The SEC is doing contingency planning for the time when the Fed will declare the current five-year+ economic emergency over and begin to raise interest rates back to normal. What “normal” is in today’s world is itself a subject of debate . The official Fed view is that overnight money should carry an annual interest charge of 4% vs. the current zero. Even if the right number is actually 3%, that’s still a huge jump (more on this topic in a couple of days).
According to the Financial Times, the SEC is worried about what will happen to junk bond funds/ETFs when rates begin to rise.
The issue is this:
–investors wary of the stock market but searching for yield have put $1 trillion into corporate bond funds since the financial crisis. Such funds now have about $10 trillion in assets under management.
–the charm of mutual funds is that the holder is entitled to cash in any/all of his shares at any time before the market close on a given day, and cash out at that day’s net asset value.
–junk bonds are relatively sensitive to changes in interest rates and go down when rates go up, and
–many junk bonds trade “by appointment only,” meaning they’re very illiquid and basically don’t trade.
So, the question arises, what happens if/when holders see their net asset value eroding and decide to all withdraw at once? Arguably buyers will disappear when they see an avalanche of selling coming toward them. The initial selling itself will tend to put downward pressure on bond prices. A falling NAV can conceivably generate even more, panicky, selling.
If a big no-load junk bond fund is hit with redemptions equal to, say, 25% of its assets over a period of several months, will it be able to sell enough of its portfolio to meet shareholders demands for their cash back? Maybe …maybe not.
operates like a bank…
Put a different way, a junk bond fund is a lot like a bank. It takes in money from depositors and lends to corporations. In the pre=-junk bond days, a bank would lend at, say, 10%, pay depositors 2% and keep the rest for itself. That opened the door to junk bond funds, which reverse the revenue split, keeping a little for themselves and paying the lion’s share of the interest income to shareholders.
…but no FDIC or Fed
If there’s a run on a bank, the government steps in and stands behind deposits. If there’s a run on a mutual fund, there’s only the fund management company.
a real problem?
How likely is any of this to happen? I have no idea. Neither does the SEC …but it’s apparently thinking it doesn’t want to find out.
Allowing/requiring junk bonds to charge exit fees would do two things: it would decrease the flow of new money into the funds from the instant the fees were announced–and maybe trigger redemptions in advance of the imposition date; and it would make holders think twice before taking their money out.
Historically, there’s a sharp difference between the behavior of holder of load and no-load funds. In experience, load funds that I’ve run have experienced redemptions of maybe 5% of assets in bad times. Similar no-load funds might lose a third of their assets.
Mutual funds typically have tools they can use to deal with high redemptions. They can usually buy derivatives that will hedge their portfolio exposure; they have credit lines they can use to get cash for redemptions immediately; in dire circumstances, they can suspend redemptions or meet redemptions in kind (meaning you get a junk bond instead of your money ( ugh!)).
Junk bond ETFs are a tiny portion of the whole. They’re a special type of mutual fund. Holders of ETF shares don’t deal directly with the management company. They buy and sell through designated market makers, who have no obligation to transact at or near NAV. Therefore, they can staunch selling simply by swinging the market down far enough. At the bottom of the stock market in March 2009, for example, I can recall specialized stock ETFs trading at over 10% below NAV!
This issue is part of a larger government debate about whether large investment management companies are systematically important to the financial system and, as such, should be more highly regulated.