WEBVTT - Moriarity on ETFS and Bitcoin (Audio)

0:00:01.080 --> 0:00:04.080
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Taking Stock with Kathleen Hayes and Pim

0:00:04.160 --> 0:00:09.760
<v Speaker 1>Fox on Bloomberg Radio very special show. Today. We're broadcasting

0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:12.840
<v Speaker 1>live from B and Y Melon's E t F Exchange

0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:17.200
<v Speaker 1>sixteen here in Dana Point, California. Or people are looking

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:20.720
<v Speaker 1>at ideas, innovation interaction, and they're certainly looking at the

0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:25.240
<v Speaker 1>regulatory landscape for e t F s. Turning up the heat.

0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:28.400
<v Speaker 1>That was one of the kickoff panels opening up this

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>conference today and joining us now is one of the

0:00:31.600 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>panelists herself, Kathleen Moriarty. She's a partner at Case Shoulder

0:00:35.360 --> 0:00:37.720
<v Speaker 1>l LP. Welcome back to the show. Thank you. I'm

0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:40.199
<v Speaker 1>allotted to be here. So it was interesting when I've

0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:44.239
<v Speaker 1>been reading different reports about e t S two, you know,

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:46.239
<v Speaker 1>kind of get caught up more on the latest, but

0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:50.199
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the literature I've read people are thrilled

0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:52.479
<v Speaker 1>with the growth in the industry, but there's more and

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:57.760
<v Speaker 1>more regulatory scrutiny and steps being taken, and I think

0:00:57.840 --> 0:01:00.960
<v Speaker 1>some feel, yes, we need it. On the other hand,

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:03.040
<v Speaker 1>it's maybe going to make some difference in the way

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:04.720
<v Speaker 1>e t S can grow. What's what's kind of the

0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 1>big thing right now? When it comes to regulation. Actually

0:01:07.760 --> 0:01:11.960
<v Speaker 1>there too. One is um the liquidity proposal that the

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:15.000
<v Speaker 1>SEC has put it forward about a year ago, and

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>it will require m portfolio managers, including e t s

0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:25.120
<v Speaker 1>to um start managing their portfolio in terms of how

0:01:25.160 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 1>liquid the portfolio is. So instead of just paying attention

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>to an index or strategy, they'll also have to pay

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.720
<v Speaker 1>attention to how liquid their portfolio is. They'll have to

0:01:36.800 --> 0:01:41.119
<v Speaker 1>assign different buckets of time frames to each of their

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:45.640
<v Speaker 1>portfolio securities, and they'll have to manage their portfolio so

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>that they have a certain minimum of two to three

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>day liquidity, which means almost instantaneous liquidity, and it will

0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:58.560
<v Speaker 1>start to um alter the way managers manage a portfolio

0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:02.520
<v Speaker 1>because instead of paying attention to the strategy alone, now

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:05.840
<v Speaker 1>they'll also have to pay attention to this liquidity proposal. Now,

0:02:05.840 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 1>it hasn't been adopted yet, so we don't know whether

0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be adopted in the form it is,

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:12.360
<v Speaker 1>or whether it's going to be changed, or whether it's

0:02:12.400 --> 0:02:15.120
<v Speaker 1>going to be adopted at all, but it's certainly if

0:02:15.160 --> 0:02:17.560
<v Speaker 1>it is adopted in the form that it's in, it

0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 1>certainly will change how people manage portfolios, and that will

0:02:21.320 --> 0:02:23.639
<v Speaker 1>that will have an effect on And one of the

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:26.720
<v Speaker 1>questions is, um, how will that work with an index

0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 1>CTF for example, or an index mutual form for instance.

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 1>If you're following the SMP I five hundred, let's say,

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:37.840
<v Speaker 1>and it turns out that your liquidity portfolio doesn't have

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:41.640
<v Speaker 1>the minimum requirement, you're going to have to make some

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:45.200
<v Speaker 1>changes in order to fulfill your liquidity requirement. But that

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 1>may mean you're not following the SMP properly. So what

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 1>does that What does that really do? Because you've told

0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 1>your investors that what you're aiming for is to replicate

0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:57.840
<v Speaker 1>or to replicate the performance of the SMP five hundred.

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:00.080
<v Speaker 1>But if you start having to change things around in

0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:03.520
<v Speaker 1>order to make liquidity requirements, you may not make that performance.

0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 1>So there's some discussion as to whether this is even

0:03:06.040 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>going to be applicable to index UH funds are not,

0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:11.440
<v Speaker 1>and I don't think the jury is out on that

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:13.840
<v Speaker 1>as well. So that's the kind of thing that will

0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>alter to some degree how people manage I don't want

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>to go down the rabbit hole with liquidity, but but

0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:24.799
<v Speaker 1>I think you raise a very interesting UH point because

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:28.920
<v Speaker 1>liquidity works both ways. You can look at it in

0:03:28.960 --> 0:03:32.360
<v Speaker 1>the past in order to gain some understanding of the future.

0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:35.480
<v Speaker 1>But the very nature of liquidity is that it can

0:03:35.520 --> 0:03:39.320
<v Speaker 1>surprise you, particularly when it dries up. What are some

0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:41.360
<v Speaker 1>of the other going to be penalties as a result

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:43.280
<v Speaker 1>of this? I mean, if you make a good faith effort,

0:03:43.320 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and you know department of labor other rules have to

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 1>do with fiduciary responsibility. If you make that effort, but

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't turn out that way, what are the consequences?

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:54.720
<v Speaker 1>We don't know. That's exactly right. We don't know. So

0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:59.080
<v Speaker 1>there's one we when we don't know. It'spetricluseau Wold have said,

0:03:59.080 --> 0:04:01.640
<v Speaker 1>I do not know what I do not know, but

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:04.680
<v Speaker 1>that's hanging everybody's head. I want to ask you a

0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>bit too about bitcoin, blockchain, ETCETERA year ago, that's what

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 1>WE is discussed and you have been involved with UH

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>working on setting up various kinds of companies, etcetera. So

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:17.479
<v Speaker 1>you know a lot about this. In the E t

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:20.960
<v Speaker 1>F world, Where does that stand now? There are two

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 1>UM E t F products that are in progress right now,

0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 1>and they're both at the same stage, which is to say,

0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 1>they are both in the process of of having their

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 1>listing rule um adopted or not adopted as the case maybe,

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:43.040
<v Speaker 1>and without that they can't trade. So the Exchange and

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Exchange has to have a listing rule for every every

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:48.279
<v Speaker 1>product that it lists, and there are many many products

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>that fit into a kind of a generic thing, like

0:04:50.200 --> 0:04:52.679
<v Speaker 1>if you want to listen equity security, there's a standard

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:55.000
<v Speaker 1>equity listing rule. You don't have to go and get

0:04:55.000 --> 0:04:57.800
<v Speaker 1>a special rule. But when you're talking about a new product,

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:00.320
<v Speaker 1>you often have to have to get your own in

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 1>the sting rule. So both of these products are in

0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>that stage, and UM it could be as long as

0:05:06.600 --> 0:05:10.320
<v Speaker 1>another six months or so before the Commission will make

0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:12.159
<v Speaker 1>its mind up one way or the other. It's also

0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 1>hard to predict now because the political situation in the

0:05:15.240 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 1>election year, the fact that the Commission is not fully

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, UM staffed if you will. So it's it's

0:05:22.000 --> 0:05:24.080
<v Speaker 1>hard to know exactly what's going to happen. But it's

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.400
<v Speaker 1>in train. It's the best way I can the best

0:05:26.440 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 1>way I can put it. Bitcoin is money, Well it is,

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:33.600
<v Speaker 1>and it isn't. Well well the US judge says it

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>says it is correct. US judge just just well, I

0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:39.599
<v Speaker 1>don't really know the whole background because I only found

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 1>out about it today, But apparently there was a UM

0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 1>A Federal court judge who held that bitcoin in the

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.440
<v Speaker 1>context of the case was money. On the other hand,

0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:52.880
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks ago there was a Florida court

0:05:52.960 --> 0:05:57.279
<v Speaker 1>judge who held the bitcoin wasn't money. So it's UM.

0:05:57.360 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>It pretty much has pays your bitcoin and it takes

0:05:59.760 --> 0:06:05.120
<v Speaker 1>your exactly. It's still an open question UM in America

0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:08.919
<v Speaker 1>UM as to whether it is or it isn't. Is

0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 1>there an area of the E t F world that

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>you would say, as an attorney, UH is overregulated at

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:18.880
<v Speaker 1>this point, because I know there are some people who

0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:22.280
<v Speaker 1>are always a little bit concerned about people perhaps not

0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:25.200
<v Speaker 1>understanding all the risks of ETFs and how they're structured.

0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:28.159
<v Speaker 1>Is there an area where you would say, if you

0:06:28.240 --> 0:06:30.640
<v Speaker 1>were at the SEC or something, you'd be looking at it. Well,

0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:32.560
<v Speaker 1>I tell you the truth, I think the liquidity thing

0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:37.120
<v Speaker 1>is an over overrestrictive It is it is, I don't

0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:40.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't know what prompted this necessarily, there's some thought

0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that the banking regulators either directly suggested it or that

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:49.000
<v Speaker 1>the SEC and Defense is trying to keep the banking

0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:53.719
<v Speaker 1>regulators from moving into SEC territory. But does it indicate

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:56.400
<v Speaker 1>that maybe they're worried about liquidity that they think or

0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:58.880
<v Speaker 1>they know something that we do not are not privy

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:02.280
<v Speaker 1>to who knows. I think sometimes they're always being accused

0:07:02.320 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 1>of doing things in a reaction. So I think this

0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:07.120
<v Speaker 1>is sort of one of those things that they think

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:08.960
<v Speaker 1>that we can do this ahead of time. We can,

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 1>we haven't had a liquidity problem, so let's make sure

0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 1>we don't have a liquidity problem. But I think that

0:07:14.560 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 1>it's not I think it's overly restrictive the way it's right.

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:21.520
<v Speaker 1>And but the liquidity issue is not confined just to

0:07:21.720 --> 0:07:24.760
<v Speaker 1>exchange traded funds. Because October the fourteenth we get a

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:28.000
<v Speaker 1>big change in money market funds as a result of

0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>what happened in two thousand and eight, and you may experience,

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 1>if you own a money market fund, the net asset

0:07:33.720 --> 0:07:37.200
<v Speaker 1>value going below one dollar or share, and in times

0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 1>of stress, you may not be able to actually get

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:41.680
<v Speaker 1>the money out of the money market fun That goes

0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:44.600
<v Speaker 1>back to that liquidity issue. So what are your thoughts

0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:46.960
<v Speaker 1>on on that change in the money market fund rules.

0:07:49.080 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure. I think I've just sort of accepted it. Um.

0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 1>I was sort of maddened by it when it first

0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:56.400
<v Speaker 1>came out, but I think I've just gotten used to it.

0:07:56.880 --> 0:07:58.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, after a certain point, you see so many

0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:03.200
<v Speaker 1>regulations and you figure pick your battle. So that battle

0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:05.760
<v Speaker 1>I didn't pick, all right, what battle would would you pick?

0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:10.400
<v Speaker 1>Right now? I would pick the derivative rule to detail now,

0:08:10.400 --> 0:08:12.520
<v Speaker 1>the detail, it's too complicated to give it all the details.

0:08:12.520 --> 0:08:15.960
<v Speaker 1>But basically, in a nutshell, basically, what it's trying to

0:08:15.960 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 1>do is extremely limit uh, the use of derivatives. And

0:08:21.440 --> 0:08:25.040
<v Speaker 1>this goes back a long way. This, this concern respect

0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 1>a long way, and I think again it's kind of

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:31.480
<v Speaker 1>like looking using a sledgehammer to deal with the problem.

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:33.760
<v Speaker 1>That's not to say there are no problems with derivatives.

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 1>There are no problems with portfolio managers. But to sort of,

0:08:37.040 --> 0:08:41.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, create a one size fits all regulation that

0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:44.679
<v Speaker 1>will prevent problems from happening is almost bound to cause

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 1>problems in the long run. So what would you do instead?

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:49.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I think I would be even more

0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:52.240
<v Speaker 1>selective about it. I would think I would. I wouldn't

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:58.160
<v Speaker 1>necessarily regulated by percentage or what have you. I'd have

0:08:58.320 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 1>more actually where they do in in a liquidity situation,

0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 1>which is to say, set your own boundaries, you know how,

0:09:06.320 --> 0:09:09.120
<v Speaker 1>a justification for them, and then followed them. I think

0:09:09.160 --> 0:09:11.960
<v Speaker 1>that would make more sense than to try to do

0:09:12.000 --> 0:09:15.640
<v Speaker 1>these you know, overweening. And in this context, we're talking

0:09:15.640 --> 0:09:19.520
<v Speaker 1>about things everything from let's say a triple leveraged exchange

0:09:19.559 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 1>traded fund to one that's using futures or anything. Almost

0:09:22.920 --> 0:09:25.360
<v Speaker 1>anything that's not a stock of rabon, almost anything is

0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:28.160
<v Speaker 1>a is a derivative. Well, this is going to have

0:09:28.200 --> 0:09:31.040
<v Speaker 1>an effect also on the kind of e t F

0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:34.560
<v Speaker 1>that are produced and the response to that, because we

0:09:34.600 --> 0:09:35.960
<v Speaker 1>know they'll would be a way to try to get

0:09:36.000 --> 0:09:39.840
<v Speaker 1>around it. Of course, yes, that's my job. That's why

0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:44.240
<v Speaker 1>we love having Kathleen Moriarty, partner at k Shoulder, telling

0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:48.079
<v Speaker 1>us all about regulations, et f s and bitcoins. Thank

0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:50.439
<v Speaker 1>you very much. We are broadcasting from the b n

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Y Melon et F Symposium in Data Point, California. This

0:09:55.320 --> 0:09:56.000
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg