AU -C 925 Filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 1850022
Author(s):  
Yaseen S. Alhaj-Yaseen ◽  
Kean Wu ◽  
Leslie B. Fletcher

This paper examines the changes in earnings quality of registered American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) as a result of switching accounting standards. We aim to shed light on the potential impact of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) adoption on US firms. A suboptimal approach to achieve this goal is through examination of US firms’ surrogates such as ADRs. Unlike previous studies, we made a distinction between registered and unregistered ADRs and affirmed that registered ADRs are the closest surrogates with which to conduct our analysis because they are exclusively required to adhere to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s stringent disclosure requirements. When cross-listing their equity on the US exchanges, foreign issuers can file their financial reports with the SEC using IFRS, US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), or their domestic GAAP with reconciliation to US GAAP. An improvement in earnings quality is documented when ADRs adopt US GAAP or IFRS versus domestic GAAP. However, when the comparison is made between US GAAP and IFRS, no difference in earnings quality is documented. These results indicate that switching to high-quality accounting standards is likely to improve earnings quality. This improvement is maximized when the difference between reporting standards is high and minimized if otherwise. Our conclusion is that the adoption of IFRS in the US is unlikely to change earnings quality of local issuers. Moreover, we drew a distinction between reconciliation with and adoption of high-quality accountings standards and find that while the former can enhance earnings quality, the latter can further improve it.


2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Martinez-Diaz

This article traces the ascent of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) from an obscure group with little influence in the early 1970s to a pre-eminent position as global accounting standard-setter in 2001. I argue that the rise of the IASC can be explained by several factors, including the IASC's ability to build legitimacy through technical expertise, to embed itself in a network of international organizations, and to benefit from rivalries among developed and developing countries and among European and American regulators. But the most important reason for the IASC's success is that its core values aligned strongly with the interests of the most powerful regulator-the US Securities and Exchange Commission.


Author(s):  
Christopher Nagy ◽  
Tyler Gellasch

This chapter reviews best execution and new disclosure obligations in relation to investment advisers as well as brokers; it also provides an overview of the strategies they use to meet their rapidly changing obligations. Investment advisers and brokers are confronted with increasingly stringent regulatory and client expectations to fulfil their duty of best execution. Regulators in Europe have become active in developing formal best execution obligations, but the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is lagging behind in providing a clear framework for best execution. This chapter first outlines the analogous best execution obligation for broker-dealers and explores the contours of the SEC’s expectations for investment advisers. It then assesses the impact of new European best execution obligations and the role of public disclosures in aiding the fulfilment of best execution duties. It concludes by examining various strategies used by investment advisers to fulfil their evolving duties.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose L. Huesca-Dorantes ◽  
Snejina Michailova ◽  
Christina Stringer

Purpose This paper provides an overview of the Aztec 13 – the top 13 multinational enterprises in Mexico. Different from research that groups countries and regions, the purpose of the paper is to deliver a nuanced picture of these multinationals in terms of their key characteristics and the strategies they follow when they internationalize. Design/methodology/approach All data sources that have been identified and reviewed are documents, printed and electronic. The Aztec multilatinas were identified using Forbes Global 2000 (2017). Other data sources such as media texts, company annual reports, reports filed with the Mexican Stock Exchange and the US Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as investor presentations, were collected and analyzed. Data sources were published in English and Spanish. The analytic procedure adopted entailed identifying, selecting, making sense of and synthesizing the data contained in the documents. Findings Aztec multilatinas have specific characteristics which, to a great extent, influence their internationalization strategies. Characteristics include the geographical location of their headquarters, their origin and history, their ownership structure and ties with families and government. These factors, combined, help to describe in greater nuance the internationalization strategies and activities of the Aztec 13. Such a detailed and focused description is a first necessary step for subsequent potential theorizing. Originality/value This paper contributes to the vibrant scholarly conversation on multinational enterprises from less researched regions and countries. Latin America is such a region and Mexico is such a country. Focusing on a single country and its top 13 multinationals allow a comprehensive description and disciplined analysis, with no dangerous generalizations to large regions and even larger settings such as emerging markets multinationals and with no false claims for theorizing.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino

Purpose This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures. Findings Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 30-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Neaderland ◽  
Jared Cohen

Purpose – To alert companies and individuals subject to regulation and investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential arguments to enforce time limits on enforcement actions that have heretofore commonly been ignored. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes two cases - one recently decided and one pending - in US Courts of Appeals, explains significance of issues at stake. Findings – The Courts of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has recently reviewed, and the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will soon decide whether statutory timing provisions effectively remove SEC power to bring enforcement actions past their deadlines, at least in some circumstances. Practical implications – Depending on the outcomes of the cases, companies and individuals may gain a new procedural defense or two against SEC enforcement actions. They may also expect the SEC to respond by more actively seeking tolling agreements, and/or being more cautious in issuing Wells notices. Originality/value – Guidance based on pending decisions interpreting US securities law, may bring regulatory adjustments to agency practice and procedure.


Subject Developments on transparency in the extractives sector. Significance Transparency legislation on the extractives sector progressed in December 2015 when the US Securities and Exchange Commission published a revised proposal to enhance the transparency of extractive (ie, mining and oil and gas) industries' payments to governments in producing countries. The aim is to provide information on financial transfers which can then be used by civil society, media and other stakeholders to hold those governments to account. The United States was a pioneer in this area, but litigation against its original initiative delayed its progress. Impacts Low commodity prices shift the balance of power from producing countries to consuming ones. That makes producer countries more susceptible to pressures for reform and may be a good time to push for greater transparency. However, opaque and inaccessible power structures in producer states could still limit NGO capacity to use more data to reduce corruption. A test of this will be whether the issue of resource transparency gains traction within the G20.


Subject Cryptocurrency classification. Significance The classification of crypto assets under US securities law is less clear than in Japan, China and South Korea, but a working group comprising senior officials of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is discussing it. The unclear status of Ethereum’s ether and Ripple’s XRP, the second- and third-largest crypto assets by market capitalisation, is the centre of attention. Impacts Mined crypto assets including bitcoin and litecoin are likely to remain classed as commodities. Ether and XRP are unlikely to be designated as commodities as they were initial coin offerings (ICOs) but also not as standard securities. As ICOs come under increasing regulatory scrutiny and control, more will fail, but a few may achieve notable success.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document