The Security and Exchange Commission's widely anticipated reforms for money market funds were implemented on Oct. 14, 2016. These reform rules drastically changed the way investors and the affected fund providers view money market funds as an alternative for short-term cash investing. Many investors, especially institutions, faced increased risks or lower yields on their short-term money, while fund providers reconsideredthe worth of their offerings.
With about $3 trillion invested in money market funds, investors and providers alike hada lot at stake in the changes in how funds were managed. Although nominal for most individual or retail investors, for institutional investors and the fund providers, the money market reform of 2016 required significant rethinking on the value of money market funds.
Key Takeaways
- In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented reforms to enhance the stability of money market funds and to reduce investor risks.
- As a means of preventing a run on a fund, the regulations require money market fund providers to institute liquidity fees and suspension gates.
- A key change was to require money market funds to move from a fixed $1 share price to a floating net asset value (NAV).
- The SEC decided to implement these changes after the 2008 financial crisis caused a large New York fund manager to reduce the NAV of its money market fund below $1, a move that caused panic selling among institutional investors.
The Reason Behind Money Market Fund Reform
At the peak of the 2008 financial crisis, the Reserve Primary Fund, a large New York-based fund manager, was forced to reduce the net asset value (NAV) of its money market fund below $1 due to massive losses generated by failed short-term loans issued by Lehman Brothers. It was the first time a major money market fund had to break the $1 NAV, which caused a panic among institutional investors, who began mass redemptions. The fund lost two-thirds of its assets in 24 hours and eventually had to suspend operations and commence liquidation.
Six years later in 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued new rules for the management of money market funds to enhance the stability and resilience of all money market funds. Generally, the rules placed tighter restrictions on portfolio holdings while enhancing liquidity and quality requirements. The most fundamental change wasthe requirement for money market funds to move from a fixed $1 share price to a floating NAV, which introducedthe risk of principal where it had never existed.
In addition, the rules required fund providers to institute liquidity fees and suspension gates as a means of preventing a run on the fund. The requirements included asset level triggers for imposing a liquidity fee of 1% or 2%. If weekly liquid assets fell below 10% of total assets, it triggereda 1% fee. Below 30%, the fee increased to 2%. Funds also suspendedredemptions for up to 10 business days in a 90-day period. While those arethe fundamental rule changes, there areseveral factors investors need to know aboutthe reform and how it might affect them.
Retail Investors Not Completely Affected
The most significant rule change, the floating NAV, did not affect investors investing in retail money market funds. These funds maintained the $1 NAV. However, they were still required to institute the redemption triggers for charging a liquidity fee or suspending redemptions. Many of the larger fund groups tookactions to either limit the possibility of a redemption trigger or avoid it altogether by converting their funds into a government money market fund, which hadno requirement.
The same cannot be said for people who invest in prime money market funds inside their 401(k) plans because these are typically institutional funds subject to all of the new rules. Plan sponsors had to change out their fund options, offering a government money market fund or some other alternative.
Institutional Investors Have a Dilemma
Because institutional investors are the target of the new rules, they were the most affected. For them, it came down to a choice of securing a higher yield or higher risk. They couldinvest in U.S. government money markets, which were not subject to the floating NAV or redemption triggers. However, they hadto accept a lower yield. Institutional investors seeking higher yields hadto consider other options, such as bank certificates of deposit (CDs), alternative prime funds that invested primarily in very short maturity assets to limit interest rate and credit risk, or ultra-short duration funds that offered higher yields but also hadmore volatility.
Fund Groups Must Adapt or Get Out of Money Market Funds
After the SEC announced its money market reforms, most of the major fund groups, such as Fidelity Investments, Federated Investors Inc., and Vanguard Group, said they planned to offer viable alternatives to their investors. Fidelity convertedits largest prime fund into a U.S. government fund. Federated took steps to shorten the maturities of its prime funds to make it easier to maintain a $1 NAV. Vanguard assuredits investors that its prime funds had more than enough liquidity to avoid triggering a liquidity fee or redemption suspension.
However, many fund groups had to assess whether the cost of compliance with the new regulations wasworth keeping their funds. In anticipation of the new rules, Bank of America Corp. (BAC) sold its money market business to BlackRock Inc. (BLK) in 2016. Notwithstanding the approach any particular fund group took,investors experienced a flurry of communications explaining any changes to their funds and their options.
