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
HKMA Urges Early Action for Adherence to IBOR Fallbacks Protocol
HKMA urged authorized institutions to take early action to adhere to the IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, which ISDA is expected to publish soon.
FSB Sets Out Roadmap for Transition to Alternative Reference Rates
FSB published a global transition roadmap for London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
HM Treasury Publishes Response to Proposal on BRRD2 Transposition
HM Treasury published a document that summarizes the responses received from a consultation on the approach of UK to transposition of the revised Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD2).
HM Treasury Publishes Response to Proposal on CRD5 Transposition
HM Treasury published the government response to the feedback received on the consultation for updating the prudential regime of UK before the end of the Brexit transition period.
PRA Updates Supervisory Statement on Counterparty Credit Risk
PRA published the final policy statement PS22/20, which contains the updated supervisory statement SS12/13 on counterparty credit risk.
FSB Publishes Update on Work to Address Market Fragmentation
FSB published an update on its work to address market fragmentation. FSB is working in this area in collaboration with the other standard-setting bodies.
EBA Proposes to Revise Guidelines on Incident Reporting Under PSD2
EBA proposed revisions to the guidelines on major incident reporting under the second Payment Service Directive (PSD2).
EBA Finalizes Standards for Prudential Treatment of Software Assets
EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying the methodology for prudential treatment of software assets by banks.
FSB Publishes Roadmap on Cross-Border Payments, Report on Stablecoins
FSB published a report presenting the roadmap to enhance cross-border payments by providing a high-level plan that sets ambitious but achievable goals and milestones in the five focus areas.
EIOPA Urges Insurers to Prepare for End of Brexit Transition
In a recent communication, EIOPA urged the insurance sector to complete its preparations for the end of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020.
