{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02681992337164751, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.807407407407408, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Liquidity Transformation: Open-End Versus Closed-End Funds

Open-end funds in a relevant scale as an investment for the general public are internationally found only in Germany. All attempts to establish open-end funds as an investment for general public in Great Britain, Australia or the Netherlands were essentially in vain. The Swiss open-end funds, upon which the German legislation was originally based on, also turn out to be closed-end funds, due to several amendments, by now. The discrepancy between the illiquidity of the property and the permanent issuance and withdrawal of shares has proves to be particularly problematic. A systematic analyses, how open-end funds have to be designed, to fulfill this antagonism is missing so far. This article tries to close this gap.