Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 February 2001

Alan E. Sorcher

An overview of the Act and the implementing regulations—with most of the focus on the regulations and how they affect the securities industry, along with a review of its effect on…

61

Abstract

An overview of the Act and the implementing regulations—with most of the focus on the regulations and how they affect the securities industry, along with a review of its effect on many different types of financial institutions.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 2 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 January 2002

Alan E. Sorcher and George R. Kramer

In the midst of one of the most challenging periods in decades, the securities industry is relearning the meaning of the ancient Chinese curse – “may you live in interesting…

164

Abstract

In the midst of one of the most challenging periods in decades, the securities industry is relearning the meaning of the ancient Chinese curse – “may you live in interesting times”. The end of the 90’s bull market, September 11th and corporate wrongdoing have given rise to new rules and far‐reaching new statutes. At the same time, technological change and global consolidation of markets and regulations also continue to drive change, as they did throughout the 1990s. The authors highlight some of the crucial regulatory and legislative developments that will have significant consequences for the securities industry. Legislative proposals in response to the recent corporate scandals, analyst independence, anti‐money laundering rules, and the effectiveness of the Gramm‐Leach‐Bliley Act are among the issues examined.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 3 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 July 2006

Alan E. Sorcher

To summarize three implementing rules issued over the past year under the USA Patriot Act by the US Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and to make…

316

Abstract

Purpose

To summarize three implementing rules issued over the past year under the USA Patriot Act by the US Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and to make some basic recommendations designed to help firms improve their overall anti‐money laundering compliance efforts.

Design/methodology/approach

Summarizes three rules issued in the past year that are of particular significance to the securities industry: the final 312 rule for foreign correspondent and private banking accounts; the insurance company AML program and Suspicious Activity Reporting (“SAR”) rules; and the mutual fund SAR rule.

Findings

Makes the following recommendations for firms to improve their anti‐money laundering efforts: suspicious activity monitoring should fit your firm; information sharing may help fact gathering; anti‐money laundering programs should be applied across the firm; invest in training; and audit is an invaluable tool.

Originality/value

The Patriot Act, in a short amount of time, has had a major impact on the way securities firms and all financial institutions conduct business. Notwithstanding the achievements of the public and private sectors in implementing the USA Patriot Act, more can be done. While the USA Patriot Act provides significant tools to combat illicit activity, to be successful law enforcement and industry must continue to coordinate their efforts, and work hand‐in‐hand.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 7 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 July 2006

George R. Kramer and Alan E. Sorcher

To examine whether the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in its recent rule changes has provided the appropriate separation between its supervisory authority and the management of…

376

Abstract

Purpose

To examine whether the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in its recent rule changes has provided the appropriate separation between its supervisory authority and the management of the Exchange.

Design/methodology/approach

Describes the regulatory and governance structure proposed by the NYSE in connection with its public offering; discusses policy objections the security industry has made to the proposal, reviews responses by the NYSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to those objections; and discusses what steps might be on the horizon to better rationalize the regulatory and business side of the new for‐profit NYSE.

Findings

The NYSE's proposal should provide for regulatory consolidation with the NASD. The proposal heightens the conflict between a for‐profit exchange and its regulatory function. The proposal governance structure ignores the fact that NYSE LLC is the Exchange and has plenary authority over NYSE regulation. The proposal does not provide fair representation for members. The proposal does not provide appropriate treatment of market data.

Originality/value

Provides a comprehensive view of recent changes to the NYSE's regulatory and governance structure and issues raised by the securities industry in response to those changes.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 7 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050