Link of The Day

Archives »

Barron's writes, "`Money-Market Funds Face New Rules After Covid Stumble. Here's What Could Happen." They comment, "During the race into cash that happened at the start of the pandemic, investors pulled cash from money-market funds that invest in short-term corporate and municipal debt. That has regulators worried about the stability of the sector again, and they’re considering more rule changes to help shore it up.... As the regulatory process marches forward, strategists at Bank of America are handicapping the likelihood of different changes. U.S. officials proposed a list of 10 potential reforms in their December report, and in a May 6 note, the bank's analysts group them into three main categories." Barron's explains, "The first group would loosen the threshold where funds would have the option of penalizing investor redemptions.... The second group of proposals are meant to encourage either fund-management companies or investors to pay to offset the risk of future runs. For example, officials are considering new rules that would govern exactly when and how a fund's parent company would be required to support their funds, for example, by providing liquidity to meet investor withdrawals. And third, regulators are considering a group of ideas that are meant to reduce the likelihood investors will run to withdraw their cash in the first place. One of the options in this category would be a new rule that would reduce the incentive for an investor to try to pull their money out of a fund first. In essence, the rule would create a delay before an investor could cash out a certain proportion of their shares. That means that if there was a run on a fund, an investor who withdrew early would still share in the losses." They add, "While most money-market fund managers didn't support that idea, Bank of America said, 'it has some potential,' though it 'could reduce the attractiveness' of investing in prime or tax-exempt money-market funds.... In short, 'prime and tax-exempt MMF changes are coming,' Bank of America wrote, 'which we think are likely to weaken investor interest in these funds.'"

ICI's latest weekly "Money Market Fund Assets" report shows MMFs decreasing, following two weeks of increases. Money fund assets are up $215 billion, or 5.0%, year-to-date in 2021. Inst MMFs are up $281 billion (10.1%), while Retail MMFs are down $66 billion (-4.3%). Over the past 52 weeks, money fund assets have decreased by $256 billion, or -6.8%, with Retail MMFs falling by $103 billion (-7.2%) and Inst MMFs falling by $153 billion (-6.5%). ICI's "Assets" release says, "Total money market fund assets decreased by $17.18 billion to $4.51 trillion for the week ended Wednesday, May 5.... Among taxable money market funds, government funds decreased by $11.93 billion and prime funds decreased by $4.75 billion. Tax-exempt money market funds decreased by $504 million." ICI's stats show Institutional MMFs decreasing $10.6 billion and Retail MMFs decreasing $6.6 billion. Total Government MMF assets, including Treasury funds, were $3.916 trillion (86.8% of all money funds), while Total Prime MMFs were $500.0 billion (11.1%). Tax Exempt MMFs totaled $96.1 billion (2.1%). (Note that ICI's asset totals don't include a number of funds tracked by the SEC and Crane Data, so they're almost $400 billion lower than our asset series.) It explains, "Assets of retail money market funds decreased by $6.63 billion to $1.46 trillion. Among retail funds, government money market fund assets decreased by $4.20 billion to $1.13 trillion, prime money market fund assets decreased by $2.10 billion to $243.00 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets decreased by $324 million to $85.54 billion." Retail assets account for just under a third of total assets, or 32.4%, and Government Retail assets make up 77.5% of all Retail MMFs. ICI adds, "Assets of institutional money market funds decreased by $10.56 billion to $3.05 trillion. Among institutional funds, government money market fund assets decreased by $7.73 billion to $2.78 trillion, prime money market fund assets decreased by $2.64 billion to $257.01 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets decreased by $180 million to $10.55 billion." Institutional assets accounted for 67.6% of all MMF assets, with Government Institutional assets making up 91.2% of all Institutional MMF totals.

The ICI released its 2021 Investment Company Fact Book this morning, which contains a wealth of statistics on money market (and other) mutual funds, and which reviews major fund trends of 2020. The introductory letter, from ICI Chief Economist Sean Collins, states, "2020. What a year. I'm writing this letter sitting in my basement, which has served as my office this past year. It's March 15, 2021, almost one year to the day from March 13, 2020, when vast swathes of the US economy began shutting down because of the COVID-19 pandemic. How things have changed from that fateful Friday the 13th! ... Some things, of course, remain much the same. Throughout this challenging period, ICI's Research Department -- as with all ICI departments -- maintained its intense focus on supporting registered investment companies and the more than 105 million shareholders they serve. As the crisis unfolded, market participants rightly became deeply concerned -- and highly uncertain -- about the effects of the economywide shutdown on businesses, households, and governments. In this environment, all types of investors around the world scrambled to raise cash, a development that quickly morphed into a liquidity crisis. During this time, ICI Research worked tirelessly to provide critical perspective and data to policymakers to help them navigate and respond to the rapidly moving events." He explains, "As the financial markets began to settle, we turned to providing more in-depth analyses of funds' experiences during March 2020, in no small part to help ensure that emerging narratives were based on facts, not supposition. For example, in late May, I was invited to present a detailed analysis to the Securities and Exchange Commission's Asset Management Advisory Committee on funds' experiences in March. In addition, under the guidance and assistance of senior leaders from throughout the fund industry, ICI published the Report of the COVID-19 Market Impact Working Group -- a series of papers discussing developments in the spring of 2020 in the financial markets broadly, as well as in ETFs, money market funds, and UCITS. We also produced a series of blog posts discussing the experiences of bond mutual funds in March 2020. The preface in this year's Fact Book summarizes some of that work and provides a link to the full suite of COVID-19 papers and blog posts. The key theme of this work is that the March 2020 turmoil was driven not by the actions of individual market participants or market sectors, but by uncertainty about how the virus and the shuttering of world economies would play out. In light of the COVID-19 turmoil, regulators are now pondering reforms for many sectors of the financial markets, including ours. As they do so, they must keep the true drivers of the March 2020 turmoil at the forefront of their minds, and must remain cognizant of the benefits regulated funds provide to the world's economies. Funds are an important source of financing -- to businesses, consumers, and governments at all levels -- and a chief way that tens of millions of investors save for long-term goals." Finally, Collins adds, "All of this extraordinary work over the past year is built on the solid foundation ICI Research has built over decades, which is also reflected in the data and analysis we offer throughout the entire Fact Book. For example, Fact Book chapters 1 to 6 provide detail on the remarkable range of products our industry has created to help investors save for their goals, on how our industry is evolving (both in the United States and in other jurisdictions) to meet investors' changing demands, and on the substantial declines in fund fees Main Street investors incur to gain exposure to stocks and bonds through pooled, professionally managed funds. The many figures, tables, and analyses you will find here reflect the efforts of Shelly Antoniewicz and her staff." Watch for more excerpts from the new ICI Fact Book in coming days, and in the May issue of Money Fund Intelligence (which ships tomorrow). ICI also kicks off its 2021 Virtual General Membership Meeting at 1pm EDT today, so watch for coverage of this in coming days too.

Federated Hermes' Deborah Cunningham writes, "Not so smooth. It's time for the Fed to raise overnight rates." She tells us, "With the recent surge in retail sales and jump in gross domestic product growth, you would think the commercial paper market would be robust. But issuance has been flat, which tells us that the spike in bonds many companies offered in 2020 for insurance as the economy tanked has left them flush with cash. As the recovery gains more steam and inflation creeps up, we anticipate more paper to be issued. Concerning inflation, it is curious how the market keeps trying to lead the Fed. While price pressures are increasing and many consumers are itching to spend stimulus checks, the Fed has been deflecting every suggestion of tightening. Investors don't seem to believe that the Fed wants the economy to be piping hot and that it considers the recent rise in activity as lukewarm. We think it could start to taper purchases this year, but no indication yet. These days, the Fed seems happy to make everyone wait." Cunningham adds, "One note on the new Bloomberg Short-Term Bank Yield Index (BSBY). The industry has been waiting for a firm to issue a security tied to it, and Bank of America did so in April. No money funds bought it, but it was taken up by a Local Government Investment Pool and some other lenders. As the index grows in usage, our expectation is that we and the industry will participate regularly. The International Organization of Securities Commissions blessed it last month, so it is chugging along on the track to becoming the index that prime funds will use to replace the London interbank offered rate (Libor). Industry-wide, government money markets grew slightly in April, while prime and tax-free funds faced modest outflows. We kept the weighted average maturities of our money funds in target ranges of 35-45 days for government and 40-50 days for prime and municipal."

A new SEC fund filing announces the pending launch of BNY Mellon Ultra Short ETF. It tells us, "The fund seeks high current income consistent with the maintenance of liquidity and low volatility of principal.... To pursue its goal, the fund normally invests in investment grade, U.S. dollar denominated fixed, variable, and floating rate debt or cash equivalents, including the following: Corporate securities; Asset-backed securities; Repurchase agreements; High quality money market instruments, such as commercial paper, certificates of deposit, time deposits and bankers' acceptances; U.S. Treasury securities; Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or government-sponsored enterprises (U.S. government securities); Obligations issued or guaranteed by one or more foreign governments or any of their political subdivisions or agencies; Securities issued by foreign corporations or a U.S. affiliate of a foreign corporation; and Securities subject to purchase and sale restrictions that are offered pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended." BNY Mellon writes, "The fund's portfolio, under normal market conditions, will have an average credit rating of A or equivalent. The fund's investments, at the time of purchase, will have a minimum short-term credit rating of P-2, A-2 or F2 or better by Moody's Investors Service Inc. (Moody's), Standard & Poor's Corporation (S&P), or Fitch Ratings (Fitch) ... or a minimum long-term credit rating of Baa3, BBB-, or BBB-." It adds, "`The fund's portfolio managers seek to achieve what they believe provides the optimal portfolio for the fund in terms of preservation of principal, liquidity and producing high current income." For more, see these CD News pieces: Vanguard Debuts Ultra-Short Bond ETF (4/8/21); BFS Short vs. Shorter: JPMAM's Martucci and PIMCO's Schneider Speak (4/6/21); Bond Fund Symposium Highlights: Davis, Driscoll, Rothweiler Comment (4/1/21); Federated Hermes Enters Conservative Ultra-Short BF Market; ICD; CAG; and Vanguard Launching Ultra-Short Bond ETF; Weekly MF Portfolio Holdings (1/21/21).

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a "Statement Regarding Reverse Repurchase Transaction Counterparties," which says, "The New York Fed is making the following adjustments to the reverse repurchase (RRP) counterparty eligibility criteria: For SEC registered 2a-7 funds, the existing requirement to have, for the past six months, either net assets of at least $5 billion or an average outstanding amount of RRP transactions of at least $1 billion is reduced to $2 billion and $500 million, respectively. For government sponsored enterprises, the existing requirement to have either an average daily outstanding amount of RRP transactions of no less than $1 billion for the past three months, or an average daily amount outstanding of overnight money market transactions of no less than $100 million over the past three months, is removed. These changes are designed to make the ON RRP facility more accessible, in line with the New York Fed's efforts to ensure that its counterparty policies support effective policy implementation and promote a fair and competitive marketplace. The New York Fed will consider further adjustments of the 2a-7 fund eligibility requirements over time as appropriate. All other eligibility criteria and expectations remain the same."

SIFMA's Asset Management Group also submitted comments to the SEC in response to its "Request for Comment on Potential Money Market Fund Reform Measures in President's Working Group Report." SIFMA's letter, entitled, "Potential Reform Measures for Money Market Funds," says, "The Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ('SIFMA AMG') respectfully submits this comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the Commission's request for comment on potential reform measures for money market funds.... We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views to the Commission on these matters that have the potential to impact not only the direct regulation of money market funds, but also the overall functioning of the short-term funding markets. Our comments focus on the following main points: The important role of money market funds and the effectiveness of previously enacted reforms to money market funds. Money market funds play an important role in the orderly functioning of the short-term funding markets and serve valuable financial and economic functions for a variety of investors (including both retail and institutional investors) and the capital markets more broadly. Policy measures that have the effect of eliminating or significantly decreasing the size of the prime, retail, and tax-exempt money market fund sectors will significantly impair the resilience and orderly functioning of the short-term funding markets." Their second main point involves, "The liquidity crisis in March 2020 and a narrowly tailored money market fund policy response. An unprecedented and rapidly developing market-wide liquidity crisis occurred in March 2020 fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic. Money market funds were not the root cause of the stresses in the short-term funding markets in March 2020, but, rather, like other participants in the short-term funding markets, were reacting to and managing through a market-wide liquidity crisis. Policy responses to the liquidity crisis in March 2020 should focus on and prioritize addressing root causes in the segments of the short-term funding markets that caused market stresses in March 2020. Any policy measures should be narrowly tailored, data driven, simple to understand and implement, and calibrated to address the liquidity pressures that manifested in a relatively small segment of the money market fund industry in a manner that preserves the viability of such products for investors." SIFMA's third point addresses, "Effectiveness of policy measures in the Report. As more fully discussed herein, SIFMA AMG views delinking liquidity thresholds and liquidity fees and redemption gates as the most effective way to achieve the stated goals of money market fund reform." It adds, "SIFMA AMG strongly agrees with the Report's exclusion of money market funds that operate as 'government money market funds' from future rulemaking.... SIFMA AMG strongly opposes bank-like requirements for money market funds, such as minimum balance at risk ('MBR') requirements, capital buffers, requiring liquidity exchange bank ('LEB') membership, or requiring sponsor support. Such policy measures do not advance the stated goals of money market fund reform and are not responsive to (and therefore not effective in addressing) the liquidity stresses that arose in March 2020. Such requirements would have the effect of eliminating or significantly decreasing the size of the prime and tax-exempt money market fund sectors, thereby impairing the resilience and orderly functioning of the short-term funding markets. SIFMA highlights the role of the Commission as the primary regulator of money market funds and urges the Commission to advance market-driven regulatory solutions rather than bank-driven measures." Finally, they write, "SIFMA AMG generally opposes a requirement for all prime and tax-exempt money market funds to float their net asset value because such policy measure does not address the types of money market funds that experienced the largest outflows in March 2020 and the implementation of a floating net asset value for prime institutional money market funds did not prove effective in slowing redemptions in March 2020. Many of our members generally do not view this policy measure as advancing the stated goals of money market fund reform, and find such policy measure not responsive to (and therefore not effective in addressing) the market-wide liquidity stresses that arose in March 2020."

PIMCO's Jerome Schneider and Ken Chambers write on "Rethinking Cash Holdings to Avoid Near‑Zero Yields." The piece explains, "Since the disruptions that roiled financial markets in March 2020, investors have turned more to cash and other short-term instruments typically associated with risk aversion and preservation of capital and liquidity. Yet such investments can come with their own sets of risks. Recent bouts of volatility in U.S. prime (credit) money market funds have heightened the focus on unexpected liquidity issues in seemingly 'safe' investments, as well as on the pitfalls of taking credit risk for minimal additional compensation. When considering cash allocations today, investors should be mindful of how near-zero short-term interest rates coupled with traditional liquidity-management strategies may hinder attempts to preserve the purchasing power of capital while posing potential hidden opportunity costs." They tell us, "Efforts to combat the economic effects of the pandemic have contributed to historically low short-term yields for money market instruments, elevated levels of savings and bank deposits, as well as increased demand for cash-like investments. The U.S. Federal Reserve last year cut its policy rate near 0% and could keep it there well into 2023, we believe, anchoring front-end rates and suppressing yields on Treasury bills and money market funds. A temporary relaxation of bank capital regulations ended in March ... which could make large lenders resist taking on new deposits and push more investors into money market funds. Continued growth in such funds -- where balances are already near record highs, at about $4.5 trillion -- as well as in excess reserves could keep cash investment yields close to 0% for a prolonged period." The update adds, "Much of the money investors have shifted into cash since last March has remained there, often due to worries about rising long-term bond yields or elevated valuations in equity markets. Yet having too much defensive cash in today's environment can impose a cost if it's concentrated largely in traditional money market funds offering near-zero returns. The recent Treasury yield-curve steepening has increased the penalty associated with holding cash, as the broader opportunity set outside regulated money markets offers higher starting yields for a modest increase in risk.... Strategies that offer some modest 'step out' from money market funds can capitalize on a wider array of opportunities, while offering a diversified means to potentially have higher risk-adjusted returns than traditional cash investments." (See also, PIMCO's SEC comment letter on "Revisiting Money Market Reform".)

Crane Data published its latest Weekly Money Fund Portfolio Holdings statistics Tuesday, which track a shifting subset of our monthly Portfolio Holdings collection. The most recent cut (with data as of April 23, 2021) includes Holdings information from 72 money funds (up 7 funds from a week ago), which represent $1.999 trillion (down from $2.022 trillion) of the $4.888 trillion (40.9%) in total money fund assets tracked by Crane Data. (Our Weekly MFPH are e-mail only and aren't available on the website.) Our latest Weekly MFPH Composition summary again shows Government assets dominating the holdings list with Treasury totaling $1.018 trillion (down from $1.129 trillion a week ago), or 50.9%, Repurchase Agreements (Repo) totaling $489.0 billion (up from $468.4 billion a week ago), or 24.5% and Government Agency securities totaling $235.8 billion (up from $234.7 billion), or 11.8%. Commercial Paper (CP) totaled $88.4 billion (up from $64.0 billion), or 4.4%. Certificates of Deposit (CDs) totaled $62.9 billion (up from $50.1 billion), or 3.1%. The Other category accounted for $78.6 billion or 3.9%, while VRDNs accounted for $26.1 billion, or 1.3%. The Ten Largest Issuers in our Weekly Holdings product include: the US Treasury with $1.018 trillion (50.9% of total holdings), Federal Home Loan Bank with $131.3B (6.6%), BNP Paribas with $54.9B (2.7%), Fixed Income Clearing Corp with $51.3B (2.6%), RBC with $49.0B (2.5%), Federal Farm Credit Bank with $46.2B (2.3%), Federal National Mortgage Association with $37.7B (1.9%), JP Morgan with $34.6B (1.7%), Credit Agricoel with $31.6B (1.6%) and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc with $28.5B (1.4%). The Ten Largest Funds tracked in our latest Weekly include: JPMorgan US Govt MM ($216.3 billion), Wells Fargo Govt MM ($136.8B), Fidelity Inv MM: Govt Port ($133.0B), Federated Hermes Govt Obl ($126.3B), Morgan Stanley Inst Liq Govt ($116.6B), JP Morgan 100% US Treas MMkt ($109.3B), Dreyfus Govt Cash Mgmt ($98.1B), First American Govt Oblg ($93.6B), State Street Inst US Govt ($86.2B) and JPMorgan Prime MM ($79.2B). (Let us know if you'd like to see our latest domestic U.S. and/or "offshore" Weekly Portfolio Holdings collection and summary, or our Bond Fund Portfolio Holdings data series.)

Today, we quote from the American Banker Association's comment letter to the SEC in response to the "President's Working Group Report." It tells us, "The American Bankers Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on potential reforms for certain money market funds (MMFs) raised in the December 2020 report of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is requesting comments on these potential reforms to improve stability of MMFs specifically and the short-term funding markets, generally. Banks and their affiliates interact with prime MMFs in numerous ways, including as investors on behalf of bank customers, as sponsors of MMFs, and issuers of certificates of deposit and commercial paper in which prime MMFs invest. In addition, as participants in the short-term funding markets, banks have a great interest in maintaining and improving general market stability. We understand that the SEC is working in conjunction with other federal financial regulators through the President's Working Group (PWG) and Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) on MMF reforms, as well as with international standard-setting bodies, such as the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. We make these comments for the broader audience, while acknowledging the SEC's focus on their regulatory authority over MMFs. Money market mutual funds are important cash providers to global funding markets. We agree with the PWG that, 'the orderly functioning of short-term funding markets is essential to the performance of broader financial markets and our economy more generally.' As participants in these markets, ABA member banks appreciate the work the SEC is doing to make markets more resilient through times of stress. We note that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including during the market turmoil in March 2020, banks have been a reliable source of funding and liquidity for their customers, the markets, and the U.S. economy. Given this source of financial strength, additional regulation for the banking sector to address concerns regarding MMFs would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Similarly, the SEC's evaluation and reform efforts should not focus on government MMFs, which performed as needed and expected in late March 2020." The letter continues, "In designing potential reforms, ABA urges the SEC to opt for rules that would maintain prime and tax-exempt municipal MMFs. Although less popular after the 2016 reforms, these MMFs continue to play an important role for stability in our financial markets and as an investment opportunity for institutional and retail investors. These MMFs offer investors an alternative to government MMFs and bank deposits with potentially higher yields, while also offering a liquid option that is highly desired. These MMFs, similar to government MMFs, are transparent to investors, in particular providing key information on net asset flows and portfolio holdings. Lastly, prime and tax-exempt MMFs are large purchasers of commercial paper and municipal securities respectively, which are important sources of funding for many corporations and municipal governments. With respect to tax-exempt MMFs, further restrictions on these funds unnecessarily may limit municipal government sources of capital for infrastructure and other needs." Finally, ABA adds, "The reforms outlined in the PWG Report span from potential changes to the SEC's existing regulatory framework to novel measures that are either within the SEC's authority or that of other policy makers. Many of the novel reforms would likely impose significant costs on the administration of prime and tax-exempt municipal funds or make them so unattractive to investors that these funds may no longer be viable. Therefore, we urge the SEC to consider the following amendments to the existing rules before taking more far-reaching and costly measures that may eliminate the availability of these funds."

The Financial Times published the piece, "Jack Ma's Ant shrinks money market fund as Beijing cracks down." They explain, "Ant Group's money market fund has shrunk to a more than four-year low as users shifted their cash in the face of China's crackdown on Jack Ma's payments group. Funds invested in Ant's flagship Yu'e Bao fund fell 18 percent in the first three months of the year to Rmb972bn ($150bn) as the group pushed users to switch to other providers' funds, according to data released on Thursday by its Tianhong Asset Management subsidiary. The money-market fund, once the world's largest, acts as the main repository for leftover cash stored by hundreds of millions of users of Ant's Alipay payments app." The FT adds, "Ant was ordered to 'actively reduce' Yu'e Bao's size as part of a restructuring deal struck with Chinese authorities last week. Regulators have long been concerned about Yu'e Bao's immense size, fearing a spate of redemptions could cause systemic financial risks. Li Huang, an analyst at Fitch Ratings, said the fall marked the largest percentage decline in Yu'e Bao's history, adding: 'We expect [its] size to further decline in the coming quarters, but maybe at a slower pace.'"

The ICI's latest weekly "Money Market Fund Assets" report shows MMFs increasing in the latest week, following `two weeks of decreases in a row. Money fund assets are up $173 billion, or 4.0%, year-to-date in 2021. Inst MMFs are up $228 billion (8.2%), while Retail MMFs are down $55 billion (-3.6%). Over the past 52 weeks, money fund assets have decreased by $182 billion, or -4.8%, with Retail MMFs falling by $77 billion (-5.4%) and Inst MMFs falling by $104 billion (-4.4%). ICI's "Assets" release says, "Total money market fund assets increased by $15.74 billion to $4.47 trillion for the week ended Wednesday, April 21.... Among taxable money market funds, government funds increased by $18.27 billion and prime funds decreased by $1.97 billion. Tax-exempt money market funds decreased by $563 million." ICI's stats show Institutional MMFs increasing $23.5 billion and Retail MMFs decreasing $7.8 billion. Total Government MMF assets, including Treasury funds, were $3.871 trillion (86.6% of all money funds), while Total Prime MMFs were $501.7 billion (11.2%). Tax Exempt MMFs totaled $97.5 billion (2.2%). (Note that ICI's asset totals don't include a number of funds tracked by the SEC and Crane Data, so they're almost $400 billion lower than our asset series.) It explains, "Assets of retail money market funds decreased by $7.79 billion to $1.47 trillion. Among retail funds, government money market fund assets decreased by $5.30 billion to $1.14 trillion, prime money market fund assets decreased by $1.86 billion to $246.14 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets decreased by $628 million to $86.44 billion." Retail assets account for just over a third of total assets, or 32.9%, and Government Retail assets make up 77.4% of all Retail MMFs. ICI adds, "Assets of institutional money market funds increased by $23.53 billion to $3.00 trillion. Among institutional funds, government money market fund assets increased by $23.58 billion to $2.73 trillion, prime money market fund assets decreased by $118 million to $255.57 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets increased by $65 million to $11.02 billion." Institutional assets accounted for 67.1% of all MMF assets, with Government Institutional assets making up 91.1% of all Institutional MMF totals.

Archives »