Search results

To explain FINRA’s new 529 Plan Share Class Initiative, which encourages broker-dealers to self-report violations.

This article provides an overview of 529 plans, the various fee structures of the underlying investment funds, and guidance that broker-dealers should tailor their recommendations to the needs of the individual customer. The article discusses FINRA’s initiative for broker-dealers to self-report if they have violations in this area. It describes various supervisory failures brokerage firms may experience in connection with recommending 529 plans, eligibility for the self-reporting initiative and benefits of self-reporting.

This FINRA initiative provides an opportunity for firms to reflect on their supervisory systems and provide restitution to harmed customers. It also provides relevant fee-based investment information to customers.

529 plans are valuable tax-advantaged tools to encourage saving for the future educational expenses of a designated beneficiary. If brokerage firms lack reasonable supervisory procedures to recommend appropriate investments based on the length of the investment horizon, this FINRA initiative provides a unique and limited opportunity for firms to assess their supervisory systems and procedures governing 529 Plan share-class recommendations, to identify and remediate any defects, and to compensate any investors harmed by supervisory failures, while possibly avoiding fines for such conduct.

Expert guidance from experienced financial services regulatory and public finance lawyers.

This chapter considers the current standards that exist for the conduct of research and whether these standards are being met. Issues of scope and terminology are discussed and debated. Also considered are the reasons and benefits to the Academy of Social Sciences and other professional and disciplinary bodies by being involved in developing generic ethics principles in social science research.

The products of transgenic technology have captured the attention of enthusiasts and detractors, but transgenics are just one tool of agricultural biotechnology. Other applications enable scientists to understand biodiversity, to track genes through generations in breeding programs, and to move genes among closely related as well as unrelated organisms. These applications all have the potential to lead to substantial productivity gains.

In this chapter we provide an introduction to basic plant genetic concepts, defining molecular markers, transgenic and cisgenic techniques. We briefly summarize the status of commercialized biotechnology applications to agriculture. We consider the likely future commercialization of products like drought tolerant crops, crops designed to improve human nutrition, pharmaceuticals from transgenic plants, biofuels, and crops for environmental remediation. We identify genomic selection as a potentially powerful new technique and conclude with our reflections on the state of agricultural biotechnology.

Research at universities and other public-sector institutions, largely focused on advancing knowledge, has aroused enormous optimism about the promise of these DNA-based technologies. This in turn has led to large private-sector investments on maize, soybean, canola, and cotton, with wide adoption of the research products in about eight countries. Much has been made of the potential of biotechnology to address food needs in the low-income countries, and China, India, and Brazil have large public DNA-based crop variety development efforts. But other lower income developing countries have little capability to use these tools, even the most straightforward marker applications. Ensuring that these and other applications of biotechnology lead to products that are well adapted to local agriculture requires adaptive research capacity that is lacking in the lowest income, most food-insecure nations. We are less optimistic than many others that private research will fund these needs.

Global crises create an environment that is characterized by a fight for survival by countries, companies and citizens. While firms have adopted business initiatives to ensure survival in a global crisis, many measures are geared toward preventing customer churn, declining revenues and eroding market share. Such short-term focus raises an important question regarding long-term survival – how can firms survive a global crisis? The purpose of this study is to investigate how firms can survive a global crisis.

This study considers pandemics as the study context and uses a triangulation methodology (past research, managerial insights and popular press articles) to advance the organizing framework. Using the process study approach, the proposed framework recognizes the onset characteristics of a global crisis with a focus on pandemics and the government actions that reflect the pandemic onset. The framework also identifies a logical order of three marketplace reactions to the pandemic – management response, consumer response and critical business transformations that ultimately lead to firm survival – and advances related research propositions of such reactions.

By deploying critical business transformations, firms can ensure firm survival in a pandemic by fostering engagement with customers, employees and resources. Additionally, the moderators that influence the relationships between (1) management response and critical business transformations, (2) consumer response and critical business transformations, and (3) critical business transformations and firm survival are identified. Finally, this study presents an agenda for future research.

To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first study to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to study firm survival in a global crisis such as a pandemic. This study answers the call for more research to the growing field of pandemic research in the areas of marketing research and marketing strategy.

The learnings from this study can help firms on what to anticipate and how to respond in a crisis such as a pandemic.

Societal welfare is accounted for as firms plan to deal with a crisis.

This is the first study to propose a strategic framework to deal with a crisis that is largely unanticipated where the duration and the impact is not predictable.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.