SEC commissioners push back against systemic designation for mutual funds

Two on panel annoyed with regulatory action on 'too big to fail'; Gallagher says asset managers shouldn't be considered systemically key

Apr 3, 2014 @ 1:12 pm

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Two Securities and Exchange Commission members this week backed the fund industry's stance that asset management companies shouldn't be deemed too big to fail, and they also complained that they are being shut out of deliberations by federal regulators that could lead to tougher regulation on the companies.

At the Mutual Fund Directors Forum conference in Washington on Wednesday, SEC member Luis Aguilar questioned the quality of a study last year by the Office of Financial Research that concluded that big asset management companies should be designated as systemically important financial institutions, or SiFis, which would result in increased capital requirements and bank-like regulation.

The study will serve as the basis for deliberations by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the body of federal financial regulators created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to monitor systemic risk in the markets. SEC Chairman Mary Jo White sits on the FSOC, but none of the other four commissioners does.

“Luis' voice adds a lot of credibility to the things I've been saying for two years,” SEC member Dan Gallagher told reporters Thursday on the sidelines of the same MFDC conference.

“It's a majority of the commission,” he said. “It's not a partisan issue.”

In his meeting with reporters, Mr. Gallagher said that he opposes SiFi designation for mutual funds.

“I don't see how they are systemically important,” Mr. Gallagher said. “Assets owned on an agency basis do not pose the same threats as we saw in the financial crisis.”

In addition, most of the five-member SEC feels shunted aside by the FSOC, Mr. Gallagher said.

Mr. Aguilar, a Democrat, and Mr. Gallagher, a Republican, argue that they have had no input to the FSOC regarding SiFi designations.

“There is real danger in that work being compromised if the full five-member commission is cut out of the process,” Mr. Aguilar said in a speech at the MFDF forum. “The concerns voiced by commenters and lawmakers raise serious questions as to whether OFR's report provides an adequate basis for FSOC to designate asset managers as systemically important under the Dodd-Frank Act and whether OFR is up to the tasks called for by its statutory mandate.”

MFDF president and chief executive Susan Wyderko dismissed the report.

“It contains remarkable misconceptions about the asset management industry,” she told conference attendees.

According to the study, which was released last September, the asset management industry may present vulnerabilities to the financial system because of funds “reaching for yield” through alternative investments, being subject to large redemption requests and using risky leverage through derivatives.

In addition, the failure of a large asset management firm could create instability across the funds it manages or across markets.

“Pooled investment vehicles can potentially create market volatility and more rapid price impacts due to herding behaviors regarding investment in less liquid assets or increased redemptions due to shifting investment as risk tolerances or perceptions change,” according to the report.

The study likely will be at the forefront of a public FSOC forum in May about the asset management industry.

“You all should rightfully worry about the OFR report,” Mr. Gallagher told the MFDF audience on Thursday.

A SiFi label likely would involve increased capital requirements and prudential regulation by the Federal Reserve Board. The FSOC has designated large bank holding companies and some large insurers as SiFis.

Mutual fund companies with assets of more than $100 billion also could be labeled as SiFis, a moniker that doesn't fit, according to one board director.

“I'm concerned for the industry,” said Bruce Crockett, chairman of Invesco Funds in Houston. “The risk of a fund is a whole lot different than the risk of a bank or even an insurance company.”

Investment Company Institute president and chief executive Paul Schott Stevens said in a speech at a conference in Orlando, Fla., that the SiFi label would increase costs for funds and investors.

“It would not take much in added fees, assessments and capital costs to increase quite significantly what these funds would have to charge their shareholders, making them less competitive and less attractive to investors,” he said. “Any SiFi designations clearly will distort the competitive landscape for funds and investors.”


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

May 02


Women Adviser Summit

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in four cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video


What's the first thing advisers should do when they get home from a conference?

After attending a financial services conference, advisers can be overwhelmed by options, choices and tools. What's the first thing they should do when they get back to their office?

Latest news & opinion

Speculation mounts on whether others will follow UBS' latest move to prevent brokers from leaving

UBS brokers must sign a 12-month non-solicit agreement if they want their 2017 bonuses.

8 apps advisers love for getting stuff done

Smartphone apps that advisers are using in 2018 to run their business more efficiently.

Galvin's DOL fiduciary rule enforcement triggers industry plea for court decision

Plaintiffs warned the Fifth Circuit that Massachusetts' move against Scottrade signaled that the partially implemented regulation can raise costs for financial firms.

Social Security underpaid 82% of dually entitled widows and widowers

Agency failed to tell survivors that they could switch to a higher retirement benefit later.

Is Fidelity competing with retirement plan advisers?

As the Boston-based mutual fund giant expands the products and services it brings to the retirement market, some financial advisers say the firm is encroaching on their turf.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print