Search results

With the introduction of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), financial institutions are faced with many investor protection provisions; this has a major impact on the day-to-day operations of private banks, which provide investment services to predominately retail or non-professional investors. The purpose of this paper is to determine how MiFID provisions regarding investor protection with respect to suitability are complied with in practice by private banks.

Based on interviews with 25 representatives of private banks from 10 different European Union (EU) member states, the researchers have determined how these provisions are fulfilled and associated risks mitigated. Mapping out the suitability requirements of MiFID and comparing them with how these have been operationalised, we arrive at the question of whether this leads to a level playing field and investor protection by different private banks.

Although MiFID is trying to achieve a level playing field between the EU member states, this study shows that this has not been achieved in all areas. Investor protection requirements from MiFID are interpreted and operationalised differently. Although these differences are sometimes small, sometimes they are larger and affect the way the investor is served and suitability determined.

This research provides a unique insight into the way private banks in Europe have implemented the MiFID II requirements and gives insight into best practices. For the future, this research can serve as a prelude to in-depth follow-up research on the implementation of EU provisions.

This paper aims to identify the duty of care that applies to ‘professionally classified clients’ based on the recently implemented Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) as well as the previous Markets in Financial Instruments Directive I (MiFID I). The authors place critical notes on the effectiveness of some MiFID provisions.

The authors have reviewed the Delegated Acts of MiFID I and II, as well as Q&A’s of the European Regulator, ESMA and jurisprudence. The authors aim to add value by facilitating a discussion on the effectiveness of applicable MiFID provisions.

This review of the legal provisions provides researchers and practitioners in the investment sectors with a clear overview of the legal provisions detailing how these provisions should be met and how improvements to the provisions can be achieved.

This paper specifies what the provisions for professional classified clients are and facilitates a discussion on the effectiveness of these provisions.

Addressing the legal provisions which are applicable to ‘professional classified clients’ that derive from MiFID I and II and includes a critical analysis which offers an original perspective.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II directive was enforced in the EU in January 2018. While EU-member states implemented this directive in their national legislation, investment firms are still enforcing compliance. With the purpose of “investor protection”, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of transparency, suitability, warning and information requirements. How do investment advisers view and embrace these MiFID II requirements? Are differences evident within this group of professionals?

In total, 267 Dutch investment advisors serving non-professional investors daily completed structured surveys on their opinion of the acceptance and effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements. The findings are compared with existing literature to examine similarities with other legislation.

The results demonstrated differences depending on the investment firms’ size and investment advisors’ seniority and gender. Professionals should be critical of new legislation and regulations, as it limits their autonomy. However, female investment advisors and those with up to ten years’ experience are less critical of the effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements, embracing them without discussion. Investment advisors in large investment firms believe that MiFID II contributes to investors’ interests, whereas those in small and medium-sized investment firms often do not share this opinion. For example, respondents considered cost transparency an effective requirement to achieve better investment services and protect investors’ interests.

The effectiveness and applicability of legislation are often viewed from a legal perspective, and enforcement is essential. However, this study explores legislation from the perspective of professionals under supervision.

The purpose of this paper is to review the concept of occupant behavior and its relation with indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and building energy consumption. The behavior is referred to any direct or indirect action, which is selected by an occupant to manage the unpleasant indoor environmental conditions. Thermal comfort, indoor air quality, aural comfort and visual comfort are the key factors of IEQ evaluation. Human behavior significantly interacts with energy consumption in buildings.

Each IEQ parameter was reviewed separately and the overall IEQ acceptance was considered. In addition, this paper reviews the methods that were used to measure and simulate the IEQ factors, energy consumption and human behavior. Finally, the lack of knowledge in this field is based on the review demonstrated.

Most studies considered one or two IEQ factors to evaluate IEQ acceptance in buildings. Further, weakness of simulating all IEQ factors at the same time is the deficiency of IEQ simulation, based on reviews. In the case of occupant behavior simulation, the uncertainly of human psychological parameter is a drawback to predict behavior.

Energy consumption, occupant health and productivity are related to IEQ. Human behavior affects building energy consumption directly. Simulation software and methods can predict IEQ factors and human behavior. Therefore, reviewing the existing studies is critical to find new methods for measuring and simulating IEQ, energy consumption and human behavior in buildings.

The purpose of this study is to understand and explain the process by which child consumers form relationships with brands. Specifically, the authors attempt to understand how child consumers conceptualize brands, why and how they decide to engage in relationships with brands and why they decide to breakup with brands though sometimes reconcile with them.

A mixed methodology was followed in this research. On the basis of an ethnographic approach, ten in-depth interviews were conducted among 8-12-year-old girls. Subsequently, a survey was completed by 122 children (boys and girls) to quantitatively examine the hypotheses formulated after the qualitative phase.

Findings from both the qualitative and quantitative studies highlight and confirm that children conceptualize brands according to visual branding components, signs and promotional activities. Furthermore, children make moral evaluations of brand behaviors and judge them as “good” or “bad”. More importantly, the authors propose two typologies: one for the reasons children decide to engage in a positive relationship and another for why children engage in a negative relationship with a brand. Additionally, the authors found that children report having an active or passive relationship role according to the characteristics of the brand relationship. Moreover, despite their young age, children report having broken up relationships with several brands; the reasons are categorized into positive and negative breakups. Finally, the authors found that positive breakups lead to more probable brand relationship reconciliation than negative breakups.

Despite a vast body of literature in the child consumer behavior field, there is scarce research regarding brand relationship phenomena. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical research conducted with child consumers, addressing brand relationship formation, dissolution and reconciliation.