The conclusion from the foregoing discussion is that the trustee and the manager are not in partnership or in a general agency relationship. They are independent contracting parties to the unit trust deed. An examination of the terms of a typical trust deed of a non-authorized unit trust in detail reveals that the majority of the provisions are covenants made by either of them with unitholders or are provisions conferring powers or discretions on them by unitholders. When the regulations of the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991 are incorporated expressly into the trust deed of an authorized unit trust, it appears that they may be construed in the same manner. There are not many provisions that can operate as promises between these two parties.
Where provisions in the deed embody covenants made with unitholders, they can be enforced by unitholders as promisees. In respect of an exercise of power or discretion by the trustee which is without good faith or otherwise wrongful, unitholders can sue the trustee for breach of trust. In the case of the manager, unitholders may bring an action for an abuse of power on the basis of a breach of fiduciary duty. Thus, there is no problem of standing to sue for aggrieved unitholders. Read the rest of this entry »
It cannot be denied that by entering into the trust deed, both the manager and the trustee are entering into a venture that provides services to their `customers’ and that produces their income. This is cooperation in business, but is unlikely to constitute them a partnership. Basically, the test of the existence of a partnership is by reference to the definition of a partnership discussed and also by reference to the statutory rules regarding co-ownership of assets, sharing of gross return, and also sharing of profit.
There is no business in common. The demarcation of functions under the unit trust deed draws the line of business between them. In essence, the trustee is carrying on the business as a professional trustee and the manager is carrying on the business of investment management. Read the rest of this entry »
Back-end loads are a sales commission levied by some load funds when an investor sells mutual fund shares. These back-end loads typically are structured as a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), which often start at 5% or 6% of money withdrawn within a year of buying the fund and then decline by a percentage point or so each year until they disappear. Back-end loads usually are set to compensate the distributor for marketing and selling the fund, especially to protect anticipated annual flows of 12b-1 fees. However, back-end loads may also be used to dissuade short-term traders; funds may set a high back-end load for money withdrawn within a very short time frame and then revert to the more general schedule of yearly declining load amounts referenced above. Read the rest of this entry »
As mentioned above, one group of activists has social rather than primarily financial agendas for U.S. companies. In the view of these activists, U.S. companies should help achieve social goals such as saving animals, protecting wilderness or alleviating poverty. Let’s consider whether these social goals are appropriate for most mutual funds and then for the subset of funds specifically geared to socially responsible investing.
Social activists who attempt to change corporate policies or challenge corporate practices take many different tacks in pursuit of their goals, but all are motivated by one fundamental principle: corporations shouldn’t be solely profit-maximizing entities; rather, they have an obligation to take into account their impact on social issues. Activists seek to influence companies through a variety of means—including litigation, picketing and public relations offensives—in an effort to encourage a company to alter its social policies in some fashion. Read the rest of this entry »
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The primary purpose of regulations is to protect investors, and the roots of governmental regulation of mutual funds in the longer-established markets are often associated with major scandals and market crashes.
In the USA, the stock market crash of 1929 prompted an extensive investigation by Congress into the securities industry. It revealed that overselling, or ‘ramming’ of shares, particularly radio company shares, had created unrealistic expectations and false, overvalued markets. The investigation resulted finally in the Investment Company Act 1940, which established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - this Act remains the cornerstone of US mutual fund regulation - and the Investment Advisers Act 1940. Along with two Acts passed into Federal law in the 1930s - the Securities Act 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act 2934 - these four Acts provide the bulk of federal powers over the activities of US investment companies. In fact, the only addition to US legislation affecting all companies since 1940 is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and that has only an indirect bearing on mutual funds themselves, being more concerned with accounting, auditing and disclosure practices of trading companies, following the Enron and Worldcom scandals. Read the rest of this entry »
Japan - funds analogous to investment trusts existed in Japan in 1937 in the form of investors’ associations, which, like the UK’s Foreign & Colonial Company’s original investment trust, faced challenges of legality and were dissolved in 1940, to be replaced in 1941 by undertakings that, modelled on the UK’s unit trust, found legal support. Post-war confusion led to these funds becoming closed to new investment in August 1945 and final dissolution in February 1950. Read the rest of this entry »
The policy of most jurisdictions is to treat the mutual fund as a company subject to corporate or income tax only on its ordinary business (i.e. net income arising from holding investments), and exempt it from taxation on its gains from buying and selling investments. In the US, provided the gains and net income are distributed, the fund does not pay federal income tax on either. Taxes are the responsibility of and paid by the shareholders under a ‘pass-through’ arrangement, whether they choose to receive cash or reinvest their entitlement. Read the rest of this entry »
