SEC Plan to Bolster Money Market Funds Stirs Ire

Critics warn that the proposed new rules would drive out investors and plan sponsors.



Two times burned, this time really shy. The Securities and Exchange Commission has had to bolster money market mutual funds during the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 onset of the pandemic. Both times, investors pulled cash out of the funds. So the agency is moving to tighten the withdrawal rules.

The comment period on the SEC’s proposal ends on Monday, and there’s a lot of opposition. Big money market investors are threatening to yank their cash out of the funds.

The funds mostly invest in commercial paper and bank certificates of deposits. And these, said SEC Chair Gary Gensler in a statement, “tend to be illiquid in times of stress.” The problem, he stated, is that there “isn’t a lot of trading in commercial paper and CDs in good times. In stressful times, it almost entirely disappears.”

What particularly sticks in the craw of many fund investors is the SEC proposal for “swing pricing,” which essentially shifts the cost of redemption onto redeeming shareholders. Now, the investors who didn’t redeem shoulder the cost. The other controversial feature of the SEC plan is to increase the daily and weekly liquid asset minimums to 25% and 50%, respectively, from 10% and 30%. Also, the plan would expand available information about the funds and thus the SEC’s ability to monitor them.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

To critics, the SEC is going too far. Example: Northern Trust Asset Management, one of the nation’s largest sponsors of money funds, says the plan would drive it to exit prime and tax-exempt funds, a process it started two years ago. NTAM has  $1.6 trillion in assets under management,  and $218 billion of it is in U.S. registered money market funds and another $118 billion in other money markets funds (such as CIT and UCITs). While it supports the transparency provision and other elements, the firm objects to swing pricing and liquidity changes.

In a letter to the SEC, Colin Robertson, NTAM’s head of fixed income, labeled swing pricing “overly complex, punitive, or burdensome.” The exodus from funds that the plan will trigger, he admonished, “may result in fewer investment options available to investors.”

Among asset allocators, the SEC’s plan is seen as more of an annoyance than a threat, as they have ample cash reserves in many places. And they are willing to accept slightly less than par value if they really need to tap money funds.

As Matt Clark, CIO of the South Dakota Investment Council, puts it, “Investors like pension funds can easily afford to redeem money markets at a small discount to par to obtain liquidity if needed, as this is minimal compared to selling anything else in a crisis at large losses.”

U.S. money funds have $5.7 trillion under management. On average, 90-day commercial paper yields 1.14%, much higher than a bank account pays, and offers quick liquidity to investors who need to cash out.

These funds had long been viewed as a good and safe place to park cash until the two massive redemptions, in 2008 and 2020. But they don’t carry federal deposit insurance, as bank products do, and have much lighter regulation. And that is what the SEC’s Gensler points to in creating the agency’s new plan.

Related Stories:

Asset Managers Hustle to Offer Better-Yielding Cash Funds

Frozen Liquidity Problem Solved, Kinda, So Alts’ Popularity Grows

BlackRock Converts Money Market Portfolio to Environmental Fund

This story was corrected on NTAM’s AUM and money market fund totals of April 11, 2022.

Tags: , , , , , ,

European Pension Regulator Launches Climate Risk Stress Test for 2022

The regulator imagines what will be the effects of a climate shock to pension funds’ balance sheets.



The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority is launching a stress test tomorrow to determine the resilience of European pension funds during a climate emergency.

The climate test primarily examines what would happen to pension funds if investors faced a dramatic rise in carbon prices due to the extreme effects of climate change. The hypothetical scenario assumes that no new climate policies are introduced before 2030 and that carbon technology is largely unavailable. Because of this, in the hypothetical, governments enact extremely strong policies in 2030 that dramatically increase the price of carbon.

The potential financial effects of such a situation will be applied to a balance sheet to figure out just how pension funds and their investments would be affected. Due to the cut-off date for developing the scenario, the test will not reflect the recent shock to the energy sector caused by the war in Ukraine.

The scenario focuses on sector-specific shocks, and EIOPA hopes that it will shed insight as to which investment strategies bear the most risk. All pension funds with more than 500 million ($550 million) are required to participate in the exercise.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The test was developed by the Network for Greening the Financial Sector. EIOPA is also conducting two questionnaires: one to follow up on analysis from the 2019 stress test, and one to assess the potential consequences of inflation for benefit recipients.

Related Stories:

CalPERS’ Project to Measure ESG in Private Equity Has 100 Organizations, $8 Trillion Participating

Institutional Investors Launch ‘ESG Book’ to Standardize Sustainable Data

Institutional Investors Are Flying Blind When It Comes to ESG Data

Tags: , , , , , ,

«