Comment

IFCs Act As Regulatory Capacity Builders

Charlotte Ku
Texas A&M University School of Law, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Andrew P. Morriss
Texas A&M University School of Innovation

Popular discussions of financial regulation often presuppose a binary regulatory framework between strict (good) jurisdictions and lax (bad) jurisdictions. IFC critics argue that IFCs are lax jurisdictions. This view is overly simplistic as it fails to account for differences among IFCs.

As a result, it misses the effectiveness and efficiency of IFC regulatory frameworks. A more textured understanding reveals the important contributions IFCs make to strengthening global financial regulation.

A lax-strict axis might explain simple regulations. Knowing the allowable maximum rate of interest can determine compliance with usury caps. Most financial regulation, however, is not so straightforward. For example, the degree of flexibility offered a captive insurance company in designing its investment strategies varies depending on the types of risks being insured, the amount of capital, and the level of risk shifted to the reinsurance markets. 

Feature

Family Offices

In this feature, we ask contributors from around the globe to take a look at the role of the Family Office in the world of wealth management and preservation. As well as examining the latest trends, we focus particularly on jurisdictions such as Singapore, Jersey and Bermuda and what makes them ideal hubs for the formation of a family office.

Feature

Caribbean IFCs and International Arbitration

In this feature, we look at the Caribbean's progress in the world of alternative dispute resolution, as some jurisdictions position themselves as centres for international arbitration.