Search results

To explain actions the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought on August 27, 2018, against a group of affiliated investment advisers and broker-dealers for what the SEC considered misleading and insufficient representations and disclosures, insufficient compliance policies and procedures, and insufficient research and oversight concerning the use of faulty quantitative models to manage certain client accounts.

Explains the SEC’s findings concerning the advisers’ and broker-dealers’ failure to confirm that certain models worked as intended, to disclose the risks associated with the use of those models, to disclose the role of a research analyst in developing the models, to disclose the use of volatility overlays along with the associated risks, to determine whether a fund’s holdings were sufficient to support a consistent dividend payout without a return of capital, and to take sufficient steps to confirm the advertised performance of another investment manager whose products they were marketing. Provides insight into the SEC’s position and offers key takeaways.

These cases are significant for advisers who use quantitative models to implement their investment strategies in the management of client accounts and signal the SEC’s continued focus on investment advisers’ compliance with disclosure obligations to discretionary account investors.

Each manager should consider its own facts and circumstances, and should consult with counsel, in assessing how and to what extent to incorporate the SEC’s conclusions in crafting disclosure and other communications with investors on matters such as adequate representations, testing and validation of models, disclosure of errors, and verifying performance claims.

Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters.

Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates.

While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC.

Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of savings and loan groups (SGs), alone and combined with a rotating labor scheme (Ajuda Mútua), on the economic conditions of the rural poor in Nampula province in Mozambique.

Three pairs of districts were randomized into receiving SG, SG and AM, or no intervention. The study used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. Data from a longitudinal survey of 1,276 households were analyzed using difference-in-difference estimation to assess the impact of SGs on income and asset ownership. Thematic analysis of in-depth interviews with 72 program participants explored specific contributions of SGs to economic outcomes.

Survey results show that program participation had a significant, positive impact on income and asset ownership. Qualitative results indicate that SGs allowed households to bridge seasonal food consumption gaps and meet cash needs during crises. Accumulated savings supported asset purchases. Program activities supported agricultural activity, but enterprise development had limited scope. Challenges to economic development included cultural aversion to risk, inadequate agricultural inputs, low market integration, and limited business opportunities.

SGs helped reduce vulnerability to stress events. Programs should analyze the wider structural context to foster a positive enabling environment, and combine SGs with relevant enterprise development services for additional benefits.

The importance of savings is increasingly acknowledged, but the contributions and limitations of SGs are not fully understood. This paper also highlights the role of structural context, which remains undervalued in the literature.

This chapter focuses on researchers as knowledge workers in higher education in England as an illustration of what Katznelson (2003, p. 189) identifies as the ‘professional scholar’ undertaking intellectual work as a public intellectual. I begin by examining the challenges to intellectual work and its location in a university, particular from the media and the popularity of what Bourdieu calls Le Fast Talkers ¹ – those who talk a lot but have nothing much to say. After drawing out the tensions within knowledge production, I then locate the analysis of what it means to do research in a period of education policymaking in England between 1997 and 2010, when New Labour called on researchers to produce evidence to support radical reforms. In particular, I argue that school effectiveness and school improvement (SESI) knowledge workers in Schools of Education in higher education in England are an interesting case for investigating the public intellectual positioning as ‘detached attachment’ (Melzner, 2003, p. 4), particularly through their attachment to New Labour governments and the subsequent detachment following a change of government in May 2010.