DC Circuit Court Orders SEC to Reconsider Bitcoin ETF

The court ruled in August that the SEC had unfairly blocked the Grayscale bitcoin ETF, given the SEC had already approved two bitcoin futures ETPs.



The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued an order requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to reconsider Grayscale Investments’ application to register a bitcoin exchange-traded fund with the New York Stock Exchange Arca, confirming the SEC’s decision not to appeal the circuit court’s August ruling in Grayscale v. SEC.

In August, the D.C. Circuit held that the SEC’s denial was “arbitrary and capricious because the Commission failed to explain its different treatment of similar products.” The similar products were two bitcoin futures ETFs that were listed, with the SEC’s approval, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, one from Teucrium Trading and the other from Valkyrie Funds.

The decision held that the ETF proposed by Grayscale was a very similar product—an ETF in the Bitcoin spot market—to the two previously-approved products—both ETFs in the futures market—and that Grayscale’s ETF had a manipulation surveillance agreement with the CME similar to the one the futures ETFs had. Therefore, the D.C. Circuit held, denying one and approving the others, absent further argument, was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The deadline for the SEC to appeal the August ruling was October 13, and the appeals court advanced a formal order on Monday to comply with the ruling.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The ruling has significant implications for 12 outstanding bitcoin exchange-traded products currently being considered by the SEC, managed by BlackRock, Fidelity Investmentand VanEck.

The first deadlines for these ETFs are January 10, 2024, and they will likely be approved together, according to Michael Silberberg, head of investor relations at Alt Tab Capital, a crypto hedge fund: “Consensus is that the SEC is going to approve these.”

Silberberg says the “SEC has continued to not give clarity” on “which digital assets are commodities and which are securities,” a complaint echoed by many supporters of the cryptocurrency industry in Congress.

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has rejected making a formal rule on the issue, instead saying that current laws are clear enough to take enforcement action. Gensler has indicated, while speaking in public settings, that he believes Bitcoin to be a commodity, not a security, though exchanges regulated by the SEC must still seek approval to list a bitcoin ETF. Specifically, Gensler has said that all cryptocurrencies are securities, except for Bitcoin and possibly Ethereum.

The rise of cryptocurrencies and digital assets, including Bitcoin, has raised still unanswered questions about which federal regulator, the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, should be the primary regulator. This case does not address that question.

Silberberg says he expects “small allocations from large institutions into bitcoin.” He argues that digital assets can be highly non-correlative with other assets and can be a useful hedge strategy that “would serve any portfolio.”

Tags: , , , , ,

How Are SFA Grant Recipients Investing That Money?

The answer varies from plan to plan, but there are incentives to invest the money conservatively.



As of today, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has granted about $53.4 billion to struggling multiemployer plans that had either cut or were considering benefits reduction to their roughly 767,000 participants.

The money was allocated through the Special Financial Assistance Program established by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. A pension fund may qualify if it is insolvent, it is in critical and declining status, or it enacted a benefit cut under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.

The PBGC requires recipient pension funds to invest at least two-thirds of the grant money in investment-grade fixed-income securities, but the remaining third may be invested in “return seeking assets,” though plans are not required to invest anything in RSAs.

The distinction between the two categories was recently clarified by the PBGC. IGFI can include Treasury bonds, investment grade debt and money market funds. RSAs include common U.S. stock and stock funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Determining Asset Allocation ‘a Big Lift’

Colyar Pridgen, a lead pension solutions strategist at Capital Group, says recipient plans generally take one of two approaches to investing SFA funds. The first is to view SFA funds as being “in a bit of a silo” by keeping their legacy assets invested as they were previously and deciding how to best maximize the SFA funds. The other approach is to look at “the best overall solution” by pooling all of a plan’s assets into one strategy and then checking to be sure that strategy is compliant with PBGC regulations for the SFA funds.

Pridgen explains that since PBGC funds are legally constrained, it may be “sensible to inject a bit of risk into non-SFA assets.” Some plans have taken on greater equity and illiquidity risks with their legacy assets or invested in the “more exotic areas of fixed income” such as private or high-yield debt.

Though this might sound sensible, Pridgen says that “in practice, we see some of that, but not as much as might be expected.” He says this is because “it is a big lift to invest these SFA assets and to revisit all of their asset allocation.”

It is also difficult for pension trustees to examine the trade-offs between long and short investments and the needs of their older and younger participants. They are therefore disinclined to make significant changes in risk tolerance or overall strategy, even if the SFA grants might superficially seem to be giving them an opportunity to do exactly that.

The appetite to revisit old investment strategy varies from plan to plan, and “there hasn’t been a single convergence” in terms of how SFA money is being invested, Pridgen says, saying SFA investing strategies have been “fairly plan-specific.”

Conservative Approach Continues

Michael Scott, the executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, agrees that investment strategies are largely considered case by case but says SFA recipient pension funds have been acting rather conservatively.

The interim rules governing SFA financing used interest rate assumptions that made using IGFI assets an unfeasible investment strategy to maintain long-term solvency. To make matters worse, under those rules, SFA recipients could only invest in IGFI.

The final rules, adopted by the PBGC in July 2022, used a lower discount rate assumption and were therefore more favorable to an IGFI-focused strategy, Scott says. Additionally, higher interest rates made IGFI even more attractive to pension plans. The combination of those market and regulatory factors have led pension funds to invest their SFA money conservatively, and most plans have not been filling up their RSA “bucket,” according to Scott.

Central States: Too Early to Tell

Concerning legacy assets, Scott explains that many plans were in such bad shape that they had few legacy assets to speak of. One plan that did have significant legacy assets, the Central States plan, has historically followed a conservative strategy, Scott says, and even after having received SFA funding, it has continued to pursue an IGFI-driven portfolio.

The Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan received $35.8 billion in special financial assistance in December 2022, bringing its total assets at the end of 2022 to $42.6 billion. The actuarial value of the funds’ assets at the end of 2022, excluding SFA money, was slightly less than $6 billion.

In its Form 5500 from 2022, received by the Department of Labor on October 12, 2023 but finalized just days after the 2022 SFA approval, Central States stated, “It is not yet known what the updates to the investment policy will be” until the PBGC finalizes the size of the grant and the investment restrictions.

Scott adds that the most common asset managers for SFA assets have been “J.P. Morgan [Asset Management], BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Loomis Sayles, Invesco and similar asset managers.”

According to Form 5500 submissions from 2021 and 2022, Central States used Northern Trust Investments, Mellon Investments Corp., BNY Mellon and BlackRock Financial Management as its investment service providers. The fees paid to these managers stayed largely stable despite the large cash inflow, no doubt because the grant came in the final weeks of the year. The largest increase in year-to-year fees was for Mellon Investments Corp., which received $3.1 million from Central States in 2022, up from $1.9 million in 2021, according to the filings.

Pridgen and Scott both say special financial assistance dollars are primarily being invested in more conservative portfolios, though there is significant plan-to-plan variation. Form 5500 submissions for 2023 may provide more insight into plans’ post-special financial assistance investing strategies, but those will not be published until October 2024.

Tags: ,

«