The Deceitful Practice of Window Dressing: Why Has the SEC Done Nothing About It? 22 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
There are certain widespread practices that have existed in the financial industry for many years that seem to have no purpose but to defraud the retail investor. I've often wondered how these can still be legal. Window dressing is one such practice and as we approach the end of the second quarter 2009, now is an apropos time to broach a discussion about this controversial practice. If you are not familiar with the term “window dressing” it is the practice whereby fund managers, at the very end of each quarter,
(1) Dump many of the worst performing stocks in their portfolios; and/or
(2) Add some stocks that had the highest returns of that quarter to their portfolios.
Why do fund managers engage in this practice? Because investment firms are required to disclose their funds’ holdings to their clients and shareholders, and the holdings at the end of each quarter is the list of stocks disclosed to clients and future prospects. Thus, a good number of fund managers attempt to make themselves appear much smarter than they really are to clients and to prospects by “window dressing” their portfolios.
Is this an honorable practice? No. Is it a truthful practice? No. Is it a deceitful practice that helps investment firms sell more investment funds to their clients and new prospects? Yes. In fact, Investopedia even defines one example of window dressing as “investing in stocks that don’t meet the style of the mutual fund. For example, a precious metals fund might invest in stocks that are in a hot sector at the time, disguising the fund’s holdings, so clients really have no idea what they are paying for.”
Thus, window dressing theoretically allows a fund manager to simply dump all the stocks that fall outside the fund’s stated objective before each quarter-end to deceive shareholders into believing that the fund is remaining true to its stated objective even if it is not. If this occurs, an investor in such a fund would never know that the fund manager is engaging in considerable style drift.
So why isn’t this practice illegal? Since window dressing serves absolutely no purpose that is beneficial to the client or prospect and fund managers engage in it solely to deceive clients, almost all rational people would agree that it is unethical. The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] states on its very own website that its mission is “to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation”. Yet the practice of window dressing violates every single aspect of the SEC’s stated mission.
Window dressing contributes to inefficient markets since a number of high-profile losers get pounded on at the end of each quarter for no reason other than the fact that fund managers want to conceal from investors the fact that they had purchased said losing stocks. In addition, a number of high-profile winners will see an appreciation in share price due to buying that is spurred only by a desire to paint a false picture to current and future shareholders.
Since every insider of the investment industry, including the SEC, has known about window dressing for decades, why has the SEC done nothing about it? (this is a rhetorical question as we have all learned that the SEC is as much interested in protecting fraud as prosecuting it, depending upon the offending party.) As I explained in my earlier article, “How the Financial Elites Enronized America”, legislation increasingly rarely has anything to do with ethics. These two concepts, in the financial world, are often exclusive of one another. Clearly, window dressing is unethical. Yet it has been legal for many years with little real debate to end it.
If the SEC wants to know how to prevent the fraudulent practice of window dressing, I’ll solve this problem for them right here in this article in less than ten minutes' time. At the end of each quarter, require all fund managers to disclose in all marketing materials handed to existing and prospective clients the following two pieces of information:
(1) the exact date that they bought the most material positions of the stocks that presently constitute the top fifteen most heavily weighted stocks in their portfolio; and
(2) the exact date that they sold the most material positions of the stocks that constituted the fifteen most heavily weighted stocks that were sold that particular quarter.
If the SEC simply passed these two disclosures into law, a deceitful fund manager would no doubt be embarrassed into halting his practice of window dressing if he was a manager that repeatedly engaged in window dressing to add winners to his portfolio in the weeks or days before each quarter end. Secondly, a fund manager prone to window dressing would also likely stop dumping all his top losers right before the quarter-end if clients knew the only reason he dumped those losing stocks was so that they would not know that he held these stocks for 86 out of the 90 days of that quarter. The two above disclosures would not only halt the deceitful intent of window dressing practices, but it would also halt huge inefficient anomalies from occurring in stock markets at the end of each quarter.
Those in the industry that wish to continue the deceitful practice of window dressing will argue that increased disclosure, per my above proposals, is problematic because it reveals firms’ trade secrets that can then be leeched by other fund managers at competing firms. This is a bunch of nonsense for the following reasons. If you were to disclose the top 15 most heavily weighted sells in a portfolio, if they were sold to lock in profits, then even if a manager plans on re-buying some of these stocks, no one will know the exact date of when the manager re-buys these stocks in the next quarter, or even if he does re-buy these stocks, they will not know this information until the end of the next quarter. And if a manager dumped the stock because it performed horribly, then providing the exact dates these stocks were sold would hardly be disclosing any information of value to a competitor.
But what about stock purchases? Wouldn’t that provide valuable trade secrets to competing firms? To begin, every investment firm already lists the top 10-15 holdings of each portfolio in freely distributed material. After all, it’s required by law (depending on the size of the fund) and it would be immensely difficult to sell a fund without disclosing its top holdings to prospective investors. However, there is great irony in this statement, for the practice of window dressing allows an investor to purchase a fund whose current top holdings at the end of each quarter as presented in marketing materials may be materially different than the fund’s holdings during the remainder of the following quarter. Thus, if a manager had to disclose that 5 of his top 15 holdings were purchased in the last week of the quarter, an obvious attempt to “window dress” a fund’s holding, no investor would trust such a fund manager with their hard-earned cash. Thus, the practice of “window dressing” on the buy side would also cease.
For those interested in helping restore honesty and integrity to our financial world, please write your local Congressman or Congresswoman and lobby for a law to make the practice of window dressing illegal or contact the SEC directly here to voice a complaint. With enough pressure, new legislation can increase transparency and end deceit in the financial world. It is time for all of us to collectively take action now. If we do not, we have no right to complain about continuing fraudulent financial industry practices.
The last great contribution to society was the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, 61 hours of labor were required to produce an acre of wheat. By 1900, thanks to the advances of the Industrial Revolution, only 3 hours, 19 minutes were required to produce an acre of wheat. Our current monetary system and the rampant fraud in the financial industry have reversed a great deal of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution to humanity. Before the year 2000, if 2,000 hours of labor earned a person USD $50,000 with which he or she bought a basket of goods, in just 8 years, by 2008, at the same pay scale, that same person had to work twice as many hours, 4,000 hours, just to buy the same basket of goods that 2,000 hours of labor would have purchased him or her 8 years prior!
The next great revolution that will improve the life of every citizen in the world is a Monetary Revolution in which we end fraudulent financial practices and the unsound monetary system that supports them. Learn more about how you can permanently end financial fraud through participation in a worldwide initiative here.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 22 comments:
Leave window dressing alone. This is one of the few areas retail investors can take advantage of WallStreet. Rather than most of the times being vice versa. The little guy can actually win if they pay attention.
The SEC has allowes this type of behavior to the point of outright encouraging it. As long as you state you are profitable or trade enough assets they will like you. As an agency it is pretty obvious to everyone the SEC only hates a loser.
Thank you for bringing up issues that most Americans (at least the ones on Wall Street) are afraid to discuss. I have high hopes that you and people like you will eventually give rise to a new Pecora Commission that will put and end to this madness. The first signs are already showing (subpoena power given to Congress in dealing with financial fraud and shadow banking).
You are not alone - a lot of work is being done and has been done by Barry Ritholtz (who, via his blog, has been raising awareness of deregulation, fraud etc.), Alan Grayson (who is especially good at asking tough questions from bankers and regulators), Tyler Durden (the anonymous author of Zero Hedge blog), Harry Markopolis (who uncovered Maddoff's scheme years ago) and many more.
Keep up the good work!
Good discussion and thank you for the effort you expend on behalf of us all.
If more of the "popular" authors in the industry had your concern and exhibited the same willingness to make the effort that you do, we would have a much better world to live in.
HardToLove
thank you. i am glad you are a thorn in the side of corruption.
we have the ultra wealthy that own our politicians and the businesses that benefit. i suspect they probably own the fed too. then they have the controled media to lie for them as often, as loud and for as long as it takes to get the sheeple to believe it. when you have this level of unconstitutional criminality the lesser criminals are bound to prosper from the entrenched fraud and deciet too.
Or just mindlessly buy an index fund.
I personally have dabbled in a hybrid of a sort, closed end funds, over the years with not too good results, but that is likely poor selection on my part. But I was always seduced by picking up assets at a discount.
I have lost on New Ireland Fund and Singapore Fund (not paying attention to world developments) but held my own in the past year with Cohen and Steers UTF fund, which was a good advisory from Forbes magazine. I
But if you own stocks directly you do your own window dressing and take profits and run up brokerage fees at your own direction.
Closed end funds have fees too, but you can at least buy at a discount if you research the spread. Of course, you will sell at a discount too.
Per the quote above, hoping for SEC reform is futile.
While the author is correct that this is a fraudulent practice, investors do not need the SEC to police this. They can simply avoid funds that engage in this practice. If it were so obvious that certain stocks would be punished by this phenomenon, they could be shorted by astute investors (which would arbitrage it away).
I would also disagree with you about the next American "revolution". IMO, it won't be an economic revolution, but a POLITICAL one - where Americans get rid of their new "monarchy" of Wall Street oligarchs...either that, or simply change the name of the country to Goldman Sachs Inc.
The financial advisor running such a scheme will make sure that all of the funds in the client's account have the best of 5 year or 10 year returns in their portfolio. This demonstrates to the client that the advisor is really on top of things. The problem is that the avisor never holds the funds long enough to capture the long term returns, and the portfolio's average return ends up being lower than the indices even though it is filled with funds that have beat the indices.
Thanks for a call for more prudent oversight. I suspect that window dressing will eventually be regulated. The problem is that we often seems to require a shipwreck of an event for the regulations to be implemented.
> I would also disagree with you about the next American "revolution".
> IMO, it won't be an economic revolution, but a POLITICAL one - where
> Americans get rid of their new "monarchy" of Wall Street oligarchs...either
> that, or simply change the name of the country to Goldman Sachs Inc.
Perhaps it was here I saw the link to an article by Simon Johnson, head of the IMF during 2007-2008 who says:
www.theatlantic.com/do...
" the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."
check june 29 issue of the daily crux. there is an article on the top 20 taxhavens that may interest you my friend.
On Jun 29 02:55 AM Nathaniel C wrote:
> I always enjoy your articles Mr. Kim. As regards the SEC, I have
> pretty much given up on the idea that they want to protect investors
> from fraud, market manipulation, etc.
> Very nice article, although I would agree with George09 when he points
> out the inconsistency in urging people to lobby U.S. politicians
> for change, when you, yourself have no faith in "the system".
Ah! There's the rub Jeff. A *major* part of our system, as envisioned by you-know-who, included the ability of the people's will to accomplish that which their representatives were loathe to do.
For that purpose they included freedom of speech, envisioned a free and aggressive press, maintained our right to bear arms (certain actions could be taken if necessary), ... and a *fixed* number of constituents for each representative in the house of representatives (abrogated many years ago when the "wise" leaders made a change fixing the number of representatives at 435, consolidating their power, long-term).
Regardless, just because one has no faith in the "system" (which I believe is really used in a more restricted sense here - meaning the "elected" and employed officials rather than the "whole" system) doesn't mean one should cease railing against the status quo.
I submit, for your consideration (de de de de, de de de de, "Twilight Zone"), that you have demonstrated a lack of faith in the system via the criticisms you post about the *lies* they feed us, and yet you also continue to rail.
Mr. Kim is being criticized by you for doing the same thing you do. The only difference I see possible is he explicitly expressed his lack of faith and yours is (I'm guessing here since I don't recall if you ever stated a lack of faith) only implicit? ;-))
Stated in good humor and with all best wishes. *And* an encouragement to keep to the good fight, faith notwithstanding.
>
> I would also disagree with you about the next American "revolution".
> IMO, it won't be an economic revolution, but a POLITICAL one - where
> Americans get rid of their new "monarchy" of Wall Street oligarchs...either
> that, or simply change the name of the country to Goldman Sachs Inc.
LOL. How about we all change our name to "Blankfein"? Then we would have no foreclosures, economic woes, etc.
HardToLove
What can I say...Superb...needed to be said...I have saved [copy/paste in case it vanishes] this along with the Comments made, as far as I'm concerned this is the best, most important Topic, SAlpaha writing I've read. Recently I have noted the phrase "Singing to the Choir" used, and while its used correctly, I believe the underlying message we all can take away is to try our best to get the "Song" heard by The Public
[[[ the one side-note I'll add, since the Comments already made cover most everything else....consider also the Huge amount of Gains made in the Personal Accounts of those, like in this case Fund/Money Managers, and all who "assist" and enable this to continue ]]]
Kudos