Like and comment_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Meepmerp
2021-07-31

Like and comment

It’s Open Season on Closed-End Fund Activists. How Fund Holders Can Win—and Lose<blockquote>现在是封闭式基金积极分子的开放季节。基金持有人如何输赢</blockquote>

TheTempleton Global Incomefund frustrated investors for years. Despite star manager Michael Hasensta

It’s Open Season on Closed-End Fund Activists. How Fund Holders Can Win—and Lose<blockquote>现在是封闭式基金积极分子的开放季节。基金持有人如何输赢</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":802933119,"tweetId":"802933119","gmtCreate":1627704689831,"gmtModify":1631890038117,"author":{"id":3575111199814611,"idStr":"3575111199814611","authorId":3575111199814611,"authorIdStr":"3575111199814611","name":"Meepmerp","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/09592b2a4e222c983645633bb52f8033","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":7,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Like and comment</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Like and comment</body></html>","text":"Like and comment","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802933119","repostId":1138566016,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1138566016","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689251,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1138566016?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 07:54","market":"us","language":"en","title":"It’s Open Season on Closed-End Fund Activists. How Fund Holders Can Win—and Lose<blockquote>现在是封闭式基金积极分子的开放季节。基金持有人如何输赢</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1138566016","media":"Barron's","summary":"TheTempleton Global Incomefund frustrated investors for years. Despite star manager Michael Hasensta","content":"TheTempleton Global Incomefund frustrated investors for years. Despite star manager Michael Hasenstab at the helm, the closed-end fund returned an average of 0.3% annually in the past decade, versus an average 7% for peers in global income. Also frustrating, its shares rarely traded close to the fund’s underlying net asset value, or NAV. The discount averaged 11% in the past three years.<blockquote>邓普顿全球收益基金多年来一直让投资者感到沮丧。尽管明星经理迈克尔·哈森斯塔布(Michael Hasenstab)掌舵，但该封闭式基金在过去十年中的平均年回报率为0.3%，而全球收入同行的平均回报率为7%。同样令人沮丧的是，其股票的交易价格很少接近该基金的基础资产净值（NAV）。过去三年折扣平均为11%。</blockquote> Investors have caught a break, however, thanks to Saba Capital Management, a hedge fund shop run by activist investor Boaz Weinstein. Saba amassed a 20% stake in the Templeton fund and recently won four contested board seats. It has been pressuring the board to take actions to boost the share price. Its moves have paid off: The fund has returned a total 4.5% this year as its share price improved, and the discount to NAV has shrunk to 4%.<blockquote>然而，由于激进投资者Boaz Weinstein经营的对冲基金公司Saba Capital Management，投资者得到了喘息的机会。Saba持有邓普顿基金20%的股份，最近赢得了四个有争议的董事会席位。它一直在向董事会施压，要求其采取行动提振股价。其举措得到了回报：随着股价上涨，该基金今年的总回报率为4.5%，相对资产净值的折扣已缩小至4%。</blockquote> Tactics like Saba’s have long infuriated mutual fund companies; no one wants a hedge fund threatening a coup. Now, with some help from Congress, the playing field could tilt in favor of closed-end funds and their company sponsors, due to a bill recently introduced in the House. That could work against the interests of fund investors.<blockquote>像萨巴这样的策略长期以来一直激怒着共同基金公司；没有人希望对冲基金威胁政变。现在，在国会的一些帮助下，由于众议院最近提出的一项法案，竞争环境可能会向封闭式基金及其公司赞助商倾斜。这可能会损害基金投资者的利益。</blockquote> The Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, introduced in June by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R., Ohio) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., New York), includes two measures that could make it much tougher for hedge funds to pressure closed-end funds and win proxy fights. One proposed change would lift the current 15% limit on closed-end-fund ownership of illiquid private funds, such as venture-capital and private-equity funds. A second measure would prevent activist hedge funds from acquiring more than 10% of a closed-end fund’s shares.<blockquote>《增加投资者机会法案》由俄亥俄州共和党众议员安东尼·冈萨雷斯（Anthony Gonzalez）和纽约州民主党众议员格雷戈里·米克斯（Gregory Meeks）于6月提出，其中包括两项措施，可能会使对冲基金更难向封闭式基金施压并赢得代理权之争。一项拟议的变化将取消目前对风险投资和私募股权基金等非流动性私募基金封闭式基金所有权15%的限制。第二项措施将阻止激进对冲基金收购封闭式基金10%以上的股份。</blockquote> A spokesman for Gonzalez declined to comment. Meeks didn’t respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>冈萨雷斯的发言人拒绝置评。米克斯没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> Proponents of the changes say they would expand access to private markets for retail investors. They also say hedge funds are exploiting gaps in securities laws at a cost to long-term shareholders, saddling them with tax liabilities, higher fees, and forced fund liquidations. The bill would eliminate a “loophole that activist investors have used to extract short-term profits at the expense of retail investors,” the Investment Company Institute, or ICI, said in a recent statement.<blockquote>这些变化的支持者表示，他们将扩大散户投资者进入私人市场的机会。他们还表示，对冲基金正在利用证券法的漏洞，以牺牲长期股东的利益为代价，给他们带来纳税义务、更高的费用和强制基金清算的负担。投资公司协会（ICI）在最近的一份声明中表示，该法案将消除“激进投资者利用该漏洞以牺牲散户投资者的利益为代价来获取短期利润”。</blockquote> Hedge funds and portfolio managers who invest in closed-end funds say that mutual fund companies are simply trying to protect a pool of assets and fees from shareholder interference. Most retail investors don’t vote their shares in proxy contests. That may leave fund boards largely free to pursue their own agendas.<blockquote>投资封闭式基金的对冲基金和投资组合经理表示，共同基金公司只是想保护一个资产池和费用不受股东干涉。大多数散户投资者不会在代理权竞争中投票。这可能会让基金董事会在很大程度上自由追求自己的议程。</blockquote> “Activism plays an important role, and if this bill passes, it will become more difficult for activists to threaten or create changes,” says Matt Buffington, a portfolio manager at Dryden Capital, an activist hedge fund.<blockquote>激进主义对冲基金德莱顿资本(Dryden Capital)的投资组合经理马特·巴芬顿(Matt Buffington)表示：“激进主义发挥着重要作用，如果这项法案获得通过，激进主义将更难威胁或创造变革。”</blockquote> Gregory Neer, a portfolio manager with Relative Value Partners, an advisory firm that invests in closed-end funds, agrees. “The ability for investors to pressure funds is beneficial to all shareholders,” he says.<blockquote>投资封闭式基金的咨询公司Relative Value Partners的投资组合经理格雷戈里·尼尔(Gregory Neer)对此表示同意。“投资者向资金施压的能力对所有股东都有利，”他说。</blockquote> Closed-end funds have long been popular with investors due to their high yields and steady distributions. Many use leverage, borrowing money at market rates to boost payouts. They also generate income with options strategies and investments in high-yielding areas of the stock and bond markets.<blockquote>封闭式基金由于收益率高、分配稳健，长期以来深受投资者欢迎。许多人使用杠杆，以市场利率借钱来增加支出。他们还通过期权策略以及对股票和债券市场高收益领域的投资来产生收入。</blockquote> But the funds have structural drawbacks. Expense ratios are steep, averaging 2.1%, according to Morningstar Direct. And since the funds have a fixed number of shares outstanding, prices reflect market demand for both a fund and its underlying assets. Funds usually trade at a discount to NAV. While it is attractive, in theory, to pay 90 cents for a dollar of assets, investors might never see the extra dime.<blockquote>但这些基金存在结构性缺陷。根据Morningstar Direct的数据，费用率很高，平均为2.1%。由于基金有固定数量的已发行股票，价格反映了市场对基金及其基础资产的需求。基金的交易价格通常低于资产净值。虽然从理论上讲，为一美元的资产支付90美分很有吸引力，但投资者可能永远看不到额外的一毛钱。</blockquote> Hedge funds aim to exploit this inefficiency, buying closed-end funds at below-market value. They then pressure fund boards to take steps to lift the funds’ prices. The playbook is straightforward: accumulate a stake, win board seats, and then force a fund company into a tender offer, whereby it agrees to repurchase shares at nearly full price.<blockquote>对冲基金旨在利用这种低效率，以低于市场价值的价格购买封闭式基金。然后，他们向基金董事会施压，要求其采取措施提高基金价格。剧本很简单：积累股份，赢得董事会席位，然后迫使基金公司发起要约收购，同意以接近全价回购股票。</blockquote> If that fails, a hedge fund might try to replace a fund’s manager, orchestrate a liquidation of the fund, or get it converted to an open-end fund—moves that could also pay off with the share price rising to parity with the NAV. Firms like Saba have also taken over funds entirely.<blockquote>如果失败，对冲基金可能会尝试更换基金经理，策划基金清算，或将其转换为开放式基金——这些举措也可能随着股价上涨至与资产净值平价而获得回报。像Saba这样的公司也完全接管了资金。</blockquote> Giving closed-end funds freedom to own more private securities could throw a wrench into the strategy. Tender offers work only if a fund can liquidate most of its holdings at market prices. Because venture-capital and private-equity holdings generally don’t trade publicly, their pricing isn’t transparent. “When closed-end funds invest in illiquid things, it protects them from activism,” one activist manager tellsBarron’s.<blockquote>给予封闭式基金持有更多私人证券的自由可能会破坏这一策略。只有当基金能够以市场价格清算其大部分持股时，要约收购才会起作用。由于风险投资和私募股权控股公司通常不公开交易，因此它们的定价并不透明。一位激进主义经理表示：“当封闭式基金投资于非流动性的东西时，它可以保护它们免受激进主义的影响。”巴伦周刊.</blockquote> Removing the cap on private-fund ownership is “in line with a legislative agenda of getting retail investors more access to private investments,” says Thomas DeCapo, an attorney for the mutual fund industry.<blockquote>共同基金行业律师托马斯·迪卡波表示，取消私募基金所有权上限“符合让散户投资者更多获得私人投资的立法议程”。</blockquote> And capping activists at 10% of a fund doesn’t stop them from mounting proxy campaigns. “Nothing about this is antidemocratic,” he says. “It doesn’t stop a majority of investors who are unhappy or want change. It stops one investor from using its economic power, with other people’s money, to basically force changes on everybody else.”<blockquote>将活动人士的资金限制在10%并不能阻止他们发起代理活动。“这一切都不是反民主的，”他说。“这并不能阻止大多数不满意或想要改变的投资者。它阻止了一个投资者利用其经济实力和其他人的钱，基本上迫使其他人做出改变。”</blockquote> Investor advocates see it differently, however, saying fund investors could wind up paying higher fees for funds that hold more-opaque investments. “It’s just another fund-of-funds structure, and those are notoriously high-fee,” says Tyler Gellasch, head of Healthy Markets, an investor-protection group.<blockquote>然而，投资者倡导者对此有不同的看法，他们表示，基金投资者最终可能会为持有更不透明投资的基金支付更高的费用。投资者保护组织Healthy Markets的负责人泰勒·盖拉施(Tyler Gellasch)表示：“这只是另一种基金中的基金结构，而且费用是出了名的高。”</blockquote> Individual hedge funds technically can’t own more than 3% of a closed-end fund, under ownership restrictions in the Investment Company Act of 1940. But they skirt the rule by building stakes through affiliated entities, creating enough of a critical mass to force changes at a fund through proxy voting.<blockquote>根据1940年《投资公司法》的所有权限制，从技术上讲，个人对冲基金不能拥有封闭式基金超过3%的股份。但他们通过附属实体增持股份来规避这一规则，从而创造足够的临界质量，通过代理投票迫使基金发生变化。</blockquote> The ICI—the mutual fund industry’s lobby—has tried to persuade regulators to crack down on hedge funds. In a submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the ICI argued that hedge fund campaigns often consume a fund’s resources, trigger tax liabilities for long-term investors, and result in the forced selling of securities to meet a hedge fund’s demands for a tender offer. A fund’s expense ratio could increase if it is forced to buy back shares and its asset base shrinks.<blockquote>ICI——共同基金行业的游说团体——试图说服监管机构打击对冲基金。在去年提交给美国证券交易委员会的一份文件中，ICI辩称，对冲基金的活动往往会消耗基金的资源，引发长期投资者的纳税义务，并导致被迫出售证券以满足对冲基金的要约收购要求。如果基金被迫回购股票且资产基础萎缩，其费用率可能会上升。</blockquote> The activist community’s “assault” on the industry has had a chilling effect on product launches, the ICI said, resulting in fewer closed-end funds on the market today than in 2007.<blockquote>ICI表示，维权人士对该行业的“攻击”对产品发布产生了寒蝉效应，导致目前市场上的封闭式基金比2007年有所减少。</blockquote> But hedge funds argue that changing the 1940 act would amount to a power grab by mutual funds. “This is all coming from the mutual fund industry, and it’s no coincidence that this protects them,” says Phil Goldstein, co-founder of Bulldog Investors, an activist that has long targeted closed-end funds. “There are funds with terrible performance and wide discounts. The ICI never says we need a mechanism where shareholders can hold those managers accountable.”<blockquote>但对冲基金认为，修改1940年法案无异于共同基金攫取权力。Bulldog Investors的联合创始人菲尔·戈尔茨坦(Phil Goldstein)表示：“这一切都来自共同基金行业，这保护了他们并非巧合。”Bulldog Investors是一位长期瞄准封闭式基金的活动家。“有些基金的业绩很糟糕，折扣很大。ICI从未说过我们需要一种机制，让股东可以让这些经理承担责任。”</blockquote> Imposing an ownership cap would also make proxy campaigns less economic. Limited to 10%, hedge funds wouldn’t own enough shares, with sufficient economic interest, to justify the expense of a proxy contest, which can cost millions of dollars. “If you’re limited to 10% and have to spend 2.5% of your assets on a proxy campaign, you’d say it’s too risky,” says Goldstein. “Meanwhile, management isn’t spending anything—just shareholder money. They want to make it economically unattractive to run a proxy contest.”<blockquote>设定所有权上限也会降低代理活动的经济性。仅限于10%，对冲基金不会拥有足够的股份和足够的经济利益来证明代理权竞争的费用是合理的，而代理权竞争可能会花费数百万美元。“如果你被限制在10%，并且必须将2.5%的资产用于代理活动，你会说风险太大，”戈尔茨坦说。“与此同时，管理层没有花费任何东西——只是股东的钱。他们想让举办代理权竞争在经济上失去吸引力。”</blockquote> Regulators and courts have expressed skepticism about some defenses that closed-end funds have adopted to prevent shareholder challenges. And, the SEC might not side with the fund industry. Since 2010, the SEC has warned fund companies against using state securities laws to thwart hedge fund takeovers. The SEC dropped its objection to these state “control share” laws last year under its Republican chairman, Jay Clayton. But the new, Democratic chairman, Gary Gensler, might reinstate the SEC’s objection—a reason for the industry to enlist Congress to change the law. The SEC didn’t respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>监管机构和法院对封闭式基金为防止股东挑战而采取的一些防御措施表示怀疑。而且，美国证券交易委员会可能不会站在基金行业一边。自2010年以来，SEC一直警告基金公司不要利用州证券法来阻止对冲基金收购。去年，在共和党主席杰伊·克莱顿的领导下，美国证券交易委员会放弃了对这些州“控股权”法的反对。但新任民主党主席加里·詹斯勒(Gary Gensler)可能会恢复SEC的反对意见——这是该行业争取国会修改法律的一个理由。美国证券交易委员会没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> Institutional Shareholder Services,a firm that makes recommendations on proxy voting, says investors should reject fund companies’ use of state control-share laws, which limit the voting rights of shareholders. With the SEC on the sidelines, ISS says, “CEF shareholders are denied important voting rights and are subject to management entrenchment.”<blockquote>就代理投票提出建议的机构股东服务公司表示，投资者应该拒绝基金公司使用限制股东投票权的国家控股权法。ISS表示，由于SEC的袖手旁观，“CEF股东被剥夺了重要的投票权，并受到管理层的巩固。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70323ed9daef142f19afd48be72b6299\" tg-width=\"755\" tg-height=\"334\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68beb47d59eb02e90b04eb7093f9f17b\" tg-width=\"759\" tg-height=\"285\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Hedge funds don’t always win, but investors might want to ride along as activists build a stake. “When an activist comes in, you usually see an increase in the share price and a decrease in the discount,” says Matt Souther, an associate finance professor at the University of South Carolina.<blockquote>对冲基金并不总是获胜，但随着激进分子增持股份，投资者可能希望随波逐流。南卡罗来纳大学金融学副教授马特·沙无然(Matt Souther)表示：“当激进分子介入时，你通常会看到股价上涨而折扣减少。”</blockquote> Templeton Global Income’s (ticker: GIM) discount to NAV could narrow further if Saba acquires more shares or tries to take over the fund’s $743 million in assets. Saba recently took over management of another fund, Voya Prime Rate Trust, which it rebrandedSaba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities(BRW).Franklin Templetonand Saba declined to comment.<blockquote>如果Saba收购更多股票或试图接管该基金7.43亿美元的资产，Templeton Global Income（股票代码：GIM）相对于资产净值的折扣可能会进一步缩小。Saba最近接管了另一只基金Voya Prime Rate Trust的管理，并将其更名为Saba Capital Income&amp;Opportunities(BRW)。富兰克林邓普顿和Saba拒绝置评。</blockquote> Miller/Howard High Income Equity(HIE) is also in Saba’s crosshairs. The fund is a “term trust” with a mandated liquidation date in 2024. It trades at a 5.9% discount to NAV. “In a worst-case scenario, you buy it at a discount and you’ll earn an excess return from now to 2024 because that discount will narrow,” says Patrick Galley, co-manager ofRiverNorth Opportunities(RIV), a closed-end fund that owns HIE.<blockquote>米勒/霍华德高收入股票（HIE）也是萨巴的目标。该基金是“定期信托”，强制清算日期为2024年。其交易价格较资产净值折价5.9%。封闭式RiverNorth Opportunities(RIV)联席经理帕特里克·加利(Patrick Galley)表示：“在最坏的情况下，你以折扣价购买，从现在到2024年，你将获得超额回报，因为折扣将会缩小。”拥有HIE的基金。</blockquote> Other closed-end funds in which Saba owns stakes includeSource Capital(SOR) andInvesco Dynamic Credit Opportunities(VTA). Bulldog has built a position inTortoise Energy Independence(NDP).<blockquote>Saba持有股份的其他封闭式基金包括Source Capital(SOR)和Invesco Dynamic Credit Opportunities(VTA)。Bulldog在乌龟能源独立(NDP)中建立了地位。</blockquote> Some closed-end funds look attractive on their fundamentals.Adams Diversified Equity(ADX) offers exposure to big tech stocks, trades at a 14% discount to NAV, and is committed to an annualized distribution of at least 6%. “For investors who expect tech to do well, ADX is a good holding,” says David Tepper, a closed-end investor and head of Tepper Capital Management in San Francisco.<blockquote>一些封闭式基金的基本面看起来很有吸引力。Adams Diversified Equity(ADX)提供大型科技股的投资，交易价格较资产净值折价14%，并承诺年化分配至少6%。“对于预计科技股表现良好的投资者来说，ADX是一个不错的持股，”封闭式投资者兼旧金山Tepper Capital Management主管David Tepper表示。</blockquote> Sprott Focus Trust(FUND) is another fund he likes. Veteran small-cap manager Whitney George runs it, and his family owns 45% of the shares. It trades at a 10% discount and yields 5.7%. Tepper also favorsRoyce Global Value Trust(RGT), trading at a 9% discount and yielding 7.9%.<blockquote>Sprott Focus Trust（基金）是他喜欢的另一只基金。资深小盘股经理惠特尼·乔治(Whitney George)经营该公司，他的家族拥有45%的股份。其交易价格有10%的折扣，收益率为5.7%。Tepper还青睐Royce Global Value Trust(RGT)，其交易价格折扣9%，收益率为7.9%。</blockquote> None of these funds has attracted much activist involvement, according to securities filings. But if activists see opportunity, they could pile in and pressure fund management—assuming that Congress doesn’t rewrite the rules of engagement.<blockquote>根据证券备案文件，这些基金都没有吸引太多激进分子的参与。但如果活动人士看到机会，他们可能会涌入并向基金管理层施压——假设国会不会重写交战规则。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>It’s Open Season on Closed-End Fund Activists. How Fund Holders Can Win—and Lose<blockquote>现在是封闭式基金积极分子的开放季节。基金持有人如何输赢</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nIt’s Open Season on Closed-End Fund Activists. How Fund Holders Can Win—and Lose<blockquote>现在是封闭式基金积极分子的开放季节。基金持有人如何输赢</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nBarron's2021-07-31 07:54\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nTheTempleton Global Incomefund frustrated investors for years. Despite star manager Michael Hasenstab at the helm, the closed-end fund returned an average of 0.3% annually in the past decade, versus an average 7% for peers in global income. Also frustrating, its shares rarely traded close to the fund’s underlying net asset value, or NAV. The discount averaged 11% in the past three years.<blockquote>邓普顿全球收益基金多年来一直让投资者感到沮丧。尽管明星经理迈克尔·哈森斯塔布(Michael Hasenstab)掌舵，但该封闭式基金在过去十年中的平均年回报率为0.3%，而全球收入同行的平均回报率为7%。同样令人沮丧的是，其股票的交易价格很少接近该基金的基础资产净值（NAV）。过去三年折扣平均为11%。</blockquote> Investors have caught a break, however, thanks to Saba Capital Management, a hedge fund shop run by activist investor Boaz Weinstein. Saba amassed a 20% stake in the Templeton fund and recently won four contested board seats. It has been pressuring the board to take actions to boost the share price. Its moves have paid off: The fund has returned a total 4.5% this year as its share price improved, and the discount to NAV has shrunk to 4%.<blockquote>然而，由于激进投资者Boaz Weinstein经营的对冲基金公司Saba Capital Management，投资者得到了喘息的机会。Saba持有邓普顿基金20%的股份，最近赢得了四个有争议的董事会席位。它一直在向董事会施压，要求其采取行动提振股价。其举措得到了回报：随着股价上涨，该基金今年的总回报率为4.5%，相对资产净值的折扣已缩小至4%。</blockquote> Tactics like Saba’s have long infuriated mutual fund companies; no one wants a hedge fund threatening a coup. Now, with some help from Congress, the playing field could tilt in favor of closed-end funds and their company sponsors, due to a bill recently introduced in the House. That could work against the interests of fund investors.<blockquote>像萨巴这样的策略长期以来一直激怒着共同基金公司；没有人希望对冲基金威胁政变。现在，在国会的一些帮助下，由于众议院最近提出的一项法案，竞争环境可能会向封闭式基金及其公司赞助商倾斜。这可能会损害基金投资者的利益。</blockquote> The Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, introduced in June by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R., Ohio) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., New York), includes two measures that could make it much tougher for hedge funds to pressure closed-end funds and win proxy fights. One proposed change would lift the current 15% limit on closed-end-fund ownership of illiquid private funds, such as venture-capital and private-equity funds. A second measure would prevent activist hedge funds from acquiring more than 10% of a closed-end fund’s shares.<blockquote>《增加投资者机会法案》由俄亥俄州共和党众议员安东尼·冈萨雷斯（Anthony Gonzalez）和纽约州民主党众议员格雷戈里·米克斯（Gregory Meeks）于6月提出，其中包括两项措施，可能会使对冲基金更难向封闭式基金施压并赢得代理权之争。一项拟议的变化将取消目前对风险投资和私募股权基金等非流动性私募基金封闭式基金所有权15%的限制。第二项措施将阻止激进对冲基金收购封闭式基金10%以上的股份。</blockquote> A spokesman for Gonzalez declined to comment. Meeks didn’t respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>冈萨雷斯的发言人拒绝置评。米克斯没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> Proponents of the changes say they would expand access to private markets for retail investors. They also say hedge funds are exploiting gaps in securities laws at a cost to long-term shareholders, saddling them with tax liabilities, higher fees, and forced fund liquidations. The bill would eliminate a “loophole that activist investors have used to extract short-term profits at the expense of retail investors,” the Investment Company Institute, or ICI, said in a recent statement.<blockquote>这些变化的支持者表示，他们将扩大散户投资者进入私人市场的机会。他们还表示，对冲基金正在利用证券法的漏洞，以牺牲长期股东的利益为代价，给他们带来纳税义务、更高的费用和强制基金清算的负担。投资公司协会（ICI）在最近的一份声明中表示，该法案将消除“激进投资者利用该漏洞以牺牲散户投资者的利益为代价来获取短期利润”。</blockquote> Hedge funds and portfolio managers who invest in closed-end funds say that mutual fund companies are simply trying to protect a pool of assets and fees from shareholder interference. Most retail investors don’t vote their shares in proxy contests. That may leave fund boards largely free to pursue their own agendas.<blockquote>投资封闭式基金的对冲基金和投资组合经理表示，共同基金公司只是想保护一个资产池和费用不受股东干涉。大多数散户投资者不会在代理权竞争中投票。这可能会让基金董事会在很大程度上自由追求自己的议程。</blockquote> “Activism plays an important role, and if this bill passes, it will become more difficult for activists to threaten or create changes,” says Matt Buffington, a portfolio manager at Dryden Capital, an activist hedge fund.<blockquote>激进主义对冲基金德莱顿资本(Dryden Capital)的投资组合经理马特·巴芬顿(Matt Buffington)表示：“激进主义发挥着重要作用，如果这项法案获得通过，激进主义将更难威胁或创造变革。”</blockquote> Gregory Neer, a portfolio manager with Relative Value Partners, an advisory firm that invests in closed-end funds, agrees. “The ability for investors to pressure funds is beneficial to all shareholders,” he says.<blockquote>投资封闭式基金的咨询公司Relative Value Partners的投资组合经理格雷戈里·尼尔(Gregory Neer)对此表示同意。“投资者向资金施压的能力对所有股东都有利，”他说。</blockquote> Closed-end funds have long been popular with investors due to their high yields and steady distributions. Many use leverage, borrowing money at market rates to boost payouts. They also generate income with options strategies and investments in high-yielding areas of the stock and bond markets.<blockquote>封闭式基金由于收益率高、分配稳健，长期以来深受投资者欢迎。许多人使用杠杆，以市场利率借钱来增加支出。他们还通过期权策略以及对股票和债券市场高收益领域的投资来产生收入。</blockquote> But the funds have structural drawbacks. Expense ratios are steep, averaging 2.1%, according to Morningstar Direct. And since the funds have a fixed number of shares outstanding, prices reflect market demand for both a fund and its underlying assets. Funds usually trade at a discount to NAV. While it is attractive, in theory, to pay 90 cents for a dollar of assets, investors might never see the extra dime.<blockquote>但这些基金存在结构性缺陷。根据Morningstar Direct的数据，费用率很高，平均为2.1%。由于基金有固定数量的已发行股票，价格反映了市场对基金及其基础资产的需求。基金的交易价格通常低于资产净值。虽然从理论上讲，为一美元的资产支付90美分很有吸引力，但投资者可能永远看不到额外的一毛钱。</blockquote> Hedge funds aim to exploit this inefficiency, buying closed-end funds at below-market value. They then pressure fund boards to take steps to lift the funds’ prices. The playbook is straightforward: accumulate a stake, win board seats, and then force a fund company into a tender offer, whereby it agrees to repurchase shares at nearly full price.<blockquote>对冲基金旨在利用这种低效率，以低于市场价值的价格购买封闭式基金。然后，他们向基金董事会施压，要求其采取措施提高基金价格。剧本很简单：积累股份，赢得董事会席位，然后迫使基金公司发起要约收购，同意以接近全价回购股票。</blockquote> If that fails, a hedge fund might try to replace a fund’s manager, orchestrate a liquidation of the fund, or get it converted to an open-end fund—moves that could also pay off with the share price rising to parity with the NAV. Firms like Saba have also taken over funds entirely.<blockquote>如果失败，对冲基金可能会尝试更换基金经理，策划基金清算，或将其转换为开放式基金——这些举措也可能随着股价上涨至与资产净值平价而获得回报。像Saba这样的公司也完全接管了资金。</blockquote> Giving closed-end funds freedom to own more private securities could throw a wrench into the strategy. Tender offers work only if a fund can liquidate most of its holdings at market prices. Because venture-capital and private-equity holdings generally don’t trade publicly, their pricing isn’t transparent. “When closed-end funds invest in illiquid things, it protects them from activism,” one activist manager tellsBarron’s.<blockquote>给予封闭式基金持有更多私人证券的自由可能会破坏这一策略。只有当基金能够以市场价格清算其大部分持股时，要约收购才会起作用。由于风险投资和私募股权控股公司通常不公开交易，因此它们的定价并不透明。一位激进主义经理表示：“当封闭式基金投资于非流动性的东西时，它可以保护它们免受激进主义的影响。”巴伦周刊.</blockquote> Removing the cap on private-fund ownership is “in line with a legislative agenda of getting retail investors more access to private investments,” says Thomas DeCapo, an attorney for the mutual fund industry.<blockquote>共同基金行业律师托马斯·迪卡波表示，取消私募基金所有权上限“符合让散户投资者更多获得私人投资的立法议程”。</blockquote> And capping activists at 10% of a fund doesn’t stop them from mounting proxy campaigns. “Nothing about this is antidemocratic,” he says. “It doesn’t stop a majority of investors who are unhappy or want change. It stops one investor from using its economic power, with other people’s money, to basically force changes on everybody else.”<blockquote>将活动人士的资金限制在10%并不能阻止他们发起代理活动。“这一切都不是反民主的，”他说。“这并不能阻止大多数不满意或想要改变的投资者。它阻止了一个投资者利用其经济实力和其他人的钱，基本上迫使其他人做出改变。”</blockquote> Investor advocates see it differently, however, saying fund investors could wind up paying higher fees for funds that hold more-opaque investments. “It’s just another fund-of-funds structure, and those are notoriously high-fee,” says Tyler Gellasch, head of Healthy Markets, an investor-protection group.<blockquote>然而，投资者倡导者对此有不同的看法，他们表示，基金投资者最终可能会为持有更不透明投资的基金支付更高的费用。投资者保护组织Healthy Markets的负责人泰勒·盖拉施(Tyler Gellasch)表示：“这只是另一种基金中的基金结构，而且费用是出了名的高。”</blockquote> Individual hedge funds technically can’t own more than 3% of a closed-end fund, under ownership restrictions in the Investment Company Act of 1940. But they skirt the rule by building stakes through affiliated entities, creating enough of a critical mass to force changes at a fund through proxy voting.<blockquote>根据1940年《投资公司法》的所有权限制，从技术上讲，个人对冲基金不能拥有封闭式基金超过3%的股份。但他们通过附属实体增持股份来规避这一规则，从而创造足够的临界质量，通过代理投票迫使基金发生变化。</blockquote> The ICI—the mutual fund industry’s lobby—has tried to persuade regulators to crack down on hedge funds. In a submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the ICI argued that hedge fund campaigns often consume a fund’s resources, trigger tax liabilities for long-term investors, and result in the forced selling of securities to meet a hedge fund’s demands for a tender offer. A fund’s expense ratio could increase if it is forced to buy back shares and its asset base shrinks.<blockquote>ICI——共同基金行业的游说团体——试图说服监管机构打击对冲基金。在去年提交给美国证券交易委员会的一份文件中，ICI辩称，对冲基金的活动往往会消耗基金的资源，引发长期投资者的纳税义务，并导致被迫出售证券以满足对冲基金的要约收购要求。如果基金被迫回购股票且资产基础萎缩，其费用率可能会上升。</blockquote> The activist community’s “assault” on the industry has had a chilling effect on product launches, the ICI said, resulting in fewer closed-end funds on the market today than in 2007.<blockquote>ICI表示，维权人士对该行业的“攻击”对产品发布产生了寒蝉效应，导致目前市场上的封闭式基金比2007年有所减少。</blockquote> But hedge funds argue that changing the 1940 act would amount to a power grab by mutual funds. “This is all coming from the mutual fund industry, and it’s no coincidence that this protects them,” says Phil Goldstein, co-founder of Bulldog Investors, an activist that has long targeted closed-end funds. “There are funds with terrible performance and wide discounts. The ICI never says we need a mechanism where shareholders can hold those managers accountable.”<blockquote>但对冲基金认为，修改1940年法案无异于共同基金攫取权力。Bulldog Investors的联合创始人菲尔·戈尔茨坦(Phil Goldstein)表示：“这一切都来自共同基金行业，这保护了他们并非巧合。”Bulldog Investors是一位长期瞄准封闭式基金的活动家。“有些基金的业绩很糟糕，折扣很大。ICI从未说过我们需要一种机制，让股东可以让这些经理承担责任。”</blockquote> Imposing an ownership cap would also make proxy campaigns less economic. Limited to 10%, hedge funds wouldn’t own enough shares, with sufficient economic interest, to justify the expense of a proxy contest, which can cost millions of dollars. “If you’re limited to 10% and have to spend 2.5% of your assets on a proxy campaign, you’d say it’s too risky,” says Goldstein. “Meanwhile, management isn’t spending anything—just shareholder money. They want to make it economically unattractive to run a proxy contest.”<blockquote>设定所有权上限也会降低代理活动的经济性。仅限于10%，对冲基金不会拥有足够的股份和足够的经济利益来证明代理权竞争的费用是合理的，而代理权竞争可能会花费数百万美元。“如果你被限制在10%，并且必须将2.5%的资产用于代理活动，你会说风险太大，”戈尔茨坦说。“与此同时，管理层没有花费任何东西——只是股东的钱。他们想让举办代理权竞争在经济上失去吸引力。”</blockquote> Regulators and courts have expressed skepticism about some defenses that closed-end funds have adopted to prevent shareholder challenges. And, the SEC might not side with the fund industry. Since 2010, the SEC has warned fund companies against using state securities laws to thwart hedge fund takeovers. The SEC dropped its objection to these state “control share” laws last year under its Republican chairman, Jay Clayton. But the new, Democratic chairman, Gary Gensler, might reinstate the SEC’s objection—a reason for the industry to enlist Congress to change the law. The SEC didn’t respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>监管机构和法院对封闭式基金为防止股东挑战而采取的一些防御措施表示怀疑。而且，美国证券交易委员会可能不会站在基金行业一边。自2010年以来，SEC一直警告基金公司不要利用州证券法来阻止对冲基金收购。去年，在共和党主席杰伊·克莱顿的领导下，美国证券交易委员会放弃了对这些州“控股权”法的反对。但新任民主党主席加里·詹斯勒(Gary Gensler)可能会恢复SEC的反对意见——这是该行业争取国会修改法律的一个理由。美国证券交易委员会没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> Institutional Shareholder Services,a firm that makes recommendations on proxy voting, says investors should reject fund companies’ use of state control-share laws, which limit the voting rights of shareholders. With the SEC on the sidelines, ISS says, “CEF shareholders are denied important voting rights and are subject to management entrenchment.”<blockquote>就代理投票提出建议的机构股东服务公司表示，投资者应该拒绝基金公司使用限制股东投票权的国家控股权法。ISS表示，由于SEC的袖手旁观，“CEF股东被剥夺了重要的投票权，并受到管理层的巩固。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70323ed9daef142f19afd48be72b6299\" tg-width=\"755\" tg-height=\"334\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68beb47d59eb02e90b04eb7093f9f17b\" tg-width=\"759\" tg-height=\"285\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Hedge funds don’t always win, but investors might want to ride along as activists build a stake. “When an activist comes in, you usually see an increase in the share price and a decrease in the discount,” says Matt Souther, an associate finance professor at the University of South Carolina.<blockquote>对冲基金并不总是获胜，但随着激进分子增持股份，投资者可能希望随波逐流。南卡罗来纳大学金融学副教授马特·沙无然(Matt Souther)表示：“当激进分子介入时，你通常会看到股价上涨而折扣减少。”</blockquote> Templeton Global Income’s (ticker: GIM) discount to NAV could narrow further if Saba acquires more shares or tries to take over the fund’s $743 million in assets. Saba recently took over management of another fund, Voya Prime Rate Trust, which it rebrandedSaba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities(BRW).Franklin Templetonand Saba declined to comment.<blockquote>如果Saba收购更多股票或试图接管该基金7.43亿美元的资产，Templeton Global Income（股票代码：GIM）相对于资产净值的折扣可能会进一步缩小。Saba最近接管了另一只基金Voya Prime Rate Trust的管理，并将其更名为Saba Capital Income&amp;Opportunities(BRW)。富兰克林邓普顿和Saba拒绝置评。</blockquote> Miller/Howard High Income Equity(HIE) is also in Saba’s crosshairs. The fund is a “term trust” with a mandated liquidation date in 2024. It trades at a 5.9% discount to NAV. “In a worst-case scenario, you buy it at a discount and you’ll earn an excess return from now to 2024 because that discount will narrow,” says Patrick Galley, co-manager ofRiverNorth Opportunities(RIV), a closed-end fund that owns HIE.<blockquote>米勒/霍华德高收入股票（HIE）也是萨巴的目标。该基金是“定期信托”，强制清算日期为2024年。其交易价格较资产净值折价5.9%。封闭式RiverNorth Opportunities(RIV)联席经理帕特里克·加利(Patrick Galley)表示：“在最坏的情况下，你以折扣价购买，从现在到2024年，你将获得超额回报，因为折扣将会缩小。”拥有HIE的基金。</blockquote> Other closed-end funds in which Saba owns stakes includeSource Capital(SOR) andInvesco Dynamic Credit Opportunities(VTA). Bulldog has built a position inTortoise Energy Independence(NDP).<blockquote>Saba持有股份的其他封闭式基金包括Source Capital(SOR)和Invesco Dynamic Credit Opportunities(VTA)。Bulldog在乌龟能源独立(NDP)中建立了地位。</blockquote> Some closed-end funds look attractive on their fundamentals.Adams Diversified Equity(ADX) offers exposure to big tech stocks, trades at a 14% discount to NAV, and is committed to an annualized distribution of at least 6%. “For investors who expect tech to do well, ADX is a good holding,” says David Tepper, a closed-end investor and head of Tepper Capital Management in San Francisco.<blockquote>一些封闭式基金的基本面看起来很有吸引力。Adams Diversified Equity(ADX)提供大型科技股的投资，交易价格较资产净值折价14%，并承诺年化分配至少6%。“对于预计科技股表现良好的投资者来说，ADX是一个不错的持股，”封闭式投资者兼旧金山Tepper Capital Management主管David Tepper表示。</blockquote> Sprott Focus Trust(FUND) is another fund he likes. Veteran small-cap manager Whitney George runs it, and his family owns 45% of the shares. It trades at a 10% discount and yields 5.7%. Tepper also favorsRoyce Global Value Trust(RGT), trading at a 9% discount and yielding 7.9%.<blockquote>Sprott Focus Trust（基金）是他喜欢的另一只基金。资深小盘股经理惠特尼·乔治(Whitney George)经营该公司，他的家族拥有45%的股份。其交易价格有10%的折扣，收益率为5.7%。Tepper还青睐Royce Global Value Trust(RGT)，其交易价格折扣9%，收益率为7.9%。</blockquote> None of these funds has attracted much activist involvement, according to securities filings. But if activists see opportunity, they could pile in and pressure fund management—assuming that Congress doesn’t rewrite the rules of engagement.<blockquote>根据证券备案文件，这些基金都没有吸引太多激进分子的参与。但如果活动人士看到机会，他们可能会涌入并向基金管理层施压——假设国会不会重写交战规则。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/congress-closed-end-funds-legislation-51627657959?mod=newsviewer_click\">Barron's</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/congress-closed-end-funds-legislation-51627657959?mod=newsviewer_click","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1138566016","content_text":"TheTempleton Global Incomefund frustrated investors for years. Despite star manager Michael Hasenstab at the helm, the closed-end fund returned an average of 0.3% annually in the past decade, versus an average 7% for peers in global income. Also frustrating, its shares rarely traded close to the fund’s underlying net asset value, or NAV. The discount averaged 11% in the past three years.\nInvestors have caught a break, however, thanks to Saba Capital Management, a hedge fund shop run by activist investor Boaz Weinstein. Saba amassed a 20% stake in the Templeton fund and recently won four contested board seats. It has been pressuring the board to take actions to boost the share price. Its moves have paid off: The fund has returned a total 4.5% this year as its share price improved, and the discount to NAV has shrunk to 4%.\nTactics like Saba’s have long infuriated mutual fund companies; no one wants a hedge fund threatening a coup. Now, with some help from Congress, the playing field could tilt in favor of closed-end funds and their company sponsors, due to a bill recently introduced in the House. That could work against the interests of fund investors.\nThe Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, introduced in June by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R., Ohio) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., New York), includes two measures that could make it much tougher for hedge funds to pressure closed-end funds and win proxy fights. One proposed change would lift the current 15% limit on closed-end-fund ownership of illiquid private funds, such as venture-capital and private-equity funds. A second measure would prevent activist hedge funds from acquiring more than 10% of a closed-end fund’s shares.\nA spokesman for Gonzalez declined to comment. Meeks didn’t respond to requests for comment.\nProponents of the changes say they would expand access to private markets for retail investors. They also say hedge funds are exploiting gaps in securities laws at a cost to long-term shareholders, saddling them with tax liabilities, higher fees, and forced fund liquidations. The bill would eliminate a “loophole that activist investors have used to extract short-term profits at the expense of retail investors,” the Investment Company Institute, or ICI, said in a recent statement.\nHedge funds and portfolio managers who invest in closed-end funds say that mutual fund companies are simply trying to protect a pool of assets and fees from shareholder interference. Most retail investors don’t vote their shares in proxy contests. That may leave fund boards largely free to pursue their own agendas.\n“Activism plays an important role, and if this bill passes, it will become more difficult for activists to threaten or create changes,” says Matt Buffington, a portfolio manager at Dryden Capital, an activist hedge fund.\nGregory Neer, a portfolio manager with Relative Value Partners, an advisory firm that invests in closed-end funds, agrees. “The ability for investors to pressure funds is beneficial to all shareholders,” he says.\nClosed-end funds have long been popular with investors due to their high yields and steady distributions. Many use leverage, borrowing money at market rates to boost payouts. They also generate income with options strategies and investments in high-yielding areas of the stock and bond markets.\nBut the funds have structural drawbacks. Expense ratios are steep, averaging 2.1%, according to Morningstar Direct. And since the funds have a fixed number of shares outstanding, prices reflect market demand for both a fund and its underlying assets. Funds usually trade at a discount to NAV. While it is attractive, in theory, to pay 90 cents for a dollar of assets, investors might never see the extra dime.\nHedge funds aim to exploit this inefficiency, buying closed-end funds at below-market value. They then pressure fund boards to take steps to lift the funds’ prices. The playbook is straightforward: accumulate a stake, win board seats, and then force a fund company into a tender offer, whereby it agrees to repurchase shares at nearly full price.\nIf that fails, a hedge fund might try to replace a fund’s manager, orchestrate a liquidation of the fund, or get it converted to an open-end fund—moves that could also pay off with the share price rising to parity with the NAV. Firms like Saba have also taken over funds entirely.\nGiving closed-end funds freedom to own more private securities could throw a wrench into the strategy. Tender offers work only if a fund can liquidate most of its holdings at market prices. Because venture-capital and private-equity holdings generally don’t trade publicly, their pricing isn’t transparent. “When closed-end funds invest in illiquid things, it protects them from activism,” one activist manager tellsBarron’s.\nRemoving the cap on private-fund ownership is “in line with a legislative agenda of getting retail investors more access to private investments,” says Thomas DeCapo, an attorney for the mutual fund industry.\nAnd capping activists at 10% of a fund doesn’t stop them from mounting proxy campaigns. “Nothing about this is antidemocratic,” he says. “It doesn’t stop a majority of investors who are unhappy or want change. It stops one investor from using its economic power, with other people’s money, to basically force changes on everybody else.”\nInvestor advocates see it differently, however, saying fund investors could wind up paying higher fees for funds that hold more-opaque investments. “It’s just another fund-of-funds structure, and those are notoriously high-fee,” says Tyler Gellasch, head of Healthy Markets, an investor-protection group.\nIndividual hedge funds technically can’t own more than 3% of a closed-end fund, under ownership restrictions in the Investment Company Act of 1940. But they skirt the rule by building stakes through affiliated entities, creating enough of a critical mass to force changes at a fund through proxy voting.\nThe ICI—the mutual fund industry’s lobby—has tried to persuade regulators to crack down on hedge funds. In a submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the ICI argued that hedge fund campaigns often consume a fund’s resources, trigger tax liabilities for long-term investors, and result in the forced selling of securities to meet a hedge fund’s demands for a tender offer. A fund’s expense ratio could increase if it is forced to buy back shares and its asset base shrinks.\nThe activist community’s “assault” on the industry has had a chilling effect on product launches, the ICI said, resulting in fewer closed-end funds on the market today than in 2007.\nBut hedge funds argue that changing the 1940 act would amount to a power grab by mutual funds. “This is all coming from the mutual fund industry, and it’s no coincidence that this protects them,” says Phil Goldstein, co-founder of Bulldog Investors, an activist that has long targeted closed-end funds. “There are funds with terrible performance and wide discounts. The ICI never says we need a mechanism where shareholders can hold those managers accountable.”\nImposing an ownership cap would also make proxy campaigns less economic. Limited to 10%, hedge funds wouldn’t own enough shares, with sufficient economic interest, to justify the expense of a proxy contest, which can cost millions of dollars. “If you’re limited to 10% and have to spend 2.5% of your assets on a proxy campaign, you’d say it’s too risky,” says Goldstein. “Meanwhile, management isn’t spending anything—just shareholder money. They want to make it economically unattractive to run a proxy contest.”\nRegulators and courts have expressed skepticism about some defenses that closed-end funds have adopted to prevent shareholder challenges. And, the SEC might not side with the fund industry. Since 2010, the SEC has warned fund companies against using state securities laws to thwart hedge fund takeovers. The SEC dropped its objection to these state “control share” laws last year under its Republican chairman, Jay Clayton. But the new, Democratic chairman, Gary Gensler, might reinstate the SEC’s objection—a reason for the industry to enlist Congress to change the law. The SEC didn’t respond to requests for comment.\nInstitutional Shareholder Services,a firm that makes recommendations on proxy voting, says investors should reject fund companies’ use of state control-share laws, which limit the voting rights of shareholders. With the SEC on the sidelines, ISS says, “CEF shareholders are denied important voting rights and are subject to management entrenchment.”\nHedge funds don’t always win, but investors might want to ride along as activists build a stake. “When an activist comes in, you usually see an increase in the share price and a decrease in the discount,” says Matt Souther, an associate finance professor at the University of South Carolina.\nTempleton Global Income’s (ticker: GIM) discount to NAV could narrow further if Saba acquires more shares or tries to take over the fund’s $743 million in assets. Saba recently took over management of another fund, Voya Prime Rate Trust, which it rebrandedSaba Capital Income & Opportunities(BRW).Franklin Templetonand Saba declined to comment.\nMiller/Howard High Income Equity(HIE) is also in Saba’s crosshairs. The fund is a “term trust” with a mandated liquidation date in 2024. It trades at a 5.9% discount to NAV. “In a worst-case scenario, you buy it at a discount and you’ll earn an excess return from now to 2024 because that discount will narrow,” says Patrick Galley, co-manager ofRiverNorth Opportunities(RIV), a closed-end fund that owns HIE.\nOther closed-end funds in which Saba owns stakes includeSource Capital(SOR) andInvesco Dynamic Credit Opportunities(VTA). Bulldog has built a position inTortoise Energy Independence(NDP).\nSome closed-end funds look attractive on their fundamentals.Adams Diversified Equity(ADX) offers exposure to big tech stocks, trades at a 14% discount to NAV, and is committed to an annualized distribution of at least 6%. “For investors who expect tech to do well, ADX is a good holding,” says David Tepper, a closed-end investor and head of Tepper Capital Management in San Francisco.\nSprott Focus Trust(FUND) is another fund he likes. Veteran small-cap manager Whitney George runs it, and his family owns 45% of the shares. It trades at a 10% discount and yields 5.7%. Tepper also favorsRoyce Global Value Trust(RGT), trading at a 9% discount and yielding 7.9%.\nNone of these funds has attracted much activist involvement, according to securities filings. But if activists see opportunity, they could pile in and pressure fund management—assuming that Congress doesn’t rewrite the rules of engagement.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1503,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":14,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}