US regulators, in unusual move, raise concerns about new private credit ETF
In what analysts and other asset management firms described as a highly unusual move, Brent Fields, associate director of the SEC's division of investment management, asked State Street Global Advisors to address what it described as "significant outstanding issues" involving the SPDR SSGA Apollo IG Public & Private Credit ETF .
Fields declined to comment further. A spokesperson for the SEC declined to comment on questions involving any specific issuer.
State Street said it will be responding to the SEC's letter but had no further comment at present.
"This is a very unusual event," said Todd Sohn, ETF analyst at Strategas. "It's also very odd timing, given that the ETF has already launched and is trading."
Typically, sweeping questions of the kind raised in the letter are resolved before an ETF launches.
As reported earlier by Bloomberg News, the SEC raised concerns about the fund's liquidity and State Street's ability to comply with SEC valuation rules. Regulators also asked State Street to remove the name of Apollo Global Management from the name of the ETF as including it is "misleading" in context of Apollo's involvement.
"Nothing in the contents of the letter surprised me; we have been watching the questions they cited," said Amrita Nandakumar, president of Vident Asset Management. "The date on the letter was astonishing, however."
The SEC's letter said State Street had not yet addressed its concerns about liquidity. The ETF is the first to offer exposure to the private credit space via an array of privately issued bonds and loans.
SEC rules cap holdings of illiquid securities in ETFs to 15% of assets, but State Street said it may hold as much as 35% of assets in these instruments. To do that, it relied on a liquidity commitment from Apollo Global Investors.
Bryan Armour, ETF analyst at Morningstar, said this is the most significant issue raised by the SEC, given the fact that other asset managers are hoping to launch their own private credit ETFs. Nor, Armour said, did the SEC cite any possible penalties if State Street doesn't act promptly to resolve its concerns.
"It's within the SEC's rights to order the ETF to stop trading," Armour said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Central bank independence needs a better defence: Peacock
LONDON, July 14 (Reuters) - Investors may be fixated on Donald Trump's attacks on the Federal Reserve, but the Bank of England also faces increasing political scrutiny, raising alarm bells about the future of central bank independence. The U.S. president has fired a regular volley of vitriol at Fed Chief Jerome Powell in recent months, demanding interest rates cuts and hinting that he will appoint a presumably more like-minded replacement when Powell's term ends next year. While Trump is not the first U.S. president to try to pressure the Fed since it formally became independent from the Treasury in 1951, his attacks are the most public, and this has caused some market wobbles. That's because history suggests that independent monetary policy is better at keeping prices in check than having politicians control interest rates, as the latter may be keen to keep borrowing costs low no matter what. The U.S. bond market has been unnerved by some of Trump's comments about the Fed in recent months, particularly when he wrote in April that Powell's termination 'cannot come soon enough.' But investors appear to be increasingly inured to the president's rhetoric, believing he will back down before doing anything truly destabilising. Relying on the markets as a safeguard, therefore, may not be enough. The Fed would be well advised to gird its defences in advance of Powell's departure, and one opportunity to do so is its periodic strategic review set to be unveiled this fall. The last review, in 2020, made the Fed's inflation targeting more flexible, allowing for periods of moderately higher inflation to balance times when it dropped below target. At a time when the U.S. president is both pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates and pursuing trade policies that could be inflationary, the Fed would be wise to drop the 'flexible' approach and instead focus on meeting its inflation target at all times. That would send a clear message to the American people that its top priority will be tamping down the cost-of-living pressures that have hit hard since 2021, helping to bolster its legitimacy with the public. On the other side of the pond, the Bank of England is also facing questions about the way it operates. Britain's insurgent Reform Party, which holds a consistent lead in opinion polls, says the Bank wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers' money by paying interest to commercial banks on their reserves and should therefore stop doing this. It has also suggested one or more government officials should sit on the BoE's Monetary Policy Committee. Bank Governor Andrew Bailey pushed back in a published letter, opens new tab, arguing that if the official interest rate was not paid on reserves, the transmission of monetary policy to the real economy would be hampered and banks would be tempted to reduce those holdings, potentially creating a financial stability risk. He also offered a cogent defence of the ongoing benefits of quantitative easing as well as the costs. Importantly, if this government or a future one were to mandate a change to the BoE's reserves regime, it would smack of 'fiscal dominance', whereby high government debts influence the way a central bank operates. Once that box has been opened, it could lead to speculation that interest rate changes were being swayed by the same factor, a massive red flag for investors. The UK government's last root-and-branch review of the Bank's remit was a decade ago. Given everything that has happened since then – Brexit, COVID-19, the cost-of-living crisis – it is time for another look and would give the Bank a forum to clarify its goals and available toolkit. To silence doubters, many issues need addressing, including the diversity of thought on the Bank's policy committees, accountability to parliament and the public, the breadth of its remit, the interplay of monetary policy and financial stability and the Bank's communications. Moreover, given that quantitative easing was a leap into uncharted waters, there are legitimate questions to ask about its effectiveness, its wider impact on the economy and its reversal via quantitative tightening. The Bank is closing in on its Preferred Minimum Range of Reserves, so it is a good time to evaluate this program and then communicate the findings clearly to the public. And now is likely a good time to act. It was only three years ago that then-Prime Minister Liz Truss attacked the Bank for not foreseeing the market's reaction to her ill-fated budget. Attempting to make any changes to BoE policy in such a charged environment would have been very challenging. In stark contrast, current Finance Minister Rachel Reeves, a former BoE employee, has pledged not to interfere with its independence and would thus be far less apt to politicize any Bank action. The same won't necessarily be the case with whomever succeeds her. As former Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker said at a recent conference in London, the best way for central banks to preserve independence is to 'do their job, stick to the mandate, explain it as clearly as possible. Don't try to intervene in politics'. The problem is that politics may continue to interfere with them. (The views expressed here are those of Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Ukraine's Zelenskiy taps deputy PM Svyrydenko for prime minister
KYIV, July 14 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy asked First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko on Monday to lead a new government, setting the stage for a political reshuffle as prospects for an end to Ukraine's war with Russia grow dim. The nomination, which requires parliamentary approval, comes as diplomatic efforts to end the war, now in its fourth year, have stalled and as Ukraine seeks to revive its cash-strapped economy and build up a domestic arms industry. "We ... discussed concrete measures to boost Ukraine's economic potential, expand support programs for Ukrainians, and scale up our domestic weapons production," Zelenskiy wrote on X. "In pursuit of this goal, we are initiating a transformation of the executive branch in Ukraine," he said, adding that he had proposed that Svyrydenko lead the government and "significantly renew its work". Svyrydenko, 39, is an economist by training and has served as first deputy prime minister since 2021. She played a key role in recent negotiations for a minerals deal with the United States. Ukraine relies on financial aid from its Western allies to finance social and humanitarian spending as the bulk of state revenues go to fund the army and domestic weapons production. Ukrainian officials have also urged Kyiv's partners to help finance the country's arms industry, including through joint defence projects. Writing on X, Svyrydenko said she would pursue deregulation, cut back bureaucracy, protect business and reduce non-critical expenditure to achieve the "full concentration of state resources" for defence and post-war recovery. "The state apparatus has no right to waste the resources and potential of our country," she said. "Ukraine deserves to be among the strongest economies in Europe." Ukraine's current prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, has held the post since March 2020, making him the longest-serving head of government since the country gained its independence from Moscow in 1991 amid the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Freight rates fall for Russian Urals oil, but new sanctions may change that, traders say
MOSCOW, July 14 (Reuters) - Freight rates for Russian oil shipments from the Baltic Sea ports to India have fallen in July-August as more tankers have become available, but this could change if new sanctions are imposed on Moscow, two traders said. The European Union is finalising its 18th sanctions package on Russia, which may include a lower price cap on Russian oil. The cap, introduced in 2022, bans trade in Russian crude oil transported by tankers if the price paid was above $60 per barrel. The EU may decide on tighter price cap limits in its new sanctions, which could push it below $45 per barrel from current $60. Global oil prices fell early in April, which pushed the price of Urals crude in Russia's ports below the $60 per barrel threshold, allowing more Western shipping companies to resume services for Russian oil, including freight. The cost of shipping Urals oil from the Russian Baltic Sea ports of Primorsk and Ust-Luga to India fell to between $5 million and $5.3 million per one-way shipment on an Aframax tanker, which is able to carry 730,000 barrels of oil, on average, from between $5.5 million and $5.7 million in June. Last week, the price for Urals oil remained below the $60 per barrel price cap, Reuters data showed. U.S. president Donald Trump plans to make a "major statement" on Monday about Russia, which has prompted speculation that this could include a possible tightening of the sanctions against Moscow. This announcement kept Russian oil freight market "frozen" since last Friday, one of the traders said. Russian crude oil shipping rates rose sharply after a new round of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy interests announced in January came into effect. Russian oil sellers were forced to look for new tankers to replace those vessels hit by the sanctions. Freight rates still remain above the pre-sanctions levels of early January, when the cost of shipping Russian crude from the Baltic ports to India stood at between $4.7 million and $4.9 million.
