thumbkenya76-blog - Tumblr blog

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

How to Get Rid of PAPER CLUTTER! Schoolwork, Receipts, Important Documents + More!

Raise your hand if you have papers stacked, shoved, smushed, placed, and filed all around your house! I know I do. Well, rather, I did! Papers are TRICKY because many of them are important, sentimental, or helpful…but gosh golly darn they are sure OBNOXIOUS because they lead to massive amounts of paper clutter throughout your house. A few years ago Bubba and I stopped keeping papers in our house – including schoolwork and art projects – and I canNOT express what a difference it has made in our organizational and clutterbug lives!

When it comes to paper clutter, knowing where to begin is usually the hardest part. Today I've made it simple for you by breaking things up into three categories: schoolwork and art, receipts, and important papers and documents. I'm going to share some great strategies to keep them organized, or better yet, how to get rid of the papers once and for all!

While I have you…this post goes right along with the calendar challenge in my Back to Productivity challenge we are doing this month. It's not too late to jump on-board the challenge if you want to de-clutter and get organized with the rest of us!

Now let's get down to business shall we?

Let's start off with the category I get asked about most often…SCHOOL WORK. Duhn duhn duuuuuuuuuuhn!

This seems to be the top pain point for many of us! It's definitely the one I get asked about most often. “Where do you keep your kids' schoolwork?” “Do you feel bad throwing away art the kids make for you?” “How do you know which to toss and which to keep?” “My fridge looks like a bomb went off on it because my kids bring home so many cute papers I want to keep!” Ugh, I feel you! Here are a few ways to combat the problem:

With so many of my kids in school these days, I have mountains of school projects and artwork that come home on a monthly basis. As much as I would like to keep every single popsicle stick picture frame, and hand print art project, we would have papers coming out of every nook and cranny! Wanting our school projects and artwork to be as organized as possible, I have a private family Instagram that I use for school artwork, projects, tests, etc. Basically, I take a photo of the art, or a photo of the child holding up the art, upload it to the Instagram page with the date and age of child, then it automatically prints to Chatbooks, an automatic photo book app I use.

Along with using photo storing apps, we assign each kid their own small plastic box for extra special papers that aren’t great in photo books, like journals or stories that have many pages or can't quite be captured in a single photo. Overall, most of my kids school projects and artwork is photographed and put into a Chatbook; and over an entire school year, I will essentially save about 1-2 projects in the box.

Another idea is to buy a picture frame display box that easily lets you switch out children’s art. You can have your kids choose a piece of art they really love and let them display it for a month in the picture frame display box. When the month is over, trade the artwork out for another; and make sure to snap a photo, before you toss it out!

There are lots of ways to keep your kids' projects special and displayed, WITHOUT having stacks of them lying around or cluttering up your fridge. In fact, it would arguably be doing them justice to get them out of a stack and into a photo book or in a cute frame on your wall!

Aaaah those pesky, but important, little buggers that are oh so necessary…or are they? For years and years I was terrified to throw away any receipts, which led to piles and piles of scraggly paper messes in every corner of my car, wallet, and junk drawers. Now? I'm all about limiting and even digitizing my receipts as much as possible! Thanks to the modern world we live in, there are so many different ways you can do this. Here are some of my favorites:

Believe it or not, there are some great apps out there that will allow you to snap a picture and store receipts digitally, so you never have to keep any receipts at all! Though I haven't used them, I have heard good things about AllReceipts, FlexReceipts, and Transaction Tree. For me, I have used Evernote before. Whichever app you choose to use, just make sure to check in advance with any stores you purchase things from to make sure they will accept a digital version of the paper receipt they give you. For more ideas and info on this, check out this “How to Stay Organized and Save Money with Digital Receipts” post.

For stores that DO require physical receipts, I like to keep a small makeup bag in my car. After I go to a store, I stick the receipts in there (so they aren’t cluttering up my wallet or car), and after the return window has closed, I toss the receipt. Wondering why I leave this in my car? Well, I figure that if leave my receipt bag in my car, it will always be there if I find the opportunity to do a quick impromptu store run. Plus, if I'm ever in the school pick-up line, fast food line, doctor’s office, or other “waiting” situations these are great opportunities to clean out the “receipt bag”.

Another alternative is to request emailed receipts. When at a store, I always select the “send receipt via email” choice when given the option. Saves trees AND clutter! Win-win!

Another great (and free!) resource that we love is Google Drive. These days, Google Drive is available almost anywhere. If you have an android device, use the scanner located within Google Drive to scan your receipt and have it automatically uploaded and stored there. This article has more info on how to do this. Otherwise you can take a photo and upload it into Google Drive directly.

Sure, at the end of the day, you will need to keep some paper receipts. Just keep a good filing system for them and remember to regularly toss out the ones that are expired or not useful to you any more.

At the end of the day, as much as I love to digitize things, there are simply important papers that you just need to hold onto. Or, papers that you aren't totally sure if you need, but want to hold onto just in case. You don't have to let these important bad boys clutter up your house! Now days even manuals, instructions, and rebates can be accessed online, which eliminates the need to hold onto papers of the past. Here are several ways to keep these important papers at your fingertips, but stored away in an organized (and minimized) way:

Believe it or not, Bubba and I keep next to no physical documents in our house. We scan them and store them securely online! Even a service as simple as Google Drive works great, but there are also more secure websites and apps as well.

For the docs you MUST hold onto (these could be deeds, passports, birth certificates, etc.) have a designated file drawer in your house that is in a secure place. We even go so far as to keep our precious docs (like the passports and birth certificates) in a plastic bag INSIDE the file cabinet in case of a flood. We also have copies of them in a locked, fireproof safe on a different floor of our house, just in case. To date, we have never needed more than a few files in a single drawer to store all of our important papers though! It's amazing how much we realize we DON'T need to hold onto!

Another simple tip is to sign up for paperless bills and statements from as many companies as possible to cut down on snail mail. Most companies – especially banks, credit unions, insurance companies – offer paperless statements. Take advantage of it!

Dropbox is another great option! Just scan, or even take a picture of the papers and documents you want digitally stored and then upload them into a folder you specifically created on Dropbox.

Alright alright alright. Now, for those who aren't as gutsy as Bubba and I and like to keep papers around, just give them a home! A place for everything, and everything in it's place is the game here. A good idea is to use binders to organize and store important documents, manuals, and information. I found this idea on Pinterest and it's not only pretty, but pretty smart too.

So there you go! It can be nerve-wracking, tossing out so many papers that we are used to holding onto. But with the help of modern technology, you can say BUH BYE to all those stacks lying around driving you crazy!

Also, before I leave, did you now I have my own productivity program? It's true! It launched this Spring and already, thousands of Freebs have been able to completely overhaul their productivity and decrease workload because of it! It's an online course, so all you need is a screen to make the magic happen. Intrigued? Use the code “AUGUST” for 15% off my productivity program for the entire month of August!

How do you organize your papers? If you have an organization system that you love, feel free to share it below. I just love seeing how you Freebs do things in your own homes!

(Visited 3,867 times, 1 visits today)

Source: http://funcheaporfree.com/2018/08/how-to-get-rid-of-paper-clutter-schoolwork-receipts-important-documents-and-more/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

American farmers set for more pain as Pacific trade deal kicks in without the US

Click to expand

UP NEXT

American farmers, already hit by low commodity prices and China's punitive trade tariffs, are poised to endure further pain in 2019 now that a major Pacific trade deal has come into effect.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, was ratified by seven of its member countries on Sunday. Now that the massive free trade pact is a reality for Australia, Canada , Japan, Mexico , New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam, the remaining four members — Brunei, Chile, Malaysia and Peru — are soon expected to follow suit.

The milestone agreement, a refurbished version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will slash tariffs among the 11 nations that cover 14 percent of global growth, making their exports cheaper in each other's markets. Around 90 percent of planned tariff cuts will be immediately take place, HSBC said in a note on Sunday, adding that businesses will benefit from reduced administrative costs thanks to other benefits such as pre-arrival customs clearance.

A threat to American goods

The goods of non-CPTPP members such as the United States are now expected to be pricier and less competitive in the 11 CPTPP countries.

The world's largest economy was initially one of the countries negotiating the wide-ranging deal under former U.S. President Barack Obama but the U.S. withdraw under President Donald Trump administration in early 2017. American meat and agricultural products are particularly expected to suffer in CPTPP nations that don't have free trade arrangements with Washington.

© Provided by CNBC LLC Soybean farmer Raymond Schexnayder Jr. overlooks his farm outside Baton Rouge, in Erwinville, Louisiana, July 9, 2018. Japan is a prime example. The Asian giant is the top market for U.S. beef, but Australia's products could now take over America's spot since foreign beef tariffs in Japan will be cut by 27.5 percent for Australian producers under the CPTPP, The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has warned.

"The US beef industry is at risk of losing significant market share in Japan unless immediate action is taken to level the playing field," Kevin Kester, the association's president, said in a statement earlier this month.

It's a similar story for American wheat.

Thanks to CPTPP, Canadian and Australian wheat exports to Japan now immediately benefit from a 7 percent drop in the Japanese government's mark-up price, which will become a 12 percent reduction in April, U.S. Wheat Associates President Vince Peterson said in a recent statement. By April, American wheat will face a $14 per metric ton resale price disadvantage to Australia and Canada, he warned, adding that his industry faces "imminent collapse" in Japan.

The U.S. and Japan don't have a free trade deal in place, something on which Trump has been pressing Tokyo. In comparison, European nations, which also aren't part of the CPTPP, are expected to fare better given the E.U-Japan bilateral trade deal.

A $2 billion loss for US real income

If the U.S. had stayed in TPP, the country's real income would have increased by $131 billion annually, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Now, "the United States not only forgoes these gains but also loses an additional $2 billion in income because US firms will be disadvantaged in [CPTPP] markets," the think tank said in a February report.

Trump has repeatedly said joining the pact would not have been good for his country. The venture, according to the president, would have damaged U.S. manufacturing, added to the trade deficit and sent American jobs overseas.

If the CPTPP's roster of participants grows, the pressure on U.S. goods overseas would likely keep rising.

The United Kingdom, for one, has said that it is considering becoming a CPTPP member. The deal can help ensure "that a trade war in the Pacific does not hit British households in the pocket," the U.K. Department for International Trade said in a Sunday statement. It would also help U.K. businesses expand into new markets at a time when the country may no longer have special privileges with the E.U.

"I've never seen such nervousness in the U.S. business community as I see now," Steve Okun, senior advisor at McLarty Associates, an international trade consultancy, told CNBC last week, referring to developments such as the CPTPP. There is a sense that "the world is moving forward without us," he said.

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/american-farmers-set-for-more-pain-as-pacific-trade-deal-kicks-in-without-the-us/ar-BBRDemw?srcref=rss

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Volcker Rule 2.0: A Significant but Unfinished Proposal

The federal agencies responsible for implementing the Volcker Rule—the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—recently proposed significant changes to the final rule that they adopted in 2013. At that time, the agencies were charged with a difficult task: implementing a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that was hastily and broadly drafted, despite its changing fundamentally the way that large banking organizations operate by preventing them from engaging in proprietary trading or investing in hedge funds and private equity funds (called “covered funds” in the final rule). In those circumstances, the agencies produced, perhaps inevitably, a final rule that was highly complex and burdensome, and that may well have resulted in unintended consequences.

It comes as no surprise that in the years since the final rule was adopted, there is widespread recognition that those consequences were exactly the result of the Volcker Rule. This recognition comes not only from the banking and financial services industry, but also from legislators and even from the federal agencies themselves. The agencies now have several years of experience and data based on the current final rule. Although calls for a wholesale repeal of the Volcker Rule are now few and far between, there has developed a growing and meaningful consensus that the final rule adopted by the agencies in 2013 can be simplified and its compliance burdens reduced without abandoning the Volcker Rule’s core requirements.

For example, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a report in 2017 that recommended modifications to the Volcker Rule that would reduce compliance burdens and simplify some of the more complex requirements. Following that report, the OCC formally sought public input on potential changes to the Volcker Rule. Although the OCC did not propose specific rule changes, the notice appeared to favor changes that would relieve some of the burdens of compliance. In May, 2018, Congress passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which amended the Volcker Rule’s statutory provisions to exempt small institutions with limited trading operations and to further limit the name-sharing restrictions of the rule.

The agencies have proposed their rule changes in the context of those developments, following the appointment by the current administration of many of the top officials at those agencies. The core requirements of the rule—prohibiting proprietary trading and limiting the ability of banks to own or sponsor covered funds—would remain intact. In addition, a few of the proposed changes—such as the new “accounting prong” of the proprietary trading definition (discussed below)—would actually broaden the final rule’s restrictions. Overall, however, the proposed changes would be a shift from an overly prescriptive, highly complex approach to rule making to one that is somewhat more principles-based and results in less burden from a day-to-day compliance perspective. The proposed changes would also reduce the extraterritorial effect of the final rule to some extent.

Despite suggesting many changes, the agencies have left open many of the issues and interpretive questions that resulted from the final rule, especially those related to covered fund restrictions.

In the balance of this post, we will evaluate how some of the specific proposed changes and requests for comment could affect banks and their affiliates.

Bank Size and Compliance Program Requirements

The existing regulations recognize that one size does not fit all with respect to compliance programs. The proposed changes reinforce that point and simplify the approach to compliance programs even further.

Categorizing Banks Solely by Trading Assets and Liabilities

Under the existing regulations, banks are categorized by two measures: levels of trading assets and liabilities; and levels of total consolidated assets. The agencies now propose to remove the second measurement—asset size alone—from their regulations. The obligations of banks under the proposed rule would be primarily determined by levels of trading assets and liabilities.

The proposed changes would assign each banking organization to one of three categories based on its trading assets and liabilities: (i) $10 billion or more (called “significant”); (ii) $1 billion or more (called “moderate”); and (iii) less than $1 billion (called “limited”). Accordingly, an organization’s total consolidated asset size would no longer matter.

Scaling Back Compliance Program Requirements

The agencies propose to reduce compliance program requirements for many banking entities, including the very largest. Significantly, the proposal would eliminate, for the largest banking entities (i.e., those with “significant” trading assets and liabilities), the detailed enhanced compliance program requirements set forth in Appendix B of the existing rule, with one exception (the CEO attestation requirement). The enhanced minimum standards are a detailed and prescriptive elaboration of the basic compliance program requirements set forth in the final rule for all banking entities. Although Appendix B would be eliminated, banking entities with significant trading assets and liabilities would remain subject to the standard six-pillar compliance program requirement articulated in the existing rule.

The next category of banking entities—those with “moderate” trading assets and liabilities—would be subject to the requirements for “simplified compliance programs” that currently apply to banking entities with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less. Thus, a banking entity that had less than $10 billion of trading assets and liabilities would, no matter how large its balance sheet, satisfy the proposed rule’s compliance program requirement “by including in its existing compliance policies and procedures appropriate references to the requirements of [the Volcker Rule and implementing regulations] and adjustments as appropriate given the activities, size, scope, and complexity of the banking entity.”

The final category of banking entities—those with “limited” trading assets and liabilities of less than $1 billion—would be presumed to be in compliance and would have no obligation to affirmatively demonstrate compliance to their regulators on an ongoing basis. Those banking entities would remain subject to the requirements of the Volcker Rule, but not to the separate obligations to demonstrate and monitor compliance on an ongoing basis.

As a practical matter, however, all banking entities (other than those community banks and small institutions exempted by the amended statute) would still need to ensure compliance with the rule in a manner appropriate for their businesses. Failures to comply with the proprietary trading or covered fund restrictions of the rule could still result in penalties, and regulators would have the authority to impose heightened compliance program requirements in those circumstances.

Proprietary Trading

Identifying Proprietary Trading

Under the existing rule, whether a given purchase or sale of a financial instrument by a bank is subject to restrictions on proprietary trading turns, in the first instance, on whether the bank engages in the transaction for the bank’s “trading account” as defined under the regulations. That definition has three prongs. The agencies propose to eliminate one of the prongs—the “short-term intent” prong—and they propose to add a new prong in its place—the “accounting” prong.

Short-Term Intent Prong. The short-term intent prong, which the agencies propose to remove, ties to a bank’s subjective intent when it engages in trading activities. That prong is triggered when purchases or sales of financial instruments are principally for the purpose of short-term resale or other short-term purposes. The agencies explained their proposal to remove the prong by noting that, in their experience, “determining whether or not positions fall into the short-term intent prong of the trading account definition has often proved unclear and subjective, and, consequently, may result in ambiguity or added costs and delays.” Along with the short-term intent prong, the agencies propose to eliminate the rebuttable presumption that trades within 60 days or fewer are for the trading account of the banking entity. (There was no reverse presumption for trades longer than 60 days.)

Given the inherent uncertainties related to any inquiry into subjective intent—and particularly the subjective intent of a banking organization—eliminating this element of the definition would make application of the rule more objective and less complex. However, to effect the proposed change, the agencies must overcome a statutory hurdle: the short-term intent prong of their regulatory definition echoes the Volcker Rule’s own statutory definition of “trading account,” which includes the phrase “principally for the purpose of selling in the near term (or otherwise with the intent to resell in order to profit from short-term price movements).” The agencies appear to address this concern by replacing the short-term intent prong with the new accounting prong.

Accounting Prong. The new accounting prong is tied to the accounting treatment of financial instruments. If a financial instrument is “recorded at fair value on a recurring basis” under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), then any purchase or sale of the financial instrument would amount to proprietary trading.

This change to the definition would expand the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on proprietary trading significantly. For example, we understand that many financial instruments that are categorized by banks under GAAP as “available for sale”—and thus would be recorded at fair value on a recurring basis—are held for various purposes that may have little to do with what is commonly understood to be proprietary trading. Derivative instruments are also typically recorded at fair value.

The agencies offer some relief from the proposed accounting prong’s breadth by creating a rebuttable presumption of compliance if certain conditions are met. The presumption would cover, for example, transactions undertaken by a “trading desk” (as defined in the rule) if the trading desk’s trading activities remained below a quantitative limit (generally speaking, no more than $25 million of gross trading losses and gains during any 90-day period). The practical impact of this rebuttable presumption remains to be seen; however, in its current form, it is unlikely that it would adequately offset the expansion of the rule that would result from the addition of the accounting prong.

Underwriting, Market-Making and Hedging

The existing regulations permit banks to engage in underwriting, market-making and hedging transactions if, in each case, detailed conditions are satisfied. The agencies propose to pare back some of the prescriptive nature of those conditions, while leaving the basic requirements in place.

Separate Compliance Program Requirements. One set of changes addresses the compliance program requirements that the existing regulations impose on banks seeking to qualify particular trading activities as permissible underwriting, market-making or hedging, which are separate from the existing regulations’ more general compliance program requirements (discussed above). The proposed rule would lift the separate compliance requirements for banks whose trading assets and liabilities qualify as moderate (less than $10 billion) or limited (less than $1 billion). Such banks would generally remain subject to the other requirements associated with the underwriting, market-making or hedging exemptions, but they would be able to implement related compliance programs of their own design, thus lessening their overall compliance burdens.

Underwriting and Market-Making: RENTD. The exemptions for underwriting and market-making are each conditioned on related trading positions not exceeding “reasonably expected near term demand of clients, customers and counterparties”—or “RENTD.” Banks seeking to qualify trading as permissible underwriting or market-making must, as required by the statute, monitor RENTD. The statute did not provide any guidance regarding RENTD, and the existing rule contains RENTD requirements that are detailed and prescriptive. Those requirements embody a one-size-fits-all approach, despite the facts that (i) the statute did not require such an approach, and (ii) there are a variety of reasonable ways that banks can monitor and report their underwriting and market-making activities for other compliance and risk management purposes.

The proposed rule would permit a banking entity to create its own internal risk limits related to underwriting and market-making, and the bank would be presumed to be in compliance with the regulations’ RENTD requirements as long as those limits were respected. Importantly, and perhaps obviously, the risk limits would themselves be subject to agency review and, in effect, approval. Thus, the regulations would adopt a more principles-based, and less rules-based, approach to the complex question of distinguishing proprietary trading from underwriting and market-making. We believe that the agencies and banks alike would benefit from such an approach.

Hedging: Correlation Analysis. The current regulations require that banks undertake correlation analyses with respect to any trading that qualifies as permissible hedging. Thus, banks are currently required to “demonstrate that the hedging activity demonstrably reduces or otherwise significantly mitigates the specific, identifiable risk(s) being hedged.” The agencies propose to eliminate this after-the-fact correlation analysis requirement. The agencies would nonetheless retain the requirement that the banks’ compliance programs be designed up front to reduce “one or more specific, identifiable risks.”

Trading Outside the United States (TOTUS)

The existing regulations apply to foreign banking organizations (FBOs) having a branch or agency in the United States. However, the regulations exempt an FBO’s trading outside the United States if the activities meet certain conditions—the so-called “TOTUS” exemption. The agencies now propose to liberalize three of the TOTUS conditions.

Under the existing rule, TOTUS is available only if none of the FBO’s personnel who “arrange, negotiate or execute” the purchases or sales in question is located in the United States. Thus, FBOs must monitor a broad range of activities of their personnel to take advantage of TOTUS. The agencies propose to eliminate that condition. There would remain the existing condition that personnel who “make the decision” to purchase or sell must not be located in the United States.

The second condition that would be changed prevents an FBO from taking advantage of the TOTUS exemption to the extent it trades with or through U.S. entities, except in certain circumstances. Either the U.S. entity must trade from outside the United States—using the same standard regarding personnel being “involved in the arrangement, negotiation, or execution” of transactions—or the trading must take place in a centrally cleared market. The proposed rule would entirely eliminate the restriction on trading with or through a U.S. entity if the other conditions of TOTUS are satisfied. (The U.S. entity, however, if it were subject to the Volcker Rule, would not be able to rely on this exemption.)

The third proposed change removes a condition related to the location from which an FBO finances its trading. Collectively, these proposed changes would permit a broader range of FBO activity consistent with TOTUS, without diluting the primary related policy goal: that any resulting trading risk be borne financially by the FBO outside the United States.

Covered Fund Activities

The existing rule limits the ability of banks to own or sponsor “covered funds” or to engage in certain kinds of transactions with such funds. A threshold observation is in order regarding how the agencies address covered fund activities in their proposal: they propose very few changes to the existing regulations, but they ask quite a few leading questions. That approach, as contrasted with their approach to proprietary trading, suggests that the agencies have given ample thought to revising the covered fund elements of their existing regulations, but are perhaps less sure collectively how best to proceed. We will touch on a few of their questions here.

Definition of Covered Fund. The regulatory definition of covered fund takes its cue from the statutory definition of hedge fund and private equity fund. Both cover entities that would be investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 but for either Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (the private fund exemptions). As the agencies acknowledged when they adopted the final rule, the definitions cover many entities that, in common parlance, are not hedge funds or private equity funds. In their proposal, the agencies ask several questions suggesting that they may consider amendments that would focus Volcker Rule obligations more narrowly on entities that have trading or investing activities typical of hedge funds and private equity funds.

Securitizations. Many securitization issuers do not engage in trading or investing activities that are typical of hedge funds and private equity funds, but they are nonetheless often covered funds under the existing regulations. The regulations exclude “loan securitization” issuers from the definition of covered fund, but the conditions of that exclusion are inconsistent with pre-financial crisis practices in the loan securitization market. The agencies request comment regarding whether the loan securitization exclusion should be amended to permit the pre-crisis practice of a loan securitization issuer holding a limited number of debt securities in addition to its portfolio of loans.

The agencies also seek comment regarding a second aspect of the existing regulations that has proven troublesome for the securitization markets: whether the definition of “ownership interest”—the final rule prohibits a banking entity from acquiring or retaining an “ownership interest” in a covered fund—is overly broad because it includes certain rights associated with creditors, rather than owners, of securitization issuers. That definition seems to have been crafted with a view toward anticipating and eliminating every possible means by which banks might take advantage of less prescriptive rules, rather than with a view toward establishing more general standards and supervising the banks as the standards are applied.

Hedging. When the current regulations were finalized, the agencies did not include provisions from their original proposal that would permit banks to hold covered fund ownership interests as hedges for customer transactions. The agencies are now revisiting their decision not to include the provisions in the final regulations, as they seek comment regarding whether to add them now. If added, the provisions would permit banks to reengage in a form of customer business that was common before the Volcker Rule. For example, banks would once again be able to hedge, and thus to enter into, customer swaps and other derivatives that are tied to the performance of hedge funds. They would thus be able once again to provide customers synthetic exposure to hedge funds.

Super 23A Restrictions

The Volcker Rule restricts the ability of a banking entity that sponsors or advises a covered fund from entering into transactions that would result in the banking entity having credit exposure to the covered fund, such as a loan to a covered fund. Those restrictions were modeled on the restrictions in Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, which limit the transactions that an insured depository institution may enter into with its affiliates (e.g., its bank holding company parent). However, the covered fund restrictions in the Volcker Rule do not include certain exceptions that are included in the general Section 23A restrictions (such as exempting transactions fully secured by U.S. Treasury securities). Thus, the provisions have been referred to as “Super 23A” restrictions.

The agencies are now seeking comment that suggests that that they are revisiting whether the Super 23A restrictions should be subject to Section 23A-like exceptions (thus making Super 23A a little less “super”). However, in order to amend the regulations accordingly, the agencies would need to change the statutory interpretation that they adopted when the regulations were finalized. In the earlier context, the agencies determined that the Volcker Rule statutory provisions did not permit the exceptions that they are now considering. Now the agencies seek comment regarding their previous statutory interpretation.

Conclusion

As the agencies consider whether and how to adopt the proposed rule, comments submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking will be important. Those comments will influence, among other things, whether the agencies propose additional changes or take other action (such as adopting an interim final rule) with respect to the range of subjects—particularly in the covered fund area—about which they asked questions but proposed few changes to the rule text. Comments are due September 17, 2018, and generally will be accepted from the industry, the public and other interested parties.

The proposed rule would represent a welcome shift from the prescriptive rules-based approach of the existing rule to a more principles-based approach. The agencies can implement the core restrictions of the Volcker Rule—prohibiting proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity funds—without a rule that is as detailed and as prescriptive as the current rule. Reducing compliance burdens, while maintaining the core requirements of the regulations is sensible. The agencies’ proposal is a useful step in the direction of a more balanced regulatory approach.

Source: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/09/11/volcker-rule-2-0-a-significant-but-unfinished-proposal/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Report: Facebook Libra cryptocurrency a 'serious concern' for Federal Reserve

The US Federal Reserve System has added its voice to the chorus of doubts raised by lawmakers, politicians and others worldwide about Facebook's newly announced cryptocurrency , Libra . While speaking to House lawmakers Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said the US central bank has "serious concerns" about Libra, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Facebook last month unveiled the global digital coin, which will be managed by a governing body called the Libra Association and through a wallet named Calibra. Facebook is working alongside 27 launch partners for Libra, including PayPal, Visa, Uber, Coinbase, Lyft, Mastercard, Vodafone, eBay and Spotify, but aims to have 100 members in the Libra Association by 2020.

Libra, set to launch in the first half of next year, is intended to be used to purchase products, send money internationally and make donations.

"While the project's sponsors hold out the possibility of public benefits, including improved financial access for consumers, Libra raises many serious concerns regarding privacy, money laundering, consumer protection and financial stability," Powell said when asked about Libra by Rep. Maxine Waters, according to the Journal.

Both the Federal Reserve System and a separate panel called the Financial Stability Oversight Council are meeting to discuss Libra alongside global policy makers, Powell also reportedly said.

The board of governors of the Federal Reserve System didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but David Marcus, head of Calibra, last week said the Libra Association is "committed to a collaborative process with regulators, central banks and lawmakers to ensure that Libra helps with the kinds of issues that the existing financial system has been fighting."

Marcus tweeted that Facebook went live with its announcement of Libra so early so that it could have such dialogue and get feedback on implementation.

"Just caught up with comments from @federalreserve Chairman Powell at his @FSCDems Hearing, and I fully agree that legitimate concerns about @Libra_ should be addressed carefully and patiently, and that it shouldn't be rushed. This is why we shared plans early," Marcus tweeted Wednesday afternoon.

Libra has faced considerable skepticism and pushback since being announced, with US and European politicians almost immediately expressing concerns that stem from Facebook's history of data security problems.

Waters, chair of the US House Financial Services Committee, previously said Facebook "has repeatedly shown a disregard for the protection and careful use of this data." She also sent a letter to Facebook executives last week asking them to temporarily cease plans to create Libra until security and privacy concerns are addressed.

A Senate committee has scheduled a hearing for July 17 to discuss the cryptocurrency.

In Europe, France's Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire, reportedly said Libra would be fine if its use is limited to transactions but that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to create a "sovereign currency."

Last week, more than 30 groups, including the Economic Policy Institute and US PIRG, also asked Congress and regulators to impose a moratorium on Libra until "profound questions" are answered.

Earlier this week, India also reportedly said it's considering not allowing the currency to be traded at all.

"Design of the Facebook currency has not been fully explained," Subhash Garg, India's Economic Affairs Secretary, told Bloomberg in an interview Saturday. "But whatever it is, it would be a private cryptocurrency and that's not something we have been comfortable with."

The Libra blockchain will be global, but it'll be up to the Calibra providers to determine where they'll operate the wallet service. It also won't be available in any US-sanctioned countries, or countries that ban cryptocurrencies.

In April 2018, all entities regulated by the Reserve Bank of India were banned from dealing in cryptocurrencies and virtual coins, though it's still legal for individuals to trade currencies like bitcoin. However, last month it was reported that the Indian government is working on draft laws that would propose a jail sentence for any crypto users.

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/facebook-libra-cryptocurrency-a-serious-concern-for-federal-reserve-report-says/ar-AAE8K7U?srcref=rss

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Should I Quit Music? (How To Avoid Burnout)

This post originally appeared on the Musician With A Day Job blog

Here’s a question you’ve probably asked yourself: “Should I give up my dream of being a musician?”

Maybe it’s just me who’s asked that. But I doubt it.

It’s tough being a musician with a day job. That’s what I am, so I get it. It’s hard trying to make music in the nooks and crannies of my life. Music often takes a backseat, and the quality of my creativity seems to diminish.

And that’s when I feel like giving up on music. That’s when the Burnout Beast reers its ugly head and threatens to bite.

But there are some tactics I’ve found super helpful in avoiding burnout. Things that help me whip out a fire extinguisher and point it at that fire monster.

So I’d like to share three things (three “Extinguishers” if you will) that have helped me keep going.

But first, let’s take a little hypothetical trip down your possible future…

Let’s say you quit music…

This guy is about to get taken out by the Burnout Beast

Imagine something with me.

Imagine you decide to quit making music, like for real. You stop trying to pursue the music career all the music blogs are promising you. You give up on your dream because, well, it’s just a dream.

Music isn’t in the backseat anymore — it’s in the trunk.

Maybe you pick up a guitar here and there, play a few chords on the piano when you get a chance. And songwriting? Forget about it. That’s something you used to do.

Picture yourself in this hypothetical scenario. Really picture it.

Now, ask yourself these questions:

Are you happy?

Do you regret anything?

Be honest. Your future self depends on it.

Okay, now rewind back to the present. Before you quit music, you’ll need to ask yourself some logical questions, just as you would before quitting your day job to make music.

You’ve got to think it through (which is probably why you’re reading this).

Ask yourself:

Does making music enrich your life?

Does being a musician have to be all-or-nothing?

Are you okay being a part-time musician?

Is there any way you can make a supplemental income from music, just to make it easier on yourself?

Can you find a day job you don’t hate? Or maybe a day job you find rewarding?

Try sitting with these questions and really answer them.

Now, assuming you’re still with me and you want to try to put out the fire — to overcome burnout — here are three ways you can keep on keepin’ on.

Three ways to extinguish that feeling of despair many musicians get…

RELATED: My Neighbor Said I Sound Like “A F#*@ing Dying Cat” And I Still Didn’t Quit

Extinguisher #1: Do Multiple Projects At Once

This one may surprise you. If you barely have time for music, why add more stuff to your calendar?

Well, the answer to that question is in the fascinating podcast episode “Jumpstarting Creativity” from the TED Radio Hour.

One of the guests, Tim Harford, makes the case that doing multiple projects simultaneously in the long-term is good for your overall creative output (in terms of quality and quantity).

He calls it “slow-motion multi-tasking.”

He cites people like Einstein and Darwin who created their most influencial works while doing several projects at once.

Einstein was working on Brownian motion, the Theory of Special Relativity, the photoelectric effect, and E=MC² — all at the same time.

Darwin had a few research papers in process when he came up with the Theory Of Evolution.

The idea is you can jump between your projects if you get stuck or bored with one of them. Let them speak to each other and make each other better.

If you’re trying to do some songwriting but get writer’s block, you can hop over to your instrumental side project. Then after a while, go back to songwriting and see if you’re unstuck.

Now, there is a balance between having multiple projects and having too many projects. Sometimes you will have to say “no.”

But the benefit of slow-motion multi-tasking is your creativity stays in a continuous flow.

Extinguisher #2: Remind Yourself How Far You’ve Come

Comparing yourself to others will make you miserable. It will lead to you making excuses as to why you’re not succeeding.

Instead, I like to compare myself to myself. Where was I last year? Three years ago? Five years ago? How am I better at what I do today than yesterday?

See how far you’ve come since you first picked up an instrument, produced your first track, or played your first show.

Write it down if you have to. Anything to encourage yourself to keep going.

Remind yourself how far you’ve come and you’ll give yourself fuel to go further.

Extinguisher #3: Use The One-Thing-A-Day Chart

I was feeling disorganized and discouraged with my music career. I couldn’t see the audience for the fan. I was losing the big picture.

So that’s when I created something called The One-Thing-A-Day chart, which I now use on a daily basis.

This chart can help you:

Figure out what you want to do with music

How to get where you want to be

What you can do today to move in that direction

Stay focused and not lose heart

And it’s been so helpful to me I want you to have it for free: download it here.

- - -

Caleb J. Murphy is a singer-songwriter and founder of Musician With A Day Job, a blog that helps part-time and DIY musicians succeed.

Should I Quit Music? (How To Avoid Burnout)

Source: http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/should-i-quit-music-how-to-avoid-burnout.html

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Billie Eilish Is Inches Away From Redefining Pop Stardom in 2019

Billie Eilish's "Bury a Friend" is a very strange song. The beat jostles, quakes and screeches like aYeezus outtake. The dark, violent lyric -- sung from the perspective of the monster under her bed, according to Eilish -- is delivered in a near-whispered sing-song duet between the singer and a distorted version of herself. The song's visual, shadowy and surreal and full of needles, looks like a cross between clips from late-'90s MTV fright-night auteurs Chris Cunningham and Floria Sigismondi.

Billie Eilish's "Bury a Friend" is also the No. 14 song in the country this week. After debuting at No. 74 on the Billboard Hot 100 the previous week -- in just a two-day tracking week, with the song having debuted the previous Wednesday (Jan. 30) -- the song jumps 60 spots, to easily Eilish's highest peak on the chart. If she'd released the song on Friday to benefit from a full first week, it very well might've gone even higher.

It's a chart breakthrough that's been slowly building for Eilish for a couple years now. The 17-year-old singer-songwriter built her fanbase through early alt-pop singles like "Ocean Eyes" and "Bellyache" and her dont smile at me EP, with six of that set's nine tracks having since racked up over 100 million spins on Spotify. "Lovely," a ballad collab with fellow left-of-center pop fixture Khalid, became her first Hot 100 hit last June, originally peaking at No. 78. That was bettered by the haunting "When the Party's Over," which crawled its way to No. 52 in December. And now, Eilish has her first top 40 hit -- as well as her first top 10 entry on both Billboard's Digital Song Sales and Streaming Songs listings -- with "Bury," advance single from upcoming official debut album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, due in March.

The really remarkable thing about Eilish's chart history isn't just that she keeps hitting new highs with new singles: It's that her new songs are dragging her old songs onto the charts with them. Though "Lovely" peaked at No. 78 during its original chart run, following her "Party" success (and the No. 69 debut of December's "Come Out and Play"), it re-entered the chart after a long absence and climbed to No. 64. That also coincided with the debut of "Ocean Eyes" on the chart, over two years after its original release. The day after "Bury a Friend" debuted on Spotify, there were 11 songs from Eilish on that day's Spotify U.S. Top 200 chart -- more than any other artist besides Juice WRLD and XXXTENTACION, and more than half of her total number of available original songs on the streaming service.

It's an unusual example of a pop artist achieving fantastic chart success with relatively minimal radio support. Despite having now notched seven Hot 100 hits, Eilish has yet to score a single entry on either Billboard's Pop Songs or Radio Songs listings. That wouldn't be terribly out of the ordinary in the world of hip-hop, which has several such success stories (Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Pump, the aforementioned XXXTENTACION) of artists becoming major Hot 100 presences with marginal radio play. But in the world of pop stardom, which has always been more rooted in radio and less in streaming, it's a pretty big anomaly to see such a breakthrough without a traditional crossover hit leading the way.

Then again, of course, Eilish isn't really a traditional pop artist. While her early songs were the kind of accessible, lightly melancholy, hip-hop-influenced big productions that you might find a dozen of on an average Spotify New Music Friday playlist, they already had an edge to them which has only grown sharper since. Meanwhile, she's matched her increasingly unnerving singles with an experimental, occasionally grotesque visual aesthetic and off-kilter social media presence (her Instagram accunt, which boasts nearly 13 million followers, has the oblique handle wherearetheavocadoes) that further separates her from the top 40 darlings of the world. Fittingly, when asked about her musical heroes, she's been far more likely to cite BROCKHAMPTON or Tyler, the Creator than Katy Perry or Ariana Grande.

It's also telling that the one radio format that has already started to pick up on Eilish is on Alternative. She's not quite a star there yet either, but they've at least tested the waters with her with some success, as her grinding, industrial-tinged 2018 single "You Should See Me in a Crown" -- just a No. 93 Hot 100 hit -- peaked at No. 7 on the Alternative Songs chart last December. It's reminiscent of the paths Lorde and Lana Del Rey previously took to pop stardom, where Alternative radio allowed their breakout singles to get their foot in the door, and then the artists quickly seemeed to outgrow the format once they crossed over. But Lorde and Lana both became sensations with their first single; the fact that Eilish is already about a dozen singles in and still building her momentum might ultimately be an even safer receipe for career sustainability.

It's an exciting development to see Eilish's songs be able to impact the charts and popular music on this level. That's partly because she's already such a strong and confident songwriter and artist, and partly because outside of the late XXX (who Billie was an avowed fan of, despite the highly problematic nature of his music), it's been a long time since we've had a figure as disruptive as her within the pop world. It's reminiscent of early Tyler, of early Eminem, early Lady Gaga -- going back to the 20th century, of industrial shock-rockers like Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails and again, Marilyn Manson. It'll be fascinating to see what corners of the music mainstream her cult stardom can eventually expand to from here -- to see her perform at award shows, to headline festivals, and maybe someday soon, to even get played between Ariana and Taylor on top 40 radio.

Source: https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/8498087/billie-eillish-is-inches-away-from-redefining-pop-stardom-in-2019

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

iHeartMedia's IPO Plans: Music Industry Skeptics, Optimists Weigh In

Bob Pittman, the chairman/CEO of iHeartMedia, likes to compare his broadcast-radio empire -- which reaches 275 million listeners each month and is saddled with nearly $6 billion in debt -- to a house. "It's still worth a million dollars, even if you mortgage 99.9% of it," he recently said.

In a bid to reduce that debt, iHeart, which owns 848 radio stations, filed paperwork earlier in April for a potential initial public offering. The company cut its debt -- which, at one point, was nearly $21 billion -- by more than one-third last year after a court agreed to its bankruptcy plan; a successful IPO could raise money to pay off the remaining debt, allowing the once-mighty company -- formerly known as Clear Channel Communications -- to make acquisitions and develop technology.

"It's a cash raise, of course," Skip Bishop, a longtime Sony radio-promotions executive and a Nashville consultant for developing artists, says of the IPO. "I would bet on the company. They haven't put all their eggs just in old-fashioned transmitters and antennas -- they've been aggressive in every other arena of the entertainment business and been successful at it."

iHeart remains dominant, particularly in its broadcast business, with an audience double the size of top competitor Entercom, thanks in part to valuable personalities from Elvis Duran of WHTZ (Z100) New York to Charlamagne Tha God (The Breakfast Club) to Rush Limbaugh. Since Pittman took over in 2010, iHeart has focused on digital, concentrating radio content into an app that competes with Spotify and Apple Music and, more recently, plunging into podcasting. The company's iHeartRadio app has 128 million registered users, though iHeart does not disclose how many are monthly active listeners or paid subscribers.

Pittman inherited the company's massive debt, which came from a leveraged buyout in 2008; he has since aggressively tried to unburden the company, first with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy that allowed its media division to split from its billboard-advertising business. Pittman, the former DJ who co-founded MTV in the early 1980s, has consistently emphasized that iHeart's "operating business" of popular radio stations and 20,000 live events, including the popular holiday-season Jingle Ball concerts, should be evaluated independently from its debt issues. "As we've always said, one has nothing to do with the other," he said in January. "Audio is hot."

But for all the numbers that Pittman reels off in interviews to demonstrate the broadcast industry's continuing strength, other studies suggest radio may decline in the not-so-distant future. Advertising hasn't grown for several years, thanks to competition from YouTube, Spotify, Pandora and others, and a 2017 study from New York University's Steinhardt Music Business program suggests listeners in their teens and 20s have largely switched to on-demand streaming -- AM/FM listening among this group has declined by nearly 50% from 2005 to 2016. (Broadcasting officials have denounced this study and refuted its findings.) Cumulus emerged from bankruptcy last year, and Entercom's 2017 merger with CBS Radio led to more debt and a decline in the stock price.

Jerry Del Colliano, a Steinhardt professor, disputes Pittman's view that iHeartMedia's debt issues are separate from its operational strength. "It's more fairy dust -- there's not enough revenue in the radio business to support a business like theirs with debt that high," says Del Colliano, who is critical of iHeart and the broadcast industry in his blog Inside Music Media. "If you can get away from all the public relations releases, radio's probably the coldest industry you could ever want to be in right now.

What [iHeart] really is [trying to do], in my view, is to change the subject again. If they pull off an IPO and anybody can see a way to make money, I want the names of those people -- so I can sell them something."

Although iHeart reportedly laid off several employees in recent weeks, including veteran reporter Rick Flagg of the company's Florida News Network, iHeart's day-to-day business actually hasn't changed much. Many analysts view the potential IPO -- to which iHeart has not yet attached an opening stock price or given any specific details like banks or numbers of shares -- as a way to allow the company to make more strategic purchases, like its acquisition last year of podcaster Stuff Media. "What happens is iHeart winds up with a clean balance sheet, and they get back into the mergers-and-acquisitions business," says George Reed, director of radio-TV brokerage Media Services Group and owner of 11 Florida radio stations. "The recent Chapter 11 cleans up the balance sheet, and the IPO cleans it up even further, infuses equity capital into the business and gives them the flexibility to operate aggressively."

Whether radio is booming, as Pittman suggests, or slowly becoming an anachronism in an era when listeners can pick any song they want, even in their cars, iHeartMedia's stations are functioning as if nothing has changed financially for the company. Chris Taylor, global president of eOne -- the independent label that represents The Lumineers, veteran rapper The Game and rising MC Blueface, who is suddenly being played every two hours in Los Angeles -- says radio remains important in turning performers into pop stars. "We've been spending just as much money as ever, perhaps even a little bit more," he says. "A day with radio is a better day."

Beggars Group vp promotions Risa Matsuki, who regularly works with iHeart's programmers, says the company's broadcast reach remains crucially important for record labels, far more than its mobile app. "Even though they've been embroiled in a lot of this negative stuff involving the bankruptcy, they really seem to know how to turn it around and come out the right way and seem like the biggest guy on the block," she says. "They always do just enough to make it right and continue to be the Goliath they are.

"They're like Cher," adds Matsuki with a laugh. "They have a lot of lives."

This article originally appeared in the April 13 issue of Billboard.

Source: https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/legal-and-management/8506824/iheartmedias-ipo-plans-music-industry-skeptics

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Drake Bringing Previously Released Favorites to Streaming Services With 'Care Package' Project

With So Far Gone making its way to streaming platforms earlier in 2019, Drake will bring more fan-favorite deep cuts from his discography to streaming platforms on Friday, packaged up under the alias of Care Package.

Drake made the announcement via his Instagram on Thursday afternoon (Aug. 1). Care Package will be filled with loose singles that previously only found their way to YouTube and SoundCloud in the past, such as "Dreams Money Can Buy," "The Motion," "How Bout Now," "Trust Issues," "Days in the East," "Draft Day," "4PM in Calabasas," "5AM in Toronto," "I Get Lonely," "My Side," "Jodeci Freestyle" featuring J. Cole, "Club Paradise," "Free Spirit" featuring Rick Ross, "Heat of the Moment," "Girls Love Beyonce," "Paris Morton Music" and "Can I."

"Available Friday on all platforms. Some of our most important moments together available in one place. Care Package," Drizzy wrote to IG. The 6 God is preparing to take over Toronto for OVO Fest this weekend, where he'll take the stage following a plethora of 2000s R&B acts on Monday with some surprise guests.

Find the Care Package track list below.

Source: https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/8525818/drake-bringing-previously-released-favorites-to-streaming-services-with-care

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Tech Content Needs Regulation

Reading Time: 4 minutes

It may not be a popular perspective, but I’m increasingly convinced it’s a necessary one. The new publishers of the modern age—including Facebook, Twitter, and Google—should be subject to some type of external oversight that’s driven by public interest-focused government regulation.

On the eve of government hearings with the leaders of these tech giants, and in an increasingly harsh environment for the tech industry in general, frankly, it’s fairly likely that some type of government intervention is going to happen anyway. The only real questions at this point are what, how, and when.

Of course, at this particular time in history, the challenges and risks that come with trying to draft any kind of legislation or regulation that wouldn’t do more harm than good are extremely high. First, given the toxic political climate that the US finds itself in, there are significant (and legitimate) concerns that party-influenced biases could kick in—from either side of the political spectrum. To be clear, however, I’m convinced that the issues facing new forms of digital content go well beyond ideological differences. Plus, as someone who has long-term faith in the ability of the democratic principles behind our great nation to eventually get us through the morass in which we currently find ourselves, I strongly believe the issues that need to be addressed have very long-term impacts that will still be critically important even in less politically challenged times.

Another major concern is that the current set of elected officials aren’t the most digitally-savvy bunch, as was evidenced by some of the questions posed during the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica hearings. While there is little doubt that this is a legitimate concern, I’m at least somewhat heartened to know that there were quite a few intelligent issues raised during those hearings. Additionally, given all the other developments around potential election influencing, it seems clear that many in Congress have been compelled to become more intelligent about tech industry-related issues, and I’m certain those efforts to be more tech savvy will continue.

From the tech industry perspective, there are, of course, a large number of concerns as well. Obviously, no industry is eager to be faced with any type of regulations or other laws that could be perceived as limiting their business decisions or other courses of action. In addition, these tech companies have been particularly vocal about saying that they aren’t publishers and therefore shouldn’t be subject to the many laws and regulations already in place for large traditional print and broadcast organizations.

Clearly, companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google aren’t really publishers in the traditional sense of the word. The problem is, it’s clear now that what needs to change is the definition of publishing. If you consider that the end goal of publishing is to deliver information to a mass audience and do so in a way that can influence public opinion—these companies aren’t just publishers, they are literally the largest and most powerful publishing businesses in the history of the world. Period, end of story.

Even in the wildest dreams of publishing and broadcasting magnates of yore like William Randolph Hearst and William S. Paley, they couldn’t imagine the reach and impact that these tech companies have built in a matter of a just a decade or so. In fact, the level of influence that Facebook, Twitter, and Google now have, not only on American society, but the entire world, is truly staggering. Toss in the fact that that they also have access to staggering amounts of personal information on virtually every single one of us, and the impact is truly mind blowing.

In terms of practical impact, the influence of these publishing platforms on elections is of serious concern in the near term, but their impact reaches far wider and crosses into nearly all aspects of our lives. For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites. Like election tampering, that’s a serious impact to the safety and health of our society.

It’s no wonder, then, that these large companies are facing the level of scrutiny that they are now enduring. Like it or not, they should be. We can no longer accept the naïve thought that technology is an inherently neutral topic that’s free of any bias. As we’ve started to learn from AI-based algorithms, any technology built by humans will include some level of “perspective” from the people who create it. In this way, these tech companies are also similar to traditional publishers, because there is no such thing as a truly neutral set of published or broadcast content. Nor should there be. Like these tech giants, most publishing companies generally try to provide a balanced viewpoint and incorporate mechanisms and fail safes to try and do so, but part of their unique charm is, in fact, the perspective (or bias) that they bring to certain types of information. In the same way, I think it’s time to recognize that there is going to be some level of bias inherent in any technology and that it’s OK to have it.

Regardless of any bias, however, the fundamental issue is still one of influence and the need to somehow moderate and standardize the means by which that influence is delivered. It’s clear that, like most other industries, large tech companies aren’t particularly good at moderating themselves. After all, as hugely important parts of a capitalist society, they’re fundamentally driven by return-based decisions, and up until now, the choices they have made and the paths they have pursued have been enormously profitable.

But that’s all the more reason to step back and take a look at how and whether this can continue or if there’s a way to, for example, make companies responsible for the content that’s published on their platforms, or to limit the amount of personal information that can be used to funnel specific content to certain groups of people. Admittedly, there are no easy answers on how to fix the concerns, nor is there any guarantee that legislative or regulatory attempts to address them won’t make matters worse. Nevertheless, it’s becoming increasingly clear to a wider and wider group of people that the current path isn’t sustainable long-term and the backlash against the tech industry is going to keep growing if something isn’t done.

While it’s easy to fall prey to the recent politically motivated calls for certain types of changes and restrictions, I believe it’s essential to think about how to address these challenges longer term and independent of any current political controversies. Only then can we hope to get the kind of efforts and solutions that will allow us to leverage the tremendous benefits that these new publishing platforms enable, while preventing them from usurping their position in our society.

Source: https://techpinions.com/tech-content-needs-regulation/53580

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Effective Board Evaluation

Steve W. Klemash is Americas Leader; Rani Doyle is Executive Director; and Jamie C. Smith is Associate Director, all at the EY Center for Board Matters. This post is based on their EY publication.

Investors, regulators and other stakeholders are seeking greater board effectiveness and accountability and are increasingly interested in board evaluation processes and results. Boards are also seeking to enhance their own effectiveness and to more clearly address stakeholder interest by enhancing their board evaluation processes and disclosures.

The focus on board effectiveness and evaluation reflects factors that have shaped public company governance in recent years, including:

Recent high-profile examples of board oversight failures

Increased complexity, uncertainty, opportunity and risk in business environments globally

Pressure from stakeholders for companies to better explain and achieve current and long-term corporate performance

Board evaluation requirements outside the US, in particular the UK

Increased focus on board composition by institutional investors

Activist investors

In view of these developments, we reviewed the most recent proxy statements filed by companies in the 2018 Fortune 100 to identify notable board evaluation practices, trends and disclosures. Our first observation is that 93% of proxy filers in the Fortune 100 provided at least some disclosures about their board evaluation process. This publication outlines elements that can be considered in designing an effective evaluation process and notes related observations from our proxy statement review.

Planning and designing an effective evaluation process

Prior to designing and implementing an evaluation process, boards should determine the substantive and specific goals and objectives they want to achieve through evaluation.

The evaluation process should not be used simply as a way to assess whether the board, its committees and its members have satisfactorily performed their required duties and responsibilities. Instead, the evaluation process should be designed to rigorously test whether the board’s composition, dynamics, operations and structure are effective for the company and its business environment, both in the short- and long-term, by:

Focusing director introspection on actual board, committee and director performance compared to agreed-upon board, committee and director performance goals, objectives and requirements

Eliciting valuable and candid feedback from each board member, without attribution if appropriate, about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition

Reaching board agreement on action items and corresponding timelines to address issues observed in the evaluation process

Holding the board accountable for regularly reviewing the implementation of evaluation-related action items, measuring results against agreed-upon goals and expectations, and adjusting actions in real-time to meet evaluation goals and objectives

In determining the most effective approach to evaluation, boards should determine who should lead the evaluation process, who and what should be evaluated, and how and when the evaluation process should be conducted and communicated.

Leading the evaluation process

Leadership is key in designing and implementing an effective evaluation process that will objectively elicit valuable and candid director feedback about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition.

A majority (69%) of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that their corporate governance and nominating committee performed the evaluation process either alone or together with the lead independent director or chair. These companies also disclosed that evaluation leaders did or could involve others in the evaluation process, including third parties, internal advisors and external legal counsel. Twenty-two percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed using or considering the use of an independent third party to facilitate the evaluation at least periodically.

Determining who to evaluate

Board and committee evaluations have long been required of all public companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Today, board and committee evaluations are best practice for all public companies.

Approximately one-quarter (24%) of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that they included individual director self-evaluation along with board and committee evaluation. Ten percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that they conducted peer evaluations. Individual director self and peer evaluations are discussed below.

Prioritizing evaluation topics

Board, committee and individual director evaluation topics should be customized and prioritized to elicit valuable, candid and useful feedback on board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition. Relevant evaluation topics and areas of focus should be drawn from:

Analysis of board and committee minutes and meeting materials

Board governance documents, such as corporate governance guidelines, committee charters, director qualification standards, as well as company codes of conduct and ethics

Observations relevant to board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition

Company culture, performance, business environment conditions and strategy

Investor and stakeholder engagement on board composition, performance and oversight

Forty percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed the general topics covered by the evaluation. These disclosures typically focus on core board duties and responsibilities and oversight functions, such as:

Strategy, risk and financial performance

Board composition and structure

Company integrity, reputation and culture

Management performance and succession planning

Asking focused evaluation questions to elicit valuable feedback

About 40% of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed use of questionnaires in their evaluation process, with 15% disclosing use of only questionnaires and 25% disclosing use of both questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires are a key tool in the evaluation process, but must be thoughtfully and carefully drafted to be effective. Questionnaire responses can be provided without attribution, which can promote candid and more detailed feedback.

Questionnaires are helpful because each director receives the same question set—even if there are separate questionnaires for the board, its committees and individual directors. This approach facilitates comparison of director responses and can help indicate the magnitude of any actual or potential issues as well as variances in director perspective and perception.

Evaluation questionnaires often put questions in the form of a statement, such as “The board is the right size,” which calls for a response along a numerical scale. The larger the numerical scale, the more variance, which allows for a relatively more nuanced response. More specific and candid feedback can be obtained by prompting directors to provide detailed freestyle commentary to explain a response on a numerical scale or to a “yes” or “no” question.

Well-drafted, targeted questions—or questions in the form of a statement—should be written specifically for the board, its committees and individual directors, as applicable, with the goal of eliciting valuable and practical feedback about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition. High-quality feedback is what enables boards and directors to see how they can better perform and communicate, with the result that the company itself better performs and communicates.

Template evaluation questionnaires often do not demonstrate the strong potential of a well-drafted questionnaire. Many template questionnaires seem overlong and include unnecessarily hard- to-answer or unclear questions, such as “Does the board ensure superb operational execution by management?” These types of questions don’t seem to lend themselves to eliciting practical feedback. Complicated or unclear questions should be revised to be more practical or omitted from the questionnaire. Overlong questionnaires should be streamlined to be more relevant and effective in eliciting valuable and useful information.

Template evaluation questionnaires also often include numerous questions about clearly observable or known board and director attributes, practices and requirements. A short set of common examples includes:

I attend board meetings regularly

Advance meeting materials provide sufficient information to prepare for meetings, are clear and well-organized, and highlight the most critical issues for consideration

I come to board meetings well-prepared, having thoroughly studied all pre-meeting materials

The board can clearly articulate and communicate the company’s strategic plan

The board discusses director succession and has implemented a plan based upon individual skill sets and overall board composition

When evaluation questionnaires include numerous questions on observable practices or required duties and responsibilities, the evaluation becomes more of a checklist exercise than a serious effort to elicit valuable and useful information about how to improve board dynamics, operations, performance and composition. Overlong, vaguely worded, generic, checklist-type questionnaires can lead to director inattention and inferior feedback results, further impairing the evaluation process.

More effective questionnaires are purposefully and carefully drafted to focus director attention on matters that cut to the core of board and director performance. This may be facilitated when the questions focus succinctly on agreed-upon board goals and objectives or requirements and director qualifications considered together with the company’s performance and short- and long- term strategy.

For example, a written evaluation questionnaire need not ask whether the board and its directors have discussed and made a plan for director succession because the directors already know the answer. A better approach might be to recognize that such action did not take place and to ask each director, during a confidential interview process, “What factors or events distracted or prevented the board from discussing and implementing a plan for director succession?” Candid responses to that interview question should provide feedback that can uncover practices or leadership that should change in order to improve board performance.

Conducting confidential one‑on‑one interviews to elicit more candid feedback

Conducting well-planned, skillful interviews as part of the evaluation process can elicit more valuable, detailed, sensitive and candid director feedback as compared to questionnaires. The combined use of questionnaires and interviews may be most effective and, as noted above, was the approach disclosed by about one-quarter of Fortune 100 proxy filers. Fifteen percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed use of interviews only.

Interviews are particularly effective when there is an actual or potential issue of some sensitivity to address, as directors may prefer to discuss rather than write about sensitive topics. If boards believe interviews will be helpful, they should carefully consider who should conduct them—with the key criteria being that the interviewer is:

Well-informed about the company and its business environment as well as board practices

Highly trusted—even if not well-known—by the interviewees

Skilled at managing probing and candid conversations

Special considerations may arise when the interviewer is also part of the evaluation process. Where sensitivities like this are perceived, using an experienced and independent third-party interviewer can be effective.

While interviews do not enable anonymity, a trusted and skilled interviewer may still confidentially elicit valuable and sensitive feedback. Interviewer observations and interviewee feedback can be presented to the board without attribution.

Individual director self and peer evaluations

Individual self and peer evaluations—whether through questionnaires or interviews—can improve an evaluation process, especially one that is already generally successful as applied to the board as a whole and its committees. When directors understand and see value in evaluations at a collective level, they often perceive enhanced value in individual evaluations—both of themselves and of their peers.

Self-evaluations call for directors to be introspective about themselves and their performance and qualifications. Interestingly, simply being asked relevant questions about performance can lead directors to strive harder. The goal of self-evaluation is to enable directors to consider and determine for themselves during the evaluation process—and every other day—what they can proactively do to improve personal performance and better contribute to optimal board performance. Approximately one-quarter of Fortune 100 proxy filer boards included individual director self-evaluation in their evaluation process.

Peer evaluations increasingly are seen as critical tools to develop director skills and performance and promote more authentic board collaboration. A successful peer evaluation can also help improve director perspective. While some suggest that peer evaluations, even if provided anonymously, can be uncomfortable to provide and receive, a key characteristic of an effective board is that the board’s culture inspires and requires active, candid, relevant and useful participation from all members, as well as healthy debate and rigorous and independent yet collaborative decision-making. Where the board culture and dynamic are healthy, directors should see peer evaluation as important and beneficial guidance and coaching from esteemed colleagues. Ten percent of Fortune 100 proxy filer boards included peer evaluations in their evaluation process.

Using a third party

Use of third-party experts, such as governance advisory firms or external counsel, to facilitate the evaluation process is increasing. Twenty-two percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed having a third party facilitate their evaluation at least periodically, typically stated as every two or three years.

A third party can perform a range of evaluation services, from leading the evaluation process to conducting interviews to providing evaluation questions and reviewing questionnaire responses. Third parties can also help oversee implementation of evaluation action items.

Where the third party is independent of the company and the board, its participation in the evaluation process can meaningfully enhance the objectivity and rigor of the process and results. Third-party experts can provide new and different perspectives, both gained from work with other companies as well as simply being from outside the company, which can lead to improved action-item development and evaluation results.

The use of a third party may be especially helpful when:

The board wants to test or improve its existing evaluation process

Directors may not be forthcoming and candid with an internal evaluator

The board believes an independent third party can objectively bring new perspectives and issues to the board’s attention

The board is new or has undergone a significant change in composition and its directors are not yet poised to conduct an effective evaluation

The board has not seen significant change in composition over a period of time and new perspective is desired on board composition and performance

The company and its board are facing and addressing a crisis

Intra‑year evaluations and feedback

Board evaluations generally are performed annually. Common evaluation topics, however, relate to board practices and director attributes that are observable either in real-time, over a three- or six-month period, or with reference to board agendas and minutes. In such cases, boards should formally encourage real-time or prompt feedback to constructively address actual or potential issues. Indeed, doing so allows directors themselves to embody the “see something, say something” culture needed to promote long-term corporate value.

The concept of real-time or intra-year evaluation of board and director composition and performance is not new, even if not now widely practiced. A few (just under 10%) of proxy filers in the Fortune 100 disclosed that they carry out phases of the evaluation process on an ongoing basis, at every in-person meeting, quarterly, biannually or otherwise during the year.

Disclosing the evaluation process and evaluation results

A vast majority, 93%, of Fortune 100 proxy filers provide at least some disclosure about their evaluation process, but we observed wide variances in the scope and details of the disclosures.

Given the attention to board effectiveness, we expect companies will expand their disclosures relating to board evaluation and effectiveness.

About 20% of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed, at a high level, actions taken as a result of their board evaluation. Some examples include:

Enhanced director orientation programs

Changes to board structure and composition

Changes to director tenure or retirement age limits

Expanded director search and recruitment practices

Improvements to the format and timing of board materials

More time to review key issues like strategy and cybersecurity

Changes to company and board governance documents

Improved evaluation process

Conclusion

Investors, regulators, other company stakeholders and governance experts are challenging boards to examine and explain board performance and composition. Boards should address this challenge—first and foremost through a tailored and effective evaluation process. In doing this, boards can work to identify areas for growth and change to improve performance and optimize composition in ways that can enhance long-term value. Boards can also describe evaluation processes and high- level results to investors and other stakeholders in ways that can enhance understanding and trust.

Questions for the board to consider

Has the most recent evaluation process enabled the board and individual directors to identify actions to optimize board and director performance and board composition?

Has the company considered disclosing the evaluation process and summarizing the nature of actions taken to enhance stakeholder understanding of the board’s work and value?

Does the board as a whole and each director have a common and clear understanding of the term “effectiveness” as applied to the board as a whole, its committees and each director individually?

Has the board formulated clear goals, objectives and standards for itself, its committees and each director that can be referenced during and outside of the evaluation process? If the board has director qualification standards, should they be expanded in more specific ways to include standards and requirements that each director must consistently meet to earn renomination?

Does the evaluation process include components that occur on a biannual, quarterly and/or real-time basis? If not, why not?

Is the evaluation process appropriately synergized with the board’s annual governance review, orientation and education programs, director nomination process, succession planning and stakeholder engagement programs?

Does the evaluation process provide validation to each director that he or she is the right director at the right time for the right company?

Source: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/10/26/effective-board-evaluation/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Managing the Narrative: Investor Relations Officers and Corporate Disclosure

Andy Call is Professor of Accounting at Arizona State University W.P. Carey School of Business. This post is based on a recent article forthcoming in the Journal of Accounting & Economics authored by Prof. Call; Lawrence D. Brown, Seymour Wolfbein Professor of Accounting at Temple University Fox School of Business; Michael B. Clement, KPMG Centennial Professor of Accounting at University of Texas McCombs School of Business; and Nathan Y. Sharp, Associate Professor of Accounting at Texas A&M University Mays Business School.

Although investor relations officers (IROs) play an important role in managing corporate communications with important stakeholders and in helping their companies achieve an appropriate valuation, the academic literature on investor relations is only in its early stages. IROs are responsible for communicating with the investment community and shaping the company narrative. As a result, IROs interact regularly with sell-side analysts and institutional investors and are at the center of many disclosure-related activities, including quarterly earnings conference calls and press releases, among others. In fact, because they manage so many important corporate disclosure activities, IROs are frequently referred to as “chief disclosure officers.”

We survey 610 IROs of publicly traded U.S. companies and interview 14 IROs to better understand their roles in managing companies’ communications with sell-side analysts and institutional investors and in overseeing corporate disclosures. Our survey explores numerous topics for which IROs are uniquely qualified to provide valuable insights, including: the reasons, settings, timing, and value of IROs’ interactions with sell-side analysts and institutional investors; how IROs control outsiders’ access to senior management; how sell-side analysts help IROs convey their company’s message to institutional investors; the value of various types of disclosures for communicating the company narrative; the role of IROs (vis-à-vis the role of CFOs) in preparing various disclosures; planning for and managing public earnings conference calls; the size and composition of the conference call queue; private “call-backs” after public earnings calls; the determinants of IROs’ internal performance ratings; and IROs’ experiences with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD).

The results of our study yield three primary takeaways. First, our study speaks to the value, nature, and timing of private communication between IROs, analysts, and investors. We find that IROs consider private phone calls to be more important than sell-side analysts, 10-K/10-Q reports, management earnings forecasts, and on-site visits for conveying their company’s message to institutional investors. About 40% of IROs indicate that private phone calls with members of the investment community after the earnings release but before the public earnings conference call starts are at least somewhat important, and some IROs we interviewed suggested these private calls help management prepare for the public call. In addition, over 80% of companies routinely conduct private “call-backs” with institutional investors and sell-side analysts after public earnings conference calls. While company management is unlikely to allow institutional investors to ask questions during the public earnings conference call, they typically give priority to investors—particularly those with a large holding in the company’s stock—for private “call-backs” after the conclusion of the public call.

Second, our findings shed light on the significant influence IROs have on corporate disclosures. We find that IROs have significant input on all forms of company disclosures, with nearly 70% of IROs reporting they have considerable influence on the substance and form of press releases and about 84% saying the same about the prepared remarks of public earnings conference calls. IROs also believe certain forms of disclosure (e.g., public earnings conference calls, road shows, press releases) are more important than others (e.g., 8-K reports, on-site visits), which suggests they are more likely to utilize these disclosure channels to communicate with analysts and investors. As the primary gatekeepers who control access to senior management, IROs indicate that they are more likely to grant requests for access to senior management—a private disclosure channel—to analysts with a long history of covering their company and to investors who work for a large investment firm than to Institutional Investor All-Star analysts or investors who work for a hedge fund. IROs significantly shape the preparation, execution, and post-call activities that surround companies’ public earnings conference calls, and they prioritize institutional investors with a large stake in their company and experienced analysts for private “call-backs” during the very important period of time immediately following public earnings conference calls.

Finally, several survey responses suggest public earnings conference calls—even the Q&A portion—often involve more “theater” than prior research has documented. Specifically, most IROs indicate that giving them an idea ahead of time of what questions to expect on the upcoming call is an important service sell-side analysts provide. Further, IROs say that important ways they prepare for conference calls include developing a script, preparing a list of possible questions and answers, developing a strategy for handling unanticipated questions, and rehearsing the call. Our interviews with IROs suggest that institutional investors who do not wish to speak publicly on conference calls—and thereby “reveal their hand”—use text messages or instant messaging to send their questions to sell-side analysts, who then ask the questions as if they were their own. The IROs we surveyed indicate that public earnings conference calls are the single most important tool for conveying the company message to institutional investors, which helps explain the desire of company management to carefully manage every aspect of these calls.

Our study offers numerous other findings that make unique contributions to the literature. For example, we provide evidence on the role of investors in “walking down” sell-side analysts’ earnings forecasts, and we shed light on the dual roles IROs play as both messengers for senior management and recipients of feedback from the investment community. Our results also provide evidence of managers’ reservations about interacting with hedge funds, and their ongoing caution about avoiding potential violations of Reg FD.

While prior studies on investor relations have made important strides by focusing on the benefits and consequences of IR programs, our survey results shed new light on the process of investor relations—how IROs perform their jobs, both in general and specifically as it relates to their interactions with sell-side analysts and institutional investors. Thus, our study improves our understanding of how IROs communicate the company narrative to important stakeholders. The insights we obtain about the process of investor relations would be difficult to obtain without conducting a survey.

We also provide new insights into IROs’ influence on corporate disclosures. While prior research has examined the role of CEOs and CFOs on corporate disclosure decisions, our findings indicate that IROs also have considerable influence over corporate disclosure, and that their performance is evaluated in large part based on their ability to manage these disclosures. Further, our findings on the usefulness of public earnings conference calls and private “call-backs” speak to the importance of supplementing written disclosures (e.g., 10-Ks, 8-Ks, management guidance) with these other interactions that help the firm “manage the narrative.”

Our study also adds to the literature by providing insights from company management on public earnings conference calls, which have generally been studied from the perspective of analysts or institutional investors. For example, by documenting the relative importance of activities before (i.e., advance notice of questions that will be asked, preparing a list of possible questions and answers), during (i.e., managing the queue), and after (i.e., private “call-backs”) earnings conference calls, we provide a rich understanding of the dynamics involved in this important disclosure event as well as new details about the nature, timing, and frequency of management’s private communication with members of the investment community after the conclusion of the public call.

The complete paper is available for download here.

Source: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/10/23/managing-the-narrative-investor-relations-officers-and-corporate-disclosure/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Stock Market Rallies, As These Two Dow Jones Stocks Outperform

Access to this page has been denied because we believe you are using automation tools to browse the website.

This may happen as a result of the following:

Javascript is disabled or blocked by an extension (ad blockers for example)

Your browser does not support cookies

Please make sure that Javascript and cookies are enabled on your browser and that you are not blocking them from loading.

Reference ID: #ceb82fe0-818d-11e9-aa63-191e8fd72187

Source: https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stock-market-rally-dow-jones-stocks-visa-microsoft-advance/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

SC order on RBI circular: How it will hit banks

Bankers said the SC verdict might prolong the resolution process and force lenders to bring back cases to the drawing board.

Illustration: Uttam Ghosh/Rediff.com

With the Supreme Court striking down the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI's) February 12, 2018, circular, the resolution of default accounts, which were filed in various tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the circular was released, will get delayed further.

For erring promoters, it comes as a shot in the arm as they will get an opportunity to resolve their accounts with the banks.

“The SC order puts into question everything the banks have done pursuant to the February 12 circular, including any case filed for insolvency proceedings.

"It gives all of them (default accounts) another lease of life, but the RBI needs to clarify under what guidelines these debt resolutions will be considered," said Sanjiv Krishnan, partner & leader (deals), PwC India.

It would appear that all the restructuring mechanisms such as S4A (Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets), which were scrapped by the RBI earlier, will become options again or new mechanisms are likely to be set up, he added.

Bankers said the SC verdict might prolong the resolution process and force lenders to bring back cases to the drawing board.

"Despite the quashing of the circular, banks will continue to have the option of referring such defaulting borrowers under the IBC, in case the resolution plan fails," said the head of a large public sector bank.

"It would not impact the reported asset quality numbers. However, the resolution process, which was expected to be expedited, may get delayed," he added.

The experience of banks with IBC cases so far has been mixed, with banks taking an average haircut of 50 per cent and more in these accounts.

In cases like Alok Industries, banks have taken a haircut of 85 per cent.

The good news for promoters is that they will be able to resolve the default accounts faster, as long as 66 per cent of the consortium agrees to the settlement, compared to 100 per cent voting required under the scrapped RBI circular.

The IBC cases, which were filed between June 2017 and February 2018 and have already been resolved, will not be affected, said corporate lawyers.

"The IBC cases filed before February 12 will not be affected as the order has not said anything specific about these older cases," said R S Loona, managing partner at Alliance Law.

Amit Kapur, joint managing partner, J Sagar Associates, said the cases that the RBI had asked banks to take for insolvency proceedings (12 cases in the first list and 28 in the second) would not be affected by the SC verdict.

The reference for IBC action happened before the February 12 circular came into force.

"The SC verdict reaffirms the power of the regulator and lenders to refer cases for resolution based on reasonableness and in accordance with the laws," Kapur said.

According to the circular, banks had to refer companies to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for debt resolution, even if there was a delay of one day after the 180-day grace period.

The circular also mandated that if 1 per cent of the voting power of the committee of creditors disagreed with the resolution plan, it could be sent to the NCLT.

"Now, as the circular itself is invalid, the reference to the NCLT is invalid.

"The management of these companies will cite the SC judgment and ask to be pulled out of the NCLT," said a bidder of a stressed asset, adding: "So, there is uncertainty on all the work and the bids for these assets."

The chief executives of various stressed assets said banks sometimes sent them to the NCLT, even when only one bank disagreed with other consortium members.

"Arbitrary action of banks by referring companies to the NCLT, despite a viable resolution plan, acceptable to other lenders of the consortium, has resulted in huge value erosion for banks and massive job losses," said the CEO of a company that has been referred to the NCLT.

Citing an example, the CEO said in the case of a telecom infrastructure company, around 125,000 direct and indirect jobs were lost, after one bank with less than 5 per cent voting power did not clear the debt resolution package agreed to by other banks.

Source: https://www.rediff.com/business/report/sc-order-on-rbi-circular-how-it-will-hit-banks/20190403.htm

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Supply chain gender gap the topic of focus at MIT event

Leah McGuire, Kerry Currier and Francini Ortiz at the 2019 MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics Women in Supply Chain Summit, where the gender gap in supply chain was the topic of focus.

Joined by Kinaxis colleagues Kerry Currier and Francini Ortiz on a crisp, sunny morning at the end of March, we marveled at the cool light display of Converse shoes in the lobby of the Converse building in downtown Boston as we checked in as attendees and panelists to the inaugural MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics Women in Supply Chain Summit, where an examination of the gender gap in supply chain was a central topic.

The two-day event brought together 60+ women and men from 27 companies across North America to discuss topics in four areas related to women in supply chain: balance, filling the talent gap, mentorship, sponsorship & networking, and leading global teams. Katie Date and her team did a wonderful job of getting the right mix of time for panels, group discussion and networking to make the event extremely valuable and insightful.

I am in my 40s, and I have spent my career in supply chain, so it was no surprise when stats about the number of women in supply chain hit the screen. Stats like, women earn 57 percent of US Bachelors degrees and 59 percent of US Masters degrees, and hold 52 percent of US jobs, yet the total supply chain workforce is only 37 percent female and one in five women are the only woman in the room. Many times throughout my work life, I have been that woman. That being said I have also been fortunate to have some great male (and female!) mentors and sponsors along the way. These stats decline further as you move up the corporate ladder.

The event was a great way to reflect on the strides we have made for gender equality to close the supply chain gender gap, as well as realize that there is still so much to do; the women’s movement did not end in the 60s with our mothers.

<![CDATA[ #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .image_browser_images_conteiner_0 * -moz-box-sizing: border-box; box-sizing: border-box; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .image_browser_images_conteiner_0 background-color: rgba(245, 245, 245, 0.90); text-align: center; width: 100%; border-style: none; border-width: 2px; border-color: #F7F7F7; padding: 4px; border-radius: 0; position:relative; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .image_browser_images_0 display: inline-block; -moz-box-sizing: border-box; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0; text-align: center; max-width: 100%; width: 800px; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .image_browser_image_buttons_conteiner_0 text-align: center; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .image_browser_image_buttons_0 display: inline-block; width:100%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_0 background-color: rgba(235, 235, 235, 0.80); text-align: center; display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px auto; padding: 4px; border-radius: 0; border: 1px none #F5F5F5; box-shadow: ; /*z-index: 100;*/ position: relative; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_alt_0 display: table; width: 100%; font-size: 15px; font-family: Ubuntu; color: #000000; text-align:center; padding-left: 8px; word-break: break-word; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_img_0 padding: 0 !important; max-width: 100% !important; height: inherit !important; width: 100%; @media only screen and (max-width : 320px) #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .displaying-num_0 display: none; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_alt_0 font-size: 10px !important; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_watermark_text_0, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_watermark_text_0:hover font-size: 10px !important; text-decoration: none; margin: 4px; font-family: segoe ui; color: #FFFFFF !important; opacity: 0.30; filter: Alpha(opacity=30); text-decoration: none; position: relative; z-index: 10141; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_description_0 color: #000000; display: table; width: 100%; text-align: left; font-size: 8px !important; font-family: Ubuntu; padding: 8px 8px 8px 8px; /*word-break: break-all;*/ border-style: none; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius: 0; border-width: 1px; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a font-size: 10px !important; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_desp_0 display: table; clear: both; text-align: center; padding: 0px 5px 0px 5px; width: 100%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_description_0 color: #000000; display: table; width: 100%; text-align: left; font-size: 15px; font-family: Ubuntu; padding: 8px 8px 8px 8px; word-break: break-word; border-style: none; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius: 0; border-width: 1px; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_alt_0 display:table; clear: both; text-align: center; padding: 8px; width: 100%; /*watermark*/ #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_watermark_text_0, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_watermark_text_0:hover text-decoration: none; margin: 4px; font-size: 20px; font-family: segoe ui; color: #FFFFFF !important; opacity: 0.30; filter: Alpha(opacity=30); position: relative; z-index: 10141; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_image_contain_0 position: absolute; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; height: 100%; cursor: pointer; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_watermark_contain_0 display: table; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; height: 100%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_watermark_cont_0 display: table-cell; text-align: ; position: relative; vertical-align: ; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_watermark_0 display: inline-block; overflow: hidden; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; z-index: 10140; width: 90px; max-width: 11.25%; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px ; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_watermark_text_0 display: inline-block; overflow: hidden; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; z-index: 10140; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_image_browser_watermark_img_0 max-width: 100%; opacity: 0.30; filter: Alpha(opacity=30); position: relative; z-index: 10141; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_none_selectable -webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none; -moz-user-select: none; -ms-user-select: none; user-select: none; ecoration: none; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .bwg_gal_title_0 background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #323A45; display: block; font-family: Ubuntu; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; padding: 2px; text-shadow: 0px 0px 0px #888888; text-align: center; ]]>

Converse shoe display, Converse headquarter's lobby, Boston, MA.

<![CDATA[ /*pagination styles*/ #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 text-align: center; font-size: 12px; font-family: Ubuntu; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; margin: 6px 0 4px; display: block; height: 30px; line-height: 30px; @media only screen and (max-width : 320px) #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .displaying-num_0 display: none; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .displaying-num_0 font-size: 12px; font-family: Ubuntu; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; margin-right: 10px; vertical-align: middle; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .paging-input_0 font-size: 12px; font-family: Ubuntu; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; vertical-align: middle; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a.disabled, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a.disabled:hover, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a.disabled:focus cursor: default; color: rgba(102, 102, 102, 0.5); #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a cursor: pointer; font-size: 12px; font-family: Ubuntu; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 6px; margin: 0; border-radius: 0; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: #E3E3E3; background-color: #FFFFFF; opacity: 1.00; filter: Alpha(opacity=100); box-shadow: 0; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a.next-page:hover, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a.prev-page:hover color: #000000; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 .first-page, #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 .last-page padding: 0% 7%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 .next-page margin: 0% 4% 0% 0%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 .prev-page margin: 0% 0% 0% 4%; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 a font-size: 15px !important; padding: 0% 7% !important; border-style: none !important; border-width: 1px; border-color: #E3E3E3; background-color: #FFFFFF; opacity: 1.00; filter: Alpha(opacity=100); transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 .tablenav-pages_0 background-color: rgba(245, 245, 245, 0.90); margin-top: 0; ]]>

<![CDATA[ #bwg_container1_0 #bwg_container2_0 #spider_popup_overlay_0 background-color: #EEEEEE; opacity: 0.60; filter: Alpha(opacity=60); ]]>

It’s not about balance, it’s about integration. As a working mom, I struggle with this idea of balancing my work life with my home life and often feeling like I am failing at both. Hearing Converse COO, Nicole Zukowski, talk about how it is about integrating the two was an “a-ha” moment for sure. We spend close to 50 percent of our lifetime at our jobs, flexible work hours and locations play a huge part in helping employees feel balance. In addition, letting your kids see what you do at work, and letting your colleagues see what you do at home and with your family is an important factor in feeling you have balance in life and reminding people that we are all human. For example, one of the panelists, who travels frequently for her job, talked about how, when appropriate of course, she takes FaceTime calls from her three year old son, letting him talk to the people around the room. That is integration at its finest!

Be purposeful in recruiting, promotion and retention practices. There were a number of great examples and best practices discussed to help companies recruit, promote and retain females. For example, writing job descriptions in a way that does not dissuade potential female candidates from applying, and including females in every interview panel. One stat quoted rates that the hiring a female is 79 times greater when two women are in the final interview process. On retention and promotion, companies should encourage men as advocates for women as they can help to retain top talent and create accelerated development programs to help promote women more quickly.

Build a personal board of directors. Converse HR Director, Stuart Teale, talked about their ‘Draft Picks’ program where they help employees build their personal board of directors internally. These are people from whom they can seek coaching, advice, advocacy from on a regular basis. It helps spread the load of mentoring among the many and gives the employee several points of view and experiences to draw from. The concept was one I had not heard before and struck a chord with me and many others.

Be your authentic self. Do not try to be someone you are not, i.e., a man. The women I met and who spoke were strong, intelligent, funny, engaging individuals. Women bring so many amazing qualities to the table like empathy, and high emotional intelligence. Embrace and lean in to those qualities; be your best version of yourself. There are times when showing emotion is important. It lets people know that you are human and after all, it is a human world, right?

If not me, then who? Finally, Maria Nieradka, Advisory Board Member of AWESOME, said five little words that have stayed with me, almost haunted me, since the event. “If not me, then who?” So simple, yet so powerful. Waiting for someone else to fix the supply chain gender gap problem gets us nowhere. At our current trajectory, it will take us 108 years to close the gap, which is unacceptable! We all have a part to play, men and women alike: highlight conscious and unconscious biases, advocate for women, mentor women, change the dialog with our young daughters, and so much more. So, what will you do? Let me know in the comments below!

For additional insights, check out this blog post about the event by Ken Cottrill, Global Communications Consultant, MIT CTL.

Source: https://blog.kinaxis.com/2019/05/supply-chain-gender-gap-the-topic-of-focus-at-mit-event/

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Will Liberty Media, piece by piece, become king of the global music business?

“I think there’s zero chance Apple buys this.”

Liberty Media chief executive Greg Maffei knows a thing or two about negotiating in public. According to the New York Post, Denver-based Liberty Media Corp. is seeking to acquire a 35 percent stake in iHeartMedia, owner of radio giant iHeartRadio.

This would be seismic news for the music industry: iHeart, which owns more than 850 U.S. broadcast brands, claims to have the largest reach of any radio or television outlet in America. The firm, which fell into bankruptcy last year, reaches a quarter of a billion Americans every single month.

Liberty’s potential rival in its bid to snaffle a minority chunk of iHeart is, supposedly, Apple, which could prospectively use iHeart to drive the popularity of its own Music streaming app.

Maffei’s “zero chance” insistence, then, delivered to Liberty Media investors on a public-earnings call in mid-November, was a clear assertion that his Tim Cook-led competitor wasn’t at the races.

You can see why Maffei (pictured) might be feeling possessive: Liberty already owns $660 million of iHeart debt, and will automatically end up with around five percent of the company if, as expected, iHeart shakes off the shackles of bankruptcy next month. Meanwhile, an initial $1.16 billion approach from Liberty for 40 percent of iHeart last summer was rebuffed by the latter’s debt holders.

iHeart, meanwhile, has a gigantic and visible influence on U.S. consumers — it reaches nine out of ten Americans every month — so it’s understandable why the acquisitive sharks are circling. In contrast, Liberty Media Corp.’s public profile remains conspicuously mute. Yet it’s certainly a brand worth remembering: It’s no exaggeration to say that, over the next 12 months, Liberty could turn the global modern music business on its head, while shifting the entertainment industry’s power base right off its axis.

How? Liberty might just end up owning a stake in no less than seven (seven!) billion-dollar, or, indeed, multi-billion dollar music companies by the time 2019 is through.

Liberty’s existing portfolio includes its majority holding (71 percent) in satellite radio giant SiriusXM, in addition to Sirius’ soon-to-be ownership of streaming-music platform Pandora. (Sirius is set to officially close an agreed $3.5 billion all-stock buyout of Pandora in the coming weeks.)

Sirius and Pandora jointly reach a monthly U.S.-based audience of more than 100 million people — via 34 million subscribers to Sirius and 69 million active listeners on Pandora. Sirius expects to have generated $5.73 billion in revenues last year; at Pandora, that number should top $1.5 billion. When these two brands are under one roof, says Sirius, they will form “the world’s largest audio entertainment company.” Swallow that, Spotify.

In addition, Liberty owns a 34 percent stake in Live Nation, the globe’s biggest concert promoter and venue owner, which also happens to be the parent of the world’s largest ticketing company, Ticketmaster. And to cap things off, Liberty is also a small investor in Saavn — the Indian Spotify rival that recently merged with local rival JioMusic to form $1 billion-valued platform JioSaavn and that, in addition to offering a vast catalog of music, also signs and develops artists, just like a record label.

Some have suggested that, by meaningfully combining the strategy of these businesses, Liberty could form the music industry’s first true “full stack” organization, one able to promote and break major artists to mainstream U.S. audiences, before seamlessly up-selling fans into buying tickets, merch and more at live experiences.

“We continue to believe Sirius’ controlling shareholder, Liberty Media Corporation, wishes to eventually control a combined SiriusXM, Pandora and Live Nation, and that this will become reality with a Sirius acquisition of Live Nation and a cleanup of Sirius’ share structure,” wrote BTIG analyst Brandon Ross in Q3 last year.

Others go even further, suggesting that, with iHeartMedia added to this mix, Liberty Media would be able to service the promotional, distribution and touring requirements of independent artists to a truly blockbuster degree — threatening some of the core reasons why new acts currently sign to major record companies.

“LIBERTY MEDIA IS SETTING THE STAGE FOR A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED PLATFORM OF TICKETING, VENUES, STREAMING, BROADCAST AND SATELLITE RADIO, FOR CONSUMERS WITH CREDIT CARDS.”

Allen Kovac

Allen Kovac is owner of New York-based indie label Eleven Seven Music Group, home to Mötley Crüe and Papa Roach, among others, while he also manages the likes of Blondie and Five Finger Death Punch.

“Liberty Media is setting the stage for a vertically integrated platform of ticketing, venues, streaming, broadcast and satellite radio, for consumers with credit cards,” he says. Kovac notes that, with iHeart on board, a strategic consolidation of artist services at Liberty/Sirius could create a commercial imperative for long-term investment in a new wave of acts — who can sell tickets and stream music to fans for decades to come. This, he believes, would fit nicely with the typical philosophy of independent labels.

Conversely, he suggests, ephemeral pop streaming sensations would instantly become a less interesting proposition for music’s money-makers. This could “eventually transform the business away from music with narrow demographics, back to broad-based artists, and songwriters who are performers,” he says.

Liberty Media isn’t stopping there, either. Adding to its potential involvement in the five aforementioned billion-plus entertainment companies (SiriusXM, Live Nation, Pandora, iHeart and JioSaavn), Liberty is also potentially on the hunt for some truly industry-shaking new assets.

The first is the most talked-about deal in the global music business this year: Up to 50 percent of the biggest recorded-music company on Earth, Universal Music Group (which also owns giant music publisher UMPG), will be sold by the end of 2019. We know this because UMG parent Vivendi has confirmed as much to its shareholders, and has deployed investment banks to headhunt suitable buyers.

Liberty Media has been mooted as one of the early front-runners for UMG, alongside Chinese media giant Tencent. Liberty, which has interesting legal history with Vivendi, has already expressed to its own stockholders that it would “absolutely” be interested in taking a look at UMG’s potential sale at the right time.

To recap: Liberty’s existing radio and streaming portfolio (Sirius, Pandora and JioSaavn) already reaches more than 100 million people each month; iHeartRadio, meanwhile, is listened to by more than 250 million Americans. Imagine adding into this mix the demi-ownership of Universal Music Group, a $33 billion-valued company that is home to the likes of Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Taylor Swift, Post Malone, Drake, Kendrick Lamar and Ariana Grande — and which rakes in more than a third of all streaming money paid to labels and artists around the world.

It doesn’t take a razor-sharp analytical mind to see how a radio and streaming portfolio that reaches almost the entirety of the USA, combined with part-ownership of Universal, could push a game-changing amount of music industry leverage Liberty’s way. Liberty can also superserve artists at Live Nation, of course, which welcomed 86 million fans to its concerts in 2017 — while Ticketmaster (get this) delivered 500 million tickets to shows in the same year.

And then there’s CAA — perhaps the final piece of Liberty’s puzzle. As one of the world’s biggest superstar talent agencies, CAA finds opportunities, and maximizes the resultant deals, that artists can get from venues, promoters, brand partners and more besides. Liberty is now reportedly holding discussions to buy its way into CAA, which represents the likes of Ed Sheeran, Kanye West, Bob Dylan and Carrie Underwood. CAA was valued at more than $1 billion in 2014, when serial investor TPG increased its stake in a $225 million deal.

If Liberty snares only one or two minority stakes in iHeart, Universal and/or CAA this year, it could potentially cover most steps of music’s modern value chain — recording, publishing, broadcast, streaming, ticketing, merchandise, touring and brand partnerships — under one roof.

Liberty is, perhaps sensibly, seemingly restricting itself to minority stakes in these companies, potentially in a bid to ward off competition concerns; U.S. regulators are particularly hot on broadcasters who also outright own copyrighted content, for obvious reasons.

In that call with investors in November, Liberty’s Maffei bashfully described his company’s current portfolio as “an embarrassment of riches.”

He was right. But perhaps we ain’t seen nothing yet.

The above article originally appeared on RollingStone.com through here. MBW has entered into an ongoing global content partnership with Rolling Stone and Penske Media Corporation.Music Business Worldwide

Source: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/will-liberty-media-piece-by-piece-become-king-of-the-global-music-business/

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

RBI reluctant to change FPI portfolio limits introduced last year

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is reluctant to relax portfolio-level limits it introduced for foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) last year.

In a meeting with about 50 FPIs and a few custodians on Monday the central bank said it did not want to tweak the existing regulations, said sources in the sector.

The RBI has instead asked investors to look at the voluntary retention route (VRR) — a new channel currently in the works to enable FPIs to invest in debt markets in India — to bypass existing restrictions.

In April 2018, the government introduced these restrictions to cap an FPI’s investment in a single corporate bond to 50 per cent of the bond issue.

This restricted their exposure in any single corporate group to not more than 20 per cent of their overall corporate bond portfolio. They were allowed to invest in debt papers with less than three-year maturities, provided the total investment in debt papers maturing within a year did not exceed 20 per cent of the portfolio.

The FPIs had felt the restrictions were too onerous and difficult to monitor, and wanted these to be done away with.

“The FPIs’ contention was that the RBI should go back to the old regime. The RBI said it did not want to tinker with the new rules, and that it was offering the investors a new route under the VRR,” said a source familiar with the matter.

In October, the RBI came out with a discussion paper with proposals to introduce the VRR. Investments through the route would be free of the macro-prudential and other regulatory prescriptions applicable to FPI investments in debt markets, provided the FPIs voluntarily commit to retain a required minimum percentage of their investments in India for a period of their choice, the discussion paper stated.

For instance, FPI investments through the VRR shall be exempt from the cap on short-term investments (less than a year) at 20 per cent of the portfolio size, concentration limits, and caps on exposure to a corporate group. The total amounts for investment through the VRR shall be separately indicated for government securities (G-Sec) and corporate debt (including commercial paper), and shall be individually allocated to FPIs through an auction process.

The minimum retention period for allotments under each auction would be three years or as decided by the RBI.

The FPIs also asked for clarity on investments in state-development loans (SDLs) on Monday. FPI investments in SDLs are currently negligible as these are not explicitly backed by the Government of India nor given a sovereign rating.

“As of now, the RBI is taking care of servicing the SDLs on time. There is no explicit undertaking or comfort on this. Investors may think these bonds are not sovereign and less traded as they are not reissued. And, to that extent, they are not keen to put money in SDLs. So, someone needs to clear the air on this,” said Ajay Manglunia, head, fixed income, Edelweiss Capital. Measures to boost investments in the currency derivatives segment and interest rate futures were also discussed.

The average daily turnover of currency derivatives for December stood at Rs 25,412 crore on the BSE and Rs 36,953 crore on the NSE. The turnover of interest rate derivatives stood at Rs 202 crore and Rs 1,957 crore on the two exchanges, respectively.

FPIs are permitted to invest in central government securities (g-secs), including Treasury bills, and the SDLs without any minimum residual maturity requirement, subject to the condition that short-term investments by an FPI under either category does not exceed 20 per cent of the total investment of that FPI in that category. Currency volatility, concerns on fiscal slippages, political uncertainty, and restrictions on investments has spooked FPIs investing in debt papers.

The rupee depreciated 8.4 per cent to 69.77 against the dollar in 2018, and has shed 2.1 per cent this year.

FPIs sold Rs 46,500-crore worth of debt papers in 2018. When interest rates were near-zero in the US, it made sense to come to India, take forex risk and invest in Indian bonds, according to experts. One could get a 3-4 per cent return, after hedging.

But with the Fed hiking rates and emerging markets now seen as a risky proposition, India has become much less attractive for FPIs. Volatility in Crude oil prices could put the Indian currency under pressure again.

Source: https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/rbi-reluctant-to-change-fpi-portfolio-limits-introduced-last-year-119012101044_1.html

0 notes