This post continues our discussion of the calculation of “gross notional amounts” included in a fund’s “derivatives exposure” under Rule 18f-4. Previously, we identified the best guidance we could find on how to calculate a derivatives transaction’s gross notional amount, and three adjustments to such amounts permitted by the rule’s definition of derivatives exposure. In this post, we discuss another adjustment not anticipated by Rule 18f‑4, but which we believe is necessary to avoid a fund that purports to be a limited derivatives user from circumventing the 10% limit on its derivatives exposure. Continue Reading Derivatives Exposure: Adjusting for Multipliers
Our previous post gave the best account we could of what the SEC staff has said about calculating the “gross notional amount” of derivatives transactions. In this post, we examine three adjustments that a fund may (but is not required to) make when calculating its “derivatives exposure.” Specifically, a fund may:
- exclude any closed-out positions;
- delta adjust the notional amounts of options contracts; and
- convert the notional amount of interest rate derivatives to 10-year bond equivalents.
We anticipate that a fund seeking to qualify as a “limited derivatives user” would make these adjustments to lower its derivatives exposure. Continue Reading Derivatives Exposure: Adjusting Notional Amounts
In this post, we tackle the question of how to calculate the “gross notional amount” of a derivatives transaction for purposes of the limited derivatives user provision of Rule 18f-4. This is a surprisingly difficult question because, although the adopting release for Rule 18f-4 (the “Adopting Release”) refers to “notional amount” 63 times, the release never directly addresses what the term means. We think we found an answer, but it required us to wind our way through a series of earlier SEC statements. Continue Reading Derivatives Exposure: A Circuitous Path to “Gross Notional Amounts”
Having provided two “big pictures” of the calculation of a fund’s “derivatives exposure,” we resume with an in-depth examination. We begin by considering how to determine the “gross notional amount” of a derivatives transaction. This post may contain our only categorical conclusion regarding derivatives exposure: gross notional amounts must be absolute values expressed in U.S. dollars. Continue Reading Derivatives Exposure under Rule 18f-4: Notional Apples and Oranges
Our last post provided a big picture summary of the steps required to calculate a Fund’s “derivatives exposure” for purposes of new Rule 18f-4. The post may have left an impression that this process should not be that difficult. To provide additional perspective, we offer the following equation for calculating derivatives exposure.
If interest rate and currency hedges satisfy the following condition:
Then a Fund will be a limited derivatives user when:
Our last post outlined the essential differences between VaR Funds and Limited Derivatives Users: primarily that the former must adopt a derivatives risk management program (a “DRM Program”) while the latter need only have policies and procedures. Our post observed that the less prescriptive regulatory requirements may make operating as a Limited Derivative User an attractive alternative for many management investment companies (including business development companies but excluding money market funds, a “Fund”). As promised at the end of that post, this post initiates our exploration of the challenges of qualifying as a Limited Derivatives User. We begin by providing a high-level step-by-step guide to calculating a Fund’s “derivatives exposure.” Continue Reading Derivatives Exposure: Why It Matters And How To Calculate It
Our last post explained the two basic alternatives for managing derivatives risks under new Rule 18f-4 by qualifying either as a Limited Derivatives User or a VaR Fund. This post outlines the essential differences between VaR Funds and Limited Derivatives Users, primarily that the former must adopt a derivatives risk management program (a “DRM Program”) while the latter need only have policies and procedures. Continue Reading VaR Funds vs. Limited Derivatives Users—Programs vs. Procedures
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 What Risks May Be Associated with Derivatives Transactions
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. Continue Reading Rule 18f-4 Derivatives Transactions Recap
This is the sixth installment of our discussion of the compliance requirements of new Rule 18f‑4 and wraps up our discussion of paragraph (d) of the new rule and its application to business development companies (“BDCs”), closed-end funds and open-end funds other than money market funds (collectively, “Funds”). This posts identifies which Funds need to update their asset coverage procedures for compliance with Section 18 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and what those updates should entail. Continue Reading Checklist for Including Reverse Repos and Similar Financing Transactions in Asset Coverage Procedures