The Investment Company Institute posted two "Viewpoint" pieces related to money market funds yesterday. The first, "The Facts and Principles That Must Guide Money Market Fund Reform," written by ICI Global President Dan Waters, urges global regulators to take recent facts into account. (ICI is hosting an "International Money Market Funds Summit" Thursday in Brussels, Belgium.) The second Viewpoint, entitled, "The Wall Street Journal’s Blind Spot on Money Market Funds"," contains a response from Paul Schott Stevens to yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial "Money-Fund Reboot", which again endorsed a floating NAV option for money market funds.

ICI's Waters writes, "In Madrid this week, the board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions will choose their course of action on money market funds. Their decisions will be weighty, given the significance of these funds to the global economy, their use by tens of millions of investors, and the global debate around their regulation. How should regulators approach reform? For the global fund industry, which also gathers this week for a conference in Brussels on money market funds, the answer is clear. Regulators must respect the facts of recent developments around money market funds. They also must hew closely to a few commonsense principles that have always served regulators well and apply them in the context of money market funds."

He explains, "Let's start with the facts. It is beyond doubt that regulators in many jurisdictions have made great strides in improving the rules governing money market funds since the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Simply put, in many places these funds are a different, and much stronger, product than they were prior to the crisis. In Europe, the Committee of European Securities Regulators, the predecessor organization of the European Securities and Markets Authority, published guidelines in 2010 on a common definition of European money market funds to improve investor protection.... For its part, the Institutional Money Market Funds Association (IMMFA) updated its Code of Practice, adopting tough new standards on fund liquidity and disclosure to which its members adhere."

Waters continues, "In North America, Canadian regulators have approved new investment standards for money market funds, such as new daily and weekly liquidity requirements as well as new maturity restrictions. Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2010 adopted a sweeping set of similar changes designed to strengthen money market funds, and to provide greater protections for investors in a fund that finds itself unable to maintain its constant net asset value (NAV) per share."

He adds, "These efforts have measurably bolstered money market funds and helped them easily weather recent market turmoil, such as the fallout from debt crises in Europe and the United States. Today, IMMFA and U.S. money market funds maintain liquidity at levels that exceed new standards. Indeed, U.S. money market funds hold liquid assets that are more than two times greater than the money market fund outflows during the chaotic week of September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers failed and a U.S. money market fund, buckling under the pressure of heavy investor redemptions, could not maintain its $1.00 NAV."

Waters tells us, "Even with this progress, there is global discussion about additional regulatory steps for money market funds. Reform has been uneven, and some jurisdictions may want to consider doing more. As they take action, regulators should be guided by a few simple and sensible principles. First, proceed from solid facts. An essential first step for regulators working on this issue is to evaluate carefully the effectiveness of money market fund reforms implemented since the crisis. The fund industry stands ready to help in this effort with data and analysis. Second, build on success. Heightened requirements for money market funds adopted in the wake of the crisis have proven their worth, but they have not been adopted broadly. Great potential exists for wider adoption, especially regarding liquidity and disclosure standards. Third, carefully align proposals to concerns. Some reform proponents point to variable NAVs as a way to address redemption pressures like those faced by money market funds in 2008. Yet a review of that period reveals that mutual funds that float their NAVs were not immune to redemption pressure. Solutions must actually address the problem in question."

Finally, he writes, "Fourth, respect local market differences. One size does not fit all in financial regulation, simply because markets differ from country to country. In some countries, for example, institutional investors may have a large presence in money market funds. In others, retail investors may play the predominant role. The rules need the flexibility to accommodate such distinctions. Finally, preserve competition and choice for investors. Drastic proposals -- such as mandating capital requirements or variable NAVs -- will make money market funds costly or cumbersome for investors. Such policies could end the availability of money market funds as a convenient, diversified, conservative investment choice. Assets then would migrate either to banks, concentrating risk, or to less-regulated alternatives. That would be a bad outcome for investors, issuers, and the financial system as a whole. Regulators can best avoid that with a fact-based, principled approach to reform."

The Wall Street Journal, in "Money-Fund Reboot", says, "It's been lonely pushing money-market reform up the hill, but suddenly we're getting more company. Last week a Republican on the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Democratic Treasury Secretary called for a more stable, healthier financial system. A month ago, reform appeared dead after a 3-2 SEC majority blocked a draft rule. But one of the three opponents now says he favors giving investors accurate prices in real time. Commissioner Daniel Gallagher told Bloomberg that requiring money funds to have fluctuating share prices "is an attractive option that I am likely to support.""

ICI's Stevens responds, "The Wall Street Journal editors' Sisyphean labors on money market fund regulation apparently have rendered them incapable of understanding the plain facts of the case. Contrary to what they suggest in a recent editorial, what's at stake is not the business model of one industry, but the survival of a cash-management and financing vehicle used throughout the economy -- by businesses of every size, state and local governments, nonprofit institutions, and families. Groups representing these investors and issuers have recognized that floating the value of these funds will destroy their usefulness -- and have registered their opposition, alongside mayors and dozens of members of Congress from both parties, to the Securities and Exchange Commission proposals."

He adds, "The Journal's blindness to these views is revealed by the editors' cavalier dismissal of Commissioner Daniel Gallagher's thoughtful concerns over the tax and accounting issues raised by floating money market fund values. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that would drive hundreds of billions of dollars out of floating money market funds and into banks or alternative -- cash-management funds that are less regulated and less transparent thus increasing systemic risk. Meanwhile, forcing floating net asset values on money market funds will do nothing to improve U.S. financial stability. Hard experience shows that floating-value mutual funds are not immune to redemption pressure."

Email This Article

Use a comma or a semicolon to separate

captcha image