Following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, financial institutions faced regulatory changes due to inherent weaknesses that were exposed by the recession. Within the United States, regulation came via the passing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, which was heavily influenced by the internationally focused Basel III accord. A key component to both of these sets of regulations focused on raising the capital requirements for financial institutions, as well as creating capital buffers to help protect solvency during economic downturns in the future. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these changes to capital requirements, and to hypothesize as to what would happen if the modern banking system experienced the COVID-19 pandemic recession with the capital and leverage levels of the banking institutions circa 2007. To accomplish this, data from the Federal Reserve describing the capital and leverage ratios of the banking industry will be evaluated during both the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, as well as during the COVID-19 Recession. Specifically, we will look at by how much capital was improved due to Dodd-Frank/Basel III, the resiliency of the capital and leverage ratios during the modern COVID-19 recession, and we will look at the average drop in capital levels caused by the COVID-19 recession and apply these percentage changes to the leverage/capital levels seen in 2007. Given the results, it is clear to see that the change in capital requirements along with the counter-cyclical buffers described in Dodd-Frank and Basel III allowed the banking system to function throughout the COVID recession without approaching insolvency in the slightest, something that ailed many large banks and firms during the Global Financial Crisis. As an answer to our hypothetical, we found that the drop seen affecting the measures of bank capital experienced during the COVID pandemic when applied to values seen at the beginning of the 2007 recession still led to a well-capitalized banking industry as a whole, highlighting the resiliency seen during the COVID recession thanks to the capital buffers put in place, as well as the direct assistance provided by the federal government (via PPP loans and stimulus checks) and the Federal Reserve in keeping the hit on capital to minimal values throughout the pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic has made a significant impact on both the stock market and the<br/>global economy. The resulting volatility in stock prices has provided an opportunity to examine<br/>the Efficient Market Hypothesis. This study aims to gain insights into the efficiency of markets<br/>based on stock price performance in the Covid era. Specifically, it investigates the market’s<br/>ability to anticipate significant events during the Covid-19 timeline beginning November 1, 2019<br/><br/>and ending March 31, 2021. To examine the efficiency of markets, our team created a Stay-at-<br/>Home Portfolio, experiencing economic tailwinds from the Covid lockdowns, and a Pandemic<br/><br/>Loser Portfolio, experiencing economic headwinds from the Covid lockdowns. Cumulative<br/>returns of each portfolio are benchmarked to the cumulative returns of the S&P 500. The results<br/>showed that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is likely to be valid, although a definitive<br/>conclusion cannot be made based on the scope of the analysis. There are recommendations for<br/>further research surrounding key events that may be able to draw a more direct conclusion.

Covid-19 is unlike any coronavirus we have seen before, characterized mostly by the ease with which it spreads. This analysis utilizes an SEIR model built to accommodate various populations to understand how different testing and infection rates may affect hospitalization and death. This analysis finds that infection rates have a significant impact on Covid-19 impact regardless of the population whereas the impact that testing rates have in this simulation is not as pronounced. Thus, policy-makers should focus on decreasing infection rates through targeted lockdowns and vaccine rollout to contain the virus, and decrease its spread.

The deadly shipwrecks of migrant boats in the Mediterranean brought international attention to the plight of migrants in the mid-2010s but the focus soon shifted from humanitarian assistance to capturing smugglers and preventing migrants from reaching the shores of Europe. The step towards a humane migration policy was a short-lived diversion from the project of “Fortress Europe” undertaken since the passing of the Schengen Convention. This project seeks to harden the external borders of Europe and prevent refugees from accessing the asylum system by enlisting neighboring non-European states to prevent migration at the point of departure. Deals such as the EU-Turkey deal of 2016 and the Spanish-Moroccan deals have resulted in migrants being funneled into increasingly dangerous corridors, such as Libya, as the safest and shortest paths are cut off. Although these deals are problematic in their own right, they pale in comparison to the egregious Italy-Libya Memorandum of 2017, which in practice enables Libyan militias to enforce Italy’s migration policy within the Libyan “rescue zone.” The human rights abuses perpetrated by these Libyan mercenaries in makeshift detention centers and on the Mediterranean are well documented, yet the Italian government continues to renew the deal and continue supplying these criminal groups. This literature review examines the issue of European border externalization in the Mediterranean and its impact on the internationally recognized rights of migrants and the stability of African governments. Using a systematic review of existing research, I analyze the key themes and trends that have emerged in the literature on this topic, including the legal and ethical implications of border externalization policies, the impact on African economies and governments, and the human rights implications for migrants. The review concludes that international courts are becoming increasingly ineffective in enforcing the rights of refugees and recommends a reform of the international refugee protection regime to favor autonomous movement.