Hubbry Logo
Open-end fundOpen-end fundMain
Open search
Open-end fund
Community hub
Open-end fund
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Open-end fund
Open-end fund
Open-end fund
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Open-end fund (or open-ended fund) is a collective investment scheme that can issue and redeem shares at any time. An investor will generally purchase shares in the fund directly from the fund itself, rather than from the existing shareholders. The term contrasts with a closed-end fund, which typically issues at the outset all the shares that it will issue, with such shares usually thereafter being tradable among investors.

Open-ended funds are available in most developed countries, but the terminology and operating rules vary. US mutual funds, UK unit trusts and OEICs, European SICAVs, and hedge funds are all examples of open-ended funds.

The price at which shares in an open-ended fund are issued or can be redeemed will vary in proportion to the net asset value of the fund and so directly reflects its performance.

Fees

[edit]

There may be a percentage charge levied on the purchase of shares or units. Some of these fees are called an initial charge (UK) or 'front-end load' (US). Some fees are charged by a fund on the sale of these units, called a 'close-end load,' that may be waived after several years of owning the fund. Some of the fees cover the cost of distributing the fund by paying commission to the adviser or broker that arranged the purchase. These fees are commonly referred to as 12b-1 fees in US.

Not all fund have initial charges; if there are no such charges levied, the fund is "no-load" (US).

These charges may represent profit for the fund manager or go back into the fund.

Active management

[edit]

Most open-end funds are actively managed, meaning that a portfolio manager picks the securities to buy, although index funds are now[when?] growing in popularity. Index funds are open-end funds that attempt to replicate an index, such as the S&P 500, and therefore do not allow the manager to actively choose securities to buy.

Net asset value

[edit]
Main article: Net asset value

The price per share, or NAV (net asset value), is calculated by dividing the fund's assets minus liabilities by the number of shares outstanding. This is usually calculated at the end of every trading day.

Forward Pricing Rule 22c-1

[edit]

Based on the forward pricing rule (22c-1); funds and their principal underwriters, and dealers must sell interests in the fund based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) which is calculated daily.[1] This helps to mitigate shareholder dilution, as well as increasing efficiency.

Hedge funds

[edit]

Hedge funds are typically open-ended and actively managed. However, investors can typically redeem shares only monthly or less frequently (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually).[2]

Examples

[edit]

U.S. mutual funds:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Open-end fund

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An open-end fund is a type of pooled that continuously issues new shares to investors and redeems existing shares upon , allowing shareholders to buy or sell at the fund's (NAV) calculated typically at the end of each . These funds aggregate capital from multiple investors to create a diversified portfolio of securities, including , bonds, short-term money-market instruments, or other assets, which is professionally managed. In the United States, open-end funds are also known as mutual funds or open-end investment companies and are managed by SEC-registered investment advisers. Unlike closed-end funds, which issue a fixed number of shares through an and trade on exchanges like without mandatory redemptions, open-end funds must repurchase shares from investors at NAV, providing high but requiring robust management to meet redemption . The structure and regulation of open-end funds vary by country; in the United States, they operate under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), full disclosure of fees, risks, and portfolio holdings in prospectuses, and adherence to limits on leverage and diversification to protect investors. Shares are typically purchased directly from the fund or through financial intermediaries like brokers, with prices determined by the NAV—calculated as the total value of the fund's assets minus liabilities, divided by the number of outstanding shares. Investors may incur front-end sales loads, deferred sales charges, or ongoing management fees, but the structure enables low minimum investments and professional oversight, making these funds accessible for retail investors seeking broad market exposure. Common types of open-end funds include equity funds focused on for growth, bond funds emphasizing fixed- securities for income generation, balanced funds combining both, target-date funds that adjust allocations based on timelines, and funds offering stability through short-term debt instruments. While they provide advantages such as diversification to mitigate individual risks, for quick access to capital, and reducing costs per investor, open-end funds carry market, credit, and risks, with no guarantee against loss of principal and generally no like that for deposits. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which are often structured as open-end funds, blend diversification with intraday trading flexibility on exchanges.

Overview

Definition

An open-end fund is a type of collective investment scheme, defined as an arrangement in which capital is raised from multiple investors through the issuance of shares or units, with the proceeds pooled for in securities or other assets on a collective basis. Unlike closed-end funds, an open-end fund continuously issues new shares and redeems existing ones directly from or to investors based on demand, resulting in no fixed number of outstanding shares. The pricing mechanism for open-end fund shares relies on the fund's (NAV), which represents the per-share value of the fund's total assets minus liabilities; shares are purchased or redeemed at this NAV, typically calculated once daily at the close of trading. This structure allows the fund's size to expand or contract in response to activity, providing through daily redemption . Primary implementations of open-end funds include U.S. mutual funds, which are registered open-end investment companies that pool investor money for diversified portfolios in , bonds, or other securities. In the , unit trusts serve as open-ended collective investment schemes where property is held on trust for participants, enabling ongoing issuance and redemption of units. In , particularly , SICAVs (sociétés d'investissement à capital variable) function as open-ended investment companies with variable capital that adjusts to match the NAV through share creations and cancellations.

History

The origins of open-end funds trace back to the early in the United States, where the Investors Trust was established on March 21, , as the first modern offering redeemable shares to investors. This innovation allowed investors to buy and sell shares directly from the fund at , distinguishing it from earlier closed-end structures and setting the foundation for retail participation in pooled investments. By the late , the number of such open-end funds had grown to 19, amid a speculative boom, but the 1929 exposed vulnerabilities in the nascent industry. The Great Depression prompted significant regulatory reforms to restore investor confidence and prevent abuses. In response to widespread fraud and mismanagement revealed during the crash, passed the , which imposed strict disclosure requirements, governance standards, and limits on leverage for investment companies, including open-end funds. This legislation formalized the structure of mutual funds, mandating registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission and protecting shareholders through oversight of fund advisers and custodians. The Act's protections helped stabilize the sector, with open-end funds numbering over 100 by the early 1950s as markets recovered. Post-World War II economic prosperity fueled the expansion of open-end funds, driven by rising household incomes and a surge in retail investing among the growing middle class. The industry saw exponential growth, with assets under management increasing from about $0.5 billion in 1940 to over $100 billion by 1980, and surpassing $1 trillion by 1990, reflecting broader access to stock market participation. A pivotal milestone occurred in 1976 when The Vanguard Group launched the first index mutual fund, tracking the S&P 500 and emphasizing low-cost passive strategies, which gradually shifted industry focus from active stock-picking to broad market replication. Globalization accelerated in the late , with open-end funds adapting to international markets. In , the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive, adopted in , harmonized regulations for cross-border retail funds, enabling their passporting across member states and spurring adoption. Subsequent revisions in the and enhanced liquidity and diversification rules, solidifying UCITS as a global standard for open-end structures. In , mutual fund industries emerged rapidly during the amid economic liberalization, with assets growing significantly by the as governments introduced regulatory frameworks modeled on U.S. and European systems.

Characteristics

Key Features

Open-end funds are characterized by their ability to issue and redeem shares without a fixed limit, allowing the fund's total assets to expand or contract in response to investor demand. This structure enables continuous issuance of new shares to accommodate purchases and mandatory redemption of shares from s seeking to exit, directly aligning the fund's size with net capital flows. Unlike structures with predetermined share counts, this flexibility supports but requires ongoing management to meet redemption obligations. A core attribute is the provision of daily to shareholders, where shares can be redeemed at the fund's (NAV) calculated at the end of each trading day. Investors submitting redemption requests by a specified cutoff time typically receive proceeds based on that day's closing NAV, ensuring prompt access to funds within regulatory timelines, such as seven days under U.S. law. This feature distinguishes open-end funds by prioritizing investor accessibility over fixed capital commitments. To mitigate risk, open-end funds generally adhere to diversification standards, often holding portfolios comprising 50 or more securities across various issuers and sectors. Under frameworks like the , diversified open-end funds limit investments to no more than 5% of assets in any single issuer for at least 75% of their portfolio, promoting broad exposure and reducing concentration risks. This requirement fosters stability by pooling assets into a spread-out vehicle. These funds are professionally managed by registered investment advisers employed by fund companies, who make decisions on behalf of a collective pool of capital from numerous investors. This pooled approach allows individual participants to benefit from expert oversight and without needing to select securities independently, with the manager responsible for aligning the portfolio with the fund's objectives. In the United States, open-end funds often qualify as regulated investment companies (RICs) under Subchapter M of the , benefiting from pass-through taxation. This means the fund itself generally avoids entity-level taxes, with income, gains, and losses instead distributed directly to shareholders, who report them on their personal tax returns. This treatment enhances tax efficiency for investors compared to taxable corporate structures.

On-Exchange and Off-Exchange Open-End Funds

Open-end funds vary in their trading mechanisms. Traditional off-exchange open-end funds, such as mutual funds, are bought and redeemed directly from the fund at the end-of-day net asset value (NAV). In contrast, on-exchange open-end funds, such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs), primarily trade on stock exchanges throughout the day at market prices determined by supply and demand, with creation and redemption of large share blocks (creation units) handled by authorized participants at NAV to facilitate arbitrage. Pricing for off-exchange funds occurs once daily at NAV, ensuring transactions at intrinsic value without premiums or discounts. On-exchange funds trade at real-time market prices that typically closely track NAV but may exhibit minor premiums or discounts influenced by market conditions. Liquidity differs accordingly: off-exchange funds provide daily redemption at NAV with proceeds generally available within seven days, while on-exchange funds offer intraday trading liquidity subject to market conditions and brokerage settlement, typically T+2. Fee structures vary: off-exchange funds may impose sales loads, redemption fees, or account fees alongside annual expenses, though no-load funds exist; on-exchange funds typically involve brokerage commissions and bid-ask spreads but avoid direct loads, with comparable operating expenses. Off-exchange funds often support automatic investment plans and dividend reinvestment, making them suitable for systematic, long-term accumulation strategies with potentially low minimums. On-exchange funds facilitate tactical trading but require manual orders, with minimums often as low as one share. Product types in off-exchange funds include diverse active and passive strategies, whereas on-exchange open-end funds are predominantly passive index trackers, with active variants less common.

Comparison to Closed-end Funds

Open-end funds and closed-end funds differ fundamentally in their share structure. Open-end funds continuously issue new shares to meet investor demand and redeem shares upon request, allowing the number of outstanding shares to vary based on net inflows or outflows. In contrast, closed-end funds issue a fixed number of shares through an (IPO) and do not create or retire additional shares thereafter, resulting in a static share count. This structural difference means open-end shares are transacted directly with the fund company, while closed-end shares trade on secondary markets, such as stock exchanges, similar to individual . Pricing mechanisms further highlight these distinctions. Shares in open-end funds are bought and sold at the fund's (NAV), calculated once daily at the end of the trading day, ensuring transactions occur at this intrinsic value without market-driven deviations. Closed-end funds, however, are priced by on exchanges, leading to market prices that may trade at a premium or discount to NAV, influenced by investor sentiment and trading activity. This market-based pricing for closed-end funds introduces potential volatility in share value relative to underlying assets, unlike the NAV adherence in open-end structures. Liquidity provisions also vary significantly. Open-end funds provide daily redemption options directly from the fund, offering investors reliable access to their capital at NAV, though limited to end-of-day processing. Closed-end funds depend on trading for , where shares can be bought or sold throughout the but at prevailing market prices, potentially affected by bid-ask spreads or low trading . In terms of management flexibility, open-end funds must actively adjust portfolios to accommodate capital flows, often holding cash reserves to meet redemptions and maintaining in holdings. Closed-end funds, with their fixed capital base, enjoy greater portfolio stability, enabling managers to pursue long-term strategies without disruption from redemptions and allowing for the use of leverage to amplify returns. Investor access reflects these mechanics as well. Open-end funds are generally available to retail investors through brokers or directly via the fund sponsor, facilitating broad participation. Closed-end funds, traded on exchanges, often attract institutional or more experienced investors who monitor market dynamics for entry points.

Operations

Net Asset Value Calculation

The net asset value (NAV) of an open-end fund represents the per-share value of its underlying assets after deducting liabilities, serving as the basis for pricing shares during issuance and redemption. It is calculated using the formula: NAV=Total Assets−Total LiabilitiesNumber of Outstanding Shares\text{NAV} = \frac{\text{Total Assets} - \text{Total Liabilities}}{\text{Number of Outstanding Shares}} This computation ensures that investors receive or pay a fair price reflective of the fund's current portfolio value. Total assets encompass the of the fund's securities portfolio, including , bonds, and other investments, along with holdings and receivables such as dividends or due. Valuation occurs daily at the close of trading on major U.S. exchanges, using the most recent closing prices for listed securities to capture end-of-day market conditions. For open-end mutual funds, this end-of-day pricing is standard, though some exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which are also open-end structures, may provide intraday indicative values while still computing official NAV at market close. Open-end funds are required to determine NAV at least once daily, typically Monday through Friday, unless no material changes or orders warrant recalculation. Total liabilities include accrued expenses such as management fees, administrative costs, and other operational charges, as well as payables for securities purchased or other short-term obligations. These are subtracted from total assets to arrive at net assets before dividing by outstanding shares. Funds must accurately accrue these liabilities daily to maintain precise NAV figures. For illiquid assets lacking readily available market quotations, such as certain restricted or foreign securities, funds apply pricing determined in good faith by the or designated personnel. This method uses established valuation techniques, like matrix pricing or third-party appraisals, to estimate and prevent dilution of shareholder interests. Open-end funds may hold up to 15% of net assets in such illiquid securities, with adjustments ensuring compliance with daily NAV requirements.

Share Issuance and Redemption

Open-end funds issue new shares directly to investors upon purchase requests, allowing the fund to expand its in response to demand. This process involves creating additional shares at the fund's (), with the proceeds from sales typically invested in the fund's portfolio to maintain its . As a result, the fund's total assets grow proportionally with inflows, enabling scalability without fixed share limits. When investors redeem shares, the fund repurchases them at the current NAV, removing the shares from circulation and distributing cash or equivalent value to the . If the fund lacks sufficient cash on hand, it may need to sell portfolio assets to fulfill the redemption, which can occur pro rata across holdings or as a to approximate the fund's composition. Payments for redemptions are generally made within seven days, though prospectuses often specify next-business-day settlement. Purchase and redemption orders are processed at the end-of-day NAV, with a typical cutoff time of 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time for same-day execution; orders received after this are handled at the next day's NAV. This forward-pricing mechanism ensures fair valuation based on the NAV calculated after market close. Many open-end funds impose minimum initial requirements, ranging from $500 to $50,000 depending on the fund's and share class, to ensure administrative efficiency. In periods of market stress, funds may impose temporary redemption limits or suspend redemptions with regulatory approval if pressures threaten the fund's stability, though such measures are exceptional and not routine for most open-end funds. Large redemptions can introduce dilution risk to remaining shareholders, as the costs of selling assets—such as transaction fees, bid-ask spreads, and —may reduce the fund's overall value without being fully borne by redeeming investors. This risk is heightened during volatile periods when asset sales occur at unfavorable prices, potentially eroding the NAV for non-redeeming shareholders.

Forward Pricing

Forward pricing is the standard mechanism employed by open-end funds to execute purchase and redemption orders at the (NAV) computed after the order is received, ensuring equitable treatment among investors by preventing the use of outdated or manipulable pricing information. Under this approach, orders placed during the trading day are typically valued using the NAV calculated at the close of that day or the subsequent , depending on the timing of receipt. This method directly addresses potential abuses such as , where traders could otherwise submit late orders after gaining insight into intraday market movements that influence the NAV. The regulatory foundation for forward pricing in the United States stems from Rule 22c-1 under the , adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 16, 1968. This rule explicitly prohibits "backward pricing"—the practice of using a future NAV for orders received earlier—and mandates that redeemable securities be offered, sold, redeemed, or repurchased at a price based on the current NAV next computed after receipt of the order, with all transactions on a given day using a uniform NAV determined at a consistent time at least once daily. The SEC's adoption of the rule was driven by concerns over dilution risks to existing shareholders from opportunistic trading practices prevalent in the . In practice, open-end funds establish cutoff times for order submission to implement forward pricing, most commonly 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on business days, after which orders receive the next available NAV. Orders received before the cutoff are priced at that day's NAV, while those after the cutoff, or on non-business days such as weekends or federal holidays, are priced using the NAV of the following business day. Funds must disclose these cutoff times in their prospectuses, and exceptions may apply for certain order types or intermediaries, but the core principle remains uniform application to avoid discrepancies. The primary purpose of forward pricing is to safeguard against shareholder dilution arising from late trades that exploit known or anticipated NAV changes, thereby promoting market integrity and investor confidence in open-end fund operations. By decoupling order receipt from immediate pricing, the mechanism reduces opportunities for short-term traders to intraday information, a vulnerability highlighted in SEC investigations during the rule's development. Internationally, analogous forward pricing standards apply to UCITS funds under the European Union's UCITS Directive (2009/65/EC), which requires that units be issued, sold, repurchased, or redeemed at a price based on the next-determined NAV in accordance with fund rules and national laws, similarly aiming to mitigate risks and ensure fair valuation. This harmonized approach in the UCITS framework, implemented across EU member states, mirrors the U.S. model by mandating timely and transparent NAV computations to protect investors from dilution.

Management

Active Management

In active management of open-end funds, portfolio managers actively select and securities based on fundamental research, economic forecasts, and market analysis to achieve returns that exceed a specified benchmark index, such as the S&P 500. This approach contrasts with by emphasizing discretionary decision-making to capitalize on perceived market inefficiencies. A key goal is generating alpha, which measures the excess return of the fund relative to the benchmark after adjusting for , reflecting the value added by the manager's skill. Active managers employ various strategies to pursue outperformance, including stock picking, where they identify undervalued or high-potential individual securities through detailed company analysis; sector rotation, which involves shifting allocations among industry sectors in response to economic cycles or trends; and tactical , a dynamic rebalancing of like equities, bonds, and to exploit short-term opportunities. These methods allow flexibility in portfolio construction but introduce higher levels of , defined as the standard deviation of the fund's excess returns over the benchmark, indicating the degree of deviation from benchmark performance and the risk of active decisions. Performance evaluation for active open-end funds focuses on metrics like alpha and , alongside comparisons to benchmarks. Historical analyses, such as those in ' SPIVA U.S. Scorecard reports, consistently show that most active funds underperform their benchmarks over extended periods; for example, 87% of large-cap U.S. equity funds underperformed the over 10 years ending in 2023, with underperformance rates at approximately 88% over 15 years. As of mid-2025, these figures were 86% over 10 years and 88% over 15 years. This pattern persists due to challenges in consistently generating positive alpha amid efficient markets and costs. Active strategies also incur higher expense ratios to cover , analyst teams, and frequent trading, averaging 0.64% for actively managed domestic equity mutual funds as of 2024, compared to lower fees in less intensive approaches. Illustrative examples of actively managed open-end funds include growth-oriented funds, which target companies with strong earnings potential and innovation, such as the Blue Chip Growth Fund (FBGRX), and value funds, which seek undervalued stocks trading below intrinsic worth, like the Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX). These styles exemplify how tailors portfolios to specific investment philosophies while aiming to outperform broad market indices.

Passive Management

Passive management in open-end funds involves constructing a portfolio that closely mirrors the performance of a specified market index, such as the , without attempting to outperform it through individual security selection or . This approach relies on systematic replication to achieve returns that approximate the index's performance, net of minimal fees, thereby providing investors with broad market exposure at low cost. Two primary methods are employed to replicate the index: full replication, where the fund purchases all securities in the index in exact proportions to their weighting, and sampling, which involves selecting a representative subset of securities that collectively mimic the index's characteristics, such as sector allocation and . Funds periodically rebalance their holdings to align with changes in the index composition, such as additions, deletions, or weight adjustments, ensuring ongoing fidelity to the benchmark. The modern era of passive open-end funds began with the launch of the First Index Investment Trust by in 1976, the world's first retail index tracking the S&P 500. By 2024, (AUM) in U.S. passive s and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), including open-end structures, surpassed those in active funds for the first time, reaching approximately 53% of total fund market share. In theory, passive management offers advantages through lower portfolio turnover, which minimizes transaction costs and capital gains distributions, and reduced expense ratios compared to active strategies, often by a factor of several times. Empirical studies confirm that passive funds typically match or exceed the net returns of active funds over long periods, primarily due to these cost efficiencies, with index funds outperforming actively managed peers after fees in most asset classes. A variant of passive management includes smart beta funds, which introduce systematic factor tilts—such as low volatility, value, or quality—into index-based portfolios while maintaining a rules-driven, non-discretionary approach to implementation. For instance, a low-volatility smart beta fund might overweight stocks with historically stable returns relative to the broader market, aiming to enhance risk-adjusted performance without active stock picking.

Fees and Expenses

Types of Fees

Open-end funds incur several types of fees that cover distribution, , and operational costs, with these expenses deducted from fund assets or contributions. These fees are structured to compensate intermediaries, advisers, and service providers while impacting returns through direct charges or ongoing deductions. Disclosure of all fees is mandated in the fund's prospectus via a standardized table, enabling investors to assess costs and their effects on net over time. Sales loads represent commissions paid to brokers or financial professionals for distributing fund shares. Front-end sales loads are deducted from the initial amount at the time of purchase, effectively reducing the amount invested in the fund; for example, a 5% front-end load on a $10,000 investment results in $500 paid as a , with $9,500 allocated to shares. Back-end sales loads, often termed contingent deferred sales loads (CDSL), are imposed upon redemption if shares are sold within a specified holding period, typically 5 to 8 years, and decrease over time as an incentive for longer-term holding; these are not included in the but are listed under shareholder fees in the prospectus. Rule 12b-1 fees, named after the SEC rule authorizing them, are ongoing annual charges levied on fund assets to finance , distribution, and shareholder servicing activities, such as compensating brokers for ongoing sales efforts. These fees are capped at 1% of the fund's average annual net assets, with up to 0.75% allocated to distribution costs and the remainder to service fees, and they are included in the fund's total operating expenses. Unlike sales loads, 12b-1 fees provide a steady revenue stream for promotion without upfront payments. Management fees compensate the fund's investment adviser for portfolio selection, oversight, and administrative duties, calculated as a of (AUM). These fees typically range from 0.5% to 1.5% of AUM annually, varying by fund complexity, size, and investment style, with larger funds often benefiting from that lower the effective rate. They form a core component of the fund's operating expenses and are accrued daily but paid periodically from fund assets. Other expenses encompass a range of operational costs, including custodial services for asset safekeeping, legal and auditing fees, transfer agent services, and . These miscellaneous charges, which can vary widely but often constitute 0.1% to 0.3% of AUM, are not itemized separately in prospectuses but are aggregated with and 12b-1 fees into the total (TER). The TER, expressed as a of average net assets, provides a comprehensive measure of annual costs borne by the fund, and is prominently displayed in the prospectus to facilitate cost comparisons.

No-Load Funds and Cost Structures

No-load open-end funds, commonly known as no-load mutual funds, are investment vehicles that permit investors to purchase or redeem shares without incurring sales commissions, also referred to as loads. These funds enable direct through the fund company or a brokerage platform, ensuring that the entire principal amount is allocated to the fund's assets rather than being diminished by upfront or deferred sales charges. This structure contrasts with load funds, which impose such commissions to compensate intermediaries like brokers or financial advisors. No-load funds have gained significant prevalence, particularly among passively managed index funds, where cost efficiency is paramount. Pioneered by firms like , which popularized direct, low-cost access to open-end funds, no-load options now dominate market flows; in 2024, they accounted for 92 percent of gross sales of long-term mutual funds, excluding those with 12b-1 distribution fees, up markedly from 46 percent in 2000. This shift reflects investor preference for transparency and reduced entry barriers in open-end structures. The cost framework of no-load funds centers on the , an annual fee expressed as a percentage of that covers portfolio , administrative services, and other operational expenses. Passive no-load funds, such as those tracking broad market indices, typically feature expense ratios below 0.1 percent, exemplified by Vanguard's average of 0.08 percent across its mutual funds. In contrast, actively managed no-load funds generally carry higher ratios exceeding 0.5 percent, with the industry-wide asset-weighted average for mutual funds at 0.34 percent as of 2024. Unlike load funds, where breakpoints scale down sales charges for investments above certain thresholds (e.g., reducing front-end loads for purchases over $50,000), no-load funds apply uniform expense ratios irrespective of investment size, emphasizing ongoing costs over transactional ones. Even with the absence of sales loads, no-load funds purchased via brokerage platforms may involve additional transaction fees, typically ranging from $0 to $50 per trade, unless the fund participates in the broker's no-transaction-fee (NTF) program, which waives such charges in exchange for fund reimbursements to the broker. These fees can vary by platform and fund, potentially impacting smaller or frequent investments. Recent trends underscore a broader movement toward no-load structures, driven by the proliferation of fee-only financial advisors who prioritize asset-based compensation over commissions, thereby diminishing the market share of load funds. This advisor shift, with over 72 percent now operating on fee-based models as of 2025, has accelerated the adoption of no-load open-end funds. Concurrently, the popularity of no-load funds has fueled a multi-decade decline in average expense ratios, from 0.83 percent in 2005 to 0.34 percent in 2024, enhancing overall cost efficiency in the sector.

Regulations

United States Regulations

Open-end funds in the United States are primarily regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which defines them as investment companies that continuously offer and redeem their shares at net asset value (NAV). The Act requires all open-end funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before operating and imposes strict limits on leverage, such as prohibiting senior securities unless they meet a 300% asset coverage requirement to protect investors from excessive risk. These provisions aim to ensure transparency and investor protection by mandating detailed disclosures about the fund's operations, fees, and risks. A key component of this framework is Rule 22c-1 under the Act, known as the forward pricing rule, which requires open-end funds to sell and redeem shares based on the NAV computed after the receipt of an investor's order, typically at the close of the trading day. This rule prevents dilution of by prohibiting funds from using stale prices that could disadvantage existing investors during periods of market volatility. In 2016, the SEC adopted Rule 22e-4, the , which became effective in 2018 and mandates that open-end funds (excluding funds) establish a . The rule requires funds to classify their portfolio investments monthly into four buckets—highly , moderately , less , and illiquid—based on the time and likelihood of settlement under stressed conditions, limiting illiquid investments to 15% of net assets (effectively requiring at least 85% to be convertible within seven days). This classification helps funds assess and mitigate the risks of meeting redemption demands without significant NAV impacts. Disclosure requirements for open-end funds are governed by the Act and related SEC rules, including the provision of a prospectus detailing investment objectives, risks, and fees, as well as annual and semi-annual shareholder reports. In 2022, the SEC modernized these rules through amendments to Form N-1A and related forms, requiring streamlined, concise shareholder reports that focus on key information like performance, expenses, and top holdings, while shifting more detailed portfolio data to online availability to reduce costs and improve readability for investors. Recent 2024 updates emphasize enhanced reporting without mandating swing pricing, a proposed mechanism to adjust NAV for transaction costs. Instead, amendments to Forms N-PORT and N-CEN, adopted on August 28, 2024, require monthly portfolio holdings reports to be filed more frequently and publicly disclosed 60 days after month-end, including s, and mandate open-end funds using liquidity classification service providers to report details about those providers on Form N-CEN. The SEC also issued guidance clarifying management program requirements, such as board oversight and , to promote effective implementation without new prescriptive tools like mandatory swing pricing. These amendments became effective on November 17, 2025.

International Regulations

The Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive, originally enacted in 1985, provides a harmonized regulatory framework for open-end funds in the , enabling cross-border marketing via the UCITS passport that allows funds authorized in one to be sold throughout the without additional approvals. Revisions such as UCITS IV in 2009, and UCITS VI proposals as of 2025 which aim to strengthen rules on liquidity management by providing access to up to eight liquidity management tools (LMTs) like redemption gates and anti-dilution levies to protect investors during market stress. As of late 2025, s such as have submitted draft transpositions, with full implementation anticipated in 2026. Complementing this, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) II, which entered into force in 2024 and requires transposition by s by April 2026, requires managers of open-ended funds to select and implement at least two LMTs tailored to the fund's strategy and redemption policy, including side pockets to segregate illiquid assets for orderly realization separate from liquid holdings. Globally, the (IOSCO) issued revised recommendations in 2023, with accompanying 2025 guidance, to address structural vulnerabilities from mismatches in open-ended funds by requiring redemption terms—such as frequency, notice periods, and settlement delays—to closely match the underlying asset . Funds are categorized by asset levels (e.g., daily redeemable for highly liquid assets, longer notice for illiquid ones), with mandated at least annually to simulate redemption pressures, margin calls, and market disruptions, integrating results into ongoing risk assessments. Quantity-based LMTs like redemption gates, which cap outflows in stressed conditions to prevent fire sales, and side pockets for isolating illiquid positions must be pre-defined in fund documents and activated judiciously to balance investor rights with fund stability. In the , following , the (FCA) regulates open-end unit trusts as authorized collective investment schemes under the Collective Investment Schemes Sourcebook (COLL), authorizing funds within two months for UK UCITS equivalents and emphasizing liquidity risk management akin to EU standards. These rules require robust and LMTs, including gates for illiquid exposures, to ensure daily dealing aligns with asset without U.S.-style parallels. Regulatory approaches in vary, with India's Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) governing open-end mutual funds under the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 (as amended in 2024), permitting unlimited issuance and redemption at on business days while imposing total caps and mandating safeguards like side pockets for unlisted . In the , a key domicile for alternative open-end structures, the Mutual Funds Act (as revised in 2021) requires registration or licensing by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority for funds offering redeemable interests, focusing on disclosure of risks, protocols, and use of gates or suspensions for illiquid alternative assets to facilitate global distribution.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Benefits

Open-end funds offer investors a high degree of , as shares can be redeemed daily at the fund's (NAV), providing an easier compared to closed-end funds that trade on exchanges like . This daily redemption feature allows s to access their money promptly, typically within seven days, often sooner, making these funds suitable for those needing flexibility in their investment timeline. A key advantage is diversification, where open-end funds pool capital to create broad portfolios across numerous securities, industries, or , thereby reducing the risk associated with holding individual or bonds. This instant access to a diversified portfolio enables retail investors to achieve exposure to markets or strategies that would be challenging or costly to replicate independently, mitigating the impact of any single security's underperformance. Professional management represents another benefit, as open-end funds are overseen by SEC-registered investment advisers who apply expertise in security selection, portfolio construction, and without requiring to engage in direct picking. This structure leverages , spreading research and trading costs across a large pool of assets, which lowers the per- expense compared to managing a personal portfolio. Accessibility is enhanced by low minimum investment thresholds, with many open-end funds requiring only a relatively modest initial outlay, such as $1,000 or less, and allowing subsequent purchases in smaller increments, thereby opening these vehicles to a wide range of retail investors. Finally, open-end funds provide transparency through daily NAV calculations, which reflect the current value of the fund's assets after market close, and monthly disclosures of portfolio holdings publicly available 60 days after month-end, enabling investors to monitor performance and composition effectively. These disclosures, available via the SEC's database and fund websites, promote informed decision-making without additional cost.

Drawbacks

Open-end funds are subject to several drawbacks that can diminish investor returns and introduce risks. One primary limitation is the erosion of net returns due to fees and expenses. Expense ratios, which cover , administrative, and distribution costs, directly reduce the fund's by deducting a of assets annually, acting as a persistent drag on investor gains. Similarly, sales loads—front-end or deferred charges imposed at purchase or redemption—further erode returns by limiting the initial or final amount invested in the portfolio. Another significant risk is dilution, where large-scale redemptions compel fund managers to sell assets at depressed prices during market downturns, imposing transaction costs on remaining shareholders. This occurs because redeeming investors receive the without bearing the full impact of forced sales, such as widened bid-ask spreads or costs, which then lower the value for non-redeeming participants. Open-end funds also face vulnerability to abuses, where sophisticated investors exploit short-term pricing discrepancies through frequent trading, despite regulatory safeguards like redemption fees and frequent-trading policies. These practices, uncovered in early 2000s scandals, increase portfolio turnover and transaction costs, harming long-term holders by diluting returns, even as post-2003 SEC rules mandate enhanced disclosures and compliance programs to mitigate such exploitation. Active open-end funds often exhibit performance drag, underperforming their benchmark indices after accounting for fees over extended periods. For instance, over 10 years ending December 2023, approximately 87% of large-cap U.S. equity funds failed to match the S&P 500's returns net of expenses, highlighting how costs compound to widen the gap with passive alternatives. Finally, liquidity mismatches between daily redemption promises and underlying asset illiquidity can exacerbate stresses during crises, potentially delaying investor access. In certain variations, such as open-ended real estate funds in Germany, statutory requirements impose a minimum holding period of 24 months and a 12-month notice period for redemptions, limiting flexibility and reducing their suitability as collateral for bank lending due to enhanced illiquidity. These funds have faced massive investor outflows due to trust crises triggered by significant devaluations in similar funds and court rulings on risk assessments, leading to billions in net outflows across the sector. In the 2020 turmoil, open-end funds experienced outflows equivalent to 5% of assets, forcing rapid sales that amplified bond price declines and market volatility, with regulatory tools like or swing pricing sometimes invoked to manage redemptions and protect the portfolio.

Variations and Examples

Mutual Funds

In the United States, mutual funds represent a primary form of open-end funds, registered under the as investment companies that pool capital from numerous investors to acquire diversified portfolios of stocks, bonds, or other securities. These funds issue shares continuously to meet investor demand and redeem them at the calculated daily, without a fixed share count, enabling flexible entry and exit for participants. This off-exchange structure, where transactions occur directly with the fund company or through intermediaries at end-of-day NAV pricing, contrasts with on-exchange open-end funds like exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which trade intraday on securities exchanges at market prices that may include premiums or discounts to NAV, offering real-time liquidity but requiring brokerage accounts for execution. Off-exchange mutual funds suit scenarios such as automated investment plans and potentially lower minimum entry points for retail investors, while providing access to professional , allowing retail and institutional investors to benefit from in portfolio construction and oversight. Mutual funds are classified by their core investment focus, including equity funds that allocate primarily to for growth potential, bond funds emphasizing fixed-income securities for income generation and stability, balanced funds blending equities and bonds to mitigate while pursuing moderate returns, and money market funds targeting short-term, high-quality debt instruments for and capital preservation. A well-known example is the 500 Index Fund, an equity mutual fund that passively replicates the performance of the stock index, exemplifying low-cost, broad-market exposure. These categories cater to diverse tolerances and objectives, from aggressive growth to conservative preservation. As of year-end 2024, U.S. household totaled $25.0 trillion, reflecting robust expansion fueled by substantial inflows into bond funds amid shifting dynamics and economic uncertainty. Investors typically access these funds through brokerage platforms for direct purchases, employer-sponsored plans for retirement savings, and individual retirement accounts () for tax-deferred accumulation. A distinctive element of U.S. mutual funds is their tax efficiency as regulated companies, which mandates annual distributions of at least 90% of net income and realized capital gains to shareholders, thereby avoiding entity-level ation and shifting the liability directly to investors for potential deferral in qualified accounts.

Unit Trusts and SICAVs

Unit trusts in the represent a key form of open-end vehicle, functioning as pooled schemes where multiple investors contribute capital to acquire a diversified portfolio of assets, managed by a professional fund manager. These funds must be authorized by the (FCA), the UK's primary financial regulator, ensuring compliance with standards for investor protection, transparency, and fair valuation. Like U.S. mutual funds, unit trusts offer daily pricing based on the (NAV) of the underlying holdings, allowing investors to buy or redeem units at the end of each trading day. In , particularly in jurisdictions like and , Société d'Investissement à Capital Variable () structures provide another prominent open-end fund format, characterized by variable that adjusts automatically with investor subscriptions and redemptions. As an organized under the UCITS (Undertakings for Investment in Transferable Securities) Directive, a SICAV invests primarily in liquid assets such as equities, bonds, and money market instruments, enabling it to be marketed and sold cross-border throughout the and beyond without additional local approvals in eligible markets. This framework promotes retail investor access to diversified, regulated products with standardized and disclosure requirements. A primary distinction between these structures lies in their legal form: unit trusts operate as contractual trusts governed by trust law, where investors hold beneficial interests in the assets without direct ownership, managed by a trustee and fund manager. In contrast, SICAVs are incorporated as corporate entities, typically sociétés anonymes, granting investors shareholder status with shares that can vary in number and value based on the fund's NAV. This corporate setup facilitates greater flexibility in share classes and aligns with EU company law, while unit trusts emphasize separation of legal and beneficial ownership. The UCITS framework underpinning many SICAVs has driven widespread adoption, enabling seamless global distribution to professional and retail investors in over 70 countries outside the . By the end of 2024, UCITS funds, including SICAVs, managed net assets exceeding €15.2 trillion, reflecting robust growth of 15.9% from the prior year amid favorable market conditions and inflows. This scale underscores their role as a of European , with and dominating as domiciles due to favorable tax and regulatory environments. Prominent examples of SICAVs include Global Investment Funds, an umbrella established in that offers multiple sub-funds focusing on equities, , and multi-asset strategies, all compliant with UCITS standards for international distribution.

Evergreen and Open-end Hedge Funds

funds represent a specialized open-end in private markets, characterized by their perpetual lifespan and the ability to accept continuous subscriptions and redemptions without a fixed termination date. These funds pool capital indefinitely, allowing ongoing access to illiquid assets such as and , while providing periodic liquidity to participants. Their popularity stems from enhanced flexibility for investors, including reduced exposure to the J-curve effect through immediate portfolio access and lower entry barriers compared to traditional closed-end vehicles. In private markets like , a specific variation in jurisdictions such as Germany involves open-ended real estate funds (offene Immobilienfonds), which invest primarily in commercial and residential properties. These funds are subject to statutory requirements, including a minimum holding period of 24 months for shares and a 12-month notice period for redemptions, implemented since 2013 to address liquidity mismatches between illiquid assets and redemption demands. This regulatory framework enhances fund stability but results in significant illiquidity for investors, prompting many banks to offer low or no lending against such fund shares as collateral due to the extended lock-up and redemption delays. funds have faced challenges such as growing redemption queues, particularly noted in 2024 amid market pressures, where outflows exceeded available , leading to deferred redemptions. To manage this, structures often incorporate , lock-ups, or exit queues at the fund and levels, balancing demands with underlying asset illiquidity. Unlike traditional mutual funds, funds offer less frequent —typically quarterly or annually—along with higher minimum investments targeted at accredited or institutional s. Open-end hedge funds, though rare, provide another variation with periodic liquidity options, often quarterly, to accommodate alternative strategies while maintaining some access. These funds, frequently domiciled in the , may include lock-up periods of one to three years and notice requirements of 1-3 months to align with portfolio . Redemption gates and deferred payments serve as common mechanisms to control outflows during volatility. Recent trends highlight a shift in structuring preferences for alternative open-end funds in the , with over 75% offering monthly or quarterly redemptions and a rise in single- or double-legged evergreen models among Asian and European managers. The 2025 Cayman Islands Trends & Insights report notes increasing integration of ESG, AI, and digital assets in these vehicles, alongside exempted domiciles for . In the UK, evolving non-dom rules effective from April 2025, which abolish the remittance basis and impose worldwide taxation on long-term residents, have encouraged the use of offshore open-end structures like Cayman-domiciled funds to optimize for alternative investments. Prominent examples include Hamilton Lane's evergreen private equity offerings, such as the Global Private Assets Fund, which provides diversified exposure through a multi-manager approach with periodic subscriptions and redemptions. Similarly, the firm's Private Assets Fund targets U.S. investors with access to private markets via quarterly liquidity windows and higher minimum commitments for qualified clients.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/open-endfund.asp
  2. https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/introduction-mutual-funds
  3. https://www.sec.gov/answers/mfclose.htm
  4. https://www.sec.gov/answers/mutfund.htm
  5. https://www.sec.gov/answers/uit.htm
  6. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gensler-statement-open-end-funds-110222
  7. https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G1231.html
  8. https://www.cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/L_171210_UCI.pdf
  9. https://www.fundguard.com/100-years-of-mutual-funds/
  10. https://jasonzweig.com/look-back-and-learn-a-history-of-mutual-funds/
  11. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/mfhistory.asp
  12. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mbelr/vol10/iss1/4/
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/16/business/mutual-funds-top-1-trillion.html
  14. https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/sets-us-apart/our-history.html
  15. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0611:20080320:en:PDF
  16. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/ucits.asp
  17. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1192.pdf
  18. https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-investment-management/fund-disclosure-glance/accounting-disclosure/valuation-portfolio-securities-other-assets-held-registered-investment-companies-select
  19. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/open-end-fund-liquidity-risk-management
  20. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-5
  21. https://www.sec.gov/resources-for-investors/investor-alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletin-characteristics-mutual-funds-exchange-traded-funds-etfs
  22. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550
  23. https://www.investor.gov/sites/investorgov/files/2019-02/mutual-funds-ETFs.pdf
  24. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closed-endinvestment.asp
  25. https://www.bankrate.com/investing/fund-types-open-end-closed-end-etfs/
  26. https://www.thrivent.com/insights/investing/open-end-vs-closed-end-funds-whats-the-difference
  27. https://www.cohenandsteers.com/themes-post/closed-end-funds-knowledge-center/
  28. https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/sec-guide-to-mutual-funds.pdf
  29. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/16/2022-24376/open-end-fund-liquidity-risk-management-programs-and-swing-pricing-form-n-port-reporting
  30. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/openendmanagementcompany.asp
  31. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/white-statement-open-meeting-101316
  32. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2016/33-10234.pdf
  33. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/1968/34-8429.pdf
  34. https://www.ici.org/faqs/faq/mfs/faqs_navs
  35. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2003/12/amendments-rules-governing-pricing-mutual-fund-shares
  36. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/270.22c-1
  37. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0065
  38. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD413.pdf
  39. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/alpha.asp
  40. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tacticalassetallocation.asp
  41. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trackingerror.asp
  42. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2023.pdf
  43. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/spiva/spiva-us-mid-year-2025.pdf
  44. https://www.ici.org/files/2025/per31-01.pdf
  45. https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/best-growth-funds-to-buy-and-hold
  46. https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/mutual-funds/2-schools-growth-vs-value
  47. https://repository.upenn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/91f18b52-cbd5-4877-ab52-d427386da65e/content
  48. https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/understanding-investment-types/what-is-an-index-fund
  49. https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/blog/funds/active-vs-passive-investing
  50. http://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/research-note-does-growth-passive-investing-affect-equity-market-performance.pdf
  51. https://www.aqr.com/-/media/AQR/Documents/Alternative-Thinking/Alt-Thinking-2Q18-Active-vs-Passive-Investing.pdf
  52. https://www.researchaffiliates.com/insights/smart-beta
  53. https://www.man.com/insights/active-vs-smart-beta-vs-passive
  54. https://www.sec.gov/answers/mffees.htm
  55. https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/feestudy.htm
  56. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/mutual-fund-fees-and-expenses
  57. https://www.sec.gov/investment/im-guidance-2016-01.pdf
  58. https://www.finra.org/investors/investing/investment-products/mutual-funds
  59. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/no-loadfund.asp
  60. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/125.asp
  61. https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/mutual-funds/no-load-funds
  62. https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/blog/funds/us-fund-fee-study
  63. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/brokerage-commissions-fees
  64. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/wealth-management-industry-trends/vanguard-to-advisors-let-s-snuggle
  65. https://www.cerulli.com/press-releases/more-than-72-of-financial-advisors-are-compensated-by-fee-based-models
  66. https://www.planadviser.com/popularity-no-load-mutual-funds-whittles-fees/
  67. https://www.morningstar.com/financial-advisors/fund-fees-are-still-declining-not-quickly-they-once-were
  68. https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/seniorsecurities-bibliography
  69. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch500.htm
  70. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2016/10/investment-company-liquidity-risk-management-programs
  71. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2016/33-10233.pdf
  72. https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/small-business-compliance-guides/investment-company-liquidity-risk-management-program-rules
  73. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2022/33-11125.pdf
  74. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022-193
  75. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-110
  76. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/ic-35308.pdf
  77. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-form-n-port-amendments-082824
  78. https://www.bbh.com/us/en/insights/blog/on-the-regs/a-big-deal-ucits-6-and-7.html
  79. https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2025/1/aifmd-2-0-impact-on-open-ended-funds--liquidity-management-tools.html
  80. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-10/ESMA34-671404336-1345_Final_Report_on_the_Draft_Regulatory_Technical_Standards_on_open-ended_loan-originating_AIFs_under_the_AIFMD.pdf
  81. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD798.pdf
  82. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/public-investment-funds-laws-and-regulations/united-kingdom
  83. https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/oct-2024/sebi-mutual-funds-amendment-regulations-2024_87000.html
  84. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/alternative-investment-funds-laws-and-regulations/cayman-islands
  85. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/investment-products/mutual-funds-and-exchange-traded-funds-etfs/mutual-funds
  86. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/mutualfunds/mfund.pdf
  87. https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ib_fees_expenses.pdf
  88. https://www.ici.org/viewpoints/23-view-dilution
  89. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a246055.html
  90. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2004/04/disclosure-regarding-market-timing-selective-disclosure-portfolio-holdings
  91. https://www.bvi.de/uploads/tx_bvibcenter/Snapshot_Property_Funds__Liquidity_Management_.pdf
  92. https://www.refire-online.com/investment/shattered-confidence-in-german-open-ended-funds-sector/
  93. https://www.refire-online.com/investment/outflows-surge-and-legal-fights-loom-for-germanys-funds/
  94. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/10/04/how-illiquid-open-end-funds-can-amplify-shocks-and-destabilize-asset-prices
  95. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/etf-mutual-fund-difference.asp
  96. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/types-of-mutual-funds
  97. https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/largest-mutual-funds-by-aum
  98. https://www.ici.org/files/2025/per31-03.pdf
  99. https://global.morningstar.com/en-gb/funds/fund-flows-bonds-passive-real-winners-2024
  100. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualfund.asp
  101. https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/understanding-capital-gains-and-taxes-on-mutual-funds.html
  102. https://www.farrer.co.uk/globalassets/brochures/fm172_fca-authorised-funds-guide-2025.pdf
  103. https://www.morganlewis.com/-/media/files/publication/outside-publication/article/2021/2021_fund_management_unitedkingdom.pdf
  104. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/report/2021/liquidity-management-in-uk-open-ended-funds
  105. https://www.alfi.lu/en-gb/pages/setting-up-in-luxembourg/ucits
  106. https://www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/investors-and-issuers/fund-management
  107. https://www.hsbc.co.uk/investments/oeics-vs-unit-trusts/
  108. https://www.artemisfunds.com/resources/knowledge-centre/understanding-funds/what-are-the-different-types-of-funds/
  109. https://www.efama.org/newsroom/news/strong-net-asset-growth-funds-2024-significantly-higher-net-sales-equity-bond-and-mmf
  110. https://www.efama.org/about-our-industry/our-industry-numbers
  111. https://www.assetmanagement.hsbc.bm/assets/documents/individual-investor/en/b9ef101e-0aeb-483d-a8a9-ac373d46291c/hsbc-global-investment-funds-prospectus-mar-2025.pdf
  112. https://www.partnersgroup.com/~/media/Files/P/Partnersgroup/Universal/perspectives-document/20240404-partners-group-private-markets-mythbusters-series-part-3.pdf
  113. https://www.rbsinternational.com/insights/2025/03/evergreen-funds-rising-popularity.html
  114. https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2011/03/changes-for-real-estate-funds-february-2011.pdf
  115. https://www.preaquarterly-digital.com/preaquarterly/library/item/winter_2024/4173412/
  116. https://www.pionline.com/industry-voices/commentary-evergreen-private-markets-funds-benefits-and-costs-liquidity/
  117. https://www.seic.com/asset-managers/our-insights/evergreen-funds-next-frontier-private-markets
  118. https://maples.com/knowledge/cayman-islands-trends-insights-open-ended-funds-report-2025
  119. https://www.dilloneustace.com/f/220868/x/fcafbc2d2e/a-guide-to-cayman_feb-2024.pdf
  120. https://www.ibanet.org/medias/Maples-Group-Hedge-Funds-Trends.pdf?context=bWFzdGVyfENvbmZlcmVuY2UtbWF0ZXJpYWxzfDkxODI3MDF8YXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRmfGFERTVMMmc1TlM4NU1qRTBORGsxTlRJeU9EUTJMMDFoY0d4bGN5QkhjbTkxY0NBdElFaGxaR2RsSUVaMWJtUnpJRlJ5Wlc1a2N5NXdaR1l8ZjBjNGM3MTVmNTA1ZjViN2ZiNGE0MTRlZDRiNWE4YTAzZWU3MDU3Yjc3NWZhNDU2OWNkMGM0MjUxM2ZmNjkxYQ&attachment=true
  121. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individuals/technical-note-changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individuals
  122. https://boldergroup.com/insights/alternative-investment-destinations-for-uk-non-doms/
  123. https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/strategies/evergreen
  124. https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/strategies/evergreen/us-private-wealth/private-assets-fund
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.