The recent surge in money fund-related articles in the general press continued this past week with Friday's USA Today asks "Why do you own a money market fund?", CNNMoney.com's "Why money market funds may get riskier", Chuck Jaffe of MarketWatch's "Stupid Investment of the Week: Floating NAV money fund is lost at sea", InvestmentNews' "Floating NAV for money market funds is not seaworthy, critics say", and, finally, WSJ's "Judge Limits Credit Firms' 1st-Amendment Defense" (involves Cheyne Finance). USA Today columnist John Wagoneer wrote, "Move your savings from a money market mutual fund to a one-year bank CD, and you'll earn enough interest to buy a new tent for your flea circus -- but not much more. At these rates, it's a good idea to ask yourself why you own a money fund. Even at today's rates, money funds are a good tool for reducing risk in your portfolio. But if you're looking for income or just stashing some cash, you'd be better off elsewhere. The average money fund yields 0.06%, according to iMoneyNet, which tracks the funds. That's $6 a year on a $10,000 investment. At that rate, you'll double your money in 1,200 years." Investment News says, "DWS Investments, however, is jumping the gun by announcing plans for a money fund with a floating NAV before the SEC makes a final decision, said Peter Crane, president of Crane Data LLC, a money fund tracking firm. There is a lot of opposition to the idea because many industry experts -- including him -- believe a floating-rate NAV would actually make things worse, he said." Crane says, "It's fraught with peril and confusing to the market place."
