The Name Game (Part 2): Will the SEC Recast US Fund Names?

June 01, 2020

“To be, or not to be, that is the question.”

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

In Part 1, we touched on the ongoing debate about what is and what may not be an exchange-traded fund (ETF), but the focus on naming conventions of US funds is much broader than just ETFs. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have just concluded a period of public consultation on its Names Rule. The question remains whether they will act to change how US fund names are constituted or retain the status quo. Like Hamlet, action or inaction is often the most difficult question to answer. 

The SEC had shown some concern regarding the Names Rule for two primary reasons:

  1. The rule has not been reviewed since 2001, and a lot has changed since that time.
  2. In their view, investors put a significant weight on a name when it comes to choosing a fund

The detailed public consultation launched in March and concluded on May 5, 2020. The responses are interesting as the various stakeholders were not shy about letting their views be known. Overall, the industry is very supportive of a standardized ruleset, which is preferable framework to a bilateral disclosure mechanism between funds and the SEC, which ultimately results in fragmentation across the US funds market. 

Here are the top three areas of interest from the consultation:

  1. Over Reliance on Fund Names

One of the reasons cited by the SEC for revisiting the Names Rule in the first place is the notion that even though the existing rules note that retail investors should not merely use a fund’s name as a measure of a fund’s performance, fund names tend to “communicate a great deal to an investor,” making them a critical component of investment decisions. Industry responses suggest that investors are not that superficial, and they do explore many other factors beyond the name of the fund. Appropriate investor disclosure regimes and upcoming regulatory enhancements such as SEC Regulation Best Interest are initiatives to improve investor education and increase the understanding of the important elements that make up a fund.

The SEC’s fundamental concern, however, matches regulatory challenges on a global basis-despite much effort in framing retail investor disclosure documents. Quite often, these documents remain either unread or not fully understood. It appears that the focus to improve investor education along with distributing understandable and accessible disclosure materials will continue for some time to come.

2. ESG: Strategy or Investment Type?

Yes, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) is everywhere in global asset management. The SEC’s interest in ESG was piqued significantly in recent months primarily driven by the growth in ESG, sustainable, or responsible investment funds in the US market. Intriguingly, this market growth is occurring at a time when the SEC has no concrete rules or definitions in place on ESG. The SEC had previously conducted an industry-outreach to gather information on how US funds were defining and screening for ESG. Some felt that this was the first step in the SEC considering an ESG framework for US funds given that is a central point of emphasis in Europe currently. Additionally, ESG is a central theme of the Names Rule consultation.

The primary question at hand is whether ESG is an expression of high-level investment strategy (like value or growth) or is intended to describe a category of portfolio investment (like “high yield bond” or “Japanese Equity”). How the term ESG is ultimately classified by the SEC will dictate whether the term “ESG” is even subject to the Names Rule at all.  So, if the SEC sees the term ESG fund as an indicator of an investment types which ESG funds do or do not invest in such as renewable energy firms, specific exclusion of tobacco companies, then ESG falls into scope.  However, if the SEC views ESG funds as being an indicator of a broader investment approach like investing with the objective of bringing value-enhancing governance, investing based on non-economic objectives such as gender diversity or community engagement without specificity of actual investments, then it will remain out of scope. 

Industry submissions on this issue have been far from unanimous.  Some argue that sustainable investments are a type of investment (in scope), whereas many respondents maintain it is a form of investment strategy (out of scope).

Like Hamlet, the global asset management industry is also pondering an agonizing question currently and that is how exactly do you define “ESG”? Presently, no consensus on definition exists.  There are qualitative and quantitative, financial and non-financial, subjective and objective measures enshrined in the concept of ESG investing, making it a highly nuanced debate. Europe has led the way in attempting to classify and standardize how ESG investments are measured with its Taxonomy Regulation, but no global consensus exists and should the SEC bring ESG under the Names Rule umbrella, this could be another step along the way to adoption of formal ESG regulation for US Funds, a concept that has been raised in SEC circles in recent weeks with the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee suggesting rulemaking is considered. 

As such, the SEC has a big, complex and nuanced ESG decision ahead of it. 

3. Definition and Thresholds Are Nuanced

As a reminder, a central underpinning of the Names Rule is an asset-based test which requires a fund to invest at least 80 percent of its assets in the manner suggested by its name. The Names Rule doesn’t apply to fund names that describe a fund’s investment objective, strategy, or policies. The SEC asked the industry several questions around calibration of the definitions and thresholds which support the rule. Such as, whether the 80 percent rule should remain valid, use of derivatives, and should the rule apply at point of purchase or in perpetuity?

The industry response contends that the 80 percent threshold should be retained as the standard, tested at the time of investment. On derivatives, the consensus is that the current rule might not truly reflect how certain funds gain synthetic investment exposures. Therefore, the SEC should consider permitting funds to test exposure to an investment type using a “reasonable exposure metric” such as notional exposure where the cost or net present value of a derivative instrument may not be truly indicative of the fund’s exposure.

Bottom Line

What’s in a name indeed. The SEC Names Rule is significant because the name of any product, in any industry can be a key factor in the product’s success or failure. Particularly in the oft cited period of low attention spans, a catchy name can really capture an audience.  So, the scope and level of changes the SEC sees fit may have a material impact not just on the current suite of funds available in the marketplace but could also have an impact upon the future of such name choices. Asset managers must now wait with bated breath to see whether the status quo remains, [or if the time has come for the SEC to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war” upon US fund names.]

{or whether they will lament along with the Bard:  “Who steals my purse steals trash…but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.”

DISCLAIMER: The positions expressed in this material are a general guide to the views of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (BBH) and are intended for informational purposes only.  The opinions stated are a reflection of BBH’s best judgment at the time of publication and BBH disclaims any obligation to update or alter these views as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. This material should not be construed as research or as investment legal or tax advice, nor should it be considered information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. By selecting a link, you will leave BBH’s Regulatory Blog. Any link is provided for informational purposes only.  BBH is not responsible for the content within linked site and no endorsement of its content is implied.  BBH is not affiliated with site of third parties and no endorsement of their content is implied. The positions expressed in this material are those of the author and may or may not be consistent with the views of BBH.  Information contained herein is based upon various sources believed to be reliable and are subject to change without notice.  Furthermore, these positions are not intended to predict or guarantee future performance. This publication is provided by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (BBH) to recipients, who are classified as Professional Clients or Eligible Counterparties if in the European Economic Area (EEA), solely for informational purposes. This does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and is not intended as an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy securities or investment products.  Any reference to tax matters is not intended to be used, and may not be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or for promotion, marketing or recommendation to third parties. This information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable that are available upon request. This material does not comprise an offer of services. Any opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. Unauthorized use or distribution without the prior written permission of BBH is prohibited. This publication is approved for distribution in member states of the EEA by Brown Brothers Harriman Investor Services Limited, authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). BBH is a service mark of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., registered in the United States and other countries. © Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 2020.  All rights reserved.

This browser is not fully supported by our public website and may not display or function as expected for this reason. Please note, the Infuse Portal and BBH client applications fully support the IE 11 browser.

Important Information for Non-U.S. Residents

You are required to read the following important information, which, in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions, governs your use of this website. Your use of this website and its contents constitute your acceptance of this information and those Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with this information and the Terms and Conditions, you should immediately cease use of this website. The contents of this website have not been prepared for the benefit of investors outside of the United States. This website is not intended as a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any investment management services for any investor who resides in a jurisdiction other than the United States1. As a general matter, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (“BBH”) is not licensed or registered to solicit prospective investors and offer investment advisory services in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The information on this website is not intended to be distributed to, directed at or used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access the website.  Under certain circumstances, BBH may provide services to investors located outside of the United States in accordance with applicable law. The conditions under which such services may be provided will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by BBH. BBH will only accept investors from such jurisdictions or countries where it has made a determination that such an arrangement or relationship is permissible under the laws of that jurisdiction or country. The existence of this website is not intended to be a substitute for the type of analysis described above and is not intended as a solicitation of or recommendation to any prospective investor, including those located outside of the United States. Certain BBH products or services may not be available in certain jurisdictions. By choosing to access this website from any location other than the United States, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws. The website contains content that has been obtained from sources that BBH believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, BBH cannot guarantee the accuracy of such content, assure its completeness, or warrant that such information will not be changed. The content contained herein is current as of the date of issuance and is subject to change without notice. The website’s content does not constitute investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. There is no guarantee that any investment objectives, expectations, targets described in this website or the  performance or profitability of any investment will be achieved. You understand that investing in securities and other financial instruments involves risks that may affect the value of the securities and may result in losses, including the potential loss of the principal invested, and you assume and are able to bear all such risks.  In no event shall BBH or any other affiliated party be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, lost profits, loss of business or data, or punitive damages arising out of your use of this website. By clicking accept, you confirm that you accept  to the above Important Information along with Terms and Conditions.

1BBH sponsors UCITS Funds registered in Luxembourg, in certain jurisdictions. For information on those funds, please see

captcha image

Type in the word seen on the picture

I am a current investor in another jurisdiction