Go to Top

Now Available: Useless Money Market Funds

Spirit Airlines plane on the runway at LAX
photo by Eric Salard

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s new rules for making money market funds safer and more transparent for big investors became official on Friday, but they have been having an effect all year. Not a very good effect, though.

The funds’ customers have been abandoning them in droves.

Anyone with a fundamental understanding of how businesses used money market funds could have told you this would happen, and many of us did. This is a case in which being right does not bring much satisfaction, however.

As I observed in 2014, the final rules were less destructive than some of the original changes that the SEC proposed. But “less destructive” is still destructive. While individual investors were spared many potential headaches, institutional and corporate investors had little choice but to stock up on aspirin and start making new plans to manage their cash.

Consider Simon Gore, the treasurer of Spirit Airlines Inc., who spoke to The Wall Street Journal about the way the new rules complicated what was once a relatively simple job. Like many mid- or large-sized companies, Spirit had long parked its cash in money market funds as a way to protect principal and ensure the airline could meet its immediate cash needs. These funds offered a stable price of $1 per share. While they offered only small returns, they also offered stability and simplicity.

The new rules have put an end to both stability and simplicity. Instead, prime money market funds serving nonconsumer clients must allow net asset values to fluctuate, which creates both the possibility of assets losing value and the certainty of recordkeeping headaches. Gore and people like him must suddenly keep track of changes in their accounts’ value, the way they would in a traditional bond fund.

Just as we critics predicted, companies are pulling their assets out of prime money market funds. According to the Journal, assets under management at those funds have fallen by two-thirds this year, to $413 billion from $1.25 trillion at the beginning of 2016.

Corporate treasurers are still, by and large, working out where to put these funds now that money market funds have lost the characteristics that once made them so appealing. Gore said he has shifted much of Spirit’s cash to money funds that invest in government debt, since such funds are not subject to the new rules and can offer a stable share price. The same holds true for funds that invest in agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Doubtless some other administrators will just head for traditional banking, which at least offers the advantage of avoiding value-fluctuation recordkeeping, if nearly nothing in the way of returns. But the banks, subject to heavy-handed regulation themselves, are not going to be thrilled to receive all this new cash right now. Commercial loan demand is tepid and bank examiners impose unreasonable underwriting requirements that rule out many borrowers anyway. Some banks have already experimented with charging big customers for parking large sums in their accounts. And since deposit insurance is limited, large bank deposits are not without some degree of risk, too.

So what’s the big deal about pushing institutional and corporate investors to abandon money market funds? It isn’t one, as long as we don’t mind further choking off the supply of capital to medium and large businesses that routinely tap the money markets to finance inventory or plant expansions, or to accept large orders for which they won’t receive full payment until completion. It’s no big deal, if you don’t count losing the jobs that would be created, the retirement savings that would be generated and the taxes that would be underwritten by such profit-generating activity.

Of course, there is further irony in the fact that much of the money being pulled from institutional funds is being directed to the now-government-controlled housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which underwrote the housing binge. That same housing binge, incidentally, caused the financial crash that triggered the failure of Lehman Brothers and the rest of the market meltdown in the first place. Lehman’s collapse led the Reserve Primary Fund to “break the buck,” which triggered the idea that money market funds needed reform.

Fannie and Freddie are the same two entities that the government seized as the price of its bailout. Now the government has tilted the playing field in its own favor, ensuring that it has a ready supply of cheap cash at the expense of the private sector. That state of affairs may not last indefinitely; Christina Kopec of Goldman Sachs Asset Management told The Wall Street Journal that corporate treasurers may move back out of government funds once the dust from the new rules settles. For now, though, assets under management at government money funds are up 72 percent from January as investors flee the broken private sector product.

The justifications for making money market funds “safer” by effectively destroying them are just as valid now as when the new rules were enacted – not at all. This is not merely a solution in search of a problem; it is a solution that is, itself, a problem. In this way, the rules are just one more element of an administration “legacy” of regulating that which it neither appreciates nor understands.

Larry M. Elkin is the founder and president of Palisades Hudson, and is based out of Palisades Hudson’s Fort Lauderdale, Florida headquarters. He wrote several of the chapters in the firm’s most recent book, The High Achiever’s Guide To Wealth. His contributions include Chapter 1, “Anyone Can Achieve Wealth,” and Chapter 19, “Assisting Aging Parents.” Larry was also among the authors of the firm’s previous book, Looking Ahead: Life, Family, Wealth and Business After 55.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author. We welcome additional perspectives in our comments section as long as they are on topic, civil in tone and signed with the writer's full name. All comments will be reviewed by our moderator prior to publication.

, , , , ,

One Response to "Now Available: Useless Money Market Funds"

  • Daniel Hilson
    November 8, 2016 - 10:15 am

    My name is Dan Hilson. I am a government affairs lawyer in Columbus, Ohio.

    For the past year, we have been building a coalition of impacted parties that are really feeling the pinch from the new MMF rule. Your article focused upon the cash management tool aspect of the new rule. We were very impressed with your understanding of the rule’s impact and why the rule is much more harmful than the Treasury or the SEC has acknowledged.

    While most of our coalition members do use MMFs as a cash management tool the real concern they have been expressing is the increased cost for debt issuance. MMFs buy the majority of tax exempt debt issued to finance projects and facility improvements (i.e. counties, cities, hospitals, universities, schools, public housing authorities and financing authorities).

    The rule has already had a dramatic impact on money market funds and entities that utilize them. Over the past several months we have experienced:

    1. Increased bond issuance costs (higher interest rates) for capital and public works projects; and,
    2. Severely restricted availability of prime money market funds as a cash management tool thereby reducing local government returns on short term surplus cash.

    We wanted to make you aware of federal legislation, H.R. 4216 and S. 1802, which is designed to soften the negative impact of this new SEC rule. We are anticipating a hearing before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee (actually the subcommittee on Capital Markets) on H.R. 4216 in late November. The Chairman has committed to a hearing. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing in May that was very positive.

    We are gaining significant momentum and support for these bills. We have over 200 supporting organizations in various states. We also have several national trade associations, spearheaded by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), These National Associations, issued a joint letter of support to Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), the primary sponsor of H.R. 4216.

    Many other statewide local government associations have already weighed in on this issue, and sent supportive letters for H.R.4216/S.1802, including statewide associations in 20 states:

    – Alabama
    – California
    – Colorado
    – Florida
    – Idaho
    – Illinois
    – Indiana
    – Maryland
    – Massachusetts
    – Michigan
    – Missouri
    – New Jersey
    – New York
    – North Carolina
    – Ohio
    – Oregon
    – Pennsylvania
    – Texas
    – Virginia
    – West Virginia

    * For a full list of bill supporters, take a look at: http://protectinvestorchoice.com/participants/

    The ramifications of this rule are severe, and reducing money market fund investments, which in turn are inflating tax-exempt borrowing costs.

    Some distortions have already begun to emerge. The premium on three-month commercial paper has surged to a four-year high versus similar-maturity bills, which yielded 0.24 percent today. The same is true for the three-month London interbank offered rate, which touched the highest level since 2009…

    So on behalf of the Coalition … thank you for your insightful article. We need support from those individuals with an understanding of the ramifications of this new rule, especially as we try to educate the members of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.