Waking up to hedge funds : is U.S. regulation taking a new direction?

In response to recent developments in the financial markets and the stunning growth of the hedge fund industry in the United States, policy makers, most notably the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), are turning their attention to the regulation, or lack thereof, of hedge funds. U.S. regulators have scrutinized the hedge fund industry on several occasions in the recent past without imposing substantial regulatory constraints. Will this time be any different? The focus of the regulators’ interest has shifted. Traditionally, they approached the hedge fund industry by focusing on systemic risk to and integrity of the financial markets. The current inquiry is almost exclusively driven by investor protection concerns. What has changed? First, since 2000, new kinds of investors have poured capital into hedge funds in the United States, facilitated by the “retailization” of hedge funds through the development of funds of hedge funds and the dismal performance of the stock market. Second, in a post-Enron era, regulators and policy makers are increasingly sensitive to investor protection concerns. On May 14 and 15, 2003, the SEC held for the first time a public roundtable discussion on the single topic of hedge funds. Among the investor protection concerns highlighted were: an increase in incidents of fraud, inadequate suitability determinations by brokers who market hedge fund interests to individual investors, conflicts of interest of managers who manage mutual funds and hedge funds side-by-side, a lack of transparency that hinders investors from making informed investment decisions, layering of fees, and unbounded discretion by managers in pricing private hedge fund securities. Although there has been discussion about imposing wide-ranging restrictions onhedge funds, such as reining in short selling, requiring disclosure of long/short positions and limiting leverage, such a response would be heavy-handed and probably unnecessary. The existing regulatory regime is largely adequate to address the most flagrant abuses. Moreover, as the hedge fund market further matures, it is likely that institutional investors will continue to weed out weak performers and mediocre or dishonest hedge fund managers. What is likely to emerge from the newest regulatory focus on investor protection is a measured response that would enhance the SEC’s enforcement and inspection authority, while leaving hedge funds’ inherent investment flexibility largely unfettered. A likely scenario, for example, might be a requirement that some, or possibly all, hedge fund sponsors register with the SEC as investment advisers. Today, most are exempt from registration, although more and more are registering to provide advice to public hedge funds and attract institutions. Registration would make it easier for the SEC to ferret out potential fraudsters in advance by reviewing the professional history of hedge fund operators, allow the SEC to bring administrative proceedings against hedge fund advisers for statutory violations and give the agency access to books and records that it does not have today. Other possible initiatives, including additional disclosure requirements for publicly offered hedge funds, are discussed below. This article addresses the question whether U.S. regulation of hedge funds is really taking a new direction. It (i) provides a brief overview of the current U.S. regulatory scheme, from which hedge funds are generally exempt, (ii) describes recent events in the United States that have contributed to regulators’ anxiety, (iii) examines the investor protection rationale for hedge fund regulation and considers whether these concerns do, in fact, merit increased regulation of hedge funds at this time, and (iv) considers the likelihood and possible scope of a potential regulatory response, principally by the SEC

Item 5: Tolerance Survey

An in-class exercise to help students consider the nature and limits of “tolerance” and civil discourse

Item 6: Service-learning Assignment

Many of the stories included here take place outside of the United States. India, South Africa,Senegal, and Guatemala feature prominently while China, Cameroon, and Native lands are also referenced. Other stories take us to places that might be unfamiliar or forgotten: Middle school buses, rural back roads, New York subways, deep South barbershops, sunny Miami beaches, andlonely snowy roads on a winter night. Stories help us to not just enter into the lives of people but also their environments. This service-learning project is designed not just to help students think about engaging in philanthropic work in a group context but also to consider the lives of civic leaders and civic educators in Africa. Students learn the local challenges faced by these talented leaders and work to help them. Along the way, they are charged with learning a bit about that cultural context as they write a short reflection on the food, dance, dress, or famous tourist site of their assigned country in Africa. As a practical note: While this assignment utilizes an existing relationship with Mandela Washington Fellows, nearly every university has similar relationships with international alumni, visiting academics,or grant-funded global programs

Item 4: Learning in Civic Spaces

A collection of stories, poems and short films to help students think about the perplexities of learning and teaching in civic spaces, along with associated discussion questions

Item 2: Connecting and Avoiding

A collection of stories, poems and short films to help students think about the perplexities of community, associating, connecting, avoiding and civic life, along with associated discussion questions

Item 1: Introduction - Civic Engagement Stories

This one-page document describes this project. It introduces the idea of using stories, poems and other narrative sources as a way to help both curricular and co-curricular educators help students to think about their civic involvement. It introduces the three themes of the stories: Connecting & Avoiding, Helping, and Teaching in a Civic Context

Item 7: Syllabus

This course will invite students to engage in conversations about connecting (and avoiding), helping and learning in our civil society. We’ll think and talk about thorny questions of what it means to be a citizen of ASU, the High Country, the US, and the world. Through the reading of provocative texts and a few films, we’ll practice the habit of civil discourse and respectful argumentation as we engage in service activities. Basically, we’ll practice the habit of talking in community about our relationship to community. Students will participate in community-based service-learning to explore the themes of civic connecting, helping and learning (especially via talking). The course will improve the student’s ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize complex ideas in the context of current community issues. The First Year Seminar (UCO 1200) provides students with an introduction to the four goals of a liberal education at Appalachian State University. Specifically, students will practice (1) thinking critically and creatively and (2) communicating effectively. In addition, students will be introduced to the learning goals of (3) making local-to-global connections and (4) understanding responsibilities of community membership. While each First Year Seminar course engages a unique topic examined from multiple perspectives, each course also introduces students to a common set of transferable skills. As such, this First Year Seminar facilitates student engagement with fellow students, the University, the community, and the common reading as well as essential college-level research and information literacy skills and the habits of rigorous study, intellectual growth, and lifelong learning

Item 3: Helping

A collection of stories, poems and short films to help students think about the perplexities of serving others, along with associated discussion questions

Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Each year approximately 3000 patients in the United Kingdom undergo surgery for esophagogastric cancer. Jejunostomy feeding tubes, placed at the time of surgery for early postoperative nutrition, have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes in the short term. Whether feeding out of hospital is of benefit is unknown. Local experience has identified that between 15 and 20% of patients required ‘rescue’ jejunostomy feeding for nutritional problems and weight loss while at home. This weight loss and poor nutrition may contribute to the detrimental effect on the overall quality of life (QoL) reported in these patients. Methods/Design: This randomized pilot and feasibility study will provide preliminary information on the routine use of jejunostomy feeding after hospital discharge in terms of clinical benefits and QoL. Sixty participants undergoing esophagectomy or total gastrectomy will be randomized to receive either a planned program of six weeks of home jejunostomy feeding after discharge from hospital (intervention) or treatment-as-usual (control). The intention of this study is to inform a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome measures will be recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Secondary outcome measures will include disease specific and general QoL measures, nutritional parameters, total and oral nutritional intake, hospital readmission rates, and estimates of healthcare costs. Up to 20 participants will also be enrolled in a qualitative sub-study that will explore participants’ and carers’ experiences of home tube feeding. The results will be disseminated by presentation at surgical, gastroenterological and dietetic meetings and publication in appropriate peer review journals. A patient-friendly lay summary will be made available on the University of Leicester and the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust websites. The study has full ethical and institutional approval and started recruitment in July 2012. Trial registration: UKClinical Research Network ID #12447 (Main study); UKCRN ID#13361 (Qualitative sub study); ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01870817 (First registered 28 May 2013