Search

Purpose To inform readers of the challenges that fintech companies can have regarding investment company status, using two recent examples. Design/methodology/approach The article provides an introduction to the subject, discusses two examples of fintech companies that had investment company status challenges, and provides concluding remarks regarding each. Findings Navigating investment company status can be challenging for fintech companies, and in some cases, as was the case with the two companies discussed in the article, it may be necessary, or at least advisable, to seek to obtain an order from the SEC. Practical implications It is important for fintech companies to evaluate their investment company status in early stages and continue to monitor their status thereafter, particularly if they are considering a public offering. Originality/value Technical guidance from experienced investment company status lawyers.

Ransomware attacks have been spreading broadly in the last few years, where attackers deny users’ access to their systems and encrypt their files until they pay a ransom, usually in Bitcoin. Of course, that is the worst thing that can happen; especially for organizations having sensitive information. In this paper we proposed a cyber security awareness program intended to provide end-users with a rescue checklist in case of being attacked with a ransomware as well as preventing the attack and ways to recover from it. The program aimed at providing cyber security knowledge to 15 employees in a Sudanese trading and investment company. According to their cyber behaviour before the program, the participants showed a low level cyber security awareness that with 72% they are likely of being attacked by a ransomware from a phishing email, which is well known for spreading ransomware attacks. The results revealed that the cyber security awareness program greatly diminished the probability of being attacked by a ransomware with an average of 28%. This study can be used as a real-life ransomware attack rescue plan.

This study is relevant to investors who wish to diversify their investment portfolio by investing in U.S.-based investment companies that invest in specific Pacific Basin countries to better understand the diversification benefits of such investments. The purpose is to examine the daily returns of selected U.S.-based, country-focused (Pacific Basin) investment companies to see if those returns accurately reflect the changes of the equity indices of the corresponding Pacific Basin market on the following trading day. The method used is that the reactions of daily investment company returns compared to U.S. market daily returns are examined for Japan, South Korea, and Australia for the period 2006–2010. These return reactions are compared to the home-country returns. Next, for the period from 2011 to 2015, the examination is broadened to include U.S.-based investment companies that invest in Taiwan, Singapore, China, and Indonesia. The results show that investment company share prices on “day t” tend to overreact to changes in the S&P 500 on “day t”, relative to “day t+1” changes in the corresponding Pacific Basin market index – often by more than 100%. Finally, the study shows that on “day t+1” these investment company share prices exhibit a reversal. These findings indicate that the diversification benefits of investing in these Pacific Basin investment companies are reduced due to this increased volatility. S&P 500 returns are accompanied by significantly larger returns on the Pacific Basin investment company shares than are actually realized in the home country on the following day, suggesting that the diversification benefits are not being fully realized.