Search results

This article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers.

The article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser.

The SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors.

Investment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them.

This article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the history, current use, and possible future of Rule 12b‐1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

This paper briefly reviews the history behind the original adoption of Rule 12b‐1, then discusses the ways in which 12b‐1 fees are used today, some of the issues surrounding the Rule, and finally, briefly explores where we might be heading in the future.

The paper finds that, first adopted in 1980 in an effort to prop up a then ailing industry, Rule 12b‐1 and Rule 12b‐1 fees have been a staple for many mutual funds for almost 30 years. Over this time, the ways in which 12b‐1 fees are used has evolved significantly such that some people now wonder whether the Rule continues to serve the purpose for which it was designed.

The paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of how mutual funds' use of Rule 12b‐1 has changed, what the underlying issues are, and the prospects for reexamination of the Rule.

To discuss how product innovations in exchange‐traded funds (ETFs) have blurred the line between passive and active management, and to explore the legal ramifications of these developments.

Describes how ETFs operate and how the ETF marketplace has grown; discusses the use of broad‐based indexes for most ETFs until recently; describes newer ETFs that provide targeted exposure to narrow market segments; and discusses underlying indexes that are based on performance‐based characteristics rather than market segments, along with possible difficulties in making performance‐based criteria widely available to investors.

Historically the SEC has expressed skepticism over actively managed ETFs because of uncertainty as to whether they can provide the same portfolio transparency and arbitrage opportunity that traditional ETFs can. As “Rule Sets,” or criteria for including companies in performance indexes, become more involved and less objective, the challenge will be to ensure that sufficient arbitrage opportunities exist to ensure pricing efficiency. If that challenge can be met, it may serve as a model for a truly actively managed ETF.

Explains how the new generation of ETFs is coming closer to the line of active management and the legal issues that must be surmounted before truly actively managed ETFs are offered.

This paper sets out to assess the role of the chief compliance officer (“CCO”), how the CCO performs his/her duties, and how the CCO interacts with the fund's board three years after the adoption of Rule 38a‐1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Reviews the CCO's responsibilities under Rule 38a‐1, discusses how the CCO role has evolved since the rule was promulgated, and focuses on key issues such as oversight versus supervision, the annual review process, risk assessement, testing methodologies, and the annual report to the fund board on the adequacy and operation of the fund's compliance program.

Properly conducted compliance requires the support of a wide range of the advisory/administrative team with the CCO playing the role of conductor of the orchestra. More and more CCOs seek to distance themselves from approving the day‐to‐day actions of other employees, so they cannot be considered to have assumed supervisory responsibility for those employees. Although a fund is required to perform an annual review of the adequacy of its compliance programs and its Primary Service Providers' compliance programs, most CCOs have found the review process is ongoing and occurs continuously throughout the year. Now that these compliance programs have been in place for two years, more CCOs are devoting time and resources to identify high‐risk areas and to implement transactional, periodic, and forensic testing programs. The CCO annual report has taken many different shapes and sizes, but generally summarizes material changes to the fund's compliance policies and procedures that have already been reported to the board.

A current, practical assessment of the CCO role by expert lawyers who advise funds on their compliance programs.

To explain reporting requirements under Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) that must be followed by advisers and brokers who exercise investment discretion over accounts that hold exchange‐traded equity securities, and to describe reporting requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act on certain persons considered “insiders” of a company that has a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

Describes the required reporting of significant acquisition and ownership positions on Schedules 13G and 13D, including the obligations of exempt investors, passive investors, and firms and their control persons; describes the required reporting of equity positions in managed portfolios of more than $100 million on Form 13F; and describes the reporting obligations of “insiders” (directors, officers, and principal stockholders) under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, including the content of Form 3 – Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, Form 4 – Statement of Changes of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, and Form 5 – Annual Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities.

Firms and their control persons managing discretionary accounts that hold more than 5 percent of an SEC‐reporting company's equity securities or manage discretionary accounts with market values of $100 million or more; institutional investment managers who exercise investment discretion over accounts with a fair market value of at least $100 million, and corporate insiders have significant reporting obligations under the Exchange Act.

Provides a clear, detailed reference concerning Section 13 and Section 16 Reporting Requirements.

WE do not apologize for devoting space this month to the Scottish Government Report on Libraries. It is, as our writers affirm, an important document and many themes for debate may emerge from it. If a reading circle of young librarians were formed in any district it could consider this document page by page with much profit. It is, for an official document, interesting in style. It starts many old ideas, it has the verve and certainty which we look for in the amateur rather than the professional writer. To some of its statements, for example its assertion that “libraries have reached or are approaching a temporary limit to their usefulness, because the schools have not yet given adequate training in the use and power of books,” librarians may well ask “why?” in relation to the second part of this statement; and they certainly refuse to admit or believe the first part of it. In fact, the use of libraries in such universal manner is largely the result of the work of modern libraries for children. The librarian teaches children what to read. We have not reached any such limit as is affirmed ; we are indeed only on the margin of our possibilities.

Despite the popularity of the Computational Thinking (CT) paradigm and the call for broad social diffusion of CS fundamentals, the authors argue that the concept is inherently limited and limiting and does not sufficiently convey an understanding of how to enable people to create with computational technologies. The authors suggest an alternate paradigm, procedural creativity, that calls for the development of conceptual creative spaces governed by procedurally generative principles. The authors also call for game development to be the focus of procedural creativity pedagogy.

The authors first discuss the limitations of the CT paradigm, focusing, in particular, on the issue of abstraction and representation as opposed to execution and action. The authors then define procedural creativity in more detail. Following that, they discuss the use of game development as pedagogy, with a focus on Margaret Boden’s notion of conceptual creative spaces.

CT is limited because it focuses overly on solutions to computational “problems”, because it is tied too closely with economic concerns and because it focuses on abstraction at the cost of action. Procedural creativity, on the other hand, focuses on the individual’s capacity for personal expression with the computer and on the generative capacity of code in action. Game development is in ideal platform for procedural creativity because it emphasizes the development of creative domains and conceptual spaces.

This paper offers a challenge to the CT status quo and presents a novel way forward for understanding computation as a creative practice.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval.

Over 11,000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology.

No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.