NationStates

BE IT KNOWN; that this Proposal shall be submitted for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership of the General Chamber of the World Assembly on this day SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2019, and shall henceforth be entitled as follows; “THE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITATIONS ACT”.

AS SUCH; may it further be known that the terms used to address the scope, effect, and intended recipient of legislative result shall be defined as follows:

SECURITIES; a fungible, negotiable financial instrument that holds some type of monetary value representing an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation—via stock—a creditor relationship with a governmental body or a corporation—represented by owning that entity's bond—or rights to ownership as represented by an option.

INVESTMENT; an asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation.

AS SUCH, & IN CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF CHAMBER, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY RESOLVES THAT;

- the financial well being and good monetary health of the constituencies of Member Nations is negatively effected by the entanglement of for-profit, investment-based business models with the consumer-centric clientele prevalently located in the Commercial Banking Industry.

- that sustained injury, inflicted upon the constituencies of Member Nations, vis a vis the entanglements mentioned above, will undoubtedly and inevitably result in the erosion of the foundation of the global economy, and thereafter lead to the needless pain and suffering of countless individuals.

- that said erosion and injuries would negatively effect, in the extreme, any and all efforts to properly carry out the diplomatic and security tasks associated with the General Chamber, and due to the bicameral nature of the World Assembly as a whole, the entirety of the organization itself.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THUS FURTHER RESOLVED;

- that, henceforth, no investment; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the commercial banking sector.

- that henceforth, no commercial; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the investment banking sector.

- that the trade value upon any market within a Member Nation, open or closed, for a security/investment sold by/for an individual be set at no more than one-hundred percent of the fair market value of the security/investment at its time of sale.

- that the trade value upon any market within a Member Nation, open or closed, for a security/investment sold by/for an institution, commercial/private organization, or government entity, be set at no more than one-hundred percent of the fair market value of the security/investment at its time of sale.

- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.

- that all financial institutions within any Member Nation, register with the Investment and Securities Insurance Corporation (ISIC) - a division of the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC), within 120 days of the passage of this Resolution, and receive a Certification of Compliance in Operation from the Corporation in order to continue business.

- that all financial institutions and relevant constituents within any Member Nation, bring themselves into compliance with the articles of this Resolution within 120 days, upon passage.

- that the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC) and it’s representative, the Investment and Securities Insurance Corporation (ISIC) are empowered to rescind and/or suspend for a time they deem necessary and appropriate; Certifications of Compliance in Operation, and to levy fees and fines upon persons and institutions who the Commission, upon recommendation of the Corporation, finds are in violation and/or non-compliance of the articles of this resolution.

IT IS THUS RESOLVED, AND ENACTED.

Dollars is a RL reference and if included render this illegal. That is why trying to set specific arbitrary numbers is a tricky thing to try and do and best avoided. And trying to do so in “currency units” is just as bad as no two currencies trade at equal amounts. (Think Japanese Yen or Italian Lira vs. the US Dollar or Pound Sterling)

Grays Harbor wrote:Dollars is a RL reference and if included render this illegal. That is why trying to set specific arbitrary numbers is a tricky thing to try and do and best avoided. And trying to do so in “currency units” is just as bad as no two currencies trade at equal amounts. (Think Japanese Yen or Italian Lira vs. the US Dollar or Pound Sterling)

The ISEC has the authority to regulate the markets as set forth by its Resolution, you can see how that might be difficult to do without a standard currency to base things off of, however!

What if I changed it to “35 percent of the fair market value of the security/investment at its time of sale”? No monetary units or currency to specifically speak of, and allows for a value through percentage appropriate to whatever currency the particular security/investment is being sold in at the time.

OOC: I might misunderstand, but does '- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.' mean that I cannot sell my company even if I want nothing to do with it anymore? Or even my stock in company XYZ, which I aquired just two days prior?

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I might misunderstand, but does '- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.' mean that I cannot sell my company even if I want nothing to do with it anymore? Or even my stock in company XYZ, which I aquired just two days prior?

It means you cannot divest entire options, but does allow for a majority of your holding (51 percent) to be divested, ending all legal; associations, responsibilities, liabilities, and authorities you may have had, that were associated with that option, in most jurisdictions.

The year cap would mean that 365 days from the date of sale, you would be able to sell the other 49 percent.

In the case that you haven’t sold 51 percent of any one holding, you may continue to divest from that holding, up until you hit the 51 percent threshold on that option, regardless of the sale date of previous divestments.

Thus, you needn’t worry about the year cap, until you hit the percentage threshold, and once you have, the threshold still ends your association with you option in most places, and nevertheless allows you to sell the rest of a given option after 365 days.

Firmly against. From my reading (and correct me if I'm wrong), this would destroy the entire banking and financial industry...

Adriatican wrote:

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I might misunderstand, but does '- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.' mean that I cannot sell my company even if I want nothing to do with it anymore? Or even my stock in company XYZ, which I aquired just two days prior?

It means you cannot divest entire options, but does allow for a majority of your holding (51 percent) to be divested, ending all legal; associations, responsibilities, liabilities, and authorities you may have had, that were associated with that option, in most jurisdictions.

The year cap would mean that 365 days from the date of sale, you would be able to sell the other 49 percent.

In the case that you haven’t sold 51 percent of any one holding, you may continue to divest from that holding, up until you hit the 51 percent threshold on that option, regardless of the sale date of previous divestments.

Thus, you needn’t worry about the year cap, until you hit the percentage threshold, and once you have, the threshold still ends your association with you option in most places, and nevertheless allows you to sell the rest of a given option after 365 days.

OOC: Doesn't that wording rather imply a Zeno's Paradox of divestment? Once I've sold 51%, the remainder is now my entire investment or ownership stake, and thus after a year I can now sell only 51% of what's left - until the next year, when I can sell 51% of what's left of that... etc. Clarification of that shouldn't eat much of your character count.

Strongly opposed. The provision having to do with fair market value is actually based on the presumption that there exists no private value, which is a preposterous assumption. The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Adriatican wrote:
It means you cannot divest entire options, but does allow for a majority of your holding (51 percent) to be divested, ending all legal; associations, responsibilities, liabilities, and authorities you may have had, that were associated with that option, in most jurisdictions.

The year cap would mean that 365 days from the date of sale, you would be able to sell the other 49 percent.

In the case that you haven’t sold 51 percent of any one holding, you may continue to divest from that holding, up until you hit the 51 percent threshold on that option, regardless of the sale date of previous divestments.

Thus, you needn’t worry about the year cap, until you hit the percentage threshold, and once you have, the threshold still ends your association with you option in most places, and nevertheless allows you to sell the rest of a given option after 365 days.

OOC: Doesn't that wording rather imply a Zeno's Paradox of divestment? Once I've sold 51%, the remainder is now my entire investment or ownership stake, and thus after a year I can now sell only 51% of what's left - until the next year, when I can sell 51% of what's left of that... etc. Clarification of that shouldn't eat much of your character count.

As I explained, and as I imagine is rather obvious, it’s a ratio percentage of the whole, 51 percent one year, whatever’s left of that option thereafter.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Strongly opposed. The provision having to do with fair market value is actually based on the presumption that there exists no private value, which is a preposterous assumption. The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.

In actuality, and if you had read it, you’d see this entire resolution governs markets that fall under ISEC’s jurisdiction, and properly assumes that any all trading will result in an option finding its way into that jurisdiction.

OOC: This was submitted, I've marked it illegal as follows:

Proposal basics (proposals must be written as the laws they become - the first sentence sets the whole up as a proposal); Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)

Usually we recommend much drafting. In this case I struggle to see any justification for the huge intrusion into normal banking and investment practices. I can't see this passing in any form. Please offer some sort of justification for these seemingly random limits and why someone shouldn't be entitled to sell 100% of something they own. I'd also suggest a complete rewording, simple English is your friend. Most people will look at this say it's nonsense without trying to parse through your unnecessarily obtuse wording.

Adriatican wrote:In actuality, and if you had read it, you’d see this entire resolution governs markets that fall under ISEC’s jurisdiction, and properly assumes that any all trading will result in an option finding its way into that jurisdiction.

This is gobbledygook, not because of its use of technical terms, but for its misuse of them. First, by setting up regulations and a certification structure, literally everything falls within the ISEC's jurisdiction. Second, options are instruments which are acquired with the goal of generating income. Generally one acquires an option either to protect against a downside risk or, perhaps, with long options, generally the expectation of appreciation. Third, it applies regulations on exchange on domestic exchanges, violating section 5 of GA 401.

---

This is gobbledygook. Stocks aren't bonds. Stocks are not creditor relationships (although one can set one up like a creditor relationship, e.g. US TARP and senior preferred stock). The fact of owning a corporation's bonds doesn't give ownership of that corporation. It may give you precedence in bankruptcy proceedings. That is meaningless vis-à-vis ownership. Options are neither stocks nor bonds: they are the option to purchase or sell something at a pre-negotiated price at some time in the future (or for American options, until some time in the future). A put option does not give one a right to ownership in as much as it gives one a right to transact on predefined terms.

You need to take a finance class.

I'd also recommend a review of how laws are formatted. Real world laws like the Financial Services Act 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 021_en.pdf are really long and formatted like this. World Assembly legislation is formatted generally in the predominant way that is plastered all over my signature and in the sticked Passed Resolutions thread at the top of this forum. UN resolutions too can be found online. What you have looks like it walked out of Exhibit A of Meads v Meads.

(OOC: As was said in the other thread, this doesn’t look like a proposal. Although there’s nothing wrong in a legality sense with going against formatting rules, you’ve gone so far away from the legislative format that it isn’t allowed. This can be pretty easily reworded into a more traditional look, found in most proposals in the passed resolutions thread.

Furthermore, I don’t understand why you are doing a lot of what you’re doing. In the first few clauses, you appear to be banning financial institutions from success. 45% is absolutely massive, but if a bank predicts a spike in inflation/deflation then it’s certainly possible. Banning the sale of over 51% of a business is also strange. Why shouldn’t the owner be able to sell their company. Also, sales of 50.1%, still a majority, do exist.)

OOC: Given that I can't understand the majority of it, and that even IA calls bits of it "gobbledygook", I'm fairly willing to guess that 1. people who are like me and not well-versed in financial things, will just look at it and see a lot of nonsense, and 2. people who are well-versed in financial things, will look at it and see quite a bit of nonsense...

Additionally, given GA #205, Freedom to Contract, any restriction of selling something you personally own (which is a contract between two parties, one of which is a person) must meet the condition of a "compelling public policy interest", and from what little I understood about the text, I'm not really seeing any kind of justification for this. (Or if there is one, it's buried too deep in the financial gobbledygook. )

Oh and there exists a committee named "World Assembly Trade Commission", so anything to do with trade would probably naturally fit under its functions, without a need to make up new ones.

Also, the 365 days thing? Even if not thinking of RP realities with days or years of different length or both, in RL there are leap years that have 366 days, so if you want to say "year", actually say "year".

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.

OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?


And just for the record, I'm against resolutions that unnecessarily occludes understanding through vehement verbosity and use of pseudo-intellectual jargon.

OOC: so is your intention to take the financial industry and strangle the life out of it? Because it seems to me like that's what your intention is here; not that I can properly tell, though, because your way of writing is just a tad bit too fancy for me to properly understand. Fancy writing isn't a bad thing, but going over the top definitely is, so please, cut back on that grandiose language, and by that I mean get rid of it entirely, read passed resolutions, and use a style similar to those instead. I highly doubt people will even consider voting in favour of this if they can barely to not at all understand what your proposal does.

OOC: Am I the only one who noticed that the person making this proposal includes a new committee called " International Securities and Exchange Commission" which is also featured in the players signature where he dubs himself "1st Chair" of ISEC. Now, as has been pointed out by others, this legislation is complete "gobbledygook" as is the technical jargon of the WA, but it appears to me that we have someone who is, through legislative flim-flam, trying to create a committee which he has already named himself as head of that has a massive power over the financial institutions of member states. Yes, I know committees do not work "work that way" and I have full confidence that if enacted the gnomes will see to it that his Chairmanship is a swift and brief one, but may it please the chamber, I would announce that this proposal has the distinctly putrid aroma of a member of the species Rattus norvegicus but that would be disrespectful to those honorable members of the chamber who represent nations with a population of and/or are themselves, in fact, sentient Rats.

ISEC already exists, see GA 401 or thereabouts. The GA canon says that gnomes are on it, not this chap who has self-proclaimed himself to be its head—just like how Bitely attempted to use his creation of the World Space Administration as a jumping-off point for a region by that name—but that's a separate matter.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.

OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?

I'm unclear as to how it could limit anything. Investment banking is still going to happen because it produces value. Now, instead of having two separate banks doing two separate things, the least costly way to do it would be to have one bank which has net income of less than 55 per cent from investment banking. The obvious reaction to that is for Goldman Sachs—for example—to just find themselves a retail bank to pair off with so that the proportion falls.

Attempted Socialism wrote:And just for the record, I'm against resolutions that unnecessarily occludes understanding through vehement verbosity and use of pseudo-intellectual jargon.

What the OP has written is very much out of line with current legislative practice. This document here outlines what current legislative practice is: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 018.2..pdf. The Judicial Committee Act 1833 is considerably more verbose than what one would find in modern legislative syntax. But it at least follows standard syntax. I'm not sure as to whether the proposal before us in fact follows any modern legislative syntax. The only thing that I think it resembles is organised pseudo-legal commercial argument (OPCA, cf Meads v Meads) or—at the top—letters patent from the mid 17th century.

Whoops, double post.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?

I'm unclear as to how it could limit anything. Investment banking is still going to happen because it produces value. Now, instead of having two separate banks doing two separate things, the least costly way to do it would be to have one bank which has net income of less than 55 per cent from investment banking. The obvious reaction to that is for Goldman Sachs—for example—to just find themselves a retail bank to pair off with so that the proportion falls.

It limits something because a bank right now could entirely mix and match commercial and investment enterprise as they desire (Unless there are resolutions I have missed), leading to the scenario we saw in 2008 (Failures of investment banking being transferred into their commercial side and threatening regular customers). If the most efficient thing for banks right now would be two banks doing two separate things, this resolution would change nothing. If the most efficient thing is to mix, this resolution would limit that, though I don't think it would make a substantial difference.

Attempted Socialism wrote:And just for the record, I'm against resolutions that unnecessarily occludes understanding through vehement verbosity and use of pseudo-intellectual jargon.

What the OP has written is very much out of line with current legislative practice. This document here outlines what current legislative practice is: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 018.2..pdf. The Judicial Committee Act 1833 is considerably more verbose than what one would find in modern legislative syntax. But it at least follows standard syntax. I'm not sure as to whether the proposal before us in fact follows any modern legislative syntax. The only thing that I think it resembles is organised pseudo-legal commercial argument (OPCA, cf Meads v Meads) or—at the top—letters patent from the mid 17th century.

Whoops, double post.

I'm used to reading Danish Civil Law legislation. This is the Danish Public Administration Law. Length, or even verbosity, is not the issue; rather that here it unnecessarily occludes understanding. The style here reminds me more of the promulgations of Estates General, but then again I have so far made a habit of avoiding 17th century patents.

Okay, I'll reset this section of the discussion, as I realised the words "pair off" can mean entirely separate things. When I say "pair off", I mean, as in a group of people pair off into pairs, not as in people stop being something. Now, how I read the proposal's impact is that given investment banking will still happen, then people will just move from investment banking being separated from retail banking to not doing that. Saying that your income from investment banking activities cannot exceed some number just means you need to find some other stuff to dilute that figure.

Sadly, I know no Danish, so I can't compare. But the syntactical style of the proposal does appear particularly out of step with modern conventions.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Now, how I read the proposal's impact is that given investment banking will still happen, then people will just move from investment banking being separated from retail banking to not doing that.

... what? This is incomprehensible.

If investment banking and commercial banking are currently separated, this will change nothing (If you're not doing A, limiting A to 0.55A has no effect).
If investment banking and commercial banking are currently tied together, this will limit that connection to at most 55% (Which may be ineffective in the grand scheme of things, but not the total reversal of the proposal that you're imagining). Sure, banks might find other ways to dilute those percentages, or accept it and shift revenue streams to fees or what have you, but only if they were already connected above 55%.

I don't think there's any reason to creatively interpret the proposal to mean the opposite of what it says to shoot it down, and I simply can't see how you got to the version you're putting forth here.

B is an investment bank. They earn 100 pc of their income from investment banking. A net income provision would require B to find something to dilute its investment bank derived income.

R is a retail bank. It earns none of its income from investment banking. Neither B nor R believe that going bankrupt is a good idea. As B will soon go bankrupt unless it finds a buyer, it can be bought at a low price.

B and R merge (more likely, R purchases B). The resulting institution fulfils the income source requirement.

Do you now understand how this promotes investment banks and retail banks to merge?

EDIT: What are the impacts of this? Sure, the merged institution M has more capital and likely less volatile income flows. It is less likely to fail. But if it does fail, it is larger than the predecessor institutions and has entangled liabilities. It is more systemically risky.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:B is an investment bank. They earn 100 pc of their income from investment banking. A net income provision would require B to find something to dilute its investment bank derived income.

R is a retail bank. It earns none of its income from investment banking. Neither B nor R believe that going bankrupt is a good idea. As B will soon go bankrupt unless it finds a buyer, it can be bought at a low price.

B and R merge (more likely, R purchases B). The resulting institution fulfils the income source requirement.

Do you now understand how this promotes investment banks and retail banks to merge?

EDIT: What are the impacts of this? Sure, the merged institution M has more capital and likely less volatile income flows. It is less likely to fail. But if it does fail, it is larger than the predecessor institutions and has entangled liabilities. It is more systemically risky.

This scenario is what is being prohibited, which is why I am convinced you're misreading the proposal:
A is the investment division of MegaBank. B is the commercial part. Under the two clauses, if A dominates (Over 55%), A and B must be split.

To me this reads as if it is attempting to prevent another Lehman Brothers Fiasco. If that is the intention, then decimating the financial industry would make that more likely to happen, not less. There are far more simpler ways to go about what you are attempting to accomplish. Unnecessary jargon, is just that unnecessary. Try the K.I.S.S. principle instead, and you are likely to find success.