It is important, first of all, to define a fiduciary. Despite voluminous literature, there is no ready answer and the fiduciary relationship remains ‘a concept in search of a principle’. In general terms, it is possible to divide fiduciaries into two categories, status-based fiduciaries and fact-based fiduciaries.
The status-based category includes a core of well established relationships such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, director-company, principal- agent, solicitor-client, employer-employee, and partner-partner. They are relationships which are regarded by equity as fiduciary per se. It is debatable as to what is the common denominator behind these relationships but it is not a matter of concern here. Read the rest of this entry »
(1) Statutory Allocation of Powers and Duties
Against this background, a structure of dual administration in the unit trust is a logical step in the functional specialization of the powers and responsibilities previously found in the single person of the trustee. The unit trust was in the forefront of this development. The first regulation of unit trusts in the United Kingdom in 1939 made the trustee-manager structure a model for the management of unit trusts. This model was adopted by many statutes of common law countries and was followed closely by unregulated schemes. Read the rest of this entry »
Given that the primary obligation of a trustee is to hold properties belonging to others and to preserve them for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is no surprise that trustees are generally expected ‘to use such due diligence and care as men of ordinary prudence and vigilance would use in the management of their own affairs’. When investing, they are expected ‘to take such care as an ordinary prudent man would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide’. This focus on integrity rather than ability ties in with the conventional wisdom that `[t]he importance of preservation of a trust fund will always outweigh success in its advancement’ . Read the rest of this entry »
The ease of adapting Drach’s methods to closed-end funds is based on the similarity of scanning for relative discounting. The essence of the timing technique is to attempt to expand common stock investment when the overall market is relatively low, confining investment interest to stocks that qualify for the Master List, which appear relatively discounted to the others.
Scanning for the most appropriate closed-end fund based on discounts has the same objective: isolating the cheapest. In Drach’s objectives, he is searching for specific stocks that are overly discounted. In Herzfeld’s closed-end fund analysis, he is searching for the most discounted fund. The focus of both techniques is to isolate excessive discounts relative to historical/statistical norms.
A significant differential between Drach’s concentration on specific stock and Herzfeld’s concentration on specific funds is that the funds, by their structure, involve diversity in the number of different positions. Read the rest of this entry »
