Commentary on A Blueprint for Cross-Border Access to U.S. Investors: A New International Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article by Ethiopis Tafara and Robert Peterson,1 the authors propose a framework to apply to foreign anancial services providers accessing the U.S. capital market (the “Blueprint”). Rather than requiring foreign stock exchanges and foreign broker-dealers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as is currently the case, the Blueprint instead recommends “a system of substituted compliance with SEC regulations.”2 I appreciate the invitation to provide a commentary on the Blueprint, which comes at such a critical juncture in time.3 In this commentary, I discuss the global factors and recent developments that are exerting, and will continue to exert, inevitable pressure on securities regulators to open up cross-border access in anancial services. In commenting on the Blueprint, I suggest the need for a framework and associated criteria to aid in assessing such a framework. Alternative approaches are outlined and discussed, including a description of the Canada-U.S. Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (“MJDS”), the EU system, and a recent proposal by the Toronto Stock Exchange Group (“TSX Group”).4
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".