Search results

To explain the new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 2a-5 (the “Fair Value Rule”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), which addresses the valuation practices of registered investment companies and business development companies.

Provides an overview of the Fair Value Rule, followed by a more detailed summary of the key provisions, including relevant guidance provided by the SEC in the release adopting the Fair Value Rule.

The Fair Value Rule establishes a specific framework, a standard of baseline practices across funds, and a set of required functions that must be performed in order to determine in good faith the fair value of a fund’s investments for purposes of applying Section 2(a)(41) of the 1940 Act.

Practical guidance from experienced investment management lawyers.

Hard decision analysis models allow complex decisions to be broken down into easier‐to‐handle and precisely defined sub‐problems and also provide a documented rationale for the decision. This paper aims to investigate why the course of action prescribed by a hard decision analysis model can sometimes conflict with a manager's common‐sense view of the appropriate course of action, even when the model is based on judgments elicited from the manager. It also discusses how such conflicts might be resolved so that the decision can be made with greater insight and confidence.

The paper draws on the decision making and psychology literatures to obtain a definition of common‐sense and to show how and why it might lead to conclusions that are at variance with those indicated by rational decision model.

Four possible reasons for conflicts between common‐sense and a hard decision analysis model are identified. First, common sense reasoning is fuzzy while decision analysis models are precise. Second, under some circumstances, the axioms of a decision analysis model may conflict with common sense. Third, the decision model may be a misrepresentation of the decision problem because errors may have occurred when judgments were elicited from the decision maker. Fourth, common sense may suggest an inferior course of action.

The paper shows the potential dangers of making decisions based on common‐sense alone or of relying unquestionably on a decision analysis model.

The paper shows that the exploration of conflicts between the indications of decision analysis models and common sense and may lead to better decision making.

This paper examines four underlying trends in the changing business environment relating to information technology and geographic, functional and sectorial integration. It discusses three required changes in management focus needed to reach global profitability from product inception to promotion. The skills required for this change are listed by functional area, although the techniques are predominantly cross‐cultural. This paper explains the steps needed to move from a traditional firm to a globally competitive network and the cultural barriers to building consumer‐focused extended‐value chains. Finally it discusses ways in which business school education can promote strategic thinking about profitability and heighten awareness of the potential gains from cooperative inter‐firm partnerships.

Reflections on gender and OD over a 50-year career as a scholar, an OD practitioner, and a woman managing a complex life and career.

My journey in OD has spanned 50 years which is also about as long organization development has been around. In this essay, I will reflect on my experiences with special attention to issues of gender. I will also mention some issues of concern that confront us as OD scholars and practitioners, especially the balance between thinking and doing. As I describe my experiences, I hope they will lead to an appreciation of all that has happened in just 50 years! My experience is not everyone’s experience. I make no claim to that. I hope that some of the issues I raise resonate with you, or fill in some blanks, or lend a different perspective.