Mutual fund reporter ignites published the article, "Bill to Undo SEC's Money Fund Reforms Gathers Steam." It tells us, "A House bill that would undo the SEC's 2014 money market fund reforms has gained 53 co-sponsors since it was introduced six months ago. While most of the co-sponsors of The Consumer Financial Choice and Capital Markets Protection Act are Republicans, about 20 are Democrats. Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) sponsored the proposed legislation, which would rescind the SEC rule that took effect last October and required institutional prime and municipal funds to use a floating net asset value. Such funds would be allowed to once again adopt a stable NAV, if desired, under the proposal. Earlier this month, a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the bill, during which Investment Company Institute CEO Paul Schott Stevens testified that the trade group's members hold "strongly differing" views on it." The piece explains, "Some members believe it would "restore investor choice and increase low-cost financing in the capital markets for business and municipal issuers without amending Rule 2a-7," Stevens said. Others do not support the bill because "further changes run the risk of making the product more confusing and less attractive," he said. The ICI declined to take a position due to these different stances, he told lawmakers. Federated Investors appears to be the only asset manager that has lobbied for the bill, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics." Ignites notes, "The bill would also prohibit federal bailouts of money market funds. That provision may be part of what's hurting the bill's support in the industry, says Peter Crane, CEO of Crane Data. That sounds like a good idea, but the history of money market fund events has shown that bailouts are a good thing. After the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck in September 2008, the Treasury said it would provide a backstop to money funds." (See our May 24 News, "Stable NAV Bill Re-Introduced in House; Amortized Cost for Inst Funds?")

Email This Article




Use a comma or a semicolon to separate

captcha image