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
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Karen Moss
Senior practitioner in asset and liability management (ALM) and liquidity risk who assists banking clients in advancing their treasury and balance sheet management objectives
Previous Article
European Council Adopts Package on CRD 5, CRR 2, BRRD 2, and SRMR 2Related Articles
PRA Finalizes Approach to Supervision of International Banks
In a recent Market Notice, the Bank of England (BoE) confirmed that green gilts will have equivalent eligibility to existing gilts in its market operations.
FCA Issues PS21/9 on Implementation of Investment Firms Regime
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the policy statement PS21/9 on implementation of the Investment Firms Prudential Regime.
EBA Proposes Regulatory Standards to Identify Shadow Banking Entities
The European Banking Authority (EBA) proposed regulatory technical standards that set out criteria for identifying shadow banking entities for the purpose of reporting large exposures.
IOSCO Proposes Recommendations on ESG Ratings and Data Providers
The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) proposed a set of recommendations on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and data providers.
EC to Defer Application of SFDR Standards Till July 2022
The European Commission (EC) announced plans to defer the application of 13 regulatory technical standards under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (2019/2088) by six months, from January 01, 2022 to July 01, 2022.
BoE Consults on Approach to Setting MREL, Publishes Bail-In Guidance
The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on approach to setting minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), an operational guide on executing bail-in, and a statement from the Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden.
EBA Seeks Views on Proportionality Assessment Methodology
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking preliminary input on standardization of the proportionality assessment methodology for credit institutions and investment firms.
US Agencies Propose Changes to Call Reports and Instructions
Certain regulatory authorities in the US are extending period for completion of the review of certain residential mortgage provisions and for publication of notice disclosing the determination of this review until December 20, 2021.
PRA Finalizes Rulebook Definition of Higher Paid Material Risk-Taker
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the policy statement PS18/21, which introduces an amendment in the definition of "higher paid material risk taker" in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook.
EBA Examines Asset Encumbrance in Banking Sector
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on asset encumbrance in banking sector.
