Search results

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the factors determining the choice of sources of finance for a tech startup over its lifecycle.

This study adopts simple random sampling technique to choose 93 sample tech startups in Bangalore. Further, this study employs the primary data collection from the sampled startups under study through a semi-structured questionnaire and in-depth interviews with the founders/CEOs of these startups. Furthermore, it carries out binary logistic regression analysis to primarily examine the likelihood of a tech startup to approach and access a particular source of finance over its lifecycle.

Our results indicate that a tech startup's choice for a financial source varies with its lifecycle stage and financial requirements. We find that while in its early stage, a tech startup's choice of a financial source is limited to business angels (BA), in the growth stage, it approaches the institutional sources, viz. Venture Capital (VC), Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), Banks and Private Equity (PE) firms alternatively. Out of the three major categories of financial requirements: Human Capital (HC), Research Capital (RC) and Social Capital (SC), the requirement for HC and SC is predominantly funded by VCs, while the acquisition of RC is facilitated by early stage investors (BAs) as well as growth stage investors (CVC and PEs).

The research implication of the study lies in bringing out the need to understand both the nature and the quantum of financial requirements of tech startups would influence the sources of finance it would approach and obtain finance for its operations and growth.

The major policy implication of the study refers to the need to promote the diverse sources of finance to meet the diverse needs of finance in different stages of a tech startup's lifecycle. Particularly in an emerging economy, where we do not see the emergence and growth of highly innovative tech startups, the need to promote adequate availability of RC is especially important.

This study makes a key contribution to the entrepreneurial finance literature by empirically investigating the factors determining a tech startup's propensity to approach and access a particular source of finance over its lifecycle.

Financial assurance rules, also known as financial responsibility or bonding requirements, foster cost internalization by requiring potential polluters to demonstrate the financial resources necessary to compensate for environmental damage that may arise in the future. Accordingly, assurance is an important complement to liability rules, restoration obligations, and other regulatory compliance requirements. The paper reviews the need for assurance, given the prevalence of abandoned environmental obligations, and assesses the implementation of assurance rules in the United States. From the standpoint of both legal effectiveness and economic efficiency, assurance rules can be improved. On the whole, however, cost recovery, deterrence, and enforcement are significantly improved by the presence of existing assurance regulations.

The purpose of this paper is to review the development of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and examine the manner in which this has been implemented for investment firms in Malta. The paper also assesses the challenges that small and medium‐sized investment firms may face as a consequence of the proposed CRD IV, which seeks to safeguard the stability of the European banking sector.

A literature review of relevant EU and Malta legislation and policy documents has been carried out. The arguments made in the paper are the result of the author's reflections on the subject and discussions held with other policy experts on capital adequacy in Malta and the UK.

The paper considers the CRD from the perspective of small and medium‐sized investment firms and sheds light on the challenges faced by Malta with regards to the implementation of the CRD for these type of firms. It also examines the approach taken by the Malta Financial Services Authority in order to address these challenges.

Possible future challenges that might arise in view of CRD IV are also considered. It is a central argument of this paper that capturing investment firms, particularly small and medium‐sized firms, within the scope of regulation, the main purpose of which is to address systemic risk, may result in over‐regulation.

For years, interim financial reports in South Africa were regulated by the South African Companies Act No. 61 of 1973 (as amended) (i.e. statutory requirements) and by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) Listing Requirements (i.e. regulatory requirements) only. However, on the international front, major progress was being made in respect of improving the quality of interim financial reporting. South Africa soon followed suit and issued its own accounting statement, AC 127, which is based on the international standard (IAS 34). The School of Accountancy at the University of Pretoria commenced a research project on interim financial reporting in 1997 to investigate compliance with related reporting requirements. This paper is a product of the project. The purpose of the study reported in this paper was to: [a] Compare the requirements stated in IAS 34 and AC 127 with the local regulatory and statutory requirements, to determine whether these requirements are duplicated and to establish in which respect the accounting standards require additional disclosure requirements. [b] Provide an overview of the extent to which companies listed on the JSE adhered to IAS 34 and AC 127 and complied with regulatory and statutory requirements in their interim financial reports in the period 1997 to 1999. [c] Make recommendations regarding the improvement of local statutory and regulatory disclosure requirements.

This paper outlines the development of the principle of materiality in the European accounting framework, from the Modernization Directive (2003/51/EC) to the NFI Directive (2014/95/EU) and on to the proposals for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) Directive (2021/0104 (COD)). The authors highlight how the requirements for corporate reporting in terms of sustainability matters have changed, underlining the main issues that require further attention by practitioners, researchers and legislators.

This paper is based upon a historic analysis of European Union (EU) regulations in the field of non-financial and sustainability reporting and how these have changed over time. A conceptual comparison of different reporting concepts is presented, and changes in their relevance to the EU accounting framework are discussed as part of the historic analysis. Implications from corporate practice are derived from previous empirical findings from the EU Commission's consultations.

The proposed change from non-financial to sustainability reporting within the EU affects more than simply the terminology used. It implies that a different understanding is needed of both the purposes of company reporting on sustainability matters and the aims of carrying out such reporting. This change was driven by the need and desire to appropriately interpret the principle of materiality set forth in the NFI Directive. However, the recent redefinition in the shift within the EU Commission's proposals presents considerable challenges–and costs–in practice.

Future research on the conceptualization and operationalization of ecological and social materiality, as well as on the use of this information by different stakeholder groups, is necessary in order to (a) help companies that are applying the reporting requirements in practice, (b) support the increased harmonization of the reports published by these companies and (c) fully assess the costs and benefits associated with the increase in reporting requirements for these companies.

Companies have to establish relevant reporting processes, systems and formats to fulfil the increasing number of reporting requirements.

This paper outlines the historic development of the principle of materiality regarding mandatory non-financial or sustainability reporting within the EU. It outlines a shift in rationales and political priorities as well as in implications for European companies that need to fulfil the reporting requirements. In consequence, it describes appropriate interpretations of this principle of materiality under current and upcoming legislation, enabling users to apply this principle more effectively.

In order to secure a proper execution of sporting competitions, national governing bodies of professional football leagues apply specific regulatory procedures. In this context, special focus is placed on requirements that are supposed to ensure financial stability of clubs. They, in turn, help avoid negative economic externalities, i.e. the problem that financial difficulties from one club can affect other clubs and stakeholders due to the interdependent relationships of the competition. These regulations on a national level in European professional football leagues show several significant differences. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to comprehensively analyze financial regulatory procedures of professional football leagues to generate possible improvements of the regulations in detail.

Using a document analysis of the regulation books of the English Premier League and German Bundesliga (BL), this study compares the regulatory procedures of those important European professional football leagues. Further evaluation was performed through a qualitative content analysis to develop a category system including six categories with 72 criteria from deductive and inductive procedures. For more advanced coding, an assessment scale was integrated.

Compared to the Premier League, the regulation of the BL points to a more intensive regulation in all categories and across all analyzed indices. The results of both leagues partially reveal that assessment and monitoring requirements tend to be ineffective, which can substantially endanger the achievement of the whole monitoring process’ aims. The intention to ensure the financial stability for securing the league competition can be missed in such a situation and negative economic externalities cannot be prevented effectively.

For the first time, this study includes all relevant requirements of financial club assessment and monitoring. Thereby, an abstract comprehensive and systematic structure for professional team sports leagues is described and allows for a concrete international comparison of two European professional football leagues. At the end, several approaches to improve the regulatory framework are provided.

The purpose of this paper is to answer a specific research question: How have EU and US regulators translated the idea of central clearing into law?

A meticulous legal research is carried out. First, the pre‐crisis regulatory regime for credit default swap (CDS) is reviewed, from a securities law angle as well as from a comparative Euro‐American perspective. Next, the regulatory processes leading to the adoption of the central clearing regulations are discussed. Thereafter, a material comparative analysis is made of the provisions related to central clearing in the EU and US regulatory initiatives. Finally, the paper is concluded with an evaluation of both legislations in the light of all previous analyses.

The research first shows that central clearing regulations rely on a series of presumptions, both concerning the gravity of counterparty risk threats and the necessity of central clearing. Additionally, the EU and US clearing regulations are similar with regard to the broad innovations they introduce, i.e. the mandatory central clearing of a variety of over‐the‐counter derivatives and counterparty risk management requirements for central clearing institutions and for non‐cleared swaps. However, the specific content of the provisions often differs. Furthermore, both legislations are limited to enouncing broad principles. This is also the case for the crucial provisions related to counterparty risk management. Therefore, these provisions in se do not guarantee the proper regulation of counterparty risk management practices. Consequently, much is to be expected from the implementing measures adopted by regulatory institutions.

The paper provides an overview of those provisions in the European and US regulations that specifically concern central clearing for CDS. It is one of the first papers which does this in a very well‐structured and clearly written manner. Also it is one of the first to provide a clear comparison between the provisions in the EU and the US regulations.

Using market-risk disclosures as an empirical context, and drawing on the diffusion of innovations (DOIs) model, this paper contributes new sociological perspectives to a theorization of compliance. We propose that stakeholder behaviors during accounting standard-setting discussion and adoption phases are motivated by social, political, and economic factors. These phases interrelate, and consequently, any analysis of managerial disclosure decisions benefit from considering them together, rather than in isolation, as is typical.

The authors use a mixed-methods design, including detailed analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 26), constituents’ comment letters (n = 106), annual report disclosures (FTSE 350: firm-year observations n = 1,131), technical meetings, and standard-setting documents.

Results suggest that constituents initially supported introduction of a set of mandatory market-risk disclosures, but implied costs of the proposed and subsequently approved requirements outweighed perceived benefits and efficiencies. This study elaborates on these issues, exploring how and why a financial reporting innovation that stakeholders deemed technically inefficient was diffused. Although the authors were told that compulsion (i.e., forced-selection) dominates disclosure decisions, some freedom of choice remains, as evidenced by greater than 40% non-compliance during the first year of adoption. Respondents indicate that theoretically, market-risk disclosure adoption decisions rest on assessment of the costs of disclosure (e.g., preparation and competition) versus non-disclosure (e.g., litigation and reputation). Second-phase adoption is more straightforward because the costs of disclosure decrease over time.

Although mixed-methods research offers several advantages, self-selection bias, issues with coding reliability, and interviewer/interviewee bias are possible. It is impossible to achieve a truly holistic understanding of standard-setting, and therefore the authors acknowledge that findings are not generalizable, though the risks were minimized.

Recognizing that disclosure choices are not made in political and social vacuums, this study suggests that sociological perspectives such as innovation-diffusion inform a theory of compliance.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether financial reporting practices for commercial service charges in the UK retail sector match the best practice requirements of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Code of practice for commercial service charges. This assessment was performed by benchmarking commercial service charge documents provided to retail occupiers at UK shopping centres against the RICS Code’s financial reporting requirements.

Data were generated from direct analysis of actual service charge documents supplied to commercial retail occupiers. This ensures authenticity by removing reliance upon third party reporting of said data. The paper uses a sample size that is representative of the financial reporting practices for commercial service charges at UK shopping centres.

Levels of compliance with the financial reporting requirements of the RICS Code of Practice for commercial service charges are found to be poor, especially in terms of the disclosure of the accounting policies used during the preparation of the service charge accounts. These results contrast with claims by the professional body.

The work analyses service charge documents prepared during 2010-2012 by 44 managing agents and 87 landlords at 126 UK retail shopping centres located in Great Britain. Content analysis was utilised to interpret the data and required some subjective judgement by the researchers.

Data are original and the paper provides a unique benchmarking test for assessing Code compliance. This contrasts markedly with the anecdotal evidence offered by the profession in defending current standards of practice and whilst the paper has limitations, it is the largest and most in-depth study of commercial service charge practices at UK retail shopping centres.

To provide an overview of the legal entity customer due diligence rule recently adopted by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury.

This paper provides an overview of the requirements of the legal entity customer due diligence rule as well as some observations regarding the scope of the rule, its interplay with other regulatory requirements, and some of the rule’s ambiguities.

While the preamble to the new rule suggests that FinCEN was attempting to accommodate industry concerns, the literal terms of the rule may have the opposite effect.

Although financial institutions will have until May 2018 to come into compliance with the rule’s requirements, they should begin developing the infrastructure to support compliance with the rule as soon as possible.

Practical insights into issues that financial institutions may encounter when implementing the rule’s requirements from experienced financial services lawyers.