Connect with us

Accounting

Wall Street rush to launch Vanguard-style funds draws warnings

Published

on

Exchange-traded funds have amassed trillions of dollars by offering investors greater tax efficiency, liquidity and lower costs than mutual funds. Now, a looming regulatory shift is poised to bring the two vehicles closer together — and threatens to complicate the very features that fueled the ETF boom.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to approve applications for dual-share-class structures, perhaps as soon as this summer, allowing managers to add an ETF sleeve to an existing mutual fund. More than 50 firms, including BlackRock Inc. and State Street Corp., are waiting for the regulator’s greenlight to deploy the hybrid structure — made possible after Vanguard Group Inc.’s exclusive patent expired two years ago. 

The two-in-one blueprint is a tantalizing prospect for asset managers looking to break into the ETF market at scale, without having to launch a new strategy from scratch. It also offers a lifeline to firms battered by years of mutual-fund outflows, as investors fled for more tax-efficient alternatives. The hybrid structure famously helped Vanguard save its clients billions in taxes over two decades.

Yet replicating that playbook may prove harder than it looks. Some Wall Street experts caution the shake-up could erode key benefits of the wrapper, especially if hybrid funds face significant withdrawals during market stress. 

“I’ve been in the ETF business for 20 years — we have spent it talking about how great they are at managing capital gains, and I don’t think folks have an appreciation for how more ETFs could potentially end up paying capital gains distributions,” said Brandon Clark, director of ETF business at Federated Hermes, who previously led the ETF capital markets team at Vanguard. 

At the heart of the concern is a tax dynamic that ETFs were built to avoid. These funds rarely pay capital-gains tax distributions, thanks to their in-kind redemption process, which allows the issuer to swap securities with authorized participants rather than sell them outright. 

By contrast, mutual funds redeem in cash, meaning managers may need to sell securities to meet outflows. If those sales generate capital gains, they may distribute them to investors. In a hybrid vehicle, those taxable gains risk getting passed onto ETF shareholders, too. 

“For mutual funds drawing inflows or net zero flows, there should be no issues, but for ones with outflows, there’s a potential risk for the ETF holders,” said Bloomberg Intelligence senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, in a note. 

About two-thirds of ETF issuers surveyed by consulting firm Cerulli Associates flagged this spillover issue. There’s precedent. In 2009, a Vanguard fund distributed a 14% capital gain across both share classes, after a large mutual-fund withdrawal, Bloomberg data show. Though rare, the episode underscores the fiscal complications in the event a fund experiences outsized outflows within a shared portfolio.

“The investors that stand to benefit most immediately are the ones that already own the fund, as it can only improve the fund’s tax efficiency,” said Ben Johnson, head of client solutions at Morningstar Inc. 

Wirehouses like UBS Group Inc., which list funds for financial advisers, are studying how this would impact which funds they will offer on their platforms. 

An ETF share class could “run the risk of receiving tax distributions they otherwise wouldn’t have,” said Mustafa Osman, who runs due diligence on funds before they are added to the platform as head of ETF and mutual fund strategy and analytics at UBS. 

The SEC refers to this issue as “cross-subsidization” and has directed applicants to detail how they’ll mitigate it. In response, firms like Dimensional Fund Advisors have amended their applications to detail a governance structure where the fund works with its independent board to determine if the dual structure is beneficial to both shareholders, while monitoring risks like cross-subsidization before and after launch. Among issues that would be considered: cash levels, unrealized gains and losses, and turnover.

Even standalone ETFs are paying out more capital gains more frequently these days, as more products track derivatives or assets that have risen markedly in value. In 2024, roughly 5% of passive ETFs paid out capital gains, the most since 2021, and 12% of active ones did, the highest since 2022, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Those figures are much larger for mutual funds, of course, with more than 50% paying them out last year.

Another complication lies in how the structure would impact the economics of ETF listings on big-name platforms. Cerulli estimates wirehouses and broker-dealer platforms could lose as much as $30 billion in revenue if mutual fund assets shift to ETF share classes in droves.

To stem the loss of revenue, intermediaries could begin to introduce revenue-sharing agreements with ETF issuers, which may ultimately raise costs for investors.

“This trend of trying to recapture some of that revenue that’s been slowly melting from the mutual funds has been in place for ETFs for the last few years,” said Ben Slavin, global head of ETFs at BNY. 

Beyond fees and tax advantages, ETFs famously offer more liquidity than mutual funds — a selling point that may be undermined in some instances, if the two models are combined. According to Cerulli, ETFs that struggle to scale could see wider bid-ask spreads, with costs ultimately passed onto investors. 

All told, this is uncharted territory. Vanguard’s success relied on stable flows, deep relationships with market makers and highly liquid portfolios. Large firms may be able to follow suit smoothly, but smaller managers holding less liquid assets could find the road ahead trickier.

“It’s not evident that authorized participants are ready for a plethora of smaller ETFs as a share class exposures, especially outside the most liquid underlying markets,” Cerulli researchers wrote in a report. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending