Search results

International attention is increasingly turning to the challenge of creating age-friendly environments. This study aims to examine the application of asset-based approaches in undertaking community development projects with older people. The paper intends to share the learning that may be useful when designing community development projects for older people in the future.

This study followed a multiple project case study design, with a focus on project delivery practices. It was undertaken as a co-production exercise involving university researchers and trained older volunteer community researchers (CRs). Over 18–24 months of qualitative research was conducted in relation to six area-based urban projects between 2018 and 2020.

There were five leading themes as follows: mapping and building on assets in highly localised settings; creating governance and direction through steering groups; developing activities with diverse groups of older people; reaching isolated and lonely older people; building local capacity to embed sustainability.

The effectiveness of assets-based approaches in promoting age-friendly agendas appears to be contingent on the values, skills, capacity and resourcing of delivery agencies, alongside wider public sector investment in communities. Diversity and inequalities amongst older people need to be taken into account and community development that specifically focuses on older people needs to be balanced with the whole population and intergenerational practice.

This paper provides an empirical account of the practical application of assets practices specifically in the context of the age-friendly community agenda. The co-production method brings together insights from academic and volunteer older CRs.

Background: Evidence from a range of major public health incidents shows that neighbour-based action can have a critical role in emergency response, assistance and recovery. However, there is little research to date on neighbour-based action during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. This article reports on a survey of people engaged in supporting their neighbours in weeks three and four of the UK COVID-19 lockdown.

Methods: Members of area-based and community of interest COVID-19 support groups in the Bristol conurbation were invited to complete an online survey. Of 1,255 people who clicked on the survey link, 862 responded; of these, 539 responses were eligible for analysis.

Results: Respondents reported providing a wide range of support that went beyond health information, food and medical prescription assistance, to include raising morale through humour, creativity and acts of kindness and solidarity. A substantial proportion felt that they had become more involved in neighbourhood life following the lockdown and had an interest in becoming more involved in future. Neighbour support spanned all adult age groups, including older people categorised as being at-risk to the virus. With respect to most measures, there were no differences in the characteristics of support between respondents in areas of higher and lower deprivation. However, respondents from more deprived areas were more likely to state that they were involved in supporting certain vulnerable groups.

Conclusions: As with previous research on major social upheavals, our findings suggest that responses to the viral pandemic and associated social restrictions may increase existing social and health inequalities, and further research should explore this issue in more depth.

To analyze SEC Staff’s announced 2018 OCIE Examination priorities to provide insight to investment advisers and other regulated entities regarding areas of focus during SEC examinations.

This article discusses the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) published its examination priorities for 2018 (the “2018 Priorities Report”).

Given that OCIE’s examination priorities for 2017 were published before the beginning of the Trump administration, differences between the 2017 and the 2018 priorities provide important insights into the focus of examinations under SEC Chair Clayton. Investment advisers and other regulated entities should allocate resources towards their preparedness for the areas of focus identified in the 2018 Priorities Report.

This article contains valuable insight regarding the SEC’s 2018 OCIE examination priorities and practical guidance from industry experts.

To contrast SEC Chair Mary Jo White's enforcement rhetoric with the results of recent SEC enforcement actions.

Discusses a speech in which White explained the benefits she believes result from taking cases to trial. Proceeds to review three recent cases in which the Commission has lost after a jury trial or summary judgment motion.

Based on three recent SEC losses, White may be correct in her prediction that trials promote “public accountability for both defendants and the government.”

Some defendants in SEC enforcement actions may ultimately prevail if they refuse to settle with the Commission.

This article analyzes the early results of the SEC's newly-announced enforcement policies.

This article serves as a timely alert to public companies and financial institutions of their potential risk exposure in light of the SEC’s aggressive interpretation of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions. In particular, the article highlights the need of entities to ensure that their employment agreements, confidentiality provisions, and codes of conduct do not violate Dodd-Frank by inadvertently discouraging whistleblowing by their employees.

This article analyzes a recent and important speech by SEC Chair Mary Jo White regarding the SEC’s ongoing efforts to be the advocate of whistleblowers.

This article finds that the SEC will continue its role in protecting whistleblowers, including ongoing enforcement scrutiny of employment agreements and similar provisions that may discourage whistleblowers.

Among other things, this article highlights risk areas for public companies and financial institutions to address based on Chair White’s recent speech.

This article provides insights from two former SEC enforcement attorneys on an area that is of great concern to public companies and financial institutions in light of the increased focus by SEC enforcement.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

To explain the impact of a recent decision by the USA Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the SEC’s “neither admit nor deny” practice on SEC enforcement matters after the practice was called into question by a federal district court judge.

Explains the background on the practice of no-admission, the challenge by Judge Rakoff to the practice, and the ruling of the Second Circuit and its practical approach on enforcement matters.

The ruling should resolve much of the uncertainty that has surrounded court approval of SEC settlements since Judge Rakoff’s decision to question the practice of no-admit or deny settlements. However, recent comments from SEC Chair Mary Jo White and Senior Enforcement Staff suggest that the SEC may continue to seek admissions in certain cases.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.