Pub Date : 2021-04-08DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008
R. Ryan, Matthew H. Baughman, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry, Scott Hiers
Purpose To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020). Findings The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation. Originality/value Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
{"title":"Unpacking the SEC’s new disgorgement powers","authors":"R. Ryan, Matthew H. Baughman, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry, Scott Hiers","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133254280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-08DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0030
Christiana Parker, A. Srivastava, Paul Severs, C. Saylor
Purpose To highlight that the risk retention rules associated with the holding of securitization investments, commonly thought to apply only to the sponsors and manufacturers of securitisations, also affect EU institutional investors and potentially impact non-EU fund managers that invest in these assets. Design/methodology/approach To address which classes of investor are affected and then to provide an overview of the obligations on affected investors that do invest in securitization investments. Findings There is much that is straightforward about the relevant obligations but there are a number of quirks that have not necessarily been fully appreciated by the market: these include the applicability to investors on a “look through” basis that may, inter alia, affect US credit fund managers with EU institutional investors. Practical implications EU institutional investors that do invest in this asset class should be considering the need to take practical steps to prepare written due diligence materials; non-EU credit managers that run e.g. ABS funds offered into the EU or in which there may be EU institutional investors should consider if they may have any obligations under the EU Securitization Regulation. Originality/value The aspects of the Securitization Regulation that affect institutional investors and regular fund managers have not been addressed as thoroughly as they have by the main securitization sector (banks, CLO managers and similar). This article seeks to remedy that and should prove of value to compliance, legal and other professionals at those types of institution.
{"title":"Holding ABS is still tricky: the EU securitisation regulation and its UK equivalent","authors":"Christiana Parker, A. Srivastava, Paul Severs, C. Saylor","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To highlight that the risk retention rules associated with the holding of securitization investments, commonly thought to apply only to the sponsors and manufacturers of securitisations, also affect EU institutional investors and potentially impact non-EU fund managers that invest in these assets.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000To address which classes of investor are affected and then to provide an overview of the obligations on affected investors that do invest in securitization investments.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000There is much that is straightforward about the relevant obligations but there are a number of quirks that have not necessarily been fully appreciated by the market: these include the applicability to investors on a “look through” basis that may, inter alia, affect US credit fund managers with EU institutional investors.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000EU institutional investors that do invest in this asset class should be considering the need to take practical steps to prepare written due diligence materials; non-EU credit managers that run e.g. ABS funds offered into the EU or in which there may be EU institutional investors should consider if they may have any obligations under the EU Securitization Regulation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The aspects of the Securitization Regulation that affect institutional investors and regular fund managers have not been addressed as thoroughly as they have by the main securitization sector (banks, CLO managers and similar). This article seeks to remedy that and should prove of value to compliance, legal and other professionals at those types of institution.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130541022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-08DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0031
Michael R. Rosella, David Hearth, Vadim Avdeychik, Ryan Johnson
Purpose To analyze and identify the key findings from the April 8, 2020, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) recently approved rule amendments (“Adopted Rules”) extended to business development companies (“BDCs”) and registered closed-end funds and an Exemptive Order providing regulatory flexibility to BDCs. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the key takeaways and implications from the Adopted Rules and Exemptive Order. Findings The Adopted Rules provide BDCs and registered closed-end funds some of the more efficient registration, reporting, offering, and communication requirements currently applicable to operating companies. The Exemptive Order provides BDCs additional flexibility with respect to (1) the issuance and sale of senior securities and (2) the participation in certain joint transactions. Practical implications Firms and their representatives should heed the trends in both the substantial restitution FINRA is ordering and the related enforcement issues in the cases FINRA has brought. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.
{"title":"SEC adopts offering reforms for BDCs and registered closed-end funds and issues a temporary exemptive order","authors":"Michael R. Rosella, David Hearth, Vadim Avdeychik, Ryan Johnson","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To analyze and identify the key findings from the April 8, 2020, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) recently approved rule amendments (“Adopted Rules”) extended to business development companies (“BDCs”) and registered closed-end funds and an Exemptive Order providing regulatory flexibility to BDCs.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Discusses the key takeaways and implications from the Adopted Rules and Exemptive Order.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The Adopted Rules provide BDCs and registered closed-end funds some of the more efficient registration, reporting, offering, and communication requirements currently applicable to operating companies. The Exemptive Order provides BDCs additional flexibility with respect to (1) the issuance and sale of senior securities and (2) the participation in certain joint transactions.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Firms and their representatives should heed the trends in both the substantial restitution FINRA is ordering and the related enforcement issues in the cases FINRA has brought.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Expert analysis and guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131200161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-08DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-07-2020-0009
Geoffrey P. Burgess, T. Mciver, Philippe Tenglemann, Rosanne Lariven, Andrea Pomana, Jan Schoberwalter, Edoardo Troina
Purpose To provide an overview of the national foreign direct investment (“FDI”) screening mechanisms in place across Europe including in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Design/methodology/approach This article summarizes the key elements of the national FDI screening regimes of some of the leading European economies. This includes setting out the relevant investment thresholds, protected sectors, lengths of review periods, standstill obligations and potential sanctions in each jurisdiction. Findings Many of Europe’s leading economies are following the wider global trend towards stricter reviews of foreign investment ahead of the EU Screening Regulation coming into force in October 2020. However, the approach taken to FDI screening can vary significantly at a country level in terms of both process and substance and the applicable laws are evolving rapidly, not least as a response to concerns related to the impact of COVID-19. Practical implications Investors looking to make acquisitions in Europe will need to consider whether national FDI screening will apply to their proposed investments. Depending on the jurisdiction, FDI screening can introduce lengthy review periods and require detailed information gathering as well as uncertainty as to the final outcome. Potential investors also need to consider the risk of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for non-compliance with the screening regimes. Originality/value This article offers a summary and comparison of national FDI screening regimes across Europe.
{"title":"Foreign direct investment rules in selected European countries – an overview","authors":"Geoffrey P. Burgess, T. Mciver, Philippe Tenglemann, Rosanne Lariven, Andrea Pomana, Jan Schoberwalter, Edoardo Troina","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-07-2020-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-07-2020-0009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To provide an overview of the national foreign direct investment (“FDI”) screening mechanisms in place across Europe including in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This article summarizes the key elements of the national FDI screening regimes of some of the leading European economies. This includes setting out the relevant investment thresholds, protected sectors, lengths of review periods, standstill obligations and potential sanctions in each jurisdiction.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Many of Europe’s leading economies are following the wider global trend towards stricter reviews of foreign investment ahead of the EU Screening Regulation coming into force in October 2020. However, the approach taken to FDI screening can vary significantly at a country level in terms of both process and substance and the applicable laws are evolving rapidly, not least as a response to concerns related to the impact of COVID-19.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Investors looking to make acquisitions in Europe will need to consider whether national FDI screening will apply to their proposed investments. Depending on the jurisdiction, FDI screening can introduce lengthy review periods and require detailed information gathering as well as uncertainty as to the final outcome. Potential investors also need to consider the risk of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for non-compliance with the screening regimes.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This article offers a summary and comparison of national FDI screening regimes across Europe.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127019717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-06DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-11-2020-0046
Hesham I. Almujamed
Purpose The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of filter rules and investigate the weak form of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) on sample shares of shariah-compliant vs. conventional banks listed on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stock market. Design/methodology/approach Nine trading filter strategies with different statistical analyses were used as defined in the literature (Fifield et al., 2005; Almujamed et al., 2018). Daily closing equity prices of a sample of twenty shariah-compliant banks and twenty conventional banks were recorded over the 18-year period ending 31 December 2017. Findings Shares of shariah-compliant banks in the GCC were not weak-form efficient since trading based on past information was predictable, profitable and outperformed the corresponding naïve buy-and-hold trading strategy. Shares of conventional GCC banks underperformed Research limitations/implications This paper’s findings should be useful for central banks and capital market authorities in GCC countries for evaluation when considering new regulations or process changes. Limitations include small sample numbers and need for more recent evaluations of accounting disclosure levels. A wider range of data, statistical analyses and other trading strategies is needed. Potential investors (Muslim and non-Muslim), shariah supervisory boards, and preparers of financial statements can benefit from this study. Practical implications The results suggest that selection of trading strategy affects the success of the rule and that mid-sized filters are the best. Originality/value This is an innovative study comparing performance of shariah-compliant and conventional banks under different filter rules.
本研究的目的是检验过滤规则的有效性，并研究有效市场假说(EMH)的弱形式对在海湾合作委员会(GCC)股票市场上市的符合伊斯兰教法的银行与传统银行样本股票的影响。设计/方法/方法采用文献中定义的9种不同统计分析的交易过滤策略(Fifield et al.， 2005;Almujamed et al.， 2018)。在截至2017年12月31日的18年期间，记录了20家符合伊斯兰教法的银行和20家传统银行的每日收盘价。海湾合作委员会中遵守伊斯兰教法的银行的股票并非弱形式有效，因为基于过去信息的交易是可预测的、有利可图的，并且优于相应的naïve买入并持有交易策略。传统的海湾合作委员会银行的股票表现不佳研究的局限性/意义本文的研究结果应该对海湾合作委员会国家的中央银行和资本市场当局在考虑新法规或流程变化时进行评估有用。限制包括样本数量少，需要对会计披露水平进行更近期的评估。需要更广泛的数据、统计分析和其他交易策略。潜在的投资者(穆斯林和非穆斯林)、伊斯兰教法监事会和财务报表编制者可以从这项研究中受益。结果表明，交易策略的选择影响规则的成功，中等规模的过滤器是最好的。原创性/价值这是一项创新研究，比较了符合伊斯兰教法的银行和传统银行在不同过滤规则下的表现。
{"title":"The profitability of trading strategies from sharia-compliant and conventional banks in the GCC: a comparative study","authors":"Hesham I. Almujamed","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-11-2020-0046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-11-2020-0046","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of filter rules and investigate the weak form of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) on sample shares of shariah-compliant vs. conventional banks listed on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stock market.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Nine trading filter strategies with different statistical analyses were used as defined in the literature (Fifield et al., 2005; Almujamed et al., 2018). Daily closing equity prices of a sample of twenty shariah-compliant banks and twenty conventional banks were recorded over the 18-year period ending 31 December 2017.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Shares of shariah-compliant banks in the GCC were not weak-form efficient since trading based on past information was predictable, profitable and outperformed the corresponding naïve buy-and-hold trading strategy. Shares of conventional GCC banks underperformed\u0000\u0000\u0000Research limitations/implications\u0000This paper’s findings should be useful for central banks and capital market authorities in GCC countries for evaluation when considering new regulations or process changes. Limitations include small sample numbers and need for more recent evaluations of accounting disclosure levels. A wider range of data, statistical analyses and other trading strategies is needed. Potential investors (Muslim and non-Muslim), shariah supervisory boards, and preparers of financial statements can benefit from this study.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000The results suggest that selection of trading strategy affects the success of the rule and that mid-sized filters are the best.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This is an innovative study comparing performance of shariah-compliant and conventional banks under different filter rules.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132735008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-06DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-09-2020-0029
S. Adler, J. Greenberg, William G. LeBas, Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker
Purpose To explain amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” approved by the SEC in August 2020 and to describe the impact of the changes. Design/methodology/approach Explains how the amendments expand the pool of qualified investors in various subsections of the definition, explains related amendments, and then discusses the implications of the changes. Findings The amendments, among other things: (i) permit natural persons to qualify as accredited investors based on certain professional credentials or, for investments in private funds, based on “knowledgeable employee” status”; (ii) add LLCs and other specified entity types to the list of potentially-qualifying entities, and add a “catch-all” category for unspecified entities (although with different quantitative standards); (iii) add the term “spousal equivalent” to the definition; and (iv) codify certain related staff interpretive positions. In addition, the amendments revise the definition of “qualified institutional buyer” to include additional entity types to avoid inconsistencies with the new accredited investor definition. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities attorneys who counsel clients on all manner of SEC regulatory policy matters.
{"title":"US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expands accredited investor definition","authors":"S. Adler, J. Greenberg, William G. LeBas, Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-09-2020-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-09-2020-0029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To explain amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” approved by the SEC in August 2020 and to describe the impact of the changes.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Explains how the amendments expand the pool of qualified investors in various subsections of the definition, explains related amendments, and then discusses the implications of the changes.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The amendments, among other things: (i) permit natural persons to qualify as accredited investors based on certain professional credentials or, for investments in private funds, based on “knowledgeable employee” status”; (ii) add LLCs and other specified entity types to the list of potentially-qualifying entities, and add a “catch-all” category for unspecified entities (although with different quantitative standards); (iii) add the term “spousal equivalent” to the definition; and (iv) codify certain related staff interpretive positions. In addition, the amendments revise the definition of “qualified institutional buyer” to include additional entity types to avoid inconsistencies with the new accredited investor definition.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities attorneys who counsel clients on all manner of SEC regulatory policy matters.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124788098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0039
L. Ross, Kenneth Zhou
Purpose To describe and analyze the implications of the new Measures (the “Measures”) for Cybersecurity Review jointly promulgated on April 27, 2020 by twelve Chinese government departments led by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). Design/methodology/approach Defines the scope of the Measures, explains the functions and obligations of critical information infrastructure operators (each, a CIIO), outlines the self-assessment and cybersecurity review process and discusses the implications of the Measures for foreign companies doing business in China. Findings The Measures impose an obligation on CII operators to apply for a cybersecurity review when they intend to procure network products and services that present or may present a national security concern. Such review will focus not only on national security and data leakage concerns, but also on supply-chain security concerns. The cybersecurity review will likely further the decoupling between China and the US. Practical implications While the Measures are not formally intended to discriminate against foreign products and services, the promulgation of the Measures will have a significant impact on foreign companies that supply network products or services to CII operators in China. Originality/value Practical guidance from lawyers with extensive experience in advising Chinese, US, European and other companies on laws and regulations related to competition, cross-border investments, joint ventures, strategic alliances and international trade matters.
{"title":"China issues new cybersecurity review measures","authors":"L. Ross, Kenneth Zhou","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0039","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To describe and analyze the implications of the new Measures (the “Measures”) for Cybersecurity Review jointly promulgated on April 27, 2020 by twelve Chinese government departments led by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC).\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Defines the scope of the Measures, explains the functions and obligations of critical information infrastructure operators (each, a CIIO), outlines the self-assessment and cybersecurity review process and discusses the implications of the Measures for foreign companies doing business in China.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The Measures impose an obligation on CII operators to apply for a cybersecurity review when they intend to procure network products and services that present or may present a national security concern. Such review will focus not only on national security and data leakage concerns, but also on supply-chain security concerns. The cybersecurity review will likely further the decoupling between China and the US.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000While the Measures are not formally intended to discriminate against foreign products and services, the promulgation of the Measures will have a significant impact on foreign companies that supply network products or services to CII operators in China.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Practical guidance from lawyers with extensive experience in advising Chinese, US, European and other companies on laws and regulations related to competition, cross-border investments, joint ventures, strategic alliances and international trade matters.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123783256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-12-2020-0048
Anis Jarboui, Emna Mnif
Purpose After the COVID-19 outbreak, the Federal Reserve has undertaken several monetary policies to alleviate the pandemic consequences on the markets. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of the Federal Reserve monetary policy on the cryptocurrency dynamics during the COVID19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach We examine the response and feedback effects via an event study methodology. For this purpose, abnormal returns (AR) and cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around the first FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) announcement related to the COVID-19 pandemic for the top five cryptocurrencies are explored. We, further investigate the effect of the eight FOMC statement announcements during the COVID19 pandemic on these cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, Litecoin, and Ripple). In the above-mentioned crypto-currency markets, we investigate the presence of bubbles by using the PSY test. We then examine the concordance of the dates of these bubbles with the dates of the FOMC announcements. Findings The empirical results show that the first FOMC event has a negative significant effect after 4 days of the announcement date for all studied cryptocurrencies except Tether. The results also indicate that cumulative abnormal returns are significant during the event windows of (−3,8), (−3,9), and (−3,10). Besides, we find that Bitcoin, Ethereum and, Litecoin lived short bubbles lasting for a few days. However, Ripple and Tether markets present no bubbles and no explosive periods. Research limitations/implications This paper presents trained proof that FOMC announcements have a positive effect on volatility's predictive capacity. This work therefore promotes the study of the data quality of volatility in future research as well. Practical implications The justified effect of the FOMC announcements on cryptocurrency as a speculative asset has practical implications for investors in building their trading strategies in anticipation of the next FOMC announcement. Therefore, this study implies that the FOMC announcements contain very relevant information for investors in the cryptocurrency market. This research may not only encourage a better understanding of the evolution of the expectations of policymakers, but also facilitate a better understanding of how these expectations are developed. Originality/value The COVID-19 pandemic has disturbed the stability of financial markets, inciting the Fed to take some monetary regulations. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one that analyses the response of five major cryptocurrencies to FOMC announcements during COVID 19 pandemic and associates these dates with bubble occurrences.
{"title":"Cryptocurrency bubble risk and the FOMC announcements during COVID-19 black swan event","authors":"Anis Jarboui, Emna Mnif","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-12-2020-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-12-2020-0048","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000After the COVID-19 outbreak, the Federal Reserve has undertaken several monetary policies to alleviate the pandemic consequences on the markets. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of the Federal Reserve monetary policy on the cryptocurrency dynamics during the COVID19 pandemic.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000We examine the response and feedback effects via an event study methodology. For this purpose, abnormal returns (AR) and cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around the first FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) announcement related to the COVID-19 pandemic for the top five cryptocurrencies are explored. We, further investigate the effect of the eight FOMC statement announcements during the COVID19 pandemic on these cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, Litecoin, and Ripple). In the above-mentioned crypto-currency markets, we investigate the presence of bubbles by using the PSY test. We then examine the concordance of the dates of these bubbles with the dates of the FOMC announcements.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The empirical results show that the first FOMC event has a negative significant effect after 4 days of the announcement date for all studied cryptocurrencies except Tether. The results also indicate that cumulative abnormal returns are significant during the event windows of (−3,8), (−3,9), and (−3,10). Besides, we find that Bitcoin, Ethereum and, Litecoin lived short bubbles lasting for a few days. However, Ripple and Tether markets present no bubbles and no explosive periods.\u0000\u0000\u0000Research limitations/implications\u0000This paper presents trained proof that FOMC announcements have a positive effect on volatility's predictive capacity. This work therefore promotes the study of the data quality of volatility in future research as well.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000The justified effect of the FOMC announcements on cryptocurrency as a speculative asset has practical implications for investors in building their trading strategies in anticipation of the next FOMC announcement. Therefore, this study implies that the FOMC announcements contain very relevant information for investors in the cryptocurrency market. This research may not only encourage a better understanding of the evolution of the expectations of policymakers, but also facilitate a better understanding of how these expectations are developed.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The COVID-19 pandemic has disturbed the stability of financial markets, inciting the Fed to take some monetary regulations. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one that analyses the response of five major cryptocurrencies to FOMC announcements during COVID 19 pandemic and associates these dates with bubble occurrences.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123528693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0037
L. Moerel, Marijn Storm
Purpose To explain the authors’ position that the use of blockchain technology is not incompatible with European Union privacy laws and in particular the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Design/methodology/approach Explains the basics of blockchain technology and the GDPR, several reasons why some scholars consider BC not to be compatible with the GDPR, and why the authors believe that the GDPR will be able to regulate the use of blockchain technology. Findings The current perception is that blockchain is not compatible with EU privacy laws. The authors disagree that this is the case and explain why none of the issues identified by legal scholars and stakeholders are likely to pose issues for blockchain technology. Their conclusion is that EU privacy laws are well able to regulate also this new technology. This does however not mean that blockchain will thus be suitable for all use and deployment cases. Originality/value Practical guidance and explanation of complex issues by lawyers with extensive experience and expertise in dealing with data protection, cybersecurity, privacy, intellectual property and related issues.
{"title":"Blockchain can both enhance and undermine compliance but is not inherently at odds with EU privacy laws","authors":"L. Moerel, Marijn Storm","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000To explain the authors’ position that the use of blockchain technology is not incompatible with European Union privacy laws and in particular the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Explains the basics of blockchain technology and the GDPR, several reasons why some scholars consider BC not to be compatible with the GDPR, and why the authors believe that the GDPR will be able to regulate the use of blockchain technology.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The current perception is that blockchain is not compatible with EU privacy laws. The authors disagree that this is the case and explain why none of the issues identified by legal scholars and stakeholders are likely to pose issues for blockchain technology. Their conclusion is that EU privacy laws are well able to regulate also this new technology. This does however not mean that blockchain will thus be suitable for all use and deployment cases.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Practical guidance and explanation of complex issues by lawyers with extensive experience and expertise in dealing with data protection, cybersecurity, privacy, intellectual property and related issues.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"49 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132576321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-09DOI: 10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0040
Ian Lewis, M. Zhou, Elfie J.Y. Wang
Purpose This article analyses China’s attempts at economic revival, which, starting with the Foreign Investment Law, were under way before COVID-19 but which were given extra impetus by the onset of the pandemic. Design/methodology/approach The thought is that the Foreign Investment Law lacks detail, so this article looks at the three ideas with which the State Council is seeking to underpin it: key Industries, promoting investment and equal treatment. It also considers Shanghai’s experience as the first major municipality to implement the State Council’s guidance. Findings China is committed to more transparency and to opening more of its economy to foreign investors, even if it will continue to be selective about which industries it wishes to encourage. The central government wants other regional and local jurisdictions to follow Shanghai’s lead and implement its guidance, as well as bring forward more measures to make the environment more favorable for foreign investment. At the same time, the article notes that China faces some hostility from other nations and groupings, such as the US, UK and the EU, from which it would expect to receive investment. Practical implications Investors can expect more specific reforms in the different areas of the economy that China wishes to develop while recognizing that it needs foreign expertise to do so. Originality/value Insight from experienced corporate lawyers who are resident in China and have first-hand experience of the measures aimed at economic recovery.
{"title":"China investment policy – ensuring the mice will be caught","authors":"Ian Lewis, M. Zhou, Elfie J.Y. Wang","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-10-2020-0040","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This article analyses China’s attempts at economic revival, which, starting with the Foreign Investment Law, were under way before COVID-19 but which were given extra impetus by the onset of the pandemic.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The thought is that the Foreign Investment Law lacks detail, so this article looks at the three ideas with which the State Council is seeking to underpin it: key Industries, promoting investment and equal treatment. It also considers Shanghai’s experience as the first major municipality to implement the State Council’s guidance.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000China is committed to more transparency and to opening more of its economy to foreign investors, even if it will continue to be selective about which industries it wishes to encourage. The central government wants other regional and local jurisdictions to follow Shanghai’s lead and implement its guidance, as well as bring forward more measures to make the environment more favorable for foreign investment. At the same time, the article notes that China faces some hostility from other nations and groupings, such as the US, UK and the EU, from which it would expect to receive investment.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Investors can expect more specific reforms in the different areas of the economy that China wishes to develop while recognizing that it needs foreign expertise to do so.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000Insight from experienced corporate lawyers who are resident in China and have first-hand experience of the measures aimed at economic recovery.\u0000","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115471903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：