Search

In June 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI” or “Final Rule”) with a compliance date of June 30, 2020, aiming at improving protection for retail customers and enhancing the standard of conduct under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for broker-dealers and natural persons who are associated persons of a broker-dealer (“Broker-Dealers”) in the course of recommending any securities transaction or investment strategy to retail customers. The SEC also mandates a disclose form for investment advisers and broker-dealers (“Form CRS”). Additionally, the SEC excludes application to broker-dealer from the Investment Adviser Act of 1940 (“IAA”) if the “solely incidental” prong is satisfied. Reg BI imposes a general “best interest” standard which requires broker-dealers to act in the best interest of retail customers at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the interests of the firm ahead of the retail customer’ interest. The Reg BI Package will be carried out with following four prongs: 1). Disclosure Obligation, 2) Care Obligation, 3) Conflict of Interest Obligation, 4) Compliance Obligation. As the foregoing discusses, broker-dealers are bound by Reg BI that places their clients’ interests ahead of their own. Though the SEC intentionally attempts to augment the protection for retail customers by imposing obligations beyond existing suitability obligations , it declines to address the definition of “best interest” in the rule text, nor did the SEC label the new regulation as “Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct” proposed by NASAA. In the Final Rule, the SEC adopted a “principles-based” approach to align with an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty and broker-dealers’ practice will be evaluated objectively on the ground of facts and circumstances of how the four component obligations of Regulation Best Interest are satisfied at the time the recommendation is made. This article will provide an analysis of the new Best Interest Standard and the potential impact of Conflict of Interest obligation on a broker-dealers practice. For example, how Reg BI differentiates among other regulation regimes, what limitations will be imposed on broker-dealers when rendering financial recommendation and advice, how broker-dealers mitigate or eliminate conflicts of interest arising from financial incentives in conjunction with their recommendations.

What are the potential futures of knowledge work, given its transformation into almost exclusively digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis? Our ongoing research program on digital nomadism informs a Hegelian dialectical analysis and an envisioning of the future(s) of knowledge work We contrast the Factory paradigm of work (thesis), exemplified by the “ideal type” of the 9-to-5 corporate worker, with the Hypermobility paradigm of work (antithesis), exemplified by the ideal type of the digital nomad Reflecting on this contrast, we envision the possible digital futures of knowledge work as a continuous spectrum, ranging from a future based on the Digital Taylorism paradigm of work to a future based on the Worker Autonomy paradigm of work These futures are discussed in terms of different approaches to organizing work, working with technology, delineating work/life boundaries, and provisioning the social safety net IS researchers are uniquely positioned to perform research and inform decision-making in all these areas, and thus make a difference in determining whether the future we end up with more closely resembles Digital Taylorism or the Worker Autonomy vision © 2020 by the Association for Information Systems

This paper presents a literature review and conceptual development of digital nomadism. Digital nomadism is characterised by mobile workers indefinitely travelling between different locations while continually fulfilling their work obligations. The emerging literature on digital nomadism is fragmented and primarily focused on digital nomads’ lifestyles. There is comparatively less focus on theoretically framing digital nomadism into broader narratives in human history. In order to gain a holistic understanding, this paper reviews the limited literature on digital nomadism and expands to other relevant literatures on economy (e.g. traditional boundaries in business), culture (e.g. lifehacking), and technology (e.g. telework and digital communication). These three theoretical framings of digital nomadism enable this paper to identify the current state of knowledge relevant to digital nomadism and develop a research agenda.