This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The SEC's "Fair Value" Standard for Mutual Fund Investment in Restricted Shares and Other Illiquid Securities

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Janet K. Smith (Claremont McKenna College)
Richard L. Smith (Drucker Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University)
Karyn L. Williams (Drucker Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Mutual funds generally do not invest in venture capital, private equity, or restricted shares of public companies. Consequently, individuals who desire to invest in such securities are unable to do so through diversified mutual funds. In this paper, we identify public policies and regulations that discourage mutual fund involvement in the markets for illiquid equity. We also present evidence that changes in SEC policy caused mutual funds to retreat from investing in illiquid equity. Under the Investment Company Act of l940, the SEC requires mutual fund boards to determine and report the “fair value” of their investments in restricted shares and other illiquid equity claims. The SEC interprets fair value to mean value in current sale. Under the Investment Company Act, fair value reporting is a “certification” standard that presumes investors rely on the value representations of the fund board and its auditors. We consider whether alternatives to certification and current sale valuation could reduce barriers to mutual fund investment, without exposing individuals who invest in mutual funds to excessive risk or potential manipulation. To assess the effects of public policies, we analyze recent efforts of the SEC to apply the fair-value standard and examine court decisions arising from subsequent litigation. We also analyze the financial economics literature concerning discounts for illiquidity and the implications for valuing restricted shares. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy alternatives, including allowing funds to rely more on “transparency” in lieu of certification and allowing funds more latitude in determining and reporting the values of their illiquid securities.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://econ.claremontmckenna.edu/papers/2000-39.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Claremont Colleges in its series Claremont Colleges Working Papers with number 2000-39.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:clm:clmeco:2000-39

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 500 E. 9th Street, Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: (909) 607-3041
Fax: (909) 621-8249
Web page: http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/econ/papers/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Hertzel, Michael G & Smith, Richard L, 1993. " Market Discounts and Shareholder Gains for Placing Equity Privately," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 459-85, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Ritter, Jay R., 1987. "The costs of going public," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 269-281, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Pontiff, Jeffrey, 1995. "Closed-end fund premia and returns Implications for financial market equilibrium," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 341-370, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Nanda, Vikram & Narayanan, M. P. & Warther, Vincent A., 2000. "Liquidity, investment ability, and mutual fund structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 417-443, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-27.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.