based crop yield futures and options contracts. The first listed for trading was the Iowa Corn Yield Insurance Futures and Options contract, which started with fairly modest volume and open interest. Then, surprisingly, on 19 January 1996, the CBOT added a U.S. contract plus four additional state corn yield contracts for Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Nebraska, thereby further diluting the already thin market in the existing Iowa contract. The idea behind the move was that the low cor-}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF FUTURES MARKETS}, author={Li, DF and Vukina, T}, year={1998}, month={Aug}, pages={541–561} }