Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
72
result(s) for
"Fink, Matthew P"
Sort by:
Seventy-fifth anniversary of the Investment Company Act of 1940
The Investment Company Act of 1940 was not enacted in isolation, but was part of the broad financial reform movement of the first half of the twentieth century. In order to understand the Act's history, its impact, and its likely future the author needs to consider that reform movement and subsequent events. The principal purpose of the Investment Company Act was to protect investors. As one commentator has observed, the main objectives were to prevent abuses of position, fraud, and conflicts of interest that had occurred in prior periods. The Act sought to accomplish its goal of investor protection by setting forth a series of extremely detailed do's and don'ts targeted at specific abuses, such as excessive use of leverage and fund managers dumping securities into their funds. The Investment Company Act is likely to remain in place. However, if present trends continue, he would not be surprised if over time the 1940 Act were supplemented with major elements of bank-type regulation.
Journal Article
The changing role of independent directors of mutual funds
[...]of the crash, revelations of abuse, and the onset of the Great Depression, there now was a desire to regulate the securities markets, including investment companies. The 1940 Act Gave Directors Few Powers The SEC's bill gave fund directors only three powers - annual renewal of the advisory and underwriting contracts and annual selection of the fund's principal accounting officer.3 After negotiations between the SEC and industry representatives, the final Act gave directors two additional powers - selection of the fund's independent public accountant and valuation of securities without readily available market prices. [...]the Act gave fund directors only five powers-annual renewal of the advisory and underwriting contracts, annual selection of the principal accounting officer and independent public accountant, and fair valuation.
Journal Article
Push for fund legislation while times are good
The banking industry should push for legislation defining banks' involvement in selling mutual funds, according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI). The legislation should allow banks to underwrite mutual funds, and bank personnel who sell mutual fund products should be required to register as broker-dealers. In lieu of legislation, banks should act responsibly when selling mutual fund products. The ICI has established guidelines to help banks maintain proper sales procedures.
Journal Article
Rough weather ahead for banks in mutual funds. (banks should expect downturn in fund sales)
The banking industry will probably prosper over the long term, but banks should be prepared for a sudden downturn in mutual fund sales. It is inevitable that fund sales will drop, and a downturn is likely to draw the scrutiny of Congress just as previous downturns have spurred legislation. Since Congress has already expressed concern over bank mutual fund activities, banks are likely to receive especially intense scrutiny if a downturn occurs.
Journal Article
Mutual funds in the Supreme Court
Each time the US Supreme Court agrees to hear a case involving mutual funds, some of the author's colleagues in the fund industry worry that the Justices will not appreciate funds' unique characteristics and therefore will render a misguided decision. This article will review the cases involving mutual funds that have been decided to date by the Court. Each case, like all cases, presents many issues. This article focuses on just one question -- how well did the Court take into account the unusual attributes of mutual funds in formulating its decisions. In US v Cartwright, the Court examined a Treasury Department regulation providing that for estate tax purposes mutual fund shares are to be valued at their public offering price at the date of death. In US v NASD, the Justice Department brought suit against the National Association of Securities Dealers, mutual funds, fund underwriters and broker-dealers. The Court found that restrictions on activities by brokers were disclosed in registration statements and did not contravene any SEC rule.
Journal Article