By Stephen A. Keen and Andrew P. Cross

Having completed our review of derivatives transactions, we now consider the risks such transactions may pose. Rule 18f-4(a) defines “derivatives risks” to include “leverage, market, counterparty, liquidity, operational, and legal risks and any other [material] risks.” The adopting release (the “Release”) provides helpful descriptions of these risks and some examples.

Continue reading at The Asset Management ADVocate.

This post completes our exploration of the definition of “derivatives transactions” in Rule 18f-4, which is relevant to business development companies, closed-end funds and open-end funds other than a money market fund (“Funds”). Our object is to generate a fairly comprehensive list of what is, is not, and may be a “derivatives transaction” by using our touchstone of a “future payment obligation” in combination with the literal definition in the rule and points made in earlier posts.

Summary of Transactions

The following table summarizes our conclusions as to the scope of the definition of “derivatives transactions” and provides links to the most relevant post.

Continued at the complete blog post available at The Asset Management ADVocate.

By Stephen A. Keen and Andrew P. Cross

In this post, we continue our exploration of the definition of “derivatives transaction” in new Rule 18f-4, which is relevant to business development companies, closed-end funds and open-end funds other than a money market fund (“Funds”). Our last post discussed examples of derivatives that fall outside of the definition. This post considers transactions that may not pose the risks addressed by Rule 18f-4 but which are nevertheless subject to the rule. Subsequent posts will explain why this overbreadth is not as bad as it might seem.

Read the full blog post at The Asset Management ADVocate.

By Stephen A. Keen & Andrew P. Cross

In this, the twelfth installment of our review of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4, we leave the peripheral transactions addressed in the rule (i.e., delayed-delivery transactionsreverse repurchase agreements, and unfunded commitment agreements) and plunge into the core of the rule: “derivatives transactions” regulated by paragraph (c). To prepare for this, we need to understand some core concepts, including “derivatives transactions,” “derivatives risks” and “value-at-risk testing.”

We begin by seeking a bright line for separating investments not subject to Rule 18f-4 from those that may be. We find that whether a Fund has a future payment (or delivery) obligation is what matters the most when determining whether a particular transaction will be regulated as a derivatives transaction under Rule 18f-4.

Read the full blog post at The Asset Management ADVocate.

By Stephen A. Keen & Andrew P. Cross

This eleventh installment of our review of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4 as it applies to business development companies, closed-end funds and open-end funds other than money market funds (“Funds”) completes our discussion of unfunded commitment agreements. Here we consider what changes may be required for a Fund to comply with paragraph (e) of Rule 18f‑4. We suspect this may prove relatively easy for an open-end Fund.

View the full blog post at The Asset Management ADVocate.

By Stephen A. Keen and Andrew P. Cross

This is the tenth installment of our review of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4 as it applies to business development companies, closed-end funds and open-end funds other than a money market fund (“Funds”). We have previously discussed the asset sufficiency risk posed by unfunded commitment agreements and the means by which paragraph (e) addresses this risk. This post will use these concepts to develop a working definition of when a firm or stand-by commitment should be treated as an unfunded commitment agreement.

The full blog post is available at The Asset Management ADVocate.

By Stephen A. Keen & Andrew P. Cross on March 4, 2021

This is the ninth installment of our review of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4. Our last post explained why unfunded commitment agreements present asset sufficiency risk but did not create leverage risk. In this post, we will explain how paragraph (e) of the new rule controls asset sufficiency risk, tracing its origins back to Release No. IC-10666 (“Release 10666”).

Continue reading full blog post at The Asset Management ADVocate.

Good day.  Good to have sufficient assets under just about any circumstance imaginable. DR2

By Stephen A. Keen and Andrew P. Cross

Subject to Steve’s caveat regarding the definition of an “unfunded commitment agreement,” we continue our exploration of Rule 18f-4 with a focus on the treatment of such commitments under paragraph (e) of the new rule. Like paragraph (d), (e) applies only to business development companies, closed-end funds and open-end funds other than money market funds (“Funds”). We begin with a conceptual question: how can a contract to lend money and a contract to repay borrowed money both be “senior securities” under Section 18?

Read the full blog post at The Asset Management ADVocate.

In Episode 4 of our Podcast Series, Todd Zerega and Andrew Cross discuss the use of derivatives on cryptocurrencies by institutional investors. Specific attention is given to regulatory and product development considerations for registered investment advisors and fund sponsors, as well as technical considerations related to exchange-traded futures on bitcoin and other similar listed products.

As a supplement to the podcast, please see our recent blog post about the CFTC’s publication of weekly data about the volume of bitcoin futures trading and types of market participants that are entering into these trades.

Good day.  Good to learn about new products. DR2

By Stephen A. Keen

This is the seventh installment of Andrew Cross and my review of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4 and the first to deal with “unfunded commitment agreements.” Before plunging into the substance of paragraph (e) of Rule 18f-4, which regulates unfunded commitment agreements, I want to revisit a problem I have with the definition. My problem stems from trying to answer a basic question: Is a binding commitment to make a loan upon demand by the borrower, with stated principal and term and a fixed interest rate, an “unfunded commitment agreement?” Read the full post at The Asset Management ADVocate.