SEC ups scrutiny of misleading fund names

SEC ups scrutiny of misleading fund names
Deedster / Pixabay

The SEC is considering revising the 19-year-old Names Rule to assess whether the rule is effective in preventing misleading or deceptive fund names, which could have a considerable effect on various investment funds, including ESGs.

Play Quizzes 4

Lancelot King, counsel in Seward & Kissel’s Investment Management Group, comments on a broad range of regulatory, compliance, and transactional matters affecting investment companies and registered investment advisers.

Get The Full Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Charlie Munger in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

Q4 2019 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Connor Leonard Of IMC Explains: Here’s What Value Investors Should Know About Moats

moat 1557171753When it comes to value investing, one strategy that's often used is seeking out companies which have sizeable moats against competition. In a presentation for the Value Investing Club at Google earlier this year, Connor Leonard of the Investors Management Corporation explained two ways of looking at moats and how value investors can benefit from Read More

SEC Revises Fund Names Rule

Lancelot King, counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP:

“There is an argument for not adopting a stringent Names Rule requirement and allowing flexibility with respect to funds that use terms such as “ESG” or “sustainable” in their fund names.  To the extent ESG refers to a fund’s investment strategy, a rigid application of a Names Rule requirement that mandates certain standardized disclosure for ESG funds would not be particularly helpful to investors; it would not provide any meaningful information about the fund, which might be employing a relatively distinct strategy that could reflect one of a wide variety of approaches to investing sustainably.

Given the broad ESG landscape, implementing specific requirements for characterizing or describing terms such as ESG may not be practical.  Rather, it may be best for the SEC to require a fund that uses a term such as “ESG” in its fund name to simply disclose in the fund’s underlying disclosures what the fund means when it uses such a term.

Note that numerous funds that use an ESG investment approach do not even include terms such as “ESG” in their fund names at all, indicating that several funds do not rely on names to convey their ESG mandate.  And whether a term such as “ESG” or “sustainable” is in a fund name or not is not necessarily indicative of how robust a fund’s ESG investment process is.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that, as ESG has become more mainstream and familiar, intermediaries are enhancing their diligence on fund managers and increasingly scrutinizing the methodologies that underlie a fund’s ESG investment approach.  In this respect, fund names may be of diminishing importance, at least with respect to certain investment decisions.”

Updated on

Jacob Wolinsky is the founder of, a popular value investing and hedge fund focused investment website. Jacob worked as an equity analyst first at a micro-cap focused private equity firm, followed by a stint at a smid cap focused research shop. Jacob lives with his wife and four kids in Passaic NJ. - Email: jacob(at) - Twitter username: JacobWolinsky - Full Disclosure: I do not purchase any equities anymore to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest and because at times I may receive grey areas of insider information. I have a few existing holdings from years ago, but I have sold off most of the equities and now only purchase mutual funds and some ETFs. I also own a few grams of Gold and Silver
Previous article Airlines spent cash on buybacks, now want bailouts
Next article 24% of women feel represented by their upper management

No posts to display