Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Question: Section 16(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 , as amended in 1990 , requires that the officers, directors, and principal shareholders of companies disclose the extent of their ownership of equity securities of the company and any changes in the ownership. Section 16(b) permits companies to recover trading profits realized by such people arising from short-swing transactions in the company securities. Do you think that, as a result of these laws, the government will be forced to spend more money on its auditing and enforcement efforts? Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified

Answer:

The action must be reported and stopped, and no administrative costs need to be incurred.

Step by step solution

01

Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 

TheSecurities and Exchange Act of,1934 which was subsequently revised in , has restrictions aimed at limiting the practice of insider trading. In a way, the stock market's self-correcting process is created by these laws.

02

 Step 2: Explanation for enforcement efforts.

They exhort businesses to capitalize on the advantages that will result from outlawing insider trading themselves. Therefore,the government does not need to incur any additional supervision or administrative costs.

In reality, businesses themselves will suffer the most if they do not make an effort to cease such acts or denounce them to the government. In other words, the market itself helps enforce the law, as it will hamper the trust of bidders and the values of the companies will fall.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Show why externalities can lead competitive markets to provide socially inefficient quantities of goods and services; explain how government policies, such as the Clean Air Act, can improve resource allocation.

Question: Use the accompanying graph to answer the questions that follow.

a. Suppose this monopolist is unregulated. (1) What price will the firm charge to maximize its profits?(2) What is the level of consumer surplus at this price?

b. Suppose the firmโ€™s price is regulated at . (1) What is the firmโ€™s marginal revenue if it produces units? (2) If the firm is able to cover its variable costs at the regulated price, how much output will the firm produce in the short run to maximize its profits? (3) In the long run, how much output will this firm produce if the price remains regulated at ?

Explain why government attempts to solve market failures can lead to additional inefficiencies because of โ€œrent-seekingโ€ activities.

Question: You are an industry analyst who specializes in an industry where the market inverse demand is P = 200 - 4Q. The external marginal cost of producing the product is MCExternal= 6Q, and the internal cost is MCInternal= 12Q.

a. What is the socially efficient level of output?

b. Given these costs and market demand, how much output would a competitive industry produce?

c. Given these costs and market demand, how much output would a monopolist produce?

d. Discuss actions the government might take to induce firms in this industry to produce the socially efficient level of output.

Question:12. Between 1972 and 1981 , Texaco sold gasoline to independent Texaco retailers at "retail tank wagon prices" but granted substantial discounts to distributors Gull and Dompier. Gull resold the gas under its own name. Dompier resold the gas under the Texaco brand name to retail stations and entered the retailmarket directly. Since neither Gull nor Dompier had significant storage facilities, both distributors picked up gas directly from the Texaco plant and delivered it to their retail outlets. As a result, the sales volume increased substantially at the retail stations purchasing gas from these distributors, while independent Texaco retailers suffered a corresponding sales decline. In 1976, independent Texaco retailers filed suit against Texaco. In 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States found that Texaco had indeed violated antitrust law. Which law do you think Texaco was found guilty of violating?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Business Studies Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free