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
BoE Clarifies Approach to Treatment of Payment Holidays on Form PL
BoE published a statistical notice (Notice 2020/9) explaining the approach for treatment of payment holidays on the profit and loss return or Form PL.
BoE Provides Reporting Update on Form AS and Form FV
BoE updated the known issues document for the statistical reporting Forms AS and FV.
BIS Publishes Update on G20 TechSprint Initiative
BIS published an update on the G20 TechSprint Initiative, which was launched in April 2020 and aims to highlight the potential for technologies to resolve regulatory compliance (regtech) and supervisory (suptech) challenges.
FED Announces Capital Requirements for Large Banks
FED announced individual capital requirements for 34 large banks and these requirements go into effect on October 01, 2020.
SRB Publishes Guidance on Implementation of Bail-In Tool
SRB published a set of documents to give operational guidance to banks on implementation of the bail-in tool.
OSFI Provides Update on Implementation of IFRS 17 in Canada
OSFI published a letter that provides an update on the milestones for the implementation of the IFRS 17 standard on insurance contracts.
EBA Provides Clarity on Implementation of Guidance on COVID Reporting
EBA updated the report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies.
FSI Note Discusses Challenges Associated with COVID Relief Measures
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a brief note that examines the supervisory challenges associated with certain temporary regulatory relief measures introduced by BCBS and prudential authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BCBS Consults on Principles for Operational Risk and Resilience
BCBS is consulting on the principles for operational resilience and the revisions to the principles for sound management of operational risk for banks.
BoE Updates Template and Definitions for Form ER
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
