Featured Product

    IOSCO Issues Statement on Liquidity Risk Management Recommendations

    July 18, 2019

    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
    Related Articles
    News

    FASB Proposes Taxonomy Changes Related to Topics 848 and 470

    FASB proposed taxonomy improvements for the proposed Accounting Standards Update on topic 848 on facilitation of effects of reference rate reform on financial reporting.

    September 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BoE Statement on Recalculating Transitional Measures Under Solvency II

    BoE notified that it will be willing to accept applications from firms to recalculate transitional measure on technical provisions (TMTP) as at September 30, 2019.

    September 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BoE Paper on Market-Implied Systemic Risk and Shadow Capital Adequacy

    BoE published a working paper that presents a forward-looking approach to measure systemic solvency risk.

    September 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Consults on Policy Module on Pillar 2 Supervisory Review Process

    HKMA is consulting on the revised Supervisory Policy Manual module CA-G-5 that sets out the HKMA approach to conducting the supervisory review process under Pillar 2.

    September 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Publishes Waiver by Consent of Continuity of Access Rules

    PRA published a new waiver by consent to waive the Continuity of Access requirements contained in the Depositor Protection Part of the PRA Rulebook (DPP).

    September 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Second Update for September 2019

    EBA updated the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool with answers to three questions.

    September 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Revises Branch Return and Updates Guidance for Regulatory Reports

    PRA published the policy statement PS17/19, which contains the final policy related to changes in the format and content of the Branch Return Form and reporting guidance.

    September 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Guide on Collateral Management Under Smart Derivatives Contracts

    ISDA published the third in a series of legal guidelines for smart derivatives contracts.

    September 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESA Report Highlights Risks of No-Deal Brexit in EU Financial System

    ESAs published a Joint Committee report on risks and vulnerabilities in the EU financial system.

    September 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Modifies New Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations

    The Governing Council of ECB decided to modify some of the key parameters of the third series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO III) to preserve favorable bank lending conditions (Decision (EU) 2019/1558).

    September 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 3819