Under section 83 of the Financial Services Act 1986, a manager of an authorized unit trust is not permitted to engage in activities other than acting as a manager of a unit trust, an open-ended investment company, a `body corporate whose business consists of investing its funds with the aim of spreading investment risk and giving its members the benefit of the results of the management of its funds‘,” or a collective investment scheme. The Act does not restrict the activities of the trustee of a unit trust and its position is governed by equitable principles above discussed.
As noted earlier, dealing in units is the contractual right of the manager. Any gain by the manager from issuing and redeeming units is not a secret profit and therefore is not accountable to anyone. This is the position of the manager of an authorized unit trust if it discloses prominently in the scheme particulars a statement to this effect. Read the rest of this entry »
Under this rule, a fiduciary has to account for all gains obtained by reason of its position, or through an opportunity or information resulting from it.
A fiduciary may not obtain and retain secret gains. Thus, in a transaction that would be effected between a unit trust and a third party, the manager cannot interpose a nominee to deal with the trust first and arrange for this nominee to consummate the transaction with the third party at a profit. Any such profits must be accounted for. A fiduciary also cannot take any bribe or secret commission. Read the rest of this entry »
There are two ways that a swap position can be interpreted: (1) as a package of forward/ futures contracts, and (2) as a package of cash flows from buying and selling cash market instruments.
Package of Forward Contracts Consider the hypothetical interest-rate swap described earlier to illustrate a swap. Let’s look at party X’s position. Party X has agreed to pay 10% and receive six-month LIBOR. More specifically, assuming a $50 million notional principal amount, X has agreed to buy a commodity called six-month LIBOR for $2.5 million This is effectively a six-month forward contract in which X agrees to pay $2.5 million in exchange for delivery of six-month LIBOR. If interest rates increase to 11%, the price of that commodity (six-month LIBOR) is higher, resulting in a gain for the fixed-rate payer, who is effectively long a six-month forward contract on six-month LIBOR. The floating-rate payer is effectively short a six- month forward contract on six-month LIBOR. There is therefore an implicit forward contract corresponding to each exchange date. Read the rest of this entry »
Few other innovations have made as big an impact on the fund industry as the mutual fund supermarket. Today’s popular version of the mutual fund supermarket was introduced by discount brokerage firm Charles Schwab in 1992 and has since transformed the way investors purchase and sell funds. Like the supermarket from which most people purchase food, fund supermarkets bring together a variety of similar products from different vendors. In other words, they allow investors to purchase and hold a broad range of funds from many different fund sponsors through a single brokerage account. Similar to the grocery version, fund supermarkets soared in popularity because of their ability to provide a high degree of convenience, breadth of product, ease of comparison and simplicity of transaction. Read the rest of this entry »
The Class B structure creates challenging financial issues for the fund sponsor This structure carries inherent risk in that the fund’s NAV could decline substantially, decreasing the amount of 126-1 fees and CDSCs received by the sponsor, possibly below the amount it advanced to the broker-dealer. This is especially a risk for an equity fund sponsor, since equity assets are more volatile than other asset types. In recent years, many fund sponsors have sought relief from the risk that the CDSC arrangement entails by taking advantage of new methods of financial engineering developed by banks and investment banks. These methods enable fund sponsors to reduce or eliminate this risk by securitizing and selling the future cash flows from 12b-1 fees and CDSCs. For example, consider a fund sponsor that has just paid a broker a 4% commission for selling Class B shares of a growth find. Rather than wait to recoup this commission via 12b-1 fees and/or CDSCs, the sponsor may sell the rights to these future cash flows to an unrelated party in exchange for a modestly lower payment today. This sale effectively protects the sponsor against the risk associated with a possible downturn in the equities market and consequential decline in cash flows from 12b-1 fees and CDSCs. Read the rest of this entry »
Buying and selling
Although some funds are exchange-traded, the shares or units of most mutual funds are bought and sold by making an application to the manager. This can be in writing, by telephone or via the Internet, directly by the investor or by the investor’s adviser or agent. Many managers have pre-printed application and redemption forms and their advertisements and other promotional mailing material often include an application form. Once accepted by the manager, applications constitute a binding contract, and the manager issues a contract note stating the details of the transaction.
For purchases, payment can be included with the application. Some managers may insist on this for the initial investment of a first-time investor. Alternatively, the contract note will specify when payment is required. For large investments, the manager may be required by law to obtain confirmation of the investor’s identification and of the source or destination of money involved in the transaction: if there is any suspicion that the money is being laundered, or used to support terrorist activity, the suspicion must be reported to the authorities. Read the rest of this entry »
