Concentration Risk | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Risks and Uncertainties [Abstract] | ' |
Concentration Risk | ' |
Concentration Risk |
|
(a) Revenue Concentration by Asset Class |
|
The following table summarizes the percentage of total revenue earned from Federated's asset classes for the periods presented: |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Six Months Ended | | | | | | | | | | |
| | June 30, | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 2014 | | | 2013 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Money market assets | | 33 | % | | 42 | % | | | | | | | | | | |
Equity assets | | 43 | % | | 34 | % | | | | | | | | | | |
Fixed-income assets | | 23 | % | | 23 | % | | | | | | | | | | |
|
The decline in the relative proportion of Federated's revenue attributable to money market assets for the first six months of 2014 as compared to the same period in 2013 was primarily the result of increases in fee waivers for certain money market funds to maintain positive or zero net yields. A significant change in Federated’s money market business or a significant reduction in money market assets due to regulatory changes, changes in the financial markets, including significant and rapid increases in interest rates over a short period of time causing certain investors to prefer direct investments in interest-bearing securities, significant deterioration in investor confidence, further persistent declines in or additional prolonged periods of historically low short-term interest rates and resulting fee waivers or other circumstances, could have a material adverse effect on Federated’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. |
|
Current Regulatory Environment |
Domestic |
In January 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted extensive amendments to Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Rule 2a-7) to enhance the resiliency of money market funds. These amendments included rules that require all money market funds to meet specific portfolio liquidity standards and rules that significantly enhance the public disclosure and regulatory reporting obligations of these funds. In 2010 and 2011, Federated dedicated internal resources to comply with these amendments including efforts to enhance our information systems and improve related reporting capabilities. These efforts were internally sourced and not material to Federated's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows for those years. In Federated's view, the amendments of 2010 meaningfully and sufficiently strengthened money market funds as demonstrated in meeting heightened requests for redemptions occurring in connection with the U.S. debt ceiling debate and subsequent downgrade of the country's credit rating in 2011, the European debt crisis in 2011/2012 and its ongoing fallout as well as the U.S. debt ceiling debate in 2013. |
On July 23, 2014, by a three to two vote of the SEC Commissioners, the SEC adopted lengthy final rules (through an over 860 page release) on money market fund reform (Final Rules). The Final Rules were adopted after a lengthy and voluminous public comment process, which one SEC Commissioner called, in remarks made at the Sunshine Act Meeting at which the SEC Commissioners adopted the Final Rules, “perhaps one of the most flawed and controversial rulemaking processes the [SEC] has undertaken.” The Final Rules will impose additional money market fund reforms that require any institutional prime money market fund and any institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market fund to maintain a floating net asset value (NAV). The Final Rules will permit a money market fund, or, in certain circumstances, require a money market fund (other than a government money market fund), to impose liquidity fees on all redemptions, and permit a money market fund to limit (or gate) redemptions for up to 10 business days in any 90-day period. The Final Rules also will impose certain current event disclosure requirements on a new Form N-CR and certain other enhanced disclosure and reporting (including on Form N-MFP and Form PF), diversification, and stress-testing requirements on a money market fund. The Final Rules will become effective 60 days after the date on which the Final Rules are published in the Federal Register (Publication Date). The mandatory compliance dates for the Final Rules are: (1) two years after the Publication Date for the floating NAV requirements, liquidity fees and gates requirements and related disclosure requirements; (2) nine months after the Publication Date for the current event disclosure requirements on new Form N-CR and related website disclosure requirements; and (3) 18 months after the Publication Date for other requirements not related to either the floating NAV or fees or gates, including the enhanced disclosure and reporting on Form N-MFP and Form PF, diversification and stress-testing requirements, and certain clarifying amendments to relevant SEC rules. |
In response to the SEC’s adoption of the Final Rules, the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also issued on July 23, 2014 proposed rules, which money market fund shareholders may immediately rely upon, aimed at relieving tax burdens for shareholders that frequently purchase or redeem shares of a money market fund (such as through a broker-dealer or bank “sweep arrangement”) and that may experience a high volume of small capital gains and losses if they invest in an institutional prime money market fund or an institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market fund with a floating NAV. The IRS also issued on July 23, 2014 final guidance in the form of Revenue Procedure 2014-45 addressing applicable wash sale rules and describing the circumstances in which the IRS will not treat a redemption of shares in a money market fund as part of a wash sale. |
Floating NAV Requirement |
The Final Rules will require any institutional prime money market fund and any institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market fund to value its holdings utilizing market-based valuations to maintain a floating NAV rounded to the nearest 1/100th of one percent, or the fourth decimal place, rather than use the amortized cost method of valuation of securities maturing in more than 60 days to seek to maintain a stable NAV. A government money market fund or a retail money market fund will be allowed to continue using the amortized cost method (and/or the penny rounding method of pricing) to seek to maintain a stable NAV. Under the Final Rules, a “government money market fund” will include any money market fund that invests 99.5% (rather than 80%) or more of its total assets in cash, government securities and/or repurchase agreements that are collateralized solely by government securities or cash. A “retail money market fund” will include any money market fund that has policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit all beneficial owners of the money market fund to natural persons. |
Liquidity Fee and Gate Requirements |
The Final Rules also will permit the board of directors/trustees of a money market fund to impose liquidity fees of up to two percent on all redemptions if the money market fund’s level of weekly liquid assets (which generally include cash, U.S. Treasury securities, certain other government securities with remaining maturities of 60 days or less, and securities that convert to cash within one week) falls below 30% of its total assets and the board determines that such liquidity fees are in the best interests of the money market fund. Under the Final Rules, if a money market fund’s level of weekly liquid assets falls below 10%, the money market fund (other than a government money market fund) would be required to impose a liquidity fee of one percent on all redemptions, unless the board of directors/trustees of the money market fund determines that such a liquidity fee is not in the best interests of the money market fund or that a lower or higher (up to two percent) liquidity fee on all redemptions is in the best interests of the money market fund. |
Under the Final Rules, the board of directors/trustees of a money market fund also will have the discretion to temporarily suspend (or gate) redemptions for up to 10 days if a money market fund’s level of weekly liquid assets falls below 30% and the board determines that imposing a gate is in the best interests of the money market fund. A money market fund will not be able to impose a gate on redemptions for more than 10 business days in any 90-day period. |
A government money market fund will not be subject to the liquidity fee and redemption gate requirements adopted under the Final Rules, but may voluntarily opt into them, if previously disclosed to the government money market fund’s investors. |
Current Event Disclosure Requirements and Other Requirements |
Under the Final Rules, a money market fund will be required to disclose certain current events on a new Form N-CR, including (A) the imposition or removal of liquidity fees or gates and the primary considerations or factors taken into account by the board of directors/trustees of the money market fund in making its decision related to fees and gates, (B) portfolio security defaults, (C) sponsor or affiliate support of the money market fund, including the amount of support and a brief description of the reason for the support, and (D) for a government money market fund or a retail money market fund, a reduction in the money market fund’s market-based (or shadow) NAV per share below $0.9975. |
In addition to certain clarifying amendments and other changes to SEC rules implemented by the Final Rules, the Final Rules also will impose certain other enhanced disclosure and reporting, diversification, and stress-testing requirements on a money market fund. The other enhanced disclosure and reporting requirements appear to be aimed at further increasing transparency. Under the Final Rules, in addition to the current event disclosures that will be required on new Form N-CR, a money market fund will be required to disclose in its statement of additional information any occasion during the last 10 years (excluding occasions that occurred before the compliance date) in which the money market fund received sponsor or affiliate support. On a daily basis, a money market fund also will be required to disclose on its website its levels of daily liquid assets and weekly liquid assets, net shareholder inflows or outflows, market-based (or shadow) NAV per share, impositions of liquidity fees or gates, and any use of sponsor or affiliate support. The Final Rules also amend Form N-MFP, a form required under SEC rules to be filed by a money market fund with the SEC within five business days after the end of each month, to require reporting of certain additional information relating to assessing money market fund risk and will make the information filed on Form N-MFP public immediately upon filing (rather than 60 days after filing). The Final Rules also require an adviser of a private “liquidity fund” to report certain additional information regarding this type of private fund on Form PF. |
Regarding diversification, the Final Rules will require a money market fund to treat certain affiliated entities as single issuers for purposes of determining whether the money market fund is complying with the five percent issuer diversification requirement under Rule 2a-7, which, as revised, will generally restrict a money market fund from investing more than five percent of its assets in any one issuer or group of affiliated issuers. Rule 2a-7 currently provides for a "25% basket,” under which up to 25% of the value of securities held in a money market fund’s portfolio may be subject to guarantees or demand features from a single institution. The Final Rules will require that a money market fund (other than a municipal or tax-exempt money market fund) meet a 10% diversification limit for guarantors and demand feature providers. For a municipal or tax-exempt money market fund, no more than 15% of the value of its securities will be able to be held in securities subject to guarantees or demand features from a single institution. Under the Final Rules, a money market fund also will be required to treat the sponsor of an asset-backed security as a guarantor subject to the diversification limit applicable to guarantees and demand features, unless the board of directors/trustees of the money market fund (or its delegate) determines that the money market fund is not relying on the sponsor’s financial strength or its ability or willingness to provide liquidity, credit or other support to determine the asset-backed security’s quality or liquidity. |
Regarding stress testing, the Final Rules will further enhance the stress testing, and related board reporting, requirements adopted by the SEC in 2010. For example, the Final Rules will require a money market fund to test its ability to maintain weekly liquid assets of at least 10% and to minimize principal volatility in response to certain specified hypothetical stress scenarios. |
Related SEC Proposals |
Along with the Final Rules, the SEC also issued on July 23, 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rule 10b-10 Exemptive Relief, in which the SEC solicited comment on a proposal to exempt broker-dealers from the immediate confirmation delivery requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for transactions effected in shares of floating NAV institutional prime money market funds and institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market funds. The SEC also issued separate proposals re-proposing amendments to Rule 2a-7 and Form N-MFP to remove any references to or requirement of reliance on credit ratings and to establish alternative standards of creditworthiness in place of credit ratings and proposing amendments to Rule 2a-7 to eliminate an exclusion from the issuer diversification provisions for securities with certain guarantees. |
Treasury Department and IRS Tax Guidance |
Under the proposed rules issued by the Treasury Department and IRS on July 23, 2014, shareholders that frequently purchase or redeem shares of a money market fund (such as through a broker-dealer or bank “sweep arrangement”) and that may experience a high volume of small capital gains and losses if they invest in an institutional prime money market fund or an institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market fund with a floating NAV may adopt a simplified, aggregate method of tax accounting for these gains and losses. Money market fund shareholders that invest in floating NAV money market funds can immediately rely on these proposed rules. Under the proposed rules, floating NAV money market fund shareholders can measure net gain or net loss without transaction-by-transaction calculations and determine their net gain or loss using certain information provided to them by the money market fund for non-tax purposes. The net gain (or loss) can be determined as the increase (or decrease) in the value of the shareholder’s shares during a period (such as the tax year), minus the net investment in those holdings (purchases minus sales) during the period. Under the proposed rules, floating NAV money market funds also receive the same waiver of gross-proceeds reporting, basis reporting and holding-period reporting that now applies to stable-value money market funds. |
Under Revenue Procedure 2014-45, which also was issued on July 23, 2014, the IRS describes the circumstances in which the IRS will not treat a redemption of shares in a money market fund as part of a wash sale. (A wash sale generally occurs when a shareholder sells a security at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale, acquires a substantially identical security.) If shareholders of floating NAV money market funds choose not to adopt the simplified, aggregate method of tax accounting described above, Revenue Procedure 2014-45 provides relief from the wash sale rules for any losses on shares of a floating NAV money market fund. In addition, this guidance clarifies that the wash sale rules do not affect shareholders who do adopt the simplified, aggregate method of tax accounting described above. |
The Final Rules and related guidance issued by the Treasury Department and IRS, on July 23, 2014, represent the culmination of a lengthy and voluminous public comment process on the SEC’s prior proposed rule on money market fund reforms. Since January 2010, the SEC worked to develop a proposal for additional reforms related to money market funds. On June 5, 2013, the SEC issued its rule proposal for public comment. The SEC's proposal was lengthy (approximately 700 pages) and included two principal alternative reforms that could be adopted alone or in combination. Similar to the Final Rules adopted by the SEC, one alternative was a floating NAV for institutional prime money market funds and other money market funds (such as, for example, municipal money market funds) other than government and retail money market funds, and the other alternative involved use of liquidity fees and redemption gates when a fund failed to maintain a prescribed liquidity threshold. Unlike the Final Rules adopted by the SEC, in the case of either alternative, the proposal would have eliminated the amortized cost method of valuation of securities maturing in more than 60 days while permitting the use of the penny rounding method to maintain a stable share price for money market funds not required to have a floating NAV. The proposal also included additional diversification and disclosure measures that would apply under either alternative. |
When the SEC's proposal was issued in June 2013, management reviewed the SEC proposal and actively participated in the public comment process both individually through the filing of 18 comment letters and with industry groups. While the public comment period formally closed on September 17, 2013, comments on the SEC's proposal continued to be submitted, including additional comment letters submitted on behalf of Federated. Comment letters are available on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313.shtml. |
On March 24, 2014, the SEC published a series of four analyses conducted by the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, which the SEC staff believed "have the potential to be informative for evaluating final rule amendments for the regulation of money market funds." The analyses examined (1) the spread between same-day buy and sell transaction prices for certain corporate bonds from January 2, 2008 to January 31, 2009, (2) the extent of government money market fund exposure to non-government securities, (3) academic literature reviewing recent evidence on the availability of "safe assets" in the U.S. and global economies and (4) the extent various types of money market funds are holding in their portfolios guarantees and demand features from a single institution. The SEC staff requested comments on this supplemental information be submitted to the comment file to the SEC’s June 5, 2013 money market fund reform proposal (discussed above) by April 23, 2014. Federated filed three comment letters with respect to this supplemental information published by the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. One comment letter addressed the analysis regarding the spread between same-day buy and sell transaction prices for certain money market eligible securities from January 2, 2008 to January 31, 2009. In that comment letter, Federated expressed its view that, while Federated generally agreed with the SEC staff's methodology for considering the cost of liquidity in evaluating an appropriate liquidity fee, the staff’s use of Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) bond data as the basis for spread analysis led the staff to find significantly larger spreads than it would have found had it based its analysis on the short-term instruments in which money market funds actually invest. Management believed, and continues to believe, that the staff’s analysis overstated the spreads for Rule 2a-7 eligible securities during crisis periods by several multiples of actual spreads, and thus could have led the SEC to adopt a far larger-than-necessary liquidity fee requirement as part of its Final Rules. Another comment letter addressed the analysis regarding municipal money market funds' exposure to parents of guarantors. In that comment letter, Federated expressed its view that it did not believe that the SEC staff’s analysis supported the conclusion that elimination of the "25% basket" in Rule 2a-7 would not increase the credit risks of municipal and other money market funds. Management did not believe, and continues not to believe, that there is a basis for concluding that elimination of the 25% basket would protect investors, or promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The third comment letter addressed the SEC staff’s analyses regarding the demand and supply of safe assets in the economy and government money market fund exposure to non-government securities. In that comment letter, Federated expressed its reservations about the data and analysis underlying both analyses on the basis that neither analysis appeared focused on the market sector that the SEC's June 5, 2013 money market fund reform proposal would have most directly affected, namely, the market for short-term U.S. government securities and repurchase agreements for U.S. government securities (the government money market). Management believed, and continues to believe, that any money market reform proposal that would have the effect of shifting large amounts of capital into the government money market would certainly create problems for investors who are required to invest in government securities or who cannot afford the risks associated with other classes of "safe assets" included in the SEC staff's analysis (such as gold, investment grade bonds, securitized assets and foreign sovereign obligations). |
In April, 2014, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) published a paper entitled “Gates, Fees and Preemptive Runs” in which the FRBNY purported to show that the possibility of suspending convertibility, including the imposition of gates or fees for redemptions, can create runs that would not otherwise occur. As reflected in Federated’s comment letter, dated April 25, 2014, management believed, and continues to believe, that publicly available data shows that roughly 91% of large bank deposits are subject to the banks' ability to refuse early withdrawal requests from time deposits, defer for seven days requests for withdrawals from savings accounts, and impose early withdrawal fees on time deposits. Management believed, and continues to believe, therefore, that the FRBNY’s paper was based on a flawed assumption that banks are currently prohibited from imposing gates or fees on withdrawals from bank deposits and that, as evidenced by the relative stability of these assets, it was erroneous to claim that gates and fees cause assets to be prone to runs. To the contrary, management believed, and continues to believe, that gates and fees will achieve the SEC’s stated money market fund reform goals while promoting efficiency, competition and capital formation. |
In a final comment letter on the SEC’s June 5, 2013 proposal submitted on July 16, 2014, Federated conveyed its views to the SEC that a combination of a floating NAV for institutional prime money market funds and liquidity fees and gates would be an onerous regulatory alternative that would significantly reduce the utility of money market funds for a large segment of investors, particularly when less burdensome alternatives exist that would achieve the SEC's stated money market reform goals while enhancing transparency for investors. In that comment letter, Federated listed and examined the less burdensome alternatives that management believed, and continues to believe, exist for achieving the SEC's goals, including, among other alternatives, allowing for the imposition of gates and fees (without requiring a floating NAV) and enhanced disclosures. |
Federated supported throughout the public comment process, and continues to support, liquidity fees and redemption gates in certain contexts. Federated believed, and continues to believe, the floating NAV will significantly reduce the utility and attractiveness of money market funds for investors who, in Federated's view, value money market funds in their current form as an efficient and effective cash management investment product offering daily liquidity at par. Management believes the Final Rules appropriately continue to allow a government money market fund or a retail money market fund to use the amortized cost method to seek to maintain a stable NAV. However, management believes that the Final Rules’ combination of a floating NAV for institutional prime money market funds and institutional municipal (or tax-exempt) money market funds with liquidity fees and gates could be an onerous regulatory alternative that could significantly reduce the utility of money market funds for a large segment of investors, with further adverse consequences for issuers who rely upon money market funds as an important alternative to bank financing, particularly when less burdensome alternatives exist that would achieve the SEC's stated money market reform goals while enhancing transparency for investors. |
Management believes that the floating NAV will be detrimental to Federated's money market fund business and could materially and adversely affect Federated’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Given the recent adoption of the SEC’s Final Rules, the extended compliance dates under the Final Rules, and the recent issuance of Treasury Department and IRS guidance on related tax reforms, Federated is unable at this time to assess the degree of any potential impact the SEC's Final Rules may have on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows until the Final Rules, and related Treasury Department and IRS guidance, are fully reviewed and analyzed. In connection with the review and analysis of the Final Rules, the related tax guidance, and their impact on Federated's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, Federated will consider its legislative, regulatory, legal, product structure and development, business and certain other options that may be available to seek to minimize the potential impact of any adverse consequences of the Final Rules. Federated also is unable to assess at this time whether, or the degree to which, any potential options ultimately may be pursued or be successful. |
The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) may recommend new or heightened regulation for "nonbank financial companies" under Section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). On April 3, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Governors) issued a final regulation, which became effective on May 6, 2013, that defines the term "predominantly engaged in financial activities" for purposes of identifying "nonbank financial companies" under the Dodd-Frank Act. In the adopting release for the regulation, the Governors stated that they believe "that it is clear that open-end investment companies, such as mutual funds including money market funds, ... engage in financial activities" for the purpose of asserting regulatory jurisdiction. Management respectfully disagrees with this position. Management believes that (1) the final regulation is inconsistent with the clear language and intent of the Dodd-Frank Act, (2) the conclusion that mutual funds, including money market mutual funds, fall within the scope of "financial activities" is without a valid statutory basis and (3) Congress intended the scope of "financial activities" for Dodd-Frank Act regulation to be strictly limited to specific lines of business previously defined under the Bank Holding Company Act, which historically have not been viewed as including mutual funds as a specific line of business. |
In a Congressional Appropriations Committee conference report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which was signed into law by President Obama on January 17, 2014, Congress instructed the SEC to undertake a “rigorous economic analysis” before promulgating its final money market fund proposal, and indicated that the “Committee expects that the final rules will take into account the substantive concerns of stakeholders who use these products for short-term financing needs.” In the conference report, Congress also expressed that “[i]mpairing or restricting the use of money market funds could potentially result in a decrease in the ability of these products to provide liquidity, potentially resulting in hundreds of market participants issuing longer-term debt, significantly increasing their funding costs, slowing expansion rates, and depressing jobs and economic growth.” In a House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee conference report accompanying a House appropriations bill, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee indicated that the “Committee remains concerned with the [SEC’s] proposal to further regulate money market funds” and reiterated many of the above statements from the Congressional Appropriations Committee conference report. In addition to underscoring the importance to the capital markets of money market funds as currently structured, management believes that these conference reports reflect Congress’ view that the regulation of money market funds is within the purview of the SEC, not FSOC. |
On November 1, 2013, Federated also responded to the SEC’s request for comment on a September 2013 report of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's (Treasury Department) Office of Financial Research entitled “Asset Management and Financial Stability” (the OFR Report), which was prepared at the request of FSOC. Federated believes that the OFR Report is lacking in both substance and depth of analysis in its effort to justify FSOC’s and the Governors' role in fundamentally changing the structure and operation of investment managers, investors and the markets. While the SEC requested comments to be submitted by November 1, 2013, comments have continued to be submitted. Comment letters are available on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov/comments/am-1/am-1.shtml. |
Federated is unable to assess whether, or the degree to which, any of the Federated Funds, including money market funds, could ultimately be designated a systematically important nonbank financial company by FSOC. In management's view, the issuance of final regulations is, and any reforms ultimately put into effect would be, detrimental to Federated's money market fund business and could materially and adversely affect Federated’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Federated is unable to assess the degree of any potential impact any reforms or other actions by the Governors, FSOC or other governmental entities may have on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows at this time. |
International |
European-based money market funds face regulatory reform pressure in Europe similar to that faced in the U.S. The European Commission released its money market fund reform proposal on September 4, 2013. The proposal would have permitted either floating NAV money market funds or constant NAV money market funds subject to capital requirements. Under the proposal, a constant NAV money market fund generally would have had to either build a capital buffer of 3% or convert to a floating NAV money market fund. On March 10, 2014, the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee postponed a vote on the proposal until the next European Parliament, which will convene after parliamentary elections. Any proposal must be approved by the European Parliament and European Council and any final regulation could vary materially from that of any proposal. Management does not anticipate agreement on a final regulation before late fourth quarter 2014. |
A proposal to implement a European financial transactions tax (FTT) continues to be developed. Notwithstanding challenges to its legality, discussions have continued regarding the scope, application and allocation of the FTT. On May 6, 2014, a Declaration was signed by 10 of the 11 original participating European countries confirming their support for the FTT, clarifying that the FTT would be introduced on a step-by-step basis, with the progressive implementation focusing first on the taxation of equities and certain derivatives, noting that individual countries could impose the FTT on additional products not included in the initial progressive implementation (for example, in order to maintain existing taxes) at their discretion and indicating that the initial phase of the FTT should be implemented by no later than January 1, 2016. Management does not expect the FTT to be effective until 2015 or early 2016. |
European money market reform and the imposition of the FTT, particularly if enacted with broad application, would each be detrimental to Federated's fund business and could materially and adversely affect Federated’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Federated is unable to assess the degree of any potential impact that European money market reform proposals or the FTT may have on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows until such proposals are finalized and approved or the FTT is enacted. |
On January 8, 2014, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) also published for comment as a consultative document “Assessment Methodologies for Identifying Non-Bank Non-Insurer Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (Consultation). The FSB is an international organization, of which the Governors, the SEC and the Treasury Department are members, that was established to coordinate, at the international level, the work of national authorities and bodies in developing and promoting the implementation of regulatory policies. The Consultation sets forth proposed methodologies for identifying systemically important non-bank, non-insurance company financial institutions, including, among others, “market intermediaries” which the Consultation appears to define as including investment advisers, brokers and certain other intermediaries, and “investment funds,” which the Consultation appears to define as including money market funds, other open-end or closed-end mutual funds, and hedge funds and other private funds. The proposed methodologies include consideration of size (U.S. $100 billion is a proposed materiality threshold), exposures, complexity, interconnectedness, leverage and other factors. The Consultation specifically notes that, in addition to individual funds, it may also be necessary to consider families of funds following the same or similar investment strategies. The deadline for the formal comment period on the Consultation ended on April 7, 2014. On April 4, 2014, Federated filed a comment letter addressing various aspects of the Consultation. Management generally agrees with the Consultation’s approach of developing specific, measurable, published criteria for designating systemically important non-bank, non-insurance company financial institutions, and believes that (1) the proposed criteria or methodologies, to the extent applied to the investment fund sector, should focus on individual funds and not investment managers or fund families, and that a size criteria for investment funds that is based on net assets under management at a fixed amount that is not tied to the overall size of the investment market in which the fund participates is flawed, and (2) key aspects of investment funds, particularly money market funds, such as lack of leverage and their substitutability, simplicity and transparency, and applicable legal requirements and risk mitigation practices, weigh strongly against listing them as systemically important non-bank, non-insurance company financial institutions. Federated concluded in its comment letter that it does not believe that money market funds should be designated as systemically important non-bank, non-insurance company financial institutions under the Consultation. Federated is unable to assess whether, or the degree to which Federated, any of its investment management subsidiaries or any of the Federated Funds, including money market funds, could ultimately be determined to be a systemically important non-bank, non-insurance company financial institution. |
Historically Low Short-Term Interest Rates |
For several years, the Governors have kept the near-zero federal funds rate unchanged and short-term interest rates continued at all-time low levels. In certain money market funds, the gross yield earned by the fund is not sufficient to cover all of the fund's operating expenses due to these historically low short-term interest rates. Since the fourth quarter 2008, Federated has voluntarily waived fees (either through fee waivers or reimbursements or assumptions of expenses) in order for certain money market funds to maintain positive or zero net yields. These fee waivers have been partially offset by related reductions in distribution expense and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests as a result of Federated's mutual understanding and agreement with third-party intermediaries to share the impact of the waivers. |
|
These voluntary fee waivers are calculated as a percent of assets under management (AUM or managed assets) in certain money market funds and thus will vary depending upon the asset levels in such funds. In addition, the level of waivers are dependent on several other factors including, but not limited to, yields on instruments available for purchase by the money market funds, changes in expenses of the money market funds and changes in the mix of money market assets. In any given period, a combination of these factors drives the amount of fee waivers necessary in order for certain funds to maintain positive or zero net yields. As an isolated variable, an increase in yields on instruments held by the money market funds will cause the pre-tax impact of fee waivers to decrease. Conversely, as an isolated variable, an increase in expenses of the money market funds would cause the pre-tax impact of fee waivers to increase. |
|
With regard to asset mix, changes in the relative amount of money market fund assets in prime and government money market funds as well as the distribution among certain share classes that vary in pricing structure will impact the level of fee waivers. Generally, prime money market funds waive less than government money market funds as a result of higher gross yields on the underlying investments. As such, as an isolated variable, an increase in the relative proportion of average managed assets invested in prime money market funds as compared to total average money market fund assets should typically result in lower waivers to maintain positive or zero net yields. Conversely, the opposite would also be true. |
|
The impact of such fee waivers on various components of Federated's Consolidated Statements of Income was as follows for the periods presented: |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended | | Six Months Ended |
| | June 30, | | June 30, |
(in millions) | | 2014 | | | 2013 | | | 2014 | | | 2013 | |
|
Revenue | | $ | (102.3 | ) | | $ | (91.9 | ) | | $ | (209.0 | ) | | $ | (179.3 | ) |
Less: Reduction in Distribution expense | | 70.2 | | | 66.9 | | | 144.5 | | | 131.7 | |
|
Operating income | | (32.1 | ) | | (25.0 | ) | | (64.5 | ) | | (47.6 | ) |
Less: Reduction in Noncontrolling interest | | 2.5 | | | 1.3 | | | 5.2 | | | 2.1 | |
|
Pre-tax impact | | $ | (29.6 | ) | | $ | (23.7 | ) | | $ | (59.3 | ) | | $ | (45.5 | ) |
|
The negative pre-tax impact of fee waivers to maintain positive or zero net yields on certain money market funds increased for both the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2014 as compared to the same periods in 2013 primarily as a result of lower yields on instruments held by the money market funds. |
|
Based on recent commentary from the Governors in a June 18, 2014 press release, "a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy remains appropriate," Federated is unable to predict when the Governors will increase their target for the federal funds rate. As such, fee waivers to maintain positive or zero net yields on certain money market funds and the related reduction in distribution expense and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests could continue for the foreseeable future. Assuming asset levels and mix remain constant and based on recent market conditions, fee waivers for the third quarter 2014 may result in a negative pre-tax impact on income of approximately $31 million. See Management's Discussion and Analysis for additional information on management's expectations regarding fee waivers. While the level of fee waivers are impacted by various factors, increases in short-term interest rates that result in higher yields on securities purchased in money market fund portfolios would reduce the negative pre-tax impact of these waivers. The actual amount of future fee waivers and the resulting negative impact of these waivers are contingent on a number of variables including, but not limited to, changes in assets within the money market funds, available yields on instruments held by the money market funds, actions by the Governors, the Treasury Department, the SEC, FSOC and other governmental entities, changes in expenses of the money market funds, changes in the mix of money market customer assets, changes in the distribution fee arrangements with third parties, Federated's willingness to continue the fee waivers and changes in the extent to which the impact of the waivers is shared by third parties. |
|
(b) Revenue Concentration by Investment Fund |
|
A significant portion of Federated's total revenue for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2014 was derived from services provided to a sponsored fund, the Federated Kaufmann Fund (11% for both the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2014, respectively). A significant and prolonged decline in the AUM in this fund could have a material adverse effect on Federated’s future revenues and, to a lesser extent, net income, due to a related reduction to distribution expenses associated with this fund. |
|
A listing of Federated’s risk factors is included in Federated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. |