Despite last-ditch efforts by lobbyists for the crypto community, controversial new cryptocurrency tax requirements buried in the massive bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the US Senate in early August will likely remain unaltered by the House which has committed to vote on the $1 trillion dollar bill by September 27, 2021. The new reporting rules are sending ripples of concern through the cryptocurrency industry and even have some national-security officials worried that their breadth and overreach will only succeed in pushing illicit activities and actors further underground. Overly aggressive regulations risk forcing illegal activity “deeper into anonymizing methods and corners of the internet that would make it more difficult for law enforcement,” according to Jeremy Sheridan, assistant director of the U.S. Secret Service’s investigations office. Moreover, overregulation could also have a chilling effect on domestic innovation and result in the U.S. falling behind other countries that adopt laws and regulations that are more favorable to new technologies. “The U.S. has to make a decision if it wants to be a center of. . . transformational technology that can bring more people into the financial ecosystem. . . [or] get left behind,” said Sigal Mandelker, a former undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence in the Treasury Department. Mandelker is now with a private venture capital firm which invests in the crypto markets.
As Coronavirus (Covid-19) has slowed the global economy, business owners have been forced to adapt to volatile market conditions and use creativity to raise capital. Investors and financial industry professionals have turned their attention to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), which have already raised nearly $100 billion in 2021 compared to $83.4 billion during the previous year. A SPAC is a publicly-traded shell company formed by industry professionals such as institutional investors, private equity firms, and hedge funds. Then, SPAC sponsors will seek to complete a merger or acquisition with another private company, which enables the private company to become publicly traded and bypass the initial public offering (IPO) stage. SPACs usually are allowed two years from the IPO date to formalize an acquisition or return the funds to investors.
Last week, the finance industry watched one of the biggest implosions of an investment firm since the 2008 financial crisis. Archegos Capital Management rocked the industry when it was forced to liquidate huge positions in blue-chip companies after some risky investment strategies went south. The financial instruments used in this risky investment strategy are called total return swaps. The Archegos meltdown has lead lawmakers and regulators to call for increased scrutiny of the swaps.
SPACs have been around for decades and often existed as last resorts for small companies that would have otherwise had trouble raising money on the open market. But they’ve recently become more prevalent because of the extreme market volatility caused, in part, by the global pandemic.
While many companies chose to postpone their IPOs due to the pandemic, others chose the alternate route to an IPO by merging with a SPAC. A SPAC merger allows a company to go public and get a capital influx more quickly than it would have with a conventional IPO.
The regulation of hedge funds has largely been unchecked allowing big Wall Street players to manipulate the market for the benefit and at the detriment of other investors. But forced by an unprecedented movement of retail investors, Wall Street is being forced to reckon with the hypocrisy of their practices.
The effects of COVID-19 create numerous hospital financial management issues. One specific issue is hospitals maintaining financial stability. As the United States adjusts to the pandemic, hospitals have the burden of navigating their purpose, mission, and values while maintaining operations. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) is a comprehensive bill that includes provisions that financially assist healthcare providers. Nevertheless, as with all federal assistance, compliance with specific conditions is required. As the pandemic continues, if hospitals accept federal help to stabilize finances, awareness, and increasing training to comply with federal guidelines is crucial.
Just in time for holiday shopping, and at the beginning of Q4, President Trump delivered some news for holiday shoppers. In what shocked some, but others found as expected and inevitable, President Trump continued his message to the world that the US will not be “handing out donations” much longer. His latest re-negotiation to bring dollars back to the US has left overseas ecommerce providers wondering what the latest move in this Administration’s financial overturn is going to do for their business. It’s not the big players like Amazon that’ll feel the brunt of this, but the smaller players in the eCommerce space that outsource their products overseas may feel a hit in their margins as this move by Trump takes its toll.
Joseph Adamczyk, ’01 is the Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer at OCC (Options Clearing Corporation). OCC is the world’s largest equity derivatives clearing organization, and works to promote stability and financial integrity in the marketplace. Mr. Adamczyk holds a J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and a B.S. in Business Administration from DePaul University.
Both the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Labor (DOL) are pushing ahead with fiduciary standards for investment advisers despite the 5th Circuit striking down the DOL’s previous fiduciary rule earlier this year.
On September 18, 2018, the United States Supreme Court overturned a stay blocking a District Court ruling requiring non-profits to disclose identity of all contributors who give more than $200 a year. Prior to the ruling, IRS designated 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) organizations such as business leagues and boards of trade, who do not register as political committees with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), were required to disclose donors only when they contributed for specific political advertisements. While the ruling requires the FEC to give guidance, newly issued FEC rules limit the scope of the court’s intention. It is likely that the new ruling will allow some donors to remain undisclosed while requiring partial disclosure of donors who contribute towards certain, but not all, expenditures.