Search results

1 – 10 of over 24000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 October 2006

Charles S. Gittleman and Russell D. Sacks

This paper aims to describe the NASD's recent proposal modifying NASD Rule 2720, the rule by which underwriting can be conducted where the underwriter and the issuer have…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to describe the NASD's recent proposal modifying NASD Rule 2720, the rule by which underwriting can be conducted where the underwriter and the issuer have a “conflict of interest” as defined by the rules.

Design/methodology/approach

Summarizes and analyzes the proposal.

Findings

On September 14, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) published for initial comment proposed amendments to Conduct Rule 2720 (the “Rule”) relating to conflicts of interest that occur between underwriters and issuers in the context of securities distributions (the “Proposal”). The Proposal substantially changes the Rule, and, as such, adjusts certain aspects of the underwriting process including: where the underwriter and the issuer are affiliates; where the underwriter or its affiliates (including venture capital and private equity arms) have an ownership interest in the issuer; and where the purpose of the securities offering is to repay debt owed to the underwriter or its affiliates.

Practical implications

NASD‐member broker‐dealers may seek to monitor the state of the Proposal in order to ensure that firm policies and procedures are consistent with future changes to the Rule. NASD members will also want to consider how the Proposal signals NASD's changes in thinking in respect of how they approach conflicts of interest in their own businesses.

Originality/value

Alerts practitioners and the industry to a new proposal that has significant consequences for underwriting, particularly in an age of increasingly global financial institutions.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 7 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 January 2004

Laura Pruitt and Howard Kramer

The SEC has proposed several rules and rule amendments that, if adopted, would impact market structure of the equities markets for years to come. This article summarizes…

Abstract

The SEC has proposed several rules and rule amendments that, if adopted, would impact market structure of the equities markets for years to come. This article summarizes those proposed changes and describes some of the early reaction to them by both industry and regulators. Regulation NMS, as the rule proposals are collectively called, is intended to accomplish three primary objectives: (1) to promote equal regulation of market centers, (2) to update antiquated rules, and (3) to promote greater order interaction and displayed depth. Regulation NMS, which is intended to “advance the dialogue” on market structure issues, consists of rule proposals in four substantive areas. First, the SEC has proposed a uniform trade‐through rule for all national market system (“NMS”) market centers that would affirm the principle of price priority while addressing the differences between automated and manual markets. Second, the SEC has proposed a uniform market access rule with a de minimis fee standard intended to assure non‐discriminatory access to the best prices displayed by NMS market centers without mandating hard linkages such as the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”).

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 5 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 1 May 2020

Mahmoud Abdellatif and Reham Abdellatif

The purpose of this research is to improve the understanding of what constitutes a successful thesis proposal (TP) and as such enhance the quality of the TP writing in…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to improve the understanding of what constitutes a successful thesis proposal (TP) and as such enhance the quality of the TP writing in architecture, planning and related disciplines.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on extended personal experience and a review of relevant literature, the authors proposed a conception of a successful TP comprising 13 standard components. The conception provides specific definition/s, attributes and success rules for each component. The conception was applied for 15 years on several batches of Saudi graduate students. The implications of the conception were assessed by a students' opinion survey. An expert inquiry of experienced academics from architectural schools in nine countries was applied to validate and improve the conception.

Findings

Assessment of the proposed conception demonstrated several positive implications on students' knowledge, performance and outputs which illustrates its applicability in real life. Experts' validation of the conception and constructive remarks have enabled further improvements on the definitions, attributes and success rules of the TP components.

Research limitations/implications

The proposed TP conception with its 13 components is limited to standard problem-solving research and will differ in the case of other types such as hypothesis-based research.

Practical implications

The proposed conception is a useful directive and evaluative tool for writing and assessing thesis proposals for graduate students, academic advisors and examiners.

Social implications

The research contributes to improving the quality of thesis production process among the academic community in the built environment fields.

Originality/value

The paper is meant to alleviate the confusion and hardship caused by the absence of a consensus on what constitutes a successful TP in the fields of architecture, urban planning and related disciplines.

Details

Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 14 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2631-6862

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 September 2003

Jonathan Herbst

The revision of the Investment Services Directive is one of the most significant proposals under the Financial Services Action Plan. Although not likely to be implemented…

Abstract

The revision of the Investment Services Directive is one of the most significant proposals under the Financial Services Action Plan. Although not likely to be implemented until the end of 2006, it is hoped that many of the consequent changes to legislation and the FSA Rules will be in place before then, and it is, therefore, crucial to keep track of its progress through the Lamfalussy legislative process. This paper discusses the shape of the Commission’s final proposals, which were published in November, 2002, and how they will change the existing investment services regime in the UK.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 11 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 2 December 2019

Abir Boujelben and Ikram Amous

One key issue of maintaining Web information systems is to guarantee the consistency of their knowledge base, in particular, the rules governing them. There are currently…

Abstract

Purpose

One key issue of maintaining Web information systems is to guarantee the consistency of their knowledge base, in particular, the rules governing them. There are currently few methods that can ensure that rule bases management can scale to the amount of knowledge in these systems environment.

Design/methodology/approach

In this paper, the authors propose a method to detect correct dependencies between rules. This work represents a preliminary step for a proposal to eliminate rule base anomalies. The authors previously developed a method that aimed to ameliorate the extraction of rules dependency relationships using a new technique. In this paper, they extend the proposal with other techniques to increase the number of extracted rules dependency relationships. The authors also add some modules to filter and represent them.

Findings

The authors evaluated their own method against other semantic methods. The results show that this work succeeded in extracting better numbers of correct rules dependency relationships. They also noticed that the rule groups deduced from this method’s results are very close to those provided by the rule bases developers.

Originality/value

This work can be applied to knowledge bases that include a fact base and a rule base. In addition, it is independent of the field of application.

Details

International Journal of Web Information Systems, vol. 15 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1744-0084

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 January 2003

Barry I. Pershkow

In Spring 2002, Jeff Skilling (the former CEO of Enron Corporation) incredulously testified before lawmakers that he thought Enron was in great shape the day he left and…

Abstract

In Spring 2002, Jeff Skilling (the former CEO of Enron Corporation) incredulously testified before lawmakers that he thought Enron was in great shape the day he left and that he knew next to nothing about the off‐balance‐sheet transactions that ultimately brought down his company. As we watched the train derail that day, it became clear that lawmakers convened the hearing not only to assure the public that Congress too was angry, but also to look for a solution to the problem that a CEO didn’t know some pretty important things about his company, its operations and performance, and that the company’s independent auditors appeared compromised and may have acted accordingly.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 3 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 26 August 2014

Scott R. Anderson

– To summarize revised MSRB Rule G-30, which governs municipal bond dealer fair-pricing obligations.

Abstract

Purpose

To summarize revised MSRB Rule G-30, which governs municipal bond dealer fair-pricing obligations.

Design/methodology/approach

Discusses background of previous MSRB fair-pricing rules and interpretive guidance. Outlines the basic dealer obligations arising under revised MSRB Rule G-30. Discusses three key aspects of the new rule and recent rulemaking effort: the obligation of dealers to exercise “diligence” in assessing a municipal security’s market value and reasonableness of compensation, the distinction between fair security pricing and reasonable dealer compensation, and previous MSRB guidance that is superseded by the rule change. Also discusses similar rule changes related to fair-pricing, mark-ups, markdowns and commissions that have been proposed by FINRA that would apply to non-municipal securities if adopted.

Findings

Revised MSRB Rule G-30 generally preserves existing municipal bond fair-pricing obligations while consolidating obligations that previously existed in multiple MSRB rules and interpretive guidance.

Practical implications

The MSRB generally sought to preserve the substance of existing dealer fair-pricing obligations in revised MSRB Rule G-30 but dealers should evaluate their existing compliance frameworks in light of the recent revisions. The recent changes include deletion of prior MSRB Rule G-18 and superseding of certain interpretive guidance.

Originality/value

Practical explanation by experienced financial services lawyer.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 April 2005

Elizabeth C. Green

The aim of this article is to provide a description of the rule proposals and other events that preceded the SEC's adoption of the 2005 Final Rule, a summary of the terms…

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this article is to provide a description of the rule proposals and other events that preceded the SEC's adoption of the 2005 Final Rule, a summary of the terms of the 2005 Final Rule, and a brief update regarding the status of the 2005 Final Rule.

Design/methodology/approach

Describes the SEC's 1999 proposed rule, “Certain Broker Dealers Deemed Not to Be Investment Advisers,” questions that led to that proposed rule, commentary on that proposed rule regarding advisory activities for which broker‐dealers receive special compensation, commentary regarding differences between the regulation of broker‐dealers and the regulation of investment advisers, commentary regarding investors' understanding of the differences between broker‐dealers and investment advisers, the five‐year period without a formal rule, the 2005 Proposed Rule, the 2005 Final Rule, and concerns that remain after issuance of the 2005 Final Rule.

Findings

The Chairman of the SEC directed the SEC staff to investigate and report within 90 days on ways in which the policy issues raised by the 2005 Final Rule could be addressed. In addition to the investigation of issues raised by the 2005 Final Rule by the SEC staff, and although the 2005 Final Rule was adopted, to some extent, in response to the lawsuit filed against the SEC by the Financial Planning Association (the “FPA”) in July 2004, the FPA filed a new lawsuit against the SEC on April 28, 2005.

Originality/value

A useful summary of the background and remaining issues related to the SEC's 2005 Final Rule on application of the Adviser's Act to broker‐dealers offering certain non‐traditional brokerage programs.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 6 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 13 June 2008

Charles S. Gittleman and Russell D. Sacks

The purpose of this paper is to describe regulatory activities since the initial regulatory actions between 2001 and 2003 in response to securities firm research analyst…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to describe regulatory activities since the initial regulatory actions between 2001 and 2003 in response to securities firm research analyst conflicts of interest that were identified after the “internet bubble.”

Design/methodology/approach

The paper describes a number of important regulatory activities, including: interpretive activities, such as the 2004 Second Joint Research Memorandum; establishment of a new licensing requirement for research analysts; additional rulemaking, in the form of 2005 changes to the SRO Rules that are meant to tighten those rules; the December 2005 report of the NASD and NYSE studying the operation and effectiveness of prior regulatory actions, including the SRO Rules; enforcement actions against both firms' and research analysts' behavior; industry sweeps gathering information regarding industry practices in respect of debt research; and rulemaking for purposes of implementing interpretive guidance and Joint Report.

Findings

Following extraordinary and sweeping regulatory actions between 2001 and 2003, securities regulators have continued a high level of activity with respect to securities research. Research regulation stands as a hallmark for the current era of securities regulation for at least three reasons: it has displayed a wide range of regulatory tools including rulemaking, publication of interpretive guidance, “sweep” examinations, licensing, and enforcement, and has been largely “principles‐based” rather than prescriptive in nature; it is marked by complexity: a web of SEC, SRO, and informal or “best practices” regulation now exists covering every aspect of securities research; and it is a cornerstone of an emerging regulatory theme of heightened and more detailed compliance for investment banking operations.

Originality/value

This is a valuable summary and analysis of seven years of regulatory activity on a complex issue by experienced securities lawyers

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 9 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 1 April 2003

Gary Sams

Abstract

Details

Journal of Property Investment & Finance, vol. 21 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1463-578X

1 – 10 of over 24000