Search results

The Belgium Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) market was created primarily to facilitate a transparent, professionally managed and fiscally efficient market, providing access to the European property markets. Being the 2nd oldest REIT market in Europe, it has undergone many evolutionary changes over the years that add to its considerable stature as a sophisticated investment opportunity. This includes an increased recent focus on the social infrastructure property sectors such as healthcare, care facilities and nursing homes, consistent with the evolving investment mandates requiring stronger integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) aspects in the investment strategy formulation. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the strategic transformation of Belgium REITs and empirically assess their performance attributes over 1995–2018. Sub-period performance dynamics of Belgium REITs in the pre-global financial crises (GFC) (1995–2007) and post-GFC (2009–2018) contexts are provided.

In total, 23-year monthly total returns over 1995–2018 were used to analyse the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification potential of Belgium REITs. The traditional mean-variance portfolio optimisation model using the ex-post returns, risk and correlation coefficient of Belgium REITs and other financial assets was developed to determine the added-value benefits of Belgium REITs in a diversified investment framework. The analysis was further extended to cover the sub-periods of pre-GFC (1995–2007) and post-GFC (2009–2018).

The results of the analysis provide a strong investment case for Belgium REITs, as they are able to deliver a discernible premium in the total return performance, superior risk-adjusted returns and strong diversification benefits with the stock market in a long-term investment horizon. Broadly consistent results are similarly observed in the sub-period analysis over varying market conditions. Importantly, the role of Belgium REITs in a diversified investment framework was also empirically validated, as they enhanced the mixed-asset portfolio performance comprised of the traditional asset classes of stocks and bonds across a broad portfolio risk-return spectrum. Dividend yield was also found to be a key component of the financial performance of Belgium REITs.

The Belgium REIT market has evolved to become the 5th largest market in Europe by the capitalisation volume. This is mainly due to the robust regulatory support and innovations since its debut which have resulted in a polished framework that is both supportive and attractive to financial players and investors. The broad direct consequence of this paper is to highlight the performance attributes of Belgium REITs, adding clarity to the ongoing discussion regarding the viability of European REITs as a liquid and tax transparent route for institutional investors to obtain their property exposure. The strong dividend yield and ESG/social infrastructure focus of Belgium REITs sees Belgium REITs well-placed going forward to meet the evolving investment mandates from major investors.

This paper is the first empirical investigation that elucidates the risk-adjusted performance and role of Belgium REITs as an important property investment opportunity. It equips investors and practitioners with an independent and comprehensive empirical validation of the strategic role of Belgium REITs in a portfolio. Well-informed and practical property investment decision making regarding the use of Belgium REITs for access to the property asset class is the main outcome of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how institutional changes to the European Union regulatory landscape may affect corresponding institutionalized operational practices within financial organizations.

The study adopts an Investment Management System as its case and investigates different implementations of this system within eight financial organizations, predominantly focused on investment banking and asset management activities within capital markets. At the systems vendor site, senior systems consultants and client relationship managers were interviewed. Within the financial organizations, compliance, risk and systems experts were interviewed.

The study empirically tests modes of institutional change. Displacement and Layering were found to be the most prevalent modes. However, the study highlights how the outcomes of Displacement and Drift may be similar in effect as both modes may cause compliance gaps. The research highlights how changes in regulations may create gaps in systems and processes which, in the short term, need to be plugged by manual processes.

Vendors abilities to manage institutional change caused by Drift, Displacement, Layering and Conversion and their ability to efficiently and quickly translate institutional variables into structured systems has the power to ease the pain and cost of compliance as well as reducing the risk of breeches by reducing the need for interim manual systems.

The study makes a contribution by applying recent theoretical concepts of institutional change to the topic of regulatory change uses this analysis to provide insight into the effects of this new environment.

The hefty fines levied on credit institutions in recent years for cases of misconduct, including poor behavioural standards, operational control deficiencies and regulatory breaches more broadly, has been defined by regulatory authorities and the financial sector more broadly as ‘conduct risk’. There is no official definition of conduct risk, as conduct risk profiles are unique to each firm and, therefore, there can never be a one-size-fits-all framework in place. Conceptually, conduct risk is a broad notion that touches every part of an enterprise framework, including culture, customer contact, corporate governance, ethics and integrity, conflicts of interest and compliance, amongst others. As a result, credit institutions tend to associate conduct risk with regulatory censure, financial detriment, poor customer outcomes, and, importantly, reputational damage. In light of the significant consequences of misconduct, recent regulatory measures have sought to specifically target these drivers. In this chapter the author discussed the regulatory spotlight on conduct risk, which continues to top the regulators’ agenda in view of its seriousness and considered the role of the board in managing conduct risk, whilst elaborating on the importance of board evaluations in this respect.

The conflict between the burden from regulations and the desire to introduce new offerings to the market is a concern for both researchers and business managers alike. Over the last 10 years significant increases in resources required to comply with regulations have been observed. The use of technology solutions to manage complex regulations (a.k.a. “Regtech”) is emerging as a potential solution to the compliance demand. This paper poses the question, “Which support do current Regtech solutions offer?”.

This study analyzed a global set of 550 providers to understand what support Regtech solutions provide.

The analysis shows how regulatory compliance work is supported as well as specific examples of firms providing support and which regulations are covered. Results highlight that the main focus in the current Regtech industry is on supporting internal and operations tasks rather than external and analytical activities.

Recommendations to business managers are to combine regulatory support with a clear strategic vision, carefully plan integration scenarios, and to look for the support of broader regulatory management rather than individual functions or specific regulations.

If RegTech providers, financial services firms, regulators, and researchers look towards a future where the balance of proactive regulatory management and efficient compliance is achieved, there are substantial benefits for customers of the industry. The result will be increased transparency and quality in all industries.

The result from this study is one of the first specific illustrations of the nature of “RegTech,” which can serve as a basis for further research into aspects of technology and capabilities.

To summarize and analyse four opinions issued in May and July 2017 by the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) concerning regulatory and supervisory arbitrage risks that arise as a result of increased requests from financial market participants to relocate activities and functions in the EU27 following the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU, and the expected regulatory response to those risks.

Discusses the possible relocation of financial firms, activities and functions following the UK’s decision to withdraw from EU; the resulting cross-sectoral regulatory and supervisory arbitrage risks that ESMA foresees; nine principles that ESMA enumerates to guide its regulatory response to those risks; some common themes that emerge from ESMA’s July Opinions; and the implications for UK firms and trading venues seeking to establish a presence in the EU 27.

ESMA foresees regulatory and arbitrage risks in Brexit and a potential “race to the bottom” as certain national regulators jostle for and grab UK market share.

UK firms and trading venues seeking to establish a presence in the EU27 from which to operate will need to give detailed consideration and focus to the resources and operational substance which will need to be located in the jurisdiction in which that presence is established.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services, securities and fund management lawyers.

This paper aims to investigate whether any potential weakening of the UK’s financial sector, as a result of Brexit, will have a negative impact on South Africa’s financial sector given the close ties between the countries’ financial systems. This paper seeks to also argue that Brexit may provide an opportunity for South Africa to pursue new trade linkages with other countries in Africa and Asia.

This paper is a review of relevant sources from foreign direct investment (FDI) and international economic literature. It analyses comparative and cross-disciplinary research and examines the current trends in the legal and economic climate in South Africa – within the context of economic growth and FDI inflows patterns.

This paper finds that Brexit does not pose a systemic risk to South Africa’s financial system. This paper also finds that South Africa’s recent policy changes may serve as obstacles to South Africa attracting new FDI.

The implications of Brexit on the investment in the economy of African countries are under-researched, and this paper provides an additional contribution to the euro-centric discussion of the ramifications of Brexit on the economic developments in the financial sector after Britain’s exit.

This paper argues for an enhanced FDI system for South Africa and its policy proposals can be used to further the independence of African countries from European investment streams.

To analyze the recent SEC no-action relief allowing a non-US investment company to invest as a feeder fund in a US registered open-end management investment company without complying with all of the conditions of Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

This article discusses the various conditions that a non-US investment company investing as a foreign feeder in a US registered open-end management investment company must satisfy in order to avoid complying with certain provisions of Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In addition, the article analyzes certain potential tax and regulatory challenges facing firms seeking to rely on the relief.

This article concludes that the SEC no-action relief is an incremental step in reducing barriers to global distribution of US registered funds and may marginally increase the use of cross-border master-feeder arrangements as contemplated by the no-action letter. Nevertheless, this article cautions that significant impediments to global distribution of US registered funds remain, including tax withholding and non-US law issues.

This article contains valuable information about the regulatory impediments to global distribution of US registered funds, as well as learned assessments of the impact of recent developments in this space by experienced securities lawyers.