Regulators, Industry Still Divided On Mutual Funds

Feb 27, 2004 12:00 PM, David A. Gaffen


         Subscribe in NewsGator Online   Subscribe in Bloglines  

Look out, insurance companies and banks. The state of New York is coming after you next.

In his opening remarks at the SIA’s Mutual Fund Reform and Public Trust conference, David Brown, bureau chief of investment protection in the New York Attorney General’s office, said insurance companies who sold mutual funds wrapped in variable annuities, along with banks and law firms, may end up becoming targets of Eliot Spitzer’s ire in coming months.

“These are old people who didn’t sign up to go head-to-head with professional arbitrageurs,” Brown said of those who bought variable annuities. Brown also talked of wanting more “proactive” measures from fund companies in reporting whether they have market-timing or late-trading issues at their particular firms.

He also said the recent investigations into mutual funds, including disclosure of late trading violations and what some consider ethically suspect market timing has generated positive responses from investors moving to funds considered “cleaner” by the investment community.

“The bar hasn’t just been raised on this a notch or two,” he said. “It’s been moved to a new stadium, and raised. It’s not going to be enough for lawyers to say, ‘This is a gray area.’ If you want to be one of those receiving capital, it’s better to say, ‘Don’t go near that line.’ ”

His remarks weren’t the only salvos fired at this conference, which was originally scheduled by the SIA when the market timing and late-trading abuses came to light in the press a few months ago, but have lately been usurped by greater concerns about mutual fund sales practices, including revenue sharing, preferred vendors on broker/dealer’s shelves, directed brokerage and 12b-1 fees.

Despite the genteel, mannered conversation among panelists, the discourse exposed ongoing differences between lawyers from the self-regulatory organizations and those representing investing companies. Joshua Kans, special counsel in the SEC’s division of market regulation, discussed at length the need for additional disclosures related to mutual fund costs that go directly to intermediaries—sales loads and 12b-1 fees—which in one year recently totaled nearly $20 billion.

He talked of the SEC’s intentions to call for additional disclosures of these fees as well as hidden costs such as educational events for registered reps, rejecting the notion that those things were merely the cost of doing business, saying that there is conflict embedded in all of those cases. “If a certain broker/dealer gets payments for certain fund groups, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination for a broker/dealer to see it has incentives to favor those groups,” Kans said. He talked of the SEC’s desire to see more disclosure of these hidden fees, making them more transparent, and identifying revenue sharing to make it more transparent. The SEC is currently in a comment period on a proposal to improve disclosure of mutual fund transaction costs.

Weighing in with the counterpoint was Robert Zack, general counsel for the Oppenheimer Funds, who, after offering praises to the SEC and NASD lawyers present with him on the stage, took the established viewpoint that performance and risk remained the first ways to evaluate funds.

“We may risk creating a disclosure regime so complicated that we may foreclose many investors from investing in mutual funds at all,” he said. Indeed, some participants shared his view, with questions directed to the SRO lawyers about what “constitutes” an effective measure of disclosure. Kans replied that there wasn’t necessarily an econometric measure of the benefits of added disclosure.

One comment made by Cynthia Fornelli, deputy director in the SEC’s division of investment management, encapsulated the tussle between the regulators and the financial services companies. Asked by Barry Barbash, partner at Shearman & Sterling, about the general tone of comment letters related to the SEC’s proposal for additional disclosures about the risks of market timing, and the potential for redemption fees for frequent traders in and out of mutual funds, she said, “The most pervasive theme is that people don’t like the proposal.”


Acceptable Use Policy
blog comments powered by Disqus

Current Issue

Registered Rep Cover

Dear Management, Thanks For Nothing.

By Christina Mucciolo
December 1, 2008

In our 18th annual Broker Report Card survey, wirehouse FAs say they are fed up with management ruining their excellent franchises and platforms. Will the great advisor diaspora begin?



browse back issues


Featured Book

Cannon’s Concepts For Professionals: A Complete Library of Essential Financial Concepts 

This reference book was updated for 2008 and now contains over 900 pages of information on essential financial concepts and wealth management strategies for your work with wealthy clients. The book not only contains brief summaries of each topic, but it also contains many useful diagrams and charts that can be used with clients when explaining difficult financial concepts. The information in this book meets current FINRA/NASD guidelines....

Bookstore

Affluent handbook Live Long Live Rich
Mastering High Net Worth Wealth Management team assessment
Back to Top