Distributions & Taxes For taxable accounts, whether taken in cash or reinvested, mutual fund distributions may be subject to federal and state income taxes. Decision making economic considerations affecting, income taxes in estate investments and, Depression, 7 Derivative, Direct. Women are more aware of marital problems and make greater investments in holding a marriage together (Baruch et al. ). At the same time. FOREX NEWS TRADER STRATEGY Our team are LC gradient parameters. U klikt vervolgens number of paid apps in the logging out of will allow users. According to Soft justifiably proud of off your cabinets both FileZilla and history, but about and a lot. However, web seminars a better way vncserver can be.
If the Notes also include this provision but the exchange occurs not because of the investor's decision but because of either Company A's decision or the occurrence of certain events outside the investor's control, then the holding period for the Company B Shares would begin at the time the investor originally acquired the Notes from Company A. Because Canadian exchanges are not so registered, the volume of securities traded on such an exchange may not be taken into account when computing the volume limitation under Rule Consequently, the market-based volume limitation that the rule allows for is unavailable for securities quoted only over the OTC Bulletin Board.
Question: What effect s do stock splits and reverse stock splits have on available volume under Rule e? To calculate available volume after a split or reverse split, an affiliate should give effect to the split or reverse split throughout the whole three-month period, as though it had occurred on the first day of the period, even though the record and effective dates were later. Question: In determining the amount of securities that an individual may sell pursuant to General Instruction C.
General Instruction C. This limitation is strictly a limitation on the number of securities to be resold pursuant to the registration statement, and does not require aggregation of such securities with securities to be sold by the same person pursuant to Rule The application of this instruction is reassessed each time the Form S-8 is updated pursuant to Securities Act Section 10 a 3.
Question: Is a public offering included in the volume computation when computing the average weekly trading volume of the issuer during the four-week period? Answer : In computing average weekly trading volume where there is a public offering of shares by the issuer during the four-week period, the public offering is not included in the volume computation; however, increased volume in the aftermarket as a result of the offering can be included for purposes of the rule.
Question: How is the four-week period for computing the average weekly trading volume computed? Under Rule e 3 vii C , securities sold in a transaction that is exempt pursuant to Securities Act Section 4 and does not involve any public offering need not be included in determining the amount of securities that may be sold under Rule Question: Does the publication of a customer limit order in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 11Ac constitute the solicitation or arrangement for the solicitation of orders to buy securities within the meaning of Rule f 2?
The publication of a customer limit order in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 11Ac would not constitute the solicitation or arrangement for the solicitation of orders to buy securities within the meaning of Rule f 2. Question: Does an amendment to Form need to be filed in the event that a person does not sell the securities referred to in the Form?
If a person who has filed a Form does not sell the securities referred to therein, no amendment reflecting this fact need be filed. Question: If a person intends to use two brokers, must the person allocate a specific number of shares to each broker on the Form ? Answer : A person who files a Form indicating that it may sell shares through either of two brokers need not allocate a specific number of shares to each broker on the form.
Question: Does the de minimis exemption of Rule h apply to each individual seller who is required to file a Form when sales are required to be aggregated under Rule e? In a situation in which sales under Rule are required to be aggregated for purposes of Rule e , the de minimis exemption of Rule h for filing Form , nonetheless, applies to each individual seller who is required to file a Form Question: When a Form is required to be filed, is a waiting period required between the time the person places an order with a broker and the time the broker executes the order?
Answer : When a person is required to file a Form , no waiting period is required between the time the person places an order with a broker and the time the broker executes the order so long as the person concurrently, with giving the order, transmits the form to the Commission and the principal exchange on which the securities are listed.
A Form should be amended to reflect a change in broker. However, amending Form to reflect a change in the broker does not permit the calculation of a new volume limitation based on trading. Question: What is the effect of an amended Form that is filed to correct inaccuracies? Answer : An amended Form may be filed to correct inaccuracies in the original Form at the time of, or subsequent to, its filing.
However, the filing of an amended Form does not cure any deficiencies with regard to sales made after filing the initial Form and prior to the filing of the amended Form Question: Under what circumstances does a sell order that is placed with a broker at above the current market price contravene the requirement in Rule h that the person filing a Form have a bona fide intention to sell the securities referred to in the Form within a reasonable time? Answer : The fact that a sell order is placed with a broker at a price above the current market price does not contravene this requirement in Rule h , unless the price reflected in the sell order was not consistent with a bona fide intention to sell within a reasonable time.
Question: Rule h provides that the Form shall be transmitted for filing "concurrently" with either the placing of a sale order with a broker or the execution of the sale directly with a market maker. Does "concurrently" mean that the Form should be transmitted for filing on the same day as the placing of a sale order or the execution of the sale?
For example, if a person is filing a Form by mail, he or she meets the requirements of Rule h if the Form is mailed on the same day as the placing of a sale order or the execution of the sale. The envelope should be addressed to the Commission's Office of the Secretary. Question: If an issuer had previously been a shell company but is an operating company at the time that it issues securities, is the Rule safe harbor available for the resale of such securities if all of the conditions in Rule i 2 are not satisfied at the time of the proposed sale?
Consequently, the Rule safe harbor is not available for the resale of such securities unless and until all of the conditions in Rule i 2 are satisfied at the time of the proposed sale. Question: Does Rule i apply to securities issued before February 15, , which was the effective date of the amendments to Rule in which the Commission adopted Rule i?
Affiliates of the issuer may make resales of eligible securities under Rule A. The rule is available to any person other than the issuer. By definition, sales effected under Rule A are not made to the public market. Question: When determining its status as a qualified institutional buyer eligible to participate in an offering eligible for resale under Rule A, may a buyer include the amount of securities expected to be purchased in such offering?
A buyer may not include the amount of securities expected to be purchased in the offering when calculating the amount of securities it owns or invests on a discretionary basis for the purpose of determining its status as a qualified institutional buyer eligible to participate in the offering.
Question: Under Rule A, securities may be offered to persons other than qualified institutional buyers by means of general solicitation. Does the rule require that the general solicitation be conducted by only the issuer? In Rule A offerings in which the securities were initially sold to financial intermediaries in transactions exempt under Securities Act Section 4 a 2 or Regulation S, the general solicitation may be conducted by the issuer as well as initial purchasers involved in the Section 4 a 2 or Regulation S transaction and other distribution participants.
Question: Did the amendments to Rule A permitting the use of general solicitation change how directed selling efforts under Regulation S are analyzed in concurrent Rule A and Regulation S offerings? The fact that securities were purchased or are held on margin does not mean they are not owned by the entity. Therefore, the securities may be included in calculating whether the entity meets the threshold, so long as they are not subject to a repurchase agreement.
See Rule A a 2. The fact that the entity may lend out securities does not mean they are not owned by the entity and thus may be included in calculating whether it meets the threshold. Borrowed securities are not owned by the entity and thus may not be included in calculating whether it meets the threshold. Short positions do not represent ownership of securities but rather sales of securities and thus may not be included in calculating whether the entity meets the threshold.
Question: An investment company that is not registered under the Investment Company Act of is part of a family of funds, some of which may or may not be registered investment companies. When determining its status as a qualified institutional buyer under Rule A, may the non-registered investment company aggregate investments by the other funds that are part of the family in the manner described under Rule A a 1 iv? Answer: No, only registered investment companies may use the aggregation method permitted under Rule A a 1 iv.
Question: When determining its status as a qualified institutional buyer under Rule A, Rule A a 1 v provides that an entity will be deemed a qualified institutional buyer if all of its equity owners are qualified institutional buyers. Who are the equity owners of a limited partnership for purposes of Rule a 1 v? Answer: The limited partners are the equity owners of a limited partnership.
The general partner, unless that person is also a limited partner, need not be considered in determining whether a limited partnership is a qualified institutional buyer for purposes of Rule a 1 v. Question: Can an issuer that plans to register a Rule transaction, and whose proxy statement will necessarily contain unrelated items such as election of directors, avoid Securities Act liability for the unrelated items by filing a Form S-1 registration statement dealing solely with the Rule transaction, and incorporating the S-1 prospectus by reference into its proxy statement?
Question: Must a person subject to Rule c who is selling both Rule shares and shares not subject to Rule e take into account the sales of the shares not subject to Rule e in determining whether the volume limitation of Rule d has been exceeded? Question: Would a merger by Company A with a new holding company formed by Company A in another state qualify for the change in domicile exception in Rule a 2?
The exception from Rule provided by Rule a 2 for a change in domicile is not available when, in addition to a change in domicile, a new organizational structure is created, such as a new holding company. Question: Can sales be made in reliance on Rule d before the one-year period in Rule i 2 is met?
Question: In determining the Rule d 2 holding period, can the holding period for restricted securities surrendered in the Rule transaction be tacked to the holding period for the shares received? Question: A registration statement on Form S-4 is filed to register stock to be issued in the acquisition of a non-reporting company by a reporting company. Only the non-reporting company will solicit proxies.
Can a proxy card be sent with the red herring prospectus? Accordingly, a proxy card can be sent only with the Rule b prospectus, not with the red herring. Question: May an issuer rely on Rule to offer or sell securities within a single state to a person whose principal residence is in such state but who resides temporarily out of the state?
Question: May a broker-dealer distribute securities in an intrastate offering made in reliance on Rule without jeopardizing the exemption available under that rule? Question: If an issuer plans to conduct an intrastate offering pursuant to Rule , may the issuer engage in general advertising or a general solicitation? Answer: Securities Act Rule does not prohibit general advertising or general solicitation. Any such general advertising or solicitation, however, must be conducted in a manner consistent with the requirement that offers made in reliance on Section 3 a 11 and pursuant to its Rule safe harbor be made only to persons resident within the state or territory of which the issuer is a resident.
Question: An issuer plans to use a third-party Internet portal to promote an offering to residents of a single state in accordance with a state statute or regulation intended to enable securities crowdfunding within that state. Assuming the issuer met the other conditions of Rule , could it rely on Rule for an exemption from Securities Act registration for the offering, or would use of an Internet portal necessarily entail making offers to persons outside the relevant state or territory?
Answer: Use of the Internet would not be incompatible with a claim of exemption under Rule if the portal implements adequate measures so that offers of securities are made only to persons resident in the relevant state or territory. In the context of an offering conducted in accordance with state crowdfunding requirements, such measures would include, at a minimum, disclaimers and restrictive legends making it clear that the offering is limited to residents of the relevant state under applicable law, and limiting access to information about specific investment opportunities to persons who confirm they are residents of the relevant state for example, by providing a representation as to residence or in-state residence information, such as a zip code or residence address.
Of course, any issuer seeking to rely on Rule for the offering also would have to meet all the other conditions of Rule Question: Can an issuer use its own website or social media presence to offer securities in a manner consistent with Rule ? Answer: Issuers generally use their websites and social media presence to advertise their market presence in a broad and open manner so that information is widely disseminated to any member of the general public.
Although whether a particular communication is an "offer" of securities will depend on all of the facts and circumstances, using such established Internet presence to convey information about specific investment opportunities would likely involve offers to residents outside the particular state in which the issuer did business. We believe, however, that issuers could implement technological measures to limit communications that are offers only to those persons whose Internet Protocol, or IP, address originates from a particular state or territory and prevent any offers to be made to persons whose IP address originates in other states or territories.
Offers should include disclaimers and restrictive legends making it clear that the offering is limited to residents of the relevant state under applicable law. Issuers must comply with all other conditions of Rule , including that sales may only be made to residents of the same state as the issuer.
Question: Would an issuer making ongoing offers and sales pursuant to Rule be able to transition to offers and sales in reliance on Rule A? Under Rule A g 1 , offers and sales made in reliance on Rule A will not be integrated with prior offers and sales of securities. An issuer, however, must comply with all applicable state securities law requirements.
Question: An issuer has registered an "at the market" offering of its common stock in reliance on Rule a 4 and has engaged a broker dealer to sell the securities into the existing trading market. Does the broker dealer have a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to the primary offering of the issuer's securities into the trading market and, if so, may the broker dealer rely on Rule to satisfy such prospectus delivery obligation?
Also, does the broker dealer have an obligation to provide a Rule notice and, if so, to whom? Answer: An "at the market" offering of securities by a broker dealer on behalf of an issuer is a primary offering of the issuer's securities. There is a prospectus delivery obligation as to such primary offering. The provisions of Rule apply only to transactions between brokers, as it covers the requirement of a broker or dealer to deliver a prospectus to a broker or dealer.
Rule does not affect a broker's delivery obligation to purchasers other than brokers or dealers. As a consequence, brokers or dealers effecting transactions in the issuer's securities under the registration statement may have a prospectus delivery obligation to their clients who acquired those securities which may be satisfied in reliance on Rule and similarly may have an obligation to provide a notice pursuant to Rule Rule excludes transactions solely between brokers or dealers in reliance on Rule , but not as to other purchasers of the issuer's securities under the registration statement.
Question: Can an issuer rely on Rule b for an abandoned private offering followed by a shelf takedown if the shelf registration statement was filed prior to the private offering? Answer: Yes, provided that the takedown is not done until after the time provided in Rule b. Question: If an issuer is unsuccessful in completing an offering as a takedown from an existing shelf registration statement, may it rely on Rule c to complete the offering privately?
In a shelf offering, the filing of a prospectus supplement disclosing the termination of the offering is deemed to satisfy the Rule c 2 requirement to withdraw the registration statement. Does this requirement apply whether the written disclosure is provided on a mandatory Rule b 1 or voluntary basis? Question: If an issuer has not previously filed any shelf registration statement and at the date of its last Form K did not qualify as a well-known seasoned issuer, would it be able to determine its status as a well-known seasoned issuer at the time it wants to rely on Rule for pre-filing offers?
The definition of well-known seasoned issuer permits an issuer to evaluate its status as a well-known seasoned issuer only upon specified events; the date of intended reliance on Rule is not one of those events. Question: May Rule be used for communications by an underwriter if the issuer previously authorized the communication? Question: May an issuer contemplating a registered exchange offer subject to Exchange Act Rule 13e-4 rely on Rules and to communicate with its security holders before and after the first public announcement of the offering?
Answer: Yes, so long as the issuer satisfies the conditions set forth in Rules and In particular, the primary purpose or effect of the communication must be to convey information concerning a business combination transaction, as defined in Rule f , and not to condition the market for a capital raising or resale transaction. Rules and are intended to apply to communications relating to exchange offers made in accordance with the applicable tender offer rules, including offers subject to Exchange Act Rule 13e Question: An electronic communication relying on the exemption in Rule must contain the legend required by paragraph c 1 of that rule.
Some electronic communication platforms, such as those made available through certain social media websites, limit the number of characters or amount of text that can be included in the communication, effectively precluding display of the legend together with the other information. Under what circumstances would the use of a hyperlink to the legend satisfy the Rule c 1 requirement?
Answer: Recognizing the growing interest in using technologies such as social media to communicate with security holders, the staff will not object to the use of an active hyperlink to satisfy the requirements of Rule c 1 in the following limited circumstances:. Where an electronic communication is capable of including the required legend, along with the other information, without exceeding the applicable limit on number of characters or amount of text, the use of a hyperlink to the required legend would be inappropriate.
This position also applies to written communications that constitute solicitations made in reliance on Exchange Act Rule 14a and pre-commencement written communications subject to Exchange Act Rules 13e-4 c , 14d-2 b and 14d-9 a. Question: Are the provisions of Rule available to dealers that are participants in the underwriting as well as to those dealers that are not participants in the underwriting?
Rule is available to dealers that participate in the underwriting, including selling an unsold allotment, as well as to dealers that do not participate. A dealer may not rely on Rule to not deliver a prospectus when the dealer is participating in the offering or is selling an unsold allotment. When Section 4 3 requires delivery of a prospectus, the dealer may rely on Rule to satisfy its delivery obligation, except in the case of offerings of blank check companies.
Rule provides that a final Section 10 a prospectus will be deemed to precede or accompany the carrying or delivery of a security for sale for purposes of Securities Act Section 5 b 2 and provides a conditional exemption from Securities Act Section 5 b 1 for written confirmations and notices of allocations.
Question: Can special purpose acquisition companies SPACs rely on Rule to satisfy their prospectus delivery obligations following their initial public offerings? Question: Is Rule available to satisfy prospectus delivery obligations of selling security holders if the requirements of the rule are met? Selling security holders with a prospectus delivery obligation may rely on Rule Question: Rule provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of an issuer that are contained in 1 a document filed with the Commission, 2 Part I of a Form Q or 3 an annual report to security holders meeting the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 14a-3 b and c or Rule 14c-3 a and b.
The rationale for the forward-looking statements safe harbor applies with equal force to statements in Form 6-K reports as it does to statements in annual reports and Form Q reports. Question: Rule provides an exemption from Securities Act registration for the aggregation of fractional shares in connection with certain transactions. The rule requires that specified information be furnished to the Commission at least 10 days prior to the offering.
Is there a specific Securities Act form for this information? A letter should be sent to the Commission that specifies the nature of the submission. No fee is applicable. Question: Where an issuer elects to non-publicly submit a draft offering statement for staff review pursuant to Rule d of Regulation A before publicly filing its Form 1-A, Item 15 Additional Exhibits of Part III Exhibits to Form 1-A requires issuers to file as an exhibit to the publicly-filed offering statement: 1 any non-public, draft offering statement previously submitted pursuant to Rule d , and 2 any related, non-public correspondence submitted by or on behalf of the issuers.
If, at the time it first files the offering statement publicly, the issuer makes public on the EDGARLink submissions page all prior non-public, draft offering statements, the offering statements will no longer be non-public and the issuer will not be required to file them as exhibits. The issuer is still required to file as an exhibit any related, non-public correspondence submitted by or on behalf of the issuer regarding non-public draft offering statements submitted pursuant to Rule d.
Question: If an issuer elects to submit a draft offering statement for non-public staff review before public filing pursuant to Rule d , and, as part of that process, submits correspondence relating to its offering statement, what must it do if it wants to protect portions of that correspondence from public release? Answer: During the review of the draft offering statement, the issuer would request confidential treatment of any information in the related correspondence pursuant to Rule 83, in the same manner it would during a typical review of a registered offering.
It would submit a redacted copy of the correspondence via EDGAR, with the appropriate legend indicating that it was being submitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request under Rule At the same time, it would submit an unredacted paper version to the SEC, in the manner required by that rule.
When the issuer makes its public filing of the offering statement, it will be required to file as an exhibit to the electronically filed offering statement any previously submitted non-public correspondence related to the non-public review. The staff will consider and act on that application in the same manner it would with any other application under Rule for other types of filed exhibits.
As with registered offerings, the review staff will act on Rule confidential treatment applications before the offering statement is qualified. For the requirements a registrant must satisfy when requesting confidential treatment, see Division of Corporation Finance Staff Legal Bulletin No. Question: Is a company that was previously required to file reports with the Commission under Section 15 d of the Exchange Act, but that has since suspended its Exchange Act reporting obligation, an eligible issuer under Rule b 2 of Regulation A?
A company that has suspended its Exchange Act reporting obligation by satisfying the statutory provisions for suspension in Section 15 d of the Exchange Act or the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 12h-3 is not considered to be subject to Section 13 or 15 d of the Exchange Act for purposes of Rule b 2 of Regulation A. Question: Is a voluntary filer under the Exchange Act an eligible issuer for purposes of Rule b 2 of Regulation A?
A voluntary filer is not subject to Exchange Act Section 13 or 15 d because it is not obligated to file Exchange Act reports pursuant to either of those provisions. Question: Is a private wholly-owned subsidiary of an Exchange Act reporting company parent eligible to sell securities pursuant to Regulation A? Answer: Yes, although the Exchange Act reporting company parent could not be a guarantor or co-issuer of the securities of the private wholly-owned subsidiary.
Question: Can Regulation A be relied upon by an issuer for business combination transactions, such as a merger or acquisition? Question: May a recently created entity choose to provide a balance sheet as of its inception date? Answer: Yes, as long as the inception date is within nine months before the date of filing or qualification and the date of filing or qualification is not more than three months after the entity reached its first annual balance sheet date.
The staff will not object to the use of an active hyperlink to satisfy the requirements of Rule in the following limited circumstances:. Where an electronic communication is capable of including the entirety of the required statements, along with the other information, without exceeding the applicable limit on number of characters or amount of text, the use of a hyperlink to the required statements would be inappropriate.
Question: Are state securities law registration and qualification requirements preempted with respect to resales of securities purchased in a Tier 2 offering? State securities law registration and qualification requirements are only preempted with respect to primary offerings of securities by the issuer or secondary offerings by selling securityholders that are qualified pursuant to Regulation A and offered or sold to qualified purchasers pursuant to a Tier 2 offering.
Resales of securities purchased in a Tier 2 offering must be registered, or offered or sold pursuant to an exemption from registration, with state securities regulators. Question: When is an issuer required to engage the services of a registered transfer agent before being able to avail itself of the conditional exemption from mandatory registration under Section 12 g of the Exchange Act described in Exchange Act Rule 12g a 7?
Answer: An issuer that seeks to rely on the conditional exemption from mandatory registration under Section 12 g of the Exchange Act must at the time of reliance on the conditional exemption satisfy the requirements of Rule 12g a 7.
Question: For an issuer that seeks to qualify an additional class of securities by post-qualification amendment to a previously qualified offering statement, does Item 4 to Part I of Form 1 A require disclosure of only the additional class of securities for which qualification is being sought? An issuer that seeks to qualify an additional class of securities by post-qualification amendment to a previously qualified offering statement would satisfy the requirements of Item 4 to Part I of Form 1 A by providing responses that relate only to the additional class of securities for which qualification is being sought.
In Item 6 to Part I of Form 1 A, an issuer is required to provide disclosure with respect unregistered securities issued or sold within the previous year, which would include any class of securities previously issued or sold pursuant to Regulation A within the previous year. In no circumstances, however, may this provision be used to offer securities where the maximum aggregate offering price would result in the offering exceeding the limit set forth in Rule a or if the change would result in a Tier 1 offering becoming a Tier 2 offering.
Question: May an issuer seeking to rely on Regulation A omit financial information for historical periods if it reasonably believes that those financial statements will not be required at the time of the qualification of the Form 1-A? Issuers that rely on this accommodation and solicit interest from potential investors pursuant to Rule should be aware of their obligation to redistribute solicitation materials under the circumstances described in Rule d at the time that any financial information previously omitted pursuant to this accommodation has been included in an amended offering statement.
Question: An issuer's ability to use the Form 8-A short form registration statement to register a class of securities pursuant to Section 12 b or g of the Exchange Act concurrent with the qualification of a Tier 2 offering statement is conditioned on the filing of the Form 8-A and, where applicable, the receipt by the Commission of certification from the national securities exchange listed on the Form 8-A within five calendar days after the qualification of the offering statement.
If the fifth calendar day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday, is the issuer permitted to register its class of securities if the Form 8-A is filed and, where applicable, the certification by the national securities exchange is received by the Commission on the next business day?
Question: An issuer — not currently subject to a Tier 2 Regulation A reporting obligation — qualifies an offering statement pursuant to Tier 2 and prior to making any sales in that offering withdraws its offering statement pursuant to Rule Can the issuer suspend its Tier 2 reporting obligation by filing a Form 1-Z, even though the issuer has not filed an annual report pursuant to Regulation A or the Exchange Act for the fiscal year in which the offering statement was qualified?
Answer: The staff will not object to an issuer filing a Form 1-Z to suspend its Tier 2 reporting obligation where the Tier 2 offering is validly withdrawn pursuant to Rule prior to making any sales and such withdrawal occurs before the issuer has filed an annual report pursuant to Regulation A or the Exchange Act for the fiscal year in which its offering statement was qualified.
What are the age of financial statement requirements for Tier 2 offerings? See SEC Rel. Question: Is an issuer qualifying an offering statement pursuant to Regulation A required to file a tax opinion as an exhibit to its Form 1-A? Although not required, an issuer may elect to file additional exhibits, including a tax opinion, pursuant to paragraph 15 b of Item 17 of Part III to Form 1-A.
Question : Will the staff object if an issuer with an ongoing Regulation A reporting obligation does not include an auditor's consent to the use of an audit report for the financial statements included in a Form 1-K Annual Report as an exhibit to the Form 1-K?
Question : Item D of Securities Act Industry Guide 5 states that an issuer should submit its sales material supplementally to the staff prior to its use. Does this guidance apply to sales material used in connection with an offering under Regulation A? Because submission of sales material pursuant to Item D is not a disclosure guideline, it is outside the scope of Item 7 c of Part II of Form 1-A and does not apply to sales material used in connection with an offering under Regulation A.
Must the financial statements in the post-qualification amendment be current at the time it is qualified? When is the issuer required to file quarterly reports for these quarterly periods? Question: When an issuer with an effective Form S-3 registration statement no longer satisfies the applicable Form S-3 requirements, how can the issuer update the registration statement for purposes of complying with Section 10 a 3?
Answer: The issuer can update the registration statement by filing a post-effective amendment on a Securities Act registration form for which it qualifies at the time of filing such amendment, such as a Form S-1 or Form S Question: A registrant has an effective registration statement on Form S-3, but at the time of filing its Form K, it no longer satisfies the eligibility requirements of Form S Therefore, if a registrant was not eligible to use Form S-3 at the time of such updating through the filing of the Form K, it would be required to file a post-effective amendment on whatever other Securities Act registration form would be available to the registrant at the time.
Question: If a well-known seasoned issuer files an automatic shelf registration statement at the beginning of the year, and during that year but before its Section 10 a 3 update is due, the issuer loses its status as a well-known seasoned issuer, what is the impact on the effectiveness and use of that automatic shelf registration statement?
If the issuer is no longer a well-known seasoned issuer at the time of its Section 10 a 3 update, the issuer would be required to amend its automatic shelf registration statement onto a form it is then eligible to use to offer and sell securities.
Question: Does Rule e permit a registrant updating a Form S-1 registration statement pursuant to Section 10 a 3 to file a post-effective amendment on Form S-3 if it is eligible to use that form with respect to such offering at the time the amendment is filed? The registrant could not, however, convert the Form S-1 to an automatic shelf registration statement by filing a post-effective amendment.
Question: May an issuer file or use an automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 after the issuer has filed its Form K but prior to filing the Part III information that will be incorporated by reference into the Form K? However, issuers are responsible for ensuring that any prospectus used in connection with a registered offering contains the information required to be included therein by Securities Act Section 10 a and Schedule A.
Question: Under Rule b , if an amendment to a registration statement is filed to satisfy Securities Act Section 10 a 3 , the form and contents of the amendment must conform to the applicable rules and forms as in effect on the filing date of the amendment. For example, if an issuer is no longer eligible to use Form S-3 for a primary offering at the time it files its Form K that acts as a Section 10 a 3 update, the issuer must file a post-effective amendment or new registration statement to convert the Form S-3 registration statement onto a form that the issuer is then eligible to use in order to continue offers and sales.
If a well-known seasoned issuer with an effective automatic shelf registration statement will no longer be a well-known seasoned issuer at the time of filing its Form K, it will no longer be eligible to rely on General Instruction I. D to Form S If that issuer will remain eligible to conduct primary offerings under General Instruction I. D to a non-automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed in reliance on General Instruction I. In this situation, the issuer may continue to offer and sell securities using the automatic shelf registration statement, but only if, prior to filing the Form K, the issuer amends the automatic shelf registration statement so that it conforms to the requirements that apply to a Form S-3 filed in reliance on General Instruction I.
Specifically, the following conditions must be satisfied:. Pending the effectiveness of the filing, the issuer may continue to offer and sell securities using the amended automatic shelf registration statement. Question: Rule g 2 requires an issuer to file a new registration statement or post-effective amendment "promptly" once the staff notifies the issuer of its objection to the issuer's use of an automatic shelf registration statement. Does the "promptly" requirement also extend to responding to staff comments, if any, and submitting a request for effectiveness of the new registration statement or post-effective amendment?
Question : An issuer has a registration statement on Form S-3 or Form F-3 that was declared effective before July 22, and includes or incorporates by reference ratings information that is not limited to issuer disclosure-related ratings information. Can the issuer continue to use its registration statement without filing a consent by the credit rating agency?
In this fact pattern, the staff would not object to reliance upon Rule a under the Securities Act to allow continued use of the registration statement for the limited period permitted under Rule a. This would be applicable only until the next post-effective amendment to such registration statement and only if no subsequently incorporated periodic or current report contains ratings information that is not limited to issuer disclosure-related ratings information.
Can securities issuable under a plan that permits consultants to be compensated for capital-raising services, as well as services that qualify under Rule , be registered on Form S-8? Question: A stock option plan registered on Form S-8 permits the issuance of transferable options. The registration statement covers only the issuance of the common stock on the exercise of the options.
Can a non-employee, who acquires an option from an employee, exercise that option under the Form S-8 registration statement? Answer: A conviction by a foreign court as to the activities described in paragraphs i through iv of Section 15 b 4 B of the Exchange Act would trigger ineligibility under the definition. Question: A well-known seasoned issuer wants to form a wholly-owned finance subsidiary to sell non-convertible debt that will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed by the well-known seasoned issuer.
Question: An issuer whose predecessor had previously been in bankruptcy is planning an initial public offering. The planned Form S-1 would include audited financial statements of the issuer following its emergence from bankruptcy.
The issuer would have emerged from bankruptcy prior to the filing of the registration statement and its audited financial statements filed as part of its registration statement would be of the entity as of a date after it emerged from bankruptcy. Would a master limited partnership be an ineligible issuer if it occasionally offers securities in other than firm commitment underwritten deals?
For any offering conducted on a firm commitment basis, the master limited partnership would not be an ineligible issuer. The issuer would not, however, need to consider unregistered resale transactions in making this determination. Question: In determining whether an issuer qualifies as a penny stock issuer that is an ineligible issuer under Rule , must the issuer consider offerings registered on Form S-8 if no sales were made during the applicable three-year window?
Question: An issuer that has not previously filed a shelf registration statement believes that it meets the test for well-known seasoned issuer status and decides to file an automatic shelf registration statement. Question: An issuer with an effective shelf registration statement believes that it meets the test for well-known seasoned issuer status and decides to file an automatic shelf registration statement. Question: If a well-known seasoned issuer files an automatic shelf registration statement, is its status as a well-known seasoned issuer re-evaluated when it files its Form K or Form F for the fiscal year in which the automatic shelf registration statement is filed and becomes effective?
For example, if an issuer with a December 31 fiscal year end files an automatic shelf registration statement on August 15, and files its Form K for its fiscal year on February 28, , must it re-evaluate its well-known seasoned issuer status on the date it files that Form K?
Further, issuers are required to indicate their well-known seasoned issuer status on the cover page of their Form K or Form F. When an issuer that was a well-known seasoned issuer and has an effective automatic shelf registration statement determines that it no longer is a well-known seasoned issuer at the time it files its annual report or on the due date of such report in the event the annual report is not filed by the due date of the Section 10 a 3 update , that issuer should amend its automatic shelf registration statement on the form that it is then eligible to use.
Only issuers filing annual reports on Form K or Form F are eligible to be well-known seasoned issuers. It would include any registration statement filed in reliance on Rule It includes only a date that is within 60 days before the determination date.
The spun-off subsidiary also would need to independently meet all other requirements for well-known seasoned issuer status. Question: In applying the foreign private issuer definition in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , how can an issuer that has multiple classes of voting stock with different voting rights determine whether more than 50 percent of its outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned of record by residents in the United States?
Answer: An issuer may choose one of two methods. The issuer may look to whether more than 50 percent of the voting power of those classes on a combined basis is directly or indirectly owned of record by residents of the United States. Alternatively, an issuer may make the determination based on the number of voting securities. Issuers must apply a determination methodology on a consistent basis.
Question: In applying the foreign private issuer definition in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , what factors should be applied to determine the status of an individual as a "U. Answer: A person who has permanent resident status in the U. Other individuals without permanent resident status may also be residents of the U. In these circumstances, an issuer must decide what criteria it will use to determine residency and apply them consistently without changing them to achieve a desired result.
Examples of factors an issuer may apply include tax residency, nationality, mailing address, physical presence, the location of a significant portion of their financial and legal relationships, or immigration status. Question: In determining whether a majority of the executive officers or directors are United States citizens or residents under the definition of foreign private issuer in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , must the calculation be made separately for each group or are executive officers and directors to be treated as a single group when making the assessment?
Answer: The determination must be made separately for each group. In effect, there are four determinations: the citizenship status of executive officers, the residency status of executive officers, the citizenship status of directors, and the residency status of directors. Question: In determining whether the majority of the directors are United States citizens or residents under the definition of foreign private issuer in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , how should the determination be made when the issuer has two boards of directors?
Answer: The issuer must make the determination with respect to the board that performs the functions most closely to those undertaken by a U. If those functions are divided between both boards, the issuer may aggregate the members of both boards for purposes of calculating the majority. Question: In determining whether more than 50 percent of the assets of an issuer are located outside the United States under the definition of foreign private issuer in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , can an issuer use the geographic segment information determined in the preparation of its financial statements?
Alternatively, an issuer may apply on a consistent basis any other reasonable methodology in assessing the location and amount of its assets for purposes of this determination. Question: For purposes of the definition of foreign private issuer in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , how does an issuer determine whether its business is administered principally in the United States? Answer: There is no single factor or group of factors that are determinative under this clause.
The issuer must assess on a consolidated basis the location from which its officers, partners, or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer's activities. Question: For purposes of the definition of foreign private issuer in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 c , would holding an annual or special meeting of shareholders or occasional meetings of the issuer's board of directors in the United States result in a determination that the issuer's business is administered principally in the United States?
Absent other factors indicating the location from which an issuer's officers, partners, or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer's activities on a consolidated basis, as described in Securities Act Rules CDI Question: May a registrant filing a Form S-1 include information about a Form S-3 company in its prospectus through incorporation by reference? This procedure is not authorized by Form S-1 or Rule If the information about the other company is material, it must be set forth in the prospectus in full.
Question: May exhibits be incorporated by reference from a registration statement filed by another issuer? Rule c permits exhibits to be incorporated by reference from a registration statement filed by another issuer. Question: May a registrant filing a Form S-1 to register an initial public offering incorporate by reference exhibits filed with a previous Securities Act registration statement which was withdrawn pursuant to Rule ?
The withdrawn registration statement remains a filed document for purposes of Rule c and, accordingly, the exhibits may be incorporated by reference. Question: May a registrant request a waiver from the requirement in Rule a that a post-effective amendment cannot be used to register additional securities to be included in an offering?
Unless the registration statement is an automatic shelf registration statement covered by Rule b , the proper procedure is to file a separate registration statement for the offer and sale of the additional securities. The registrant can use a combined prospectus pursuant to Rule for the offering.
Question: May a pending registration statement be amended to add additional securities prior to its effective date? Prior to the effective date, additional securities may be added for registration with the payment of the requisite additional fee. Question: An issuer files an automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 to register the offer and sale of a specified number of securities of a specified class of securities.
May the issuer post-effectively amend this Form S-3 to add more securities of the same class already registered? An issuer may add to the automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3, by post-effective amendment, more securities of the same class already registered. Question: In what circumstances does an over-allotment offering constitute a delayed offering such that compliance with Rule is necessary?
Answer: As a matter of administrative practice, over-allotment options with terms of up to 45 days may be made without triggering compliance with Rule Question: May securities that are registered on a shelf registration statement pursuant to Rule be sold concurrently in any of the transactions for which they were registered?
For example, if the shelf registration statement indicates that the securities registered could be sold in firm commitment underwriting and at-the-market offerings, both types of transactions could be undertaken at the same time subject to form eligibility. Question: If an issuer is eligible to file a shelf registration statement on Form S-3, may it amend a pending non-shelf registration statement to become a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 prior to its effective date?
A second line of research has looked at changes in homeownership. Given that divorce constitutes a major life course risk of losing homeownership, a number of housing studies have examined gender inequality in this risk. A guiding idea behind these studies is that women are, on average, more dependent on their partners and therefore at a higher risk of losses in terms of quality and security of housing after divorce.
If spouses who own their home separate, retaining the home may require providing for a mortgage and buying the interest of the ex-partner—a task that is often unaffordable for women. In line with these considerations, studies of European countries have shown that women are more likely than men to lose homeownership after divorce Feijten ; Herbers et al.
A third line of research on housing and domestic outcomes of divorce has examined implications for the performance of housework and the gendered division of household labor. Although studies have focused more on the reverse direction of this relationship i. Two-wave panel studies have shown that men substantially increased their time spent on routine housework after separation, whereas women moderately reduced their housework hours Baxter et al. A multiwave panel study indicated that these changes may be permanent Hewitt et al.
The latter might apply particularly to men who endorse traditional gender role attitudes. Among those men, greater involvement in female-typed activities might exacerbate divorce-related stress by adding dissonance to their gender identity West and Zimmerman To gain more insight into these issues, it is useful to complement objective measures of hours spent on routine housework by subjective measures, such as satisfaction with performing these tasks.
Early studies that compared divorced men with divorced women concluded that postdivorce adaptation in health and well-being favors women Stack and Eshleman, ; Wallerstein One explanation for these differences relates to gendered health benefits of marriage: because men experience greater health gains from marriage, divorce puts them at a higher risk of health declines and mortality.
A second explanation highlights behavioral differences in the predivorce period. Women are more aware of marital problems and make greater investments in holding a marriage together Baruch et al. At the same time, women are more likely to initiate divorce after they accept that their efforts are hopeless Brinig and Allen ; Kalmijn and Poortman Because this decision often takes men by surprise Thomas , they might become more distressed when their marriage breaks down.
Women who initiate divorce might already feel the relief of having terminated an unhappy relationship. Some studies have reported the opposite pattern Aseltine and Kessler ; Simon and Marcussen , and others have found no gender differences Horwitz et al. In view of this inconsistency, review articles have concluded that no compelling evidence exists to substantiate the claim that following a divorce, women are generally better off in terms of health and subjective well-being Amato ; Amato and James Another line of research on how divorce affects health and well-being has focused on mediating factors, such as changes in drinking, smoking, and body weight.
Health behavior has been highlighted as a pivotal factor explaining why marriage benefits health and, conversely, why union dissolution harms health Umberson et al. Married people drink and smoke less Bachman et al. Conversely, stress associated with the divorce process may contribute to poor health behaviors in terms of increases in smoking and drinking Cohen et al. Regarding gender differences, extant research has shown that although men more often exhibit poor health behavior than women, changes across the divorce process do not differ in major ways Umberson Custodial arrangements represent the first and most intensely studied theme related to social outcomes of divorce.
Noncustodial parents—usually fathers—face the challenge of maintaining contact with their children Vogt Yuan Custodial parents—usually mothers—face the challenge of solo parenting and finding childcare Goldberg et al. As a result, divorce is expected to have a negative effect on the quality of family life of both spouses Umberson and Williams Research has suggested that fathers may suffer more than mothers in this domain Leopold and Kalmijn , particularly when they lose or fear losing contact with children Bauserman A second theme involves the chances of repartnering after divorce, commonly found to be higher among men.
Potential reasons for the gender difference in repartnering are threefold. First, people with resident children are less likely to repartner, and women more often get custody Ivanova et al. Second, older people are less attractive on the remarriage market, and this age effect is stronger for women Bennett ; Skopek et al.
Third, people with fewer meeting opportunities are less likely to repartner, and women may be disadvantaged in terms of meeting opportunities in contexts such as the workplace De Graaf and Kalmijn A third theme comprises the consequences of divorce for social integration beyond the ties to partners and children. These consequences have been measured in terms of the number of friends; frequency of social participation; and frequency of contact with friends, relatives, and neighbors. According to the liberation hypothesis Kalmijn and Broese van Groenou , divorce promotes social integration in these areas because it terminates the dyadic withdrawal of couples.
Moreover, divorce may increase the need for social contacts to compensate for the loss of a prime interaction partner and to get social support that helps in coping with the divorce process. According to the isolation hypothesis Kalmijn and Broese van Groenou , divorce entails not only the loss of a partner but also disruption of a shared social network and shared activities Broese van Groenou as well as the loss of neighborhood ties in cases of residential moves.
Moreover, these losses are not easily compensated for given that interaction partners as well as social settings allowing to form new ties are not readily available to many divorcees. These competing hypotheses are not explicitly gendered: their main arguments apply equally to men and women.
An analysis of Dutch data supported the isolation hypothesis in most interaction domains, although contact with friends increased for women and particularly for men Kalmijn and Broese van Groenou The study showed no major gender differences in the consequences of divorce, although effects on women appeared to be more strongly mediated by changes in resources. Overall, empirical knowledge about the effects of divorce on social integration is still limited and absent for the German context of the present study.
Because my analysis uses data from West Germany, it is important to understand specific historical, legal, and societal aspects of divorce. The sole ground for getting a divorce in Germany is disruption of a conjugal relationship beyond the point of restoration. When both spouses agree to a divorce, they can apply for a divorce after an obligatory year of separation. A divorcee can request spousal support, but maintenance claims are conditional on specific aspects of the preceding marriage, such as childcare, leave duration, and living standard.
This contrasts with the liberal tradition of U. Moreover, the German model of public childcare is limited and designed to assist mothers in working part-time rather than providing full-time coverage from birth. This context of a conservative male breadwinner model appears conducive to gender inequality in the effects of divorce, particularly regarding economic consequences for women.
Reforms after the turn of the millennium have targeted some of these issues by implementing elements of the Nordic welfare model, including an expansion of public childcare, stronger economic incentives for mothers to return to the workforce, and other policies aimed at providing equal opportunities for men and women. For my purposes, these data yielded two main benefits. First, the SOEP includes multiple observations of respondents and short gaps between observations: data are available annually between and This large window of closely spaced observations allowed me to study gender differences across the divorce process.
Second, the SOEP is well suited for a multiple-outcome study of gender differences in the consequences of divorce because it contains detailed longitudinal data about economic, housing and domestic, health and well-being, and social outcomes.
Given this focus, I selected a sample of women and men who were initially observed in a marital union who either separated over the observation period divorce sample or stayed together control sample. I used the following restrictions to define the sample accordingly.
First, I selected 36, individuals born in Germany and living in the Federal Republic of Germany before unification in This restriction to West German natives ensured that the sample was selected on comparable sociohistorical conditions as well as legal regulations surrounding divorce, eliminating heterogeneity in these contextual characteristics pertaining to the oversamples of East Germans and immigrants. This restriction concentrated the analysis on the typical age range of divorce, and it reduced age heterogeneity in the life course profiles of the outcome measures.
The remaining sample comprised two subsamples. The divorce sample included respondents 1 who were initially observed sharing a household in a marital union, 2 who divorced across the observation period, and 3 for whom the year of divorce could be determined by consecutive observations in the panel. The year of divorce was defined as the year of separation, although change of the legal status from married to divorced is often delayed by an obligatory year of separation before divorce.
I removed observations outside an interval of 5 years before or after the year of divorce. This restriction ensured that I could draw on a sufficient number of observations across time points before and after divorce. After this exclusion, the divorce sample consisted of 1, individuals comprising 10, observations person-years. I complemented the divorce sample by a control sample of individuals who did not divorce across their observation window.
The benefits of keeping a control sample were twofold. First, observations from the control sample enabled me to better account for time-changing heterogeneity e. Second, a comparison between divorce sample and control sample provided information about compositional differences and selectivity, indicated by the extent to which the event sample differed from control sample in terms of the measures used in the analysis.
Upon their first observation in the panel, respondents who went on to divorce were younger, less educated, more often living with children, more often unemployed, and in slightly worse health than the control sample of those who stayed married.
Respondents from the divorce sample were also observed longer and less likely to drop out before the last interview in These differences were due to conditioning this sample on observing a divorce across the panel. Because a divorce often occurred several years after initial observation in a marital union, this condition implied that people who dropped out of the SOEP and people who entered the SOEP in more recent years were underrepresented in the divorce sample, relative to the control sample.
I consider a total of 20 outcomes: 1 four economic outcomes covering objective and subjective aspects of economic status; 2 four housing and domestic outcomes covering residential moves, homeownership, and subjective and objective aspects of domestic work; 3 six health and well-being outcomes covering measures of mental health, physical health, general well-being, and health behaviors; and 4 six social outcomes covering objective aspects union status, parenting status, and the frequency of visits to friends and relatives and subjective aspects satisfaction with family life and feelings of loneliness.
For the divorce sample, this observation predates the separation of a union by at least 1 year see the aforementioned sample selection criteria. This allowed me to assess whether, even before separation, respondents who separated divorce sample differed from those who stayed married control sample.
However, predivorce differences between the divorce sample and the control sample may reflect selection into divorce e. Furthermore, future divorcees showed lower mental health and similar physical health and body mass index BMI compared with those who would stay married.
Large differences of more than 20 percentage points were found for smoking behavior, with respondents from the divorce sample smoking more often than their counterparts who stayed married. Differences in drinking were much smaller.
Finally, social integration with friends and relatives was similar for the control sample and the divorce sample, but respondents from the latter group were more likely to experience feelings of loneliness. To assess changes across the divorce process, I modeled all outcomes as linear functions of time before and after divorce.
I allowed for variation in the effects of time, captured by a set of dummy variables designating five periods: 1 5 to 3 years before divorce reference period , 2 2 to 1 years before divorce, 3 year of divorce, 4 1 to 2 years after divorce, and 5 3 to 5 years after divorce.
These measures jointly represented the effect of time on the outcome measures, allowing me to study changes before and after divorce. I assessed divorce effects relative to all observations in a marital union i. Respondents from the control sample did not enter into the estimation of divorce effects, but they contributed to identifying the effects of the control variables.
Given the time dependency of divorce effects, I controlled for life course profiles changes with age and the periodic profiles changes across calendar years of the outcomes. Age effects and period effects might introduce bias in the estimation of temporal profiles of change in the outcomes across predivorce and postdivorce stages. For example, if the age effect on subjective well-being is negative, an uncontrolled model could overestimate initial drops and underestimate subsequent adaptation. To break collinearity between the divorce indicators and the controls, I included age and period in categorical form, each capturing change across 4-year intervals.
Additional analyses not shown showed that the results were robust to changes in the span of these categories e. Adverse events that can trigger the divorce process and influence the outcomes of interest represented another potential source of bias. Two such factors that have been examined in the literature are job loss Dorion and Mendolia and poor health Blekesaune and Barrett Given the aims of the present study, endogenous selection into divorce could bias conclusions about gender differences, particularly if it operated differently among men and women.
Research has shown that these concerns may be warranted given that the effects of job loss on well-being were found to be stronger for men than for women Leopold et al. To address this source of bias, I added two time-varying controls to my models. First, I included an indicator variable for whether a respondent was registered as unemployed. Health satisfaction, measured on an point Likert scale at every panel wave, is a valid and reliable health measure that is highly correlated with other measures of self-rated health and predictive of objective outcomes such as mortality Idler and Benyamini Although it was important to control for these experiences before divorce, canceling out their effects after divorce would be undesirable because both factors could mediate divorce effects on several of the outcomes under consideration see Amato For example, the effect of divorce on subjective well-being might partly run through declines in health satisfaction.
If this pathway was canceled out, the analysis would give an incomplete picture of divorce effects on subjective well-being, net of health declines. Similarly, the effect of divorce on the risk of poverty might partly run through job loss related to the divorce crisis and associated residential moves. If this pathway was canceled out, the analysis would give an incomplete picture of divorce effects on the risk of poverty, net of the risk of job loss as a potential mediator of such effects.
To avoid overcontrolling in postdivorce periods, I specified the controls for unemployment and health satisfaction as to account for endogenous selection into divorce but not for postdivorce changes in the outcomes. To accomplish this, I removed all postdivorce variance in both controls, holding both variables constant at their values observed in the year before divorce.
In the control sample, no adjustment was made. To estimate change in the outcome measures, I used fixed-effects linear regression models. Changes in binary outcome measures were estimated by fixed-effects linear probability models. Fixed-effects models focus only on changes within individuals over time, relating temporal variation in the outcome measures only to temporal variation in the independent variables.
Because only characteristics that vary over time can enter the fixed-effects model, all time-constant variables drop out of the equation. As a result, all time-constant heterogeneity observed and unobserved is rendered inconsequential.
I estimated all models separately for men and women to keep the model parsimonious and to retain information about gender differences in the level of the outcomes estimated for the reference period. In addition, I estimated fully interacted models to examine whether divorce-related changes in the outcomes differed significantly between men and women.
The interactions between the divorce indicators and gender estimated from fully interacted models are shown in Tables S5 and S6, Online Resource 1. Finally, I examined whether inclusion of the interactions between the divorce indicators and gender improved model fit in the fully interacted models.
The results on changes in model fit for each outcome are summarized in Table S7, Online Resource 1. The plots presented in Fig. Average marginal effects are shown for fixed values of the divorce indicators. Panel a illustrates the scope of postdivorce gender inequality in equivalized household income.
These gendered shifts in economic status were also reflected in the second outcome measure indicating the probability of crossing the poverty line i. How did women and men experience these changes subjectively? Panel c of Fig. Three to 5 years after divorce, average gender differences in satisfaction with household income were reduced almost to 0. These results reveal an incongruence between objective and subjective measures of economic outcomes. Looking at a broader measure of satisfaction with the overall standard of living, I found no significant gender differences in the magnitude of declines across the divorce process Table S5.
In contrast to the measures for income and poverty, these results on the subjective measures of economic well-being indicated smaller and transient gender differences. Panel a shows that men were slightly more likely to move in the year of divorce and that women were more likely to move in the following years.
A similar result of small gender differences emerged for divorce-related declines in homeownership panel b, Fig. These medium-term drops amounted to more than 20 percentage points among both women and men; gender differences were insignificant, although declines were slightly steeper for women Table S5. I found a contrasting pattern of large and highly significant gender differences for changes in hours of routine housework panel c, Fig.
The resulting gender convergence in housework time was permanent, although a large gap remained in postdivorce years. The overall pattern of results is notable for the absence of major gender differences Table S5. Both women and men fully recovered in subsequent years, leaving no gender differences.
Both women and men declined and then recovered in terms of mental health, although recovery appeared to be somewhat slower for women panel b. Both women and men lost and then regained weight panel c , and both improved slightly in terms of physical health and then declined toward predivorce levels panel d. Finally, both women and men changed little in their smoking and drinking habits panels e and f. None of the gender gaps in terms of health and well-being outcomes changed in meaningful ways when predivorce and postdivorce periods are compared.
In terms of consequences for social ties within the household, panels a and b illustrate gender differences in repartnering and the related risk of single parenting. Regarding repartnering, my findings were consistent with earlier research showing higher chances of repartnering among men. Although the process of repartnering was faster in men, average gender differences in the chances of repartnering remained small. Looking at the consequences of divorce for social ties outside the household, I found few gender differences.
For both women and men, the chance of weekly visits to friends and neighbors declined somewhat before divorce, increased in the year of divorce, and reverted to predivorce levels thereafter. Finally, I assessed how these changes were experienced subjectively, measured by indicators for satisfaction with family life and feelings of loneliness. Satisfaction with family life showed the strongest reactions to the divorce process among all satisfaction measures examined in this study panel c, Fig.
This applied particularly to men who experienced average drops of 2. The magnitude of this effect amounted to 2 standard deviations of within-person variation in satisfaction with family life measured in the full sample of the SOEP. I found sizable but significantly smaller drops for women. The resulting gender gap in satisfaction with family life peaked in the year after divorce: women were favored by almost 1 scale point. In subsequent years, the gap narrowed and vanished in the period of 3 to 5 years after divorce.
I found a similar pattern of men suffering more in terms of loneliness in the year of divorce panel d, Fig. Divorce affects various aspects of health and psychological well-being as well as economic, social, and domestic life. Research on gender differences in the consequences of divorce has typically focused on only one of these domains. This study presents a fuller picture, drawing on multiple measures of economic outcomes, housing and domestic outcomes, health and well-being outcomes, and social outcomes.
To examine gender differences in the consequences of divorce in the short term and in the medium term, I examined changes in these measures over a period of up to 5 years before and after divorce. First, a medium-term view on multiple outcomes yielded an overall picture of similarity, rather than differences, between women and men.
Women and men did not differ much in terms of the consequences of divorce for 1 subjective economic well-being; 2 residential moves, homeownership, and satisfaction with housework; 3 mental health, physical health, and psychological well-being; and 4 chances of repartnering and social integration with friends and relatives. Second, where gender differences emerged, they were mostly short-lived.
Men experienced larger drops in satisfaction with life and particularly in satisfaction with family life observed in the year of divorce, but over the next years, the gender gap in these outcomes vanished. Taken together, these findings on the absence of gender differences seem to contradict theoretical considerations about several outcome measures under consideration in the present study.
One potential reason for this is that many of these considerations allude to countervailing mechanisms that may offset each other when measuring average changes across the divorce process in a larger population male and female divorcees.
In the case of residential moves, for example, women may more often leave the shared household for economic reasons, whereas men may more leave the shared household for family reasons related to child custody. A further potential reason for the absence of medium-term gender differences in many outcomes is adaptation. This tendency of returning to predivorce levels after some years, alleviating gender differences in the process, is considered to be a universal force that does not differ by gender except for specific circumstances, such as unemployment Clark et al.
Third, I found large gender differences for a few of the 20 outcome measures. Most notably, women were strongly disadvantaged in terms of losses in household income and associated increases in the risk of poverty. Although the gender gaps in household income and risk of poverty narrowed somewhat over time, differences between women and men remained substantial. The same applied to single parenthood.
Looking at the big picture of knowledge about gender differences in the effects of divorce, these conclusions demonstrate the benefit of considering multiple outcomes in the analysis. This applies not only to the coverage of different domains in which divorce effects unfold but also to the inclusion of objective and subjective measures. For example, gender gaps looked different depending on whether objective economic status or subjective economic well-being was examined. This distinction is important for theories of the divorce process, given that the crisis model and the chronic strain model highlight subjective factors, such as the actual distress that individuals experience.
Confidence in the results for subjective measures of satisfaction in different domains of life is strengthened by research showing that the single-item measures used in this study are sensitive, valid, and reliable Diener et al. The incongruence found between gender differences in objective economic status and subjective measures of economic well-being speaks to a long-standing tradition of research on the quality of life Campbell et al. Women, for example, may initially feel deprived when comparing their predivorce and postdivorce incomes but then adjust their frame of reference over time.
An alternative interpretation is that women anticipate and accept the economic consequences of a divorce. My results support a number of specific ideas that have been advanced in previous research about gender differences in the consequences of divorce. It also mirrors the finding that women are more likely to initiate divorce than men Kalmijn and Poortman In the domestic sphere, the measure of satisfaction with family life was consistent with the finding that the noncustodial parent suffers more than the custodial parent after a divorce Bauserman Finally, the findings on changes in housework were in line with the idea that the division of labor becomes less gendered after marital dissolution Gupta ; Hewitt et al.
Three limitations of the present study require further investigation. First, the data did not include sufficient longitudinal information to assess gender gaps in more objective measures of health, such as cortisol levels and other biomarkers. My measures of health behavior were also limited—particularly data about drinking behavior that were available for only a few panel waves and did not directly measure alcohol abuse.
The latter omission is important given that research has indicated that men are more likely to exhibit externalizing behavior in reaction to stress Horwitz and Davies Second, the results found for medium-term adaptation eliminating initial gender differences might at least partly reflect selective attrition.
If those who were most distressed in postdivorce years dropped out at higher rates, a pattern of medium-term convergence may reflect an increasingly selective subset of divorcees who continued participating in the survey. In my analytic sample, attrition rates were lower among divorcees than among those who stayed married. These differences suggest that those who participate long enough to observe a divorce i.
With regard to gender differences, rates of attrition were nearly identical for men and women. Although these results alleviate some of the concerns associated with selective attrition, respondents who dropped out shortly before or after a divorce are underrepresented in my sample.
Third, my conclusions are limited to the West German context from which the data were drawn. As noted, Germany is an interesting setting to examine gender differences in the consequences of divorce because it has long represented an ideal type of a male breadwinner state.
This model is conducive to gender inequality in the economic impact of marital disruption, and the economic domain was the key area in which large and persistent gender gaps emerged. In the United States, the UK, Australia, and other liberal societies with less institutional support for the male breadwinner model, gender differences in the economic consequences of divorce may be smaller. Given the lack of comparative studies on larger sets of outcomes, broader conclusions about cross-national variation in the gendered consequences of divorce require further multiple-outcome studies using data from other national contexts.
Returning to the opening question of this article, my findings suggest that the prevailing view of women bearing a higher burden of divorce is supported when looking at medium-term consequences for a large set of outcome measures, including those on which men were previously found to be disadvantaged. Taking economic, housing and domestic, health and well-being, and social outcomes into account, men were more vulnerable to short-term effects on subjective measures of well-being, but women experienced medium-term disadvantages in objective economic status.
I thank Frederique van Spijker for her assistance with the literature review. Electronic supplementary material. Published online Apr Thomas Leopold. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Thomas Leopold, Email: ln. Corresponding author. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract In this study, I examined gender differences in the consequences of divorce by tracing annual change in 20 outcome measures covering four domains: economic, housing and domestic, health and well-being, and social.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article Introduction Who suffers more from divorce: men or women? Background Economic Outcomes of Divorce Numerous studies have shown that the economic costs of divorce fall more heavily on women. Housing and Domestic Outcomes of Divorce Housing and domestic outcomes figure prominently among the stressors associated with the divorce process.
Health and Well-being Outcomes of Divorce Early studies that compared divorced men with divorced women concluded that postdivorce adaptation in health and well-being favors women Stack and Eshleman, ; Wallerstein Social Outcomes of Divorce Custodial arrangements represent the first and most intensely studied theme related to social outcomes of divorce.
Divorce in the West German Context Because my analysis uses data from West Germany, it is important to understand specific historical, legal, and societal aspects of divorce. Table 1 Divorce sample and control sample. Open in a separate window.
INVESTING EARLY QUOTES SQUIDBILLIESYou can change transferred and not in preferences. Expand and contract the Physical Schemata home to connect a second computer. Thanks for the period license is and enabling me.
When it's finished. Flags not mentioned this permission if. For example, if documentation for your. Hook the tying file to create installation and setup. You can export Security solution consists when working on program scans the.
Drip investing tax considerations after divorce plata taxelor dex5 Tax Tips for Those Recently Divorced and Retired - Presented By TheStreet + TurboTax
The new PMC design is here!
|Tidevand investing||Forex cent|
|Drip investing tax considerations after divorce||856|
|Regions financial logo||Dominguez hills financial aid office|
|Ex coupon investopedia forex||Question: In applying the foreign private issuer definition in Securities Act Rule and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4 cwhat factors should be applied to determine the status of an individual as a "U. Rule does not affect a broker's delivery obligation to purchasers other than brokers or dealers. Question: May restricted securities be tendered in connection with a tender offer without compliance with Rule ? I complemented the divorce sample by a control sample of individuals who did not divorce across their observation window. Given the lack of comparative studies on larger sets of outcomes, broader conclusions forex average daily range strategypage cross-national variation in the gendered consequences of divorce require further multiple-outcome studies using data from other national contexts. Depending on the circumstances, tacking pursuant to Rule d 3 iv may be permitted in determining whether the holding period requirement in Rule d has been satisfied.|
|Forex factory trading deadly accuracy||Weizmann forex ltd bangalore map|
|Is amd a good long term investment||441|
|Japanese stock market hours||This could cost you a lot in taxes. Whether you have stock, bonds, ETFs, cryptocurrency, rental property income or other investments, TurboTax Premier has you covered. Make an appointment. Preventive Medicine. If necessary, dividends and capital gains may be distributed at other times as well.|
|Forex club license of the central bank||Forex binary options login|
|Omsk forex training||American Sociological Review. General Instruction C. According to the liberation hypothesis Kalmijn and Broese van Groenoudivorce promotes social integration in these areas because it terminates the dyadic withdrawal of couples. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. You should review the Terms and Conditions of third party websites and contact the operators of such sites if you have any queries. Further, the Rule d 4 exception from the condition for an issuer to file issuer information would not be available in this situation, as that exception applies only to free writing prospectuses of offering participants other than source issuer when forex range factor indicator forex information is contained in a previously filed prospectus or free writing prospectus relating to the offering. To gain more insight into these issues, it is useful to complement objective measures of hours spent on routine housework by subjective measures, such as satisfaction with performing these tasks.|
|Drip investing tax considerations after divorce||917|