Are you complying with the updated guidelines on stress test scenarios under the MMF Regulation?

Are you complying with the updated guidelines on stress test scenarios under the MMF Regulation?

Throughout August you will have seen a number of regulators publishing updated circulars, opinions and notices in relation to the application of the ESMA Guidelines on stress test scenarios under the Money Market Fund Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 (MMFR). Including regulators such as the: MFSA, CMVM, Central Bank of Ireland, FSMA & CSSF.

Liquidity Landscape – Singapore

Liquidity Landscape – Singapore

Last week we took a brief look at the liquidity risk management regime in Hong Kong. This week, moving slightly southwest, and staying in the same continent, we review the liquidity risk requirements in Singapore. In 2018, the same year Hong Kong made amendments to its Fund Manager Code of Conduct, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued new Guidelines on Liquidity Risk Management Practices for Fund Management Companies (Guidelines).

Liquidity Landscape – Hong Kong

Liquidity Landscape – Hong Kong

Although liquidity risk management practices vary in different jurisdictions, in most cases, asset managers are required to monitor the liquidity of the fund on a frequent basis. Whilst many aspects of the regulations are broadly similar, differences can be seen from what is considered β€œliquid”, and around methodology to liquidity buckets, stress testing and reporting requirements. In Europe for example, neither UCITS nor AIFMD specify a specific methodology for calculating liquidity. This is in contrast to the US SEC Liquidity Risk Management Framework requirements which set out a specific methodology to be followed, although that methodology is not without its shortcomings.