Search results

Hedge funds increasingly are becoming a focus of investors and U.S. regulatory agencies including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the U.S. Treasury Department, the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as enhanced regulatory attention is forcing the hedge fund industry for the first time since the near‐collapse of Long‐Term Capital Management, L.P. in late 1998 to examine itself more closely. In light of the dismal performance of U.S. stock market indices over the past several years, investors are turning to “absolute” return vehicles, such as hedge funds, that are able to generate current positive returns in a market that has returned consistently laggard results. Investors’ ability to invest in hedge funds has been further enhanced by the increase of hedge funds‐of‐funds registered under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Simultaneously, over the past 18 months, the SEC has become increasingly concerned with a multitude of industry occurrences including (i) the widening access of investors to hedge funds, (ii) the unregulated nature of hedge funds, potentially leading to fraud or conflicts of interest with their investors, and (iii) the impact of hedge funds on the markets, especially in relation to their use of short selling. As U.S. regulatory attention remains focused on the hedge fund industry and industry practice and the themes of potential new regulations become apparent, it has become a cautionary period for hedge fund sponsors and investment managers.

To discuss possible disadvantages and other implications for private investment fund managers of issuing side letters to certain investors.

Discusses the relatively common practice of issuing side letters; issues surrounding side letters that relate to private equity funds and hedge funds; recent SEC pronouncements regarding side letters; industry practices, including disclosure issues and corporate‐related issues; and ERISA consequences.

Side letters (i.e. agreements that afford investors of a private investment fund with rights and/or benefits that are different, and often superior, to those granted to such investors under the governing documents of the fund) have been utilized for years by sponsors of private investment funds. In fact, in many cases, it has been impossible for sponsors of private investment funds to close on subscriptions from large and/or strategic investors unless they agree to provide such investors with side letters. In light of the recent focus of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the use of side letters by hedge fund managers, fund managers should consider what affect certain side letter provisions may have on the fund and its investors, in particular, the consequences such side letters will have under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

Useful reference for fund managers that describes the potential issues related to side letters.

Seeks to introduce several of the important issues that must be resolved in connection with the structuring and formation of a customized hedge fund program

Explains why some institutional investors have sought alternative investment structures that provide for the establishment of dedicated, captive hedge fund programs and provides an introduction to several of the important issues that must be resolved in connection with such a program, including the choice of investment vehicle, Investment Company Act considerations, ERISA considerations, tax considerations, Investment Advisers Act issues, terms of the captive fund's governing document, investment guidelines, and performance‐monitoring processes.

At a time when hedge fund assets are growing exponentially, some institutional investors have turned to dedicated, captive hedge fund programs to ensure their access to talented hedge fund managers and secure a diversified investment approach.

Two attorneys who work with hedge funds provide important guidance on structuring and satisfying the regulatory requirements for dedicated, captive hedge fund programs.

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

Although scholars have considered the success factors of process improvement (PI) projects, limited research has considered the factors that influence failure. The purpose of this paper is to extend the understanding of PI project failure by systematically reviewing the research on generic project failure, and developing research propositions and future research directions specifically for PI projects.

A systematic literature review protocol resulted in a total of 97 research papers that are reviewed for contributions on project failure.

An inductive category formation process resulted in three categories of findings. The first category are the causes for project failure, the second category is about relatedness between failure factors and the third category is on failure mitigation strategies. For each category, propositions for future research on PI projects specifically are developed. Additional future research directions proposed lay in better understanding PI project failure as it unfolds (i.e. process studies vs cross-sectional), understanding PI project failure from a theoretical perspective and better understanding of PI project failure antecedents.

This paper takes a multi-disciplinary and project type approach, synthesizes the existing knowledge and reflects upon the developments in the field of research. Propositions and a framework for future research on PI project failure are presented.

For an organization to realize the intended benefits of an enternprise resource planning (ERP) investment, it must integrate both technical expertise and functional area knowledge, and it must have continuing support after implementation. The study aims to expand understanding of how organizations ensure the necessary support from functional experts during and after ERP installations. In particular, the study aims to address the question of the type of horizontal support mechanism chosen for this support and how managers make these choices.

The study is a replicated case study based on interviews with project leaders in nine universities judged to have successful PeopleSoft ERP implementations. Thematic analysis is applied to identify the factors influencing managerial choices and organizational decisions made to assure post‐implementation ERP support.

The findings indicate that managers of ERP implementations recognize the necessity for horizontal coordinating mechanisms both during and after implementation. The paper finds no single “best” structure in the cases, nor does it observe that the support structure decision is always based on a deliberate organizational strategy. The findings indicate that selection of post‐implementation support structure is often a negotiated outcome. Ultimately, the paper finds that the outcomes were based on three factors: the situated context of the original implementation project goals; the nature of early commitments made to functional subject matter experts and their departments; and the initial project structure used during the implementation phase.

This research fills a gap in research on ERP support structures by examining how localized organizations assure the necessary support from subject matter experts, commencing with project inception and continuing through post‐implementation. The results contribute to theory by illustrating the value of a process‐based approach to understanding the factors that affect the choice of support structures. The findings contribute to practice by highlighting how early management decisions and the methods executives chose to assure commitments from key stakeholders can restrict the range of options for post‐implementation organizational structures.

The primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of viewing paradoxes, which are commonly‐accepted logical perspectives that appear contradictory, as being useful for organizational learning and to show why organizational paradoxes need to be managed integratively.

The cultural industries (those that promote art, music and entertainment) are used as a backdrop for developing propositions that explain the benefits of dynamically shifting between poles of a paradox and the relationship between elements of managing multiple paradoxes integratively and organizational outcomes.

It is expected that organizations which move between the poles of paradoxes are more likely to increase organizational knowledge about their capabilities and to enhance their ability to deal with paradoxes.

Organizational researchers should consider identifying the direction and rate of movement along the poles of paradoxes by organizations when studying the appropriateness of various organizational methods for achieving outcomes such as growth or performance. Future research should examine a larger variety of paradoxes in order to increase understanding of the appropriateness of their integrative management.

Managers should become familiar with the speed and direction of movement (organizational change) between the poles of organizational paradoxes before making operational and strategic decisions. In addition, managers should be cognizant of the variety of paradoxes present in their organization and of the need for their integrative management.

The paper describes how movement along the poles of organizational paradox enhances organizational learning, as well as the importance of managing organizational paradoxes integratively.

This study compared different types of full-time caregiver (e.g., children, older adults, COVID-19 patients) and subgroups (e.g., disability, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation) in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic for potentially meaningful distinctions.

Data from the 9,854 full-time caregivers identified in Phase 3.2 (July 21–October 11, 2021) of the US Census Household Pulse Survey (HPS) were analyzed in this study using multinomial logistic regression to examine relationships between caregiver types, marginalized subgroups, generation, and vaccination status.

The prevalence of caregiving was low, but the type of full-time caregiving performed varied by demographic group (i.e., disability, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, generation, and vaccination status). The relative risk of being a COVID-19 caregiver remained significant for being a member of each of the marginalized groups examined after all adjustments.

To date, the HPS has not been analyzed to predict the type of full-time informal caregiving performed during the COVID-19 pandemic or their characteristics. Research limitations of this analysis include the cross-sectional, experimental dataset employed, as well as some variable measurement issues.

Prior informal caregiver research has often focused on the experiences of those caring for older adults or children with special healthcare needs. It may be instructive to learn whether and how informal caregivers excluded from paid employment during infectious disease outbreaks vary in meaningful ways from those engaged in other full-time caregiving. Because COVID-19 magnified equity concerns, examining demographic differences may also facilitate customization of pathways to post-caregiving workforce integration.