IOSCO Issues Statement on Liquidity Risk Management Recommendations
IOSCO published a statement explaining why the February 2018 liquidity risk management recommendations provide a comprehensive framework for regulators to deal with liquidity risks in investment funds. As per the statement, the recommendations on liquidity risk management are aimed to prevent liquidity and redemption mismatches from arising, rather than to mitigate problems once they occur. The domestic regulators should apply the recommendations in a prescriptive manner to manage specific or idiosyncratic liquidity risks. Securities regulators are expected to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations. Some domestic regulators have already adopted, or are consulting on, liquidity management regimes consistent with the recommendations. IOSCO intends to conduct a review beginning in 2020 to gauge how the recommendations have been implemented in practice.
The recommendations deal with the attendant benefits and risks when open-ended investment funds may exceptionally look to use other liquidity management tools (such as suspensions and swing pricing) in the face of untoward redemption pressures, including the need to treat investors fairly and to consider any broader market implications. The recommendations are unequivocal that—throughout the entire lifecycle of the fund (design, pre-launch, launch, and subsequent operations)—there should be an appropriate alignment between portfolio assets and redemption terms. The recommendations clarify that open-ended investment funds should not be managed in such a way that the investment strategy relies on any additional ex-post measures such as suspensions. These measures are not a substitute for sound liquidity risk management from the outset, so that the dealing frequency of units meets the anticipated liquidity needs of the fund under normal and foreseeable stressed market conditions.
The statement also highlights that, as some have suggested, pursuing a global “one size fits all” prescriptive approach would be impractical because this approach tries to match different asset classes, fund investment strategies, and redemption periods according to the universally applicable standards. This is because the fund management industry (compared to, for example, the banking sector) is extremely diverse. The recommendations on liquidity risk management do, however, contain practical, actionable principles that support the domestic regulators that may wish or need to pursue a prescriptive approach responsive to the nature of particular open-ended investment funds they supervise directly and/or specific characteristics of the local markets in which they operate. Domestic regulators may also need to address related conduct concerns—for example, the concerns that may arise from the way individual funds are managed or marketed, including the material disparities between legitimate investor expectations of liquidity (as per the disclosure materials or regulatory classification of a fund) and the reality.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Liquidity Risk Management, Liquidity Risk, Open-Ended Investment Funds, Investment Funds, IOSCO
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Pierre-Etienne Chabanel
Brings expertise in technology and software solutions around banking regulation, whether deployed on-premises or in the cloud.
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Previous Article
FCA Plans to Move to New Regulatory Reporting PlatformRelated Articles
EBA Finalizes Remuneration Standards for Investment Firms in EU
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
ECA Recommends Actions to Enhance Resolution Planning for Banks
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE Publishes Key Elements of the 2021 Stress Testing for Banks in UK
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA Proposes Rules on Identity Verification of Depositor Protection
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB Publishes Work Program for 2021
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA Issues Update on Move to New Data Collection Platform
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank Publishes Derivation Rules for Reporting by Banks
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED Revises Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Banks
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.
ECB Releases Results of Bank Lending Survey for Fourth Quarter of 2020
ECB published results of the quarterly lending survey conducted on 143 banks in the euro area.
ESAs Publish Reporting Templates for Financial Conglomerates
ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.
