Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Posts Tagged ‘integrity of money market funds’

The Buck Is Beginning to Break

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 25th, 2009 12:31 PM |

Investors in money market funds are generally under the assumption that those funds would always maintain a $1.00 NAV (net asset value). Well, investors should lose that assumption and prepare themselves for funds beginning to ‘break the buck.’ Do not panic, but let’s review developments in this $3.8 trillion sector of the market.

When markets were seizing up last September upon the failure of Lehman Bros., the U.S. Treasury provided a temporary backstop of money market funds so they would not break the buck and cause a “run on the fund.” Here is the Treasury statement from last September: Treasury’s Temporary Guarantee for Money Market Funds.

From that site, you will see links to other Treasury announcements on this topic. One of those links is Frequently Asked Questions About Treasury’s Temporary Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds. I strongly recommend investors review these FAQs. I specifically highlight the question regarding funds’ ‘breaking the buck.’

What if another fund in an investor’s fund family breaks the buck before this program starts? Is the investor covered?

The program provides a guarantee on a fund-by-fund basis up to the amount of shares held as of the close of business on September 19, 2008. The performance of a different fund, even one in the same fund family of the investor’s fund, doesn’t affect the investor’s fund’s eligibility. Investors should contact their fund to determine if their fund participates in the program.

The temporary guarantee was extended on March 31, 2009 as highlighted by this Treasury announcement: Treasury Announces Extension of Guarantee for Money Market Funds.

Well, investors should prepare themselves for this guarantee of money market funds to end and that certain funds will begin to ‘break the buck.’ One does not need to be a savant to see this development in a recent release from SEC chair, Mary Schapiro. Here is the full SEC Statement on this topic.

Let’s address a few critically important points . . .  (more…)

The Wall Street “Sausage-Making” Process

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 20th, 2009 9:01 AM |

Why do pigs need to go through such a curing process before finding their way to market? The innards of a pig are filled with all sorts of waste. In the same vein, the new Wall Street pig, otherwise known as an x-Tender security (but hereby deemed Porky Pig at Sense on Cents), is also filled with similar “junk.” I will try to make this quick, but bring a mask as we navigate the Wall Street sausage factory.

Please recall from my post yesterday, “An Auction-Rate Pig by Any Other Name Is Still a Pig”, that this ‘new’ Wall Street product is merely a revised version of THE LARGEST fraud perpetrated in the history of finance. This “pig” allows municipalities to address long-term funding needs via the short term debt market. The arbitrage involved in that process is akin to slaughtering the pig and making sausage.

Given the stench surrounding this product, take a deep breath as we tip-toe through the pigsty and move into the sausage factory. The Wall Street Journal can serve as our tour guide as it writes, Belt-Tightening by States Squeezes Cities and Towns. Let me connect the dots.

As this article highlights, municipalities across our country are increasingly financially strapped by a combination of decreasing tax revenues and lessened state funding. Regrettably, these municipalities are forced to cut expenses via a reduction in services and layoffs. Additionally, it is only logical to expect that municipalities will increase taxes to bridge their financial gap.

Add it all up, though, and it is very clear that an overwhelming number of municipalities in our nation are not as creditworthy today as a year or two ago. When credit ratings decline, borrowing costs go up. Those increased borrowing costs further squeeze the municipalities. What to do? Let’s enter the sausage factory.

With the blessing of the SEC, and the wizardry of financial engineers on Wall Street, municipalities can address long-term funding needs by borrowing money via the short-term market with a ‘promise’ to repay the funds if the short-term market shuts down. These municipal deals, much like sausage, are packaged and distributed via money market funds that incorporate a variety of short term deals. As such, the poorer credit quality of the municipality is “processed” and sold without investors fully appreciating the contents of the money market fund.

This works, right? The municipality receives the badly needed funds and the Wall Street banks earn their fees. Meanwhile, investors – who by nature move in and out of money market funds expecting them never to “break the buck” (meaning the funds will always maintain a $1.00 net asset value) – are kept in the dark.

Investors should appreciate that money market funds will likely “break the buck” going forward. All one needs to do is review the fiasco involved with the longstanding money market fund, The Reserve Fund.  Investors in that money market fund are now involved in a protracted legal dispute and the value of the fund is truly a great unknown. What happened? The fund took increased credit risk in a variety of products. Investors were clueless of these credit risks.

The same “sausage-making” is going on with this new x-Tender product. I exhort every investor to “check the contents” and ask the “butcher”, that being your broker or financial planner, as to what is going into that money market fund before you buy it.


An Auction-Rate Pig by Any Other Name is Still a Pig

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 19th, 2009 10:20 AM |

The brazen balls of both Wall Street and Washington know no limits. Hat tip to Kathy for pointing out to me that Wall Street is now running a new version of the Auction-Rate Securities play.

Recall that the Auction-Rate Securities fraud has left thousands of investors and billions of dollars frozen. While that fraud remains outstanding, Wall Street is calling an “audible” but at its core it is the same play. This smells!! Make sure you wear some heavy boots as we take a walk through the sty.

The Wall Street Journal highlights the particulars of this charade, New Security Shifts Risk to Borrower:

It didn’t take long for Wall Street to dress up an old idea and make it seem new again.

Wall Street firms including Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. have introduced a new security for the damaged municipal-bond market, meant to fill the role once played by securities that lost investor confidence in the peak of the market panic.

Their effort is part of Wall Street’s search for new ways to create business after a crippling nine months of crisis and government intervention. Much like auction-rate, variable-rate, and corporate floating-rate debt, the new tax-free “Windows” or “X-tender” securities offer municipalities the ability to borrow for the long term while paying only short-term interest rates.

This model proved dangerous during the credit crisis. Banks and bond insurers — who offered both express and tacit guarantees to backstop the debt — failed to live up to some of their promises. These securities became untradeable and dropped in value, leaving money-market funds in jeopardy of “breaking the buck.” Borrowers like municipalities, nonprofit institutions and student-lending companies faced penalizing interest rates well over 10% for months.

Like auction-rate securities and other variable-rate debt, the new instruments have an interest rate that resets every week, but this one is based on a short-term municipal debt index. The securities act like short-term debt and are appealing to money market funds that need to be able to sell their investments quickly.

This time, though, the banks removed some of the weak links from auction-rate securities and variable-rate demand bonds. Instead of banks or bond insurers acting as a guarantor or buyer of last resort at the auctions — which they were increasingly forced to do last year — the borrower itself promises to accelerate repayment. The borrower has seven months to repay.

Let’s review some of the driving forces and principles behind this new “Porky Pig” designated as “Windows” or “X-tender” securities:

1. Muncipalities are increasingly unable to finance themselves via the long term debt market. If municipalities can finance themselves, the rates are extremely high. This “pig” offers them a vehicle to sell into the deep, short term money-market arena with a “promise” by the municipality to repay these obligations if auctions fail.

2. The banks and brokers remain on the hook for tens of billions of dollars for not having lived up to the same ‘promise’ in the previous iteration of Auction-Rate Securities. That said, they are more than happy to facilitate this version and collect the fees for doing so.

3. Money market funds are flush with cash from investors who are increasingly risk averse. How will the funds that purchase these “pigs” market the fact that they are taking this degree of risk in the fund? Will brokers and managers fully highlight that fact, or will it be business as usual and keep the investors in the dark?

Wall Street and Washington are, once again, willing to oblige this version of a Ponzi scheme because there is lots of up front money to be made. The WSJ offers as much:

Despite the risks, the Securities and Exchange Commission blessed the instruments, allowing money-market funds to buy the debt.

Banks are also taking advantage of pent-up demand from municipalities that need money. Outstanding issuance of variable-rate debt has shrunk by approximately $100 billion in 2008 — a 20% drop, according to Municipal Market Advisors. The banks are now estimating as much as $10 billion in such “Windows” deals could hit the market over the next six months. So far, at least two municipalities have sold the debt and another deal is close to completion.

Sense on ¢ents strongly encourages investors to take the following approach:

1. Stay as far away from this product as possible. I am willing to bet this product will not be sold directly, but will strictly be ‘buried’ inside money market funds. Be careful!!

2. Ask your brokers or advisers if they are aware of this product; bring this to their attention!

3. If a broker or adviser is pitching a money market fund to you, make sure the fund does not have exposure to this garbage.

Oink, oink!!


Recent Posts