Poll: Should Fund Managers Be Required to Disclose Their Holdings Every Quarter?
In a poll conducted earlier this week in the CFA Institute Financial NewsBrief, we asked readers, “Should fund managers be required to disclose their portfolio holdings on a quarterly basis?”
Poll: Should fund managers be required to disclose their portfolio holdings on a quarterly basis?
Nearly 77% of 737 global respondents think fund managers should be required to disclose their portfolio holdings on a quarterly basis, while about 23% of respondents don’t believe managers should have to reveal their positions every three months. Proponents of frequent disclosure generally argue that such transparency enables investors to better monitor each fund’s compliance with its stated investment objective. Additionally, a better understanding of their collective fund holdings likely helps investors to make more informed asset allocation decisions.
Taking the opposite view, many large investors (including Warren Buffett) argue that having to reveal positions while they are still being accumulated attracts “piggybacking” investors and risks running up the price of shares before they are finished buying, putting their own investors at a disadvantage.
There is clearly a need to balance the desire for transparency and the interests of individual investors with the strategic interests and desire for confidentiality of fund managers.
Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.
Its seems to be a wonderful yet childlike idea. (Voting on this issue is nonsensical. Democracy cannot replace free-markets. (The wholesomeness and sustainability of democracy to establish and maintain a government that serves its people first and then the world without discrimination is obviously deeply flawed.) The issue might more likely need to be addressed with moral-ethical leadership whilst keeping the markets free. A slightly more sophisticated approach which does not find its strength in childlike GUNG-HO somewhat cheap attempt at faking moral high ground might be needed. As a matter of truth such approach will be counterproductive and non sustainable. If we are serious about reform we might need to choose not to be overtly populistic and fatally simplistic in our approach. A filtered process that protects the confidentiality of the strategic model and holdings of funds whilst accurately reporting risk in a clear yet sophisticated fashion both quantitatively and qualitatively might certainly be a more sensible suggestion. Certainly an over-simplistic approach to transparency will only benefit biggest and strongest and least innovative funds after the dust has settled.
Isn’t it of crucial nature on a risk management perspective to include external compliance audits within the management framework? This approach clearly safeguards investors to the degree of assurance and will ascertain the fund managers adherence with the risk of piggybacking minimized.