Search results

This article takes a close look at the requirements of the 1940 Investment Advisors Act for both registered and unregistered investment advisors — such as hedge funds and private equity funds. It highlights the significant issues that arise from the regulation for unregistered funds that are considering the consequences of SEC registration. It also reviews briefly the requirements of the Act that are already applicable to unregistered investment advisors.

Wrap fee programs are an increasingly popular product offered by broker‐dealers and investment managers to their clients. Wrap fee programs present unique issues under both the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), the two primary bodies of law that govern the product and those who offer and manage it. The regulations and rules under those Acts applicable to wrap fee programs and related interpretive statements made by the SEC staff, however, are wide ranging and have not been provided in a single format. This article attempts to present a comprehensive discussion on the regulation of wrap fee programs, as well as the many compliance issues associated with these programs. The article is delivered in two parts. Part I, presented in this issue, addresses the regulation of wrap fee programs under the Investment Company Act. Part I also begins a review of unique issues arising under the Advisers Act, including registration requirements for wrap fee sponsors and other persons who manage or offer the product to their clients, as well as required contents for wrap fee brochures and related disclosure issues. Part II, which will be presented in the next issue, will discuss additional Advisers Act issues such as suitability, fees and advertising. It also will briefly review issues arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

This article outlines, in a very practical manner, the various methods available to investment advisors when trying to effect securities transactions for their clients. The authors examine several different ways the transactions may take place while describing in detail the pitfalls and concerns that must be considered by the careful practitioner. It also contains helpful illustrations to understand the transactions.

Part I of this series appeared in the Summer 2002 issue of The Journal of Investment Compliance. It addressed the regulation of wrap fee programs under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) and the requirements of Rule 3a‐4 thereunder, which must be met so that a wrap fee program is not deemed to be an investment company. Part I also discussed certain issues arising under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), including how program sponsors and any third‐party portfolio managers generally are viewed as investment advisers and are subject to the Advisers Act. Part II discusses additional Advisers Act issues such as suitability, fees, and advertising. It also briefly reviews issues arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The information provided in Part II assumes that readers have some basic familiarity with Part I.

A hedge fund manager typically falls within the definition of an “investment adviser” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). Persons who fall within this definition generally must register with the SEC and are subject to all applicable requirements under the Advisers Act and it related rules. However, the Advisers Act and its rules currently provide an exemption from SEC registration that is available to many hedge fund managers. In light of recent suggestions by SEC officials to greatly restrict or eliminate the exemption, this article summarizes the most significant consequences of SEC registration for hedge fund managers.

Successful technology integration into the teaching of social studies is imperative in the twenty-first century classroom. This study sought to answer the following questions: do synchronous and asynchronous technology integration increase a student’s understanding of social studies content? Are synchronous technology-integrated social studies lessons more effective than asynchronous technology-integrated social studies lessons? How do students perceive the effectiveness of a synchronous technology-integrated lesson vs the effectiveness of an asynchronous technology-integrated lesson? The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper presents the results of a quasi-experimental research project comparing the learning outcomes of students who participated in synchronous and asynchronous technology-augmented lessons.

The results of this study found that synchronous and asynchronous technology-enhanced lessons are both viable pedagogies for increasing a student’s understanding of social studies content. The results also yielded no statistical significance between the effectiveness of the synchronous instruction vs asynchronous instruction. However, a statistical significance exists when analyzing a student’s perception of their own learning. Students participating in synchronous technology-integrated instruction reported a higher confidence in the lesson’s ability to teach them, when compared to that of the asynchronous population.

By continuing to seek new ways to integrate technology effectively into classrooms, social studies teachers can design lessons more effectively to meet the needs of today’s social studies students. The need to understand the learning outcomes of various technology-integrated approaches will continue to grow as more technologies become available to social studies teachers.

The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of university students with nonconsensual pornography. The focus of the present work is on nonconsensual pornography – the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images and sexual extortion – that are becoming common experiences for many people. While the forms of nonconsensual pornography may vary, each case has one thing in common: the offender has shared a private image of the victim without the victim’s consent.

The data for this study was collected from student participants at a southeastern university. The stratified sample of university students was sent a link to an online survey and the responses of those who chose to respond were used in subsequent analyses (n = 300).

The findings of this exploratory study show low self-control as a significant predictor of sexting. Significant predictors of victimization via nonconsensual pornography included participation in sexting and use of dating apps.

While not generalizable, the descriptive data provide an important landscape for consideration of policy and legal recommendations to protect potential victims as well as would-be perpetrators beyond a university setting.