Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore potential fund-raising option that can be developed to attract investment in affordable housing initiatives in Malaysia. In doing so, the study undertakes to discuss the viability of the property trust fund structure as an investment vehicle.

The study uses a qualitative design that involves the use of semi-structured questionnaires as a data collection strategy. A total number of ten experts were selected for the interview using critical case sampling scheme based on the purposive sampling strategy.

The study discovers that a dynamic fund structure – one that allows for the fund to evolve with changing circumstances and needs – can be adopted. This fund structure comprises a fund that can be initially established as a closed-ended fund. Then, with sufficient track record, the fund can be transformed into a public real estate investment trust, with the prospect of tapping into capital market via issuance of sukuk in the future. The fund can also adopt mezzanine structure of funding, which may reduce investors’ risks with minimal government intervention.

The findings of this study illustrate the potential of fund-raising options from the perspective of institutional investors and regulators. Future research could explore government’s view and focus on the policy options.

The findings may provide valuable insight into alternative fund-raising options for affordable housing projects for policymakers and investment banks.

The fund-raising options incorporate minimal government participation yet pose low risks to investors, creating a low-risk asset suitable for social investment.

This study outlines the mechanism to increase affordable housing supply in the market, by attracting institutional investors to invest in this dynamic fund structure initiative. As there are limited discussions on attracting funding for affordable housing developments, it is hoped that this paper will spark further debate and discussion among the academicians and policymakers.

In August 2007 the Mainsail II SIV-Lite was frozen by its trustee as a result of the ongoing credit crisis. The state of Maine held $20 million of Mainsail commercial paper in its Cash Pool portfolio, a short-term portfolio that puts temporary, excess state revenues to work. When word of the potential loss became public, the Treasurer came under attack. The case introduces the functions of a state Treasury department, with particular emphasis on the investment objectives and guidelines for the cash pool as well as its composition. The case reviews the events leading up to and including August 2007, the month when the credit markets first began to seize and when the financial crisis effectively began. It examines securitization, structured finance, and the Mainsail SIV-Lite structure in some detail.

On September 29, 2003, the staff (“Staff”) of the Division of Investment Management of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a report to the SEC entitled the “Implications of the Growth of Hedge Funds” (the “Report”). The Report recommends amending Rule 203(b)(3)‐1 of the Advisers Act to require a hedge fund manager to “look through” each existing client and count each of the hedge fund’s underlying beneficial owners as a “client” of the hedge fund manager for the purpose of determining whether an investment adviser has 15 or more clients and therefore must register under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Such a registration requirement effectively would increase the minimum investment requirement for a hedge fund. The Report does not necessarily support the argument that subjecting hedge funds to periodic examinations by the SEC will help in early detection of fraud and prevention of resulting investor losses. Despite the Staff’s intentions to identify distinctions between customary hedge fund vehicles and other types of investment funds, no clear hedge fund definition or standard was provided in the Report. As a result, there is a danger that the scope of new hedge fund regulations will be too broad

The purpose of this paper is to analyze causes and regulators' responses to the current international financial market crisis.

The paper discusses warning signs of the crisis in world financial services markets, principal underlying problems that have been identified, steps the financial services industry and its regulators are taking to address those problems, and the likely direction of future regulation.

More resource was put into structuring investment portfolios than in managing the risk positions those vehicles created. The problem with credit ratings was less in the actual ratings than in the meaning attached to them. Regulators were focusing mainly on credit and discovered they should have been worrying about access to liquidity; however, liquidity is difficult to regulate. The Financial Stability Forum has highlighted shortcomings in the way regulators cooperate across borders. The industry will not be allowed to sort this out by itself. Increased bank capital requirements and tightening of regulations on structured or off‐balance‐sheet vehicles are likely.

The paper is an overview and insight from experienced financial services lawyers.

Investment in non-listed real estate funds (NREFs) in an emerging economy like India has its own challenges that entail a detailed understanding of the risks. The purpose of this paper is to identify the key risk factors across the life cycle of a NREF, based on a considered feedback of various real estate fund management stakeholders. It is important for the investors and fund managers to appreciate these risk factors to make informed investment decisions.

The present study based on the literature survey and discussion with experts identifies 39 risk attributes, which were further summarized using factor analysis into a smaller set of factors impacting NREF returns (risk). The relative importance of each risk attribute was examined and ranked using the relative importance index (RII). Further, cluster analysis using Euclidian distance was used to partition these risk attributes in various segments depending on their importance.

The risk attributes are summarized as five risk factors, i.e. regulatory RISK, foreign direct investment risk, entry risk, business risk and project risk. Whereas the top five perceived risk attributes are investee/partner risk, project entitlement risk, title risk, legislative and regulatory risk and project execution risk.

This study has significance to the industry practitioners and the academic community in developing an understanding of the dynamic nature of risks across the life cycle of the NREFs in India and classifying them at the macro-meso-micro levels.

This paper is one of the first attempts to understand the risks impacting NREFs in India. It will help investors develop a better strategic understanding of the risks across the life cycle of an investment.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse regulatory reform in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007‐2008.

The paper proposes a framework for regulatory reform that begins with the observation that financial manias and panics cannot be legislated away, and may be an unavoidable aspect of modern capitalism.

Financial crises are unavoidable when hardwired human behavior – fear and greed, or “animal spirits” – is combined with free enterprise, and cannot be legislated or regulated away. Like hurricanes and other forces of nature, market bubbles, and crashes cannot be entirely eliminated, but their most destructive consequences can be greatly mitigated with proper preparation. In fact, the most damaging effects of financial crisis come not from loss of wealth, but rather from those who are unprepared for such losses and panic in response. This perspective has several implications for the types of regulatory reform needed in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007‐2008, all centered around the need for greater transparency, improved measures of systemic risk, more adaptive regulations, including counter‐cyclical leverage constraints, and more emphasis on financial literacy starting in high school, including certifications for expertise in financial engineering for the senior management and directors of all financial institutions.

The paper stresses how we must resist the temptation to react too hastily to market events, and deliberate thoughtfully and broadly, instead, craft new regulations for the financial system of the twenty‐first century. Financial markets do not need more regulation; they need smarter and more effective regulation.

The world has been gripped by the severest global financial (and economic) crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. How did it come about, what is being done to alleviate its consequences and, vitally, what measures should be undertaken to ensure against its recurrence are therefore questions that must be satisfactorily addressed. Preventing ‘financial crises’ from ever happening again is of course completely out of the question, they being inherent to the economic system as we understand it; rather that of those of the ‘severest’ kind. Fortunately, a vast literature has been accumulating on these issues, so the intention here is not to add to it and reinforce the perception that economists will offer more opinions on a single issue than the total membership of any assembled group thereof for the purpose. Hence, this is confined to a consideration of the most convincing explanations. Owing to space limitations, I shall not examine the recommendations for future action in all the mentioned areas but will do so for what is being offered to cater for the capital adequacy and pro-cyclicality since they are of the essence and involve many players.

To describe how the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the “Pension Act”) will affect the investment of plan assets subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Describes the redefinition of “plan assets” under the Pension Act and explains new statutory prohibited transaction exemptions in areas that include transactions between plans and service providers, cross‐trading, foreign exchange transactions, block trades, the use of electronic communications networks (ECNs), correction to reverse prohibited transactions, bonding, and investment advice.

The status of existing investors as benefit plan investors under the Pension Act should be reviewed to determine whether formerly precluded investors may now be permitted. ERISA‐related purchase, sale, and transfer restrictions currently in use will need to be reviewed and likely significantly revised to reflect the decreased breadth of “party in interest” prohibitions. Investment advisers will need to review whether they want to begin providing investment advisory services to plan participants and, if so, begin developing procedural safeguards to comply with the requirements of the Pension Act.

A useful summary of forthcoming pension legislation as it affects US pension and IRA investments, particularly in its redefinition of the circumstances under which an entity's assets are treated as “plan assets” for ERISA purposes and its new statutory exemptions from the prohibited transaction requirements of ERISA.