HI5015 Legal Aspects Of International Trade Of JPMorgan Chase Assessment Answer

Answer :

Legal Aspects of International Trade and Enterprise

Executive summary

Operation of an organization in multinational platform requires the establishment of such legislative frameworks and treaties which ensure a fair treatment towards the organization as towards the local companies. Such legislation and treaties provide an environment which extends equality to these international organizations at par to local companies. This is taken care of properly in Australia and the country has formulated several laws and has entered into treaties and agreements to ensure proper survival of foreign multinational companies in the long run. The study for these laws and treaties has been undertaken in the current assignment through the help of the example of JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase & Co works in the financial industry and is based in the United States, working in a multinational platform. For Australia, the legislative frameworks are taken care of by the Australian Securities Exchange, Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, and Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

Introduction

JPMorgan Chase & Co has been in the business with a history approaching present for about 200 years. The company is headquartered in the city of New York. JPMorgan Chase & Co has been named as the largest bank of the United States. With a sixth number ranking as the largest bank of the work, as ranked by S&P Global, the bank is reaching heights with its operation as a multinational company (Bank, 2017). The company’s total assets have been valued at $2.534 trillion as at the end of 2018. The bank operates in the FINANCIALS industry. The company has marked its presence in more than 100 markets globally. The human resource base of the company exceeds 250,000 employees globally (Gordon, 2017). The company has operations in more than 60 countries.

 The customer base of the company comprises of customers consisting of government client, small businesses, institutional clients and corporate clients. The company leads the markets in its forte of investment banking, commercial banking, financial services, asset management and financial transaction processing (Chase, 2017). The current report has a certain discussion that details about the operation of External Dispute Resolution Scheme, taxation rates, licensing for providing financial services, competitive patterns, taxation treaties, trade agreements, tariff, and etc. The major role that these legislations and treaties play in the smooth functioning of multinational companies like JPMorgan Chase & Co in Australia is somehow discussed herein in this report.

Legislative regulatory framework/s affecting the operation of JPMorgan Chase & Co in Australia and the manner in which they affect the company

As far as the business of JPMorgan Chase & Co in Australia is concerned, the history deals for about 140 years now. The company works as a fully integrated and full-service financial institution there. The products and services offered to the clients in Australia comprise of Private banking, asset management, and JPMorgan Corporate and Investment Banking. Therefore, it is required to assess the implication of the legal regulatory framework and its effects on the JP Morgan Company in Australia. It is analyzed that such legislation and treaties of different countries provide an environment which extends equality to these international organizations at par to local companies. 

JPMorgan Chase & Co works in the financial industry. Hence the organizations working and operations are affected by the legislative authorities and legal frameworks formulated for the financial industry. In Australia, the financial sector is being managed by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA), the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Securities Exchange. The prudential norms and licensing requirements dealing with general and life insurance companies, superannuation funds and authorized deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) is being managed by APRA. It is the responsibility of ASIC to safeguard the consumer and market interest. The management of the operations of the financial companies and investment bank along with the External Dispute Resolution Schemes (EDRs) is undertaken by ASIC (Price, and Schwartz, 2015). 

To operate the business in the financial industry in Australia every corporation is required to obtain the Australian Financial Services License (AFSL). This license is issued by ASIC. This requirement is laid by the Corporations Act 2001, and like any other local Australian company, JPMorgan Chase & Co is also required to obtain this license. This licensing requirement enables the ASIC informed about the companies operating in the financial sector. This information helps ASIC and other agency like APRA to keep the risk exerted by these organizations within limits. This prevents both the organization and customers from excess risky situations (Alvarez, 2016).

Laws for managing the anti-competitive behavior observed among the banks and financial institutions are formulated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). An agreement is entered into between the ACCC and ASIC. This agreement requires the administration of financial institutions and bankers by ASIC. This agreement has an effect upon the opportunities available for JPMorgan Chase & Co in the Australian market. The aim is to manage the financial market in a manner that enables the organization to gain the stakeholder's trust and confidence. Transparency and fairness of operations of all the organizations working in the financial sector are maintained through the legislative frameworks formulated by these agencies. These different legislations shall also enable JPMorgan Chase & Co to prevent the creation of improper circumstances (Munir, and Baird, 2016).

As the different agencies working in the financial sector require the financial services providing organizations to have a goal of nurturing the growth of all the stakeholders, the same is expected from JPMorgan Chase & Co. The legislation made for the technologies dealing with the fiscal sector also provides ways to the organization to create multi-fold value for the stakeholders. These legislations ensure the identification and management of risk undertaken by the institutions in a controlled manner (ASIC., 2015). Maintenance of confidence of the stakeholders is also equally important along with maintenance of risk. The formulation of these legislations has been undertaken to promote the interest of all the parties involved, like members, policyholders, and depositors. The facilitation, improvement, and assistance of the fiscal system of any MNC operating in the Australian market like JPMorgan Chase & Co are the responsibility of ASIC (Bahçeci, and Leh, 2017). 

The focus placed by ASIC and APRA is upon the value created for the stakeholders by the products and services offered by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Follow up of the legislation and related frameworks are must and this is to be supervised by these agencies. Everything is done to maintain transparency and fairness in the market, which allows the consumer and other stakeholder's risk to be in control and a fair growth in business.  It is analyzed that company needs to strengthen its business reporting frameworks to increase the transparency and true and fair view of the assets and liabilities recorded in the books of account of company (ASIC, 2019). 

Treaties, conventions or agreements that have an impact on the products or services provided by JPMorgan Chase & Co in Australia and their impact

 It is analyzed that Australia and other country have formulated several laws and has entered into treaties and agreements to ensure proper survival of foreign multinational companies in the local run. Every organization that earns profit has to pay taxes to the government. When an organization works in the local region, the taxation policy is single and hence no complications are there. However, for organizations working on an international platform, the taxation regime gets complicated. Past has shown instances where the organizations have to pay tax two times on single earning, i.e. one in the home country and other in a foreign country (Deloitte., 2018). This restricted the trade on the international platform and demotivated the MNC operations. Same happened with Australia. However, as a solution to the same, Australia signed treaties relating to taxation with multiple countries. These countries form a part of OECD (Becker, Reimer, and Rust, 2015).  Therefore, due to the conflict between the two laws of countries, it may be hard for the multinational organization to meet the legal compliance at the same while operating its business. There is a need to set up proper harmonization in its domestic and international reporting frameworks (Donald, 2019).

            These treaties are implemented on a national level by Australia and are working in accordance with the guidelines laid by the International Tax Agreements Act 1953. The laws laid by this act shall be accepted in case of any difference arise between the rulings of this act and national taxation law. By JPMorgan Chase & Co has gotten relief from the payment of double taxation as discussed earlier, due to the signing of this treaty by Australian Government. One more exemption granted to the organization is no mandatory requirement to obtain any proof relating to the home country of operation, i.e. certificate of residence. Benefits of this treaty can be availed directly (Graetz, and Warren, 2016). 

            Another very important agreement entered by Australia with the United States relates to prioritizing free trade flow by companies based in the United States in Australia. This agreement is named as –United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The provisions of this Trade agreement maintain equilibrium with the provisions extended by General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The meaning of ‘cross –border trade in services' defined by section 10 of the AUSFTA permits JPMorgan Chase & Co to commence operations in Australia freely. There is no limitation that shall be exerted on JPMorgan Chase & Co or any other MNC based in the United States to access Australian markets (Elliott, 2014).

Different sections of the AUSFTA act deal with different elements of the business. The agreement also provides investment-related provisions. The Australian government cannot prohibit any investment dealing related to JPMorgan Chase & Co or any other MNC, and also could not lay unnecessary requirements. No limit can be put on the JPMorgan Chase & Co relating to the export of its services or products from the Australian region. As long as the provisions of AUSFTA are followed properly by the organization, any unnecessary limits or restricts cannot hinder trade of the organization (Gantz, 2016).

            Unnecessary restrictions could not be placed upon the organization for any transfers it wishes to go to the home country as well. Unrestricted transfer of process, knowledge, profits, and technology can be affected by the organization with proper follow up of the provisions of AUSFTA. Any bias between the companies of local origin and MNC operating in the same industry is not entertained and is completely prohibited. The provision of the goods and services is allowed to be done by the organization both in the Australian market as well as in the foreign market (Moir, 2015).

            The national treatment has to be granted to any organization like JPMorgan Chase & Co by the Australian regulations and government. This National treatment is to be offered at the MNCs operating in Australia having a home base of any nation among the most-favored-nation. The United States is one among them and hence JPMorgan Chase & Co is expected to enjoy it. National treatment, however, can be referred to as treating an MNC with the same benefits and treatments as offered to the organizations of home origin. It has been mentioned in Chapter 13 of the Free Trade Act in relation to investments as well. The same concept has to be applied in every aspect of the business, be it sales, management, development, purchase, and other products. Any sort of biases is expected to be legally challenged.

Conclusion

            It is considered that transparency and fairness of operations of all the organizations working in the financial sector is maintained through the legislative frameworks formulated by the above-mentioned agencies. However, if seen as a whole, the objective of all the legislation formulated and treaties entered is to increase the growth of trade at the global level. This is however done here by promoting the organizations to transact and operate the business at a global level, as seen in the case of JPMorgan Chase & Co. the main objective is the creation of a global market, where there are no trade barriers. Still there lies supreme scope of improvement as all the global locations are not yet in the list of most-favored nations, and hence the untapped markets are yet to be explored. Now, in the end, it could be inferred that if JPMorgan Chase & Co. comply with the regulatory frameworks then it would be helpful in strengthen the transparent view of the assets and liabilities recorded in the books of account. Nonetheless, the company also has to set up harmonization in its domestic and international reporting frameworks.