Search results

We assess whether smaller investors are more likely to hold shares of closed-end funds that invest more heavily in illiquid securities. We also examine the relationship between the liquidity of the securities held in the portfolios of closed-end mutual funds (portfolio liquidity) and the liquidity of the closed-end funds’ shares (fund-share liquidity). Using a sample of 1,619 fund-years from 2010 to 2012, we find that smaller investors are more likely than institutional investors to own closed-end funds. We also find that the liquidity of closed-end funds’ portfolios is positively associated with the liquidity of the funds’ shares. Our findings are consistent with the “liquidity benefits” notion that closed-end funds are a means for smaller investors to invest in less liquid securities. In addition, our findings are consistent with the “valuation skepticism” notion which indicates that, due to the difficulty of objectively valuing illiquid securities, different perceptions of the value of illiquid securities held in funds’ portfolios may result in greater fund-share liquidity.

This article discusses the implications of heightened regulatory attention to hedge funds by focusing on the practical questions that are on the minds of many in the hedge fund industry and, possibly, even in the thoughts of the regulators themselves. The primary regulatory condition relevant to the offer and sale of interests in hedge funds is the prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising by the sponsor of the hedge fund. Under NASD rules, brokers must (1) provide balanced disclosures in their promotional efforts; (2) perform reasonable‐basis suitability determinations; (3) perform customer‐specific suitability determinations; (4) supervise associated persons selling hedge funds and funds of hedge funds; and (5) train associated persons regarding the features, risks, and suitability of hedge funds and funds of hedge funds. Internal controls, including supervision and compliance, must include written procedures to ensure that sales of hedge funds and funds of hedge funds comply with all relevant NASD and SEC rules. Promotion of hedge funds must be balanced by a fair presentation of the risks and potential disadvantages of hedge fund investing

Since 2008, the German open-ended real estate fund (GOEREF) industry has experienced a critical phase of suspensions of redemption of fund shares, announced fund terminations and, eventually, introduction of a new regulation. With assets under the management of over 80 billion, GOEREFs are the dominant indirect real estate investment vehicle in Germany. Thus, it is extremely important to study the effects of this crisis on the risk and return characteristics of the respective funds. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Both net asset values (NAVs) and potential secondary market prices of the shares of funds with suspended redemptions are used. The resulting total return patterns are analysed on an index basis for fund groups that best represent the most important investor groups for GOEREFs.

Groups that comprised a higher number of funds with suspended redemptions were considerably worse off and less attractive in an asset allocation context than the others given the often much lower secondary market prices. However, changes in return and risk must also be considered in terms of NAVs. The fund group comprising co-operative savings banks' funds was virtually unaffected by the liquidity crisis and continued to deliver stable and non-volatile returns, while the other fund groups exhibited a clear shift in their respective return profiles.

This study analyses fund groups that reflect the most important investor groups by using both types of important prices in a comprehensive industry sample. It, thus, provides valuable insights into the changing profiles of the funds and groups and their favourability from an asset allocation perspective.

To discuss a September 22, 2015 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposal for a set of broad and sweeping rules mandating that open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) develop and implement formalized and written liquidity risk management programs (“LRMPs”).

Describes the purpose of an LRMP, the six “liquidity buckets,” the nine factors that must be considered in determining an instrument’s liquidity, the need to continuously monitor the liquidity of each position, the set of eight mandated factors used to assess a fund’s liquidity risk, the requirement for a fund to define a three-day liquid asset minimum, the role of the fund’s board of directors, a separate rule permitting “swing pricing” to adjust net asset value to take into account the costs of unexpected redemptions or cash infusions, disclosure requirements, and proposed compliance dates.

In proposing this new program, the SEC stated that its goal was to enhance effective liquidity risk management practices by funds and thereby reduce the risk that funds will be unable to meet redemptions under reasonably foreseeable stressed market conditions.

Expert guidance by experienced financial services lawyers.

This paper aims to consider the role of investment funds in the credit intermediation process and discuss various forms of systemic risk their involvement might give rise to. It concludes by drawing some conclusions on the policy challenges facing authorities charged with regulating shadow banking.

The paper is based on findings from prior research and statistics.

On a general level, the paper shows that even though traditional investment funds and hedge funds may be very different in terms of their investment strategies and business models, some of them share several commonalities from a systemic risk perspective. More specifically, it discusses how instability in the funding profile of investment funds may threaten their ability to substitute banks’ maturity and liquidity transformation; that their potential funding liquidity shortages, asset reallocations and leverage may contribute to procyclicality in credit and market runs on the systemic money and short-term credit markets; and that insufficient risk separation may elude managerial and supervisory oversight, and force banks to reduce or interrupt credit intermediation.

The paper points to the lack of timely and comprehensive data for uncovering the stages and entities involved in shadow banking. Without sufficient data, the task of policy bodies, regulators or macroprudential authorities to fully grasp shadow banking and its contribution to systemic risk is daunting.

The paper represents (to the author’ knowledge) the first analysis of the role of investments in shadow banking.

The purpose of this paper is to study if actively managed exchange-traded funds (AMETFs) and actively managed mutual funds (AMMFs) are complements or substitutes. It also tests if there are tax or liquidity clientele effects.

The study investigates the relation between individual AMMF flows and aggregate AMETF flows as well as individual AMETF flows and aggregate AMMF flows. A 2013 tax change is used to analyze if a tax clientele effect exists between the AMETF and AMMF markets. The authors use differences in investor groups for institutional vs retail fund share classes to test for liquidity clientele effects.

The authors find that equity and mixed AMETFs and AMMFs are substitutes, although not perfect substitutes. Taxation-related differences between the two products create a clientele effect for fixed income and mixed funds where tax-sensitive investors are more likely to substitute AMETFs for AMMFs surrounding tax increases. There is weak evidence that institutional investors may prefer AMETFs more than retail investors because of their enhanced liquidity.

This is the first study to investigate the flow relation between AMETFs and AMMFs. The fast-paced growth of the AMETF area coupled with the substitutability between the two products and tax advantages of AMETFs has the capability to gain significant market share from AMMFs in the future.

To explain the background and details and to discuss the implications of the USA Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) July 23, 2014 amendments to Rule 2a-7 and other rules that govern money market funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Explains the background, including problems during the financial crisis, the USA Treasury’s temporary guarantee program in 2008, earlier SEC proposals, and the USA Financial Stability Oversight Council’s recommendations. Details the amendments to Rule 2a-7, including the authorization to impose liquidity fees and redemption gates, the floating net asset value (NAV) requirement, the impact of the amendments on unregistered money funds operating under Rule 12d1-1, guidance on fund valuation methods, disclosure requirements, requirements for money fund portfolios to be diversified as to issuers of securities and guarantors, stress testing requirements, and compliance dates.

The Amendments set forth sweeping changes to money fund regulation and will have a profound effect on the money fund industry. Although the most significant provisions of the Amendments – the floating NAV requirement and the imposition of liquidity fees and redemption gates – will not go into effect for two years, the changes to the industry will be apparent almost immediately.

Money fund managers and boards of directors should begin assessing the potential impact of the Amendments and develop a schedule to come into compliance.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Germany is the biggest real estate market in Europe. Although some established vehicles for indirect property investments are available, the German real estate market is dominated by direct investments and lags behind its international peers in capital market integration. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the recent launch of German REITs may improve this situation.

Existing indirect property investment vehicles and the new G‐REIT are analysed and compared along the dimensions of transparency, liquidity and risk/return characteristics. In addition, potential capital flows into G‐REITs are investigated and economic implications derived.

The study identifies the limitations of existing German indirect real estate investment vehicles and demonstrates the superior characteristics of the new G‐REIT. Substantial short‐term capital flows from existing vehicles to G‐REITs are, however, unlikely. Instead the temporary exit tax will foster an economically beneficial reallocation of capital by private companies and public authorities through property sales to new domestic and international investors via G‐REITs.

The results indicate that G‐REITs have the potential to attract substantial funds in the medium term and facilitate a more integrated and developed German property and capital market.

This paper seeks to describe the recent SEC Roundtable on Money Market Funds and Systemic Risk and the context behind the roundtable.

The paper discusses the SEC's roundtable on money market funds. Context to the roundtable is provided by describing recent steps taken by regulators to address risks posed by money funds. The paper also examines the principal topics discussed at the roundtable, including the debate on the systemic risks posed by money funds and potential regulatory changes that could mitigate those risks.

A number of regulatory proposals that were raised at the roundtable could, if adopted by the SEC, significantly alter the operation of money market funds as we know them, including requiring money market funds to institute market‐based net asset value (“NAV”) instead of stable NAV, be subject to banking regulations, create an industry‐funded private liquidity bank, or maintain liquidity reserve requirements.

The roundtable is significant as it is likely to influence the future discussion of the regulation of money market funds, which has potential implications for both the money management industry and entities financed by money market funds.

The paper provides information on money market reform for investment advisers, broker‐dealers, regulatory lawyers, institutional investors, and investment companies.

This case examines the importance of liquidity to financial markets, using the dramatic volatility of mutual fund flows in 2008 as an example. While the case is targeted to MBA students in an investments or portfolio management course, it is also appropriate for an advanced undergraduate course. It is written from the perspective of a fund manager who has experienced significant redemptions in 2008 and is considering whether or not to use ReFlow Management LLC's “liquidity provision” service. The case requires students to examine the nature and magnitude of mutual fund trading costs; how fund flows may induce additional trading, and how ReFlow's innovative service attempts to resolve these issues. Through this analysis, students will better understand what is meant by the term “liquidity” and how liquidity, or a lack thereof, can negatively impact portfolio performance.