From Ethics to Regulation

(Thanks to daniele esposito for computer ethics graphic)

I like the "Catholic PC" in the sketch. I wonder how ethical it really is?

I have put a new paper on SSRN.com titled, "From Ethics to Regulation: The Re-Organization and Re-Professionalization of Large Law Firms in the 21st Century".

The abstract reads: The recent history of the legal profession is presented as one where the re-regulation of the profession, as epitomized in the Legal Services Act 2007, has placed the large law firm at the centre as a site of regulation in its own right. The legal profession has redefined its professional character from that of autonomous producers to employed lawyers who now exercise discretion within tightly constrained corporate limits. This is paralleled by the move away from individualistic codes of conduct towards entity-based regulation.
Keywords: ethics, regulation, Legal Services Act, large law firms.

I would appreciate any comments.

From Ethics to Regulation

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting - CHANGE OF TOPIC

Dear all

We learn that unfortunately Mr Axenov will not be able to give his talk as he could not obtain the visa. While hoping that he will visit us in the near future we revert to Descartes.

At the 49th session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance on Friday 16 April 2010, from 6.00 to 8.00pm, in room 5.16, 309 Regent Street (University of Westminster), we will read further from the Discourse on Method (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descartes/descartes1.htm ) with Joe’s insight: “The Cogito is Entirely Impersonal”.

Descartes' meta-method outside inventing analytical geometry is to provide us with a via negativa. We eliminate the implausible, the impossible, and the uncertain, and look for that which we cannot deny. We can deny our schooling, our teachers, books, cultures, chat and cant but this effort of elimination cannot itself be denied. The cogito ergo sum ("I think therefore I am") is not a positive statement about the being (Dasein) but a reflection on the noninvertibility of the pattern of thought, which cannot itself be denied. It is a statement of three compact assertions: (1) the personal act of thinking, (2) the assertion of personal being, and (3) the assertion of the linkage between the act of thinking and the sense of personal being. This holy trinity of assertions is unmeaningful to those who have not themselves undertaken the process of elimination--to strip naked and pay back all that is borrowed. What we have left after the process, after the method, is the austere design. Is this the trivial equivalence--the obvious given duality of mind and body--or is this a version of the surprising "many is one" argument? That the List of infinite particular thoughts are equivalent to one Property of existence? As we have said before such rationalistic analytical assertions are better read as hypotheticals of what we could be. The cogito is not about you in the particular--it is about what cannot be denied about you without denying the existence in the particular that is you.

At 8pm we – bodies, minds, many in one, whatever you think – will aim to Vapiano (19-21 Great Portland Street, W1W 8QB)

See you on Friday!
Joe and Laura

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting - CHANGE OF TOPIC

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting

Dear all

The 49th session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, on Friday 16 April 2010, from 6.00 to 8.00pm, in room 5.16, 309 Regent Street (University of Westminster) will receive a guest from New York.

Igor Axenov will present the talk “Wall Street?” discussing the financial system and the economy one year after the trough. Mr Axenov is a Market Risk Manager at Barclays Capital, NY, overseeing CDOs – probably one of the most important financial derivatives in the last 20 years and one of the main culprits in the credit crash.

You are all warmly invited to the event and to share food and drinks at Vapiano (19-21 Great Portland Street, W1W 8QB), from 8pm onwards.

See you on Friday!
Joe and Laura

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting

Why Europeans don’t like collective investments all that much?

Have you ever wondered why 1/3 of the U.S. population are mutual fund investors? According to the Investment Company Institute’s data at the end of 2008, U.S. mutual funds managed $10 trillion for 93 million U.S. investors. Putting the numbers in perspective, the entire population of Germany, the most populated European country, is just under 82 million, while France has 65.4 million living on its territories.

Are there cultural or legal impediments for a broader acceptance of collective investments in Europe? With this research question I turned to Rudolf Siebel, Managing Director of the BVI, the German Investment and Asset Management Association. BVI represents 75 members, the Kapitalanlagegesellschaften and Asset Managers, with more than €950 billion in assets under management.

According to Rudolf, securities business in Europe is not intermediated, but mostly associated with banking. Therefore, European investment managers do not have to offer a cash product to their clients along with equity or fixed-income investment options, because uninvested cash balances are kept by the sponsoring bank. Before the Glass-Steagall Act was lifted in the U.S., fund managers have had to place clients’ cash in a bank. Each time a fund investor sold shares of a bond or equity fund, the asset manager would lose money to a bank. When money market funds came about, they were embraced by asset managers as a way to keep all cash in house. Accidentally, in 1970s - 1980s, which was a period of high inflation in the U.S., interest rates on bank deposits were regulated. Money market funds offered much higher market interest rates and attracted hoards of retail investors. Money market funds introduced a few generations to mutual fund investing fueling the growth of U.S. middle class.

At our seminar on Wednesday, April 14th, I’ll talk about nailing down my research question(s) and more generally about a super-important step of putting together an MPhil/PhD Transfer application. A wise PhD Candidate strives to learn from a painful experience of others!

Find my presentation slides titled 'Financial Regulation and Development of Financial Products: a Case for Money Market Funds' at my page:
http://westminster.academia.edu/ViktoriaBaklanova/Talks

I hope to see you all on Wednesday!
Viktoria

Why Europeans don’t like collective investments all that much?

Proceedings from the 48th meeting (9 April) of the Philiosophical Foundations of Law and Finance

Dear all

Follow the proceedings from Friday 9 April meeting of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance: "Prescribing a Goal for Physical Science”.

1. At the 48th session of Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, we continued to read out loud and comment on Descartes' Discourse on Method.

2. The meetings are a rare opportunity to read together outstanding texts and have a jolly about wherever they take us.

3. 12 people attended, of which 7 PhD candidates and 4 Masters students.

4. We discussed how Descartes' introduction to the Discourse on Method could be seen in terms of a strategic marketing matrix where the essential four propositions are: (1) "I = You" Identification; (2) "Believe me" Authoritative; (3) "Participate in my image" Iconic; and (4) "Let's explore together" Adventure.

5. We agreed Descartes is substantively definitely not Iconic, but a bit of (1), (4) and then (2).

6. We also reviewed a recent metaphysical argument of what must be the goal of physical sciences. We don't have a name for this argument and, provisionally, Joe dubs it the "Uniqueness Theorem".

7. The Uniqueness Theorem (informally) goes like this: (1) Everywhere we observe around us things (a,b) combine to form other unique things (ab); (2) if (1) is assumed true then there is nothing to prevent us from imagining this state of affairs all the way back to the very beginning of any and all things; (3) similarly, nothing prevents us from imagining the same state of affairs to the very end of things; (4) note that (1) to (3) can be translated to say that each and every thing that ever was, is and will be have unique identification (eg, imagine each thing having a "bar code"); and (5) since (4) is entirely metaphysical (that is, non-physical and hypothetical), the goal of physical science is to prove the physicality of (4).

8. Not only does the Uniqueness Theorem tell us what science "must do" it also helps us understand the nature of value and money in the broadest metaphysical sense.

9. For example, Picasso was once asked by an art dealer, "Do you ever worry about money?" Picasso then took the art dealer's serviette (napkin), signed it and handed it back to the man, saying, "Now, get some money."

10. Joe also thinks the Uniqueness Theorem has applications in human rights and the development of cooking, but these matters will come in other notes or through the good works of students practicing their culinary arts on this most willing experimental subject.

See you next Friday!
Best, Joe and Laura

Proceedings from the 48th meeting (9 April) of the Philiosophical Foundations of Law and Finance

Prosecuting War Crimes in the UK

Marco Roscini was interviewed on the government's intention to restrict prosecution in the UK for war crimes committed abroad by Diversity FM. The interview was based on an article written by Gordon Brown in the Daily Telegraph.

You can download and listen to the recording here.

Prosecuting War Crimes in the UK

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 48th Weekly Meeting

Dear all

You are invited to the 48th gathering of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance on Friday 9 April 2010, from 6.00 to 8.00pm, in room 5.16, 309 Regent Street (University of Westminster).

After the Easter break we resume our seminars in the best tradition analysing philosophically some current events of law and finance.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Can we regulate complex financial instruments? How about asset-backed securities? We will read the article by Hughes: “US lenders face crucial reforms”, published on 7 April on the FT (see http://link.ft.com/r/A1TNOO/A7X3UO/FK57F/RNGOAO/YHGAV7/FW/h). Noteworthy, the US SEC has proposed major changes to Regulation AB governing the disclosures on asset-backed securities prospectuses: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/33-9117.pdf

2. We will continue the analysis of Descartes' Discourse on Method (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descartes/descartes1.htm)

I take the freedom to remind you that Joe is probably as erudite in securitisation (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Securitisation-Law-EU-Disclosure-Regulations/dp/product-description/1405734485) as he is in philosophy. Thus be ready to get in-depth for a critical thought about finance and rationalism, metaphysics, sentiments, spirits…

We will re-emerge from 8pm onwards heading to Vapiano (19-21 Great Portland Street, W1W 8QB) for food and drinks.

See you on Friday!

Joe and Laura

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 48th Weekly Meeting