eclipse_images/Getty
Developing a strong financial plan is important. But knowing where to put your money can be challenging, especially when you don’t have savings goals mind. Money market accounts are a great place to put your money because they offer great interest rates without sacrificing security or liquidity.We’ve provided a rundown on what money market accounts are, their pros and cons, and what to consider when you’re thinking of opening one…..Story continues.….
By Kit Pulliam
Source: BusinessInsider
.
Critics:
A money market account (MMA) or money market deposit account (MMDA) is a deposit account that pays interest based on current interest rates in the money markets. The interest rates paid are generally higher than those of savings accounts and transaction accounts; however, some banks will require higher minimum balances in money market accounts to avoid monthly fees and to earn interest.
Money market accounts should not be confused with money market funds, which are mutual funds that invest in money market securities. Money market accounts are regulated under terms similar to ordinary savings accounts. They are insured by the FDIC (unlike money market funds), and although they may provide checking services, the restrictions of Federal Reserve Regulation D have discouraged their use for day-to-day payment purposes.
In practice, money market accounts are distinguished from ordinary savings accounts by their higher balance requirements and their more complex interest rate structure. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 set in motion a series of steps, designed to phase in the deregulation of bank deposits, permitting a wider variety of account types, and eventually eliminating interest ceilings on deposits.
By the subsequent Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, on December 14, 1982, money market accounts were authorized with a minimum balance of no less than $2,500, no interest ceiling, and no minimum maturity, allowing up to six transfers out of the account per month (no more than three by check) and unlimited withdrawals by mail, messenger, or in person.
Minimum denominations were eliminated on January 1, 1986, and the limitation that no more than three of the maximum six monthly outward transfers could be by check was eliminated on May 3, 1988.Money market funds seek to limit exposure to losses due to credit, market, and liquidity risks. Money market funds in the United States are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Rule 2a-7 of the act restricts the quality, maturity and diversity of investments by money market funds. Under this act, a money fund mainly buys the highest rated debt, which matures in under 13 months. The portfolio must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements.
Securities in which money markets may invest include commercial paper, repurchase agreements, short-term bonds and other money funds. Money market securities must be highly liquid and of the highest quality.Money market funds seek a stable net asset value (NAV) per share (which is generally $1.00 in the United States).
They aim to never lose money. The $1.00 is maintained through the declaration of dividends to shareholders, typically daily, at an amount equal to the fund’s net income. If a fund’s NAV drops below $1.00, it is said that the fund “broke the buck”.[8] For SEC registered money funds, maintaining the $1.00 flat NAV is usually accomplished under a provision under Rule 2a-7 of the 40 Act that allows a fund to value its investments at amortized cost rather than market value, provided that certain conditions are maintained.
One such condition involves a side-test calculation of the NAV that uses the market value of the fund’s investments. The fund’s published, amortized value may not exceed this market value by more than 1/2 cent per share, a comparison that is generally made weekly. If the variance does exceed $0.005 per share, the fund could be considered to have broken the buck, and regulators may force it into liquidation.
Buck breaking has rarely happened. Up to the 2008 financial crisis, only three money funds had broken the buck in the 37-year history of money funds. While money market funds are typically managed in a fairly safe manner, there would have been many more failures over this period if the companies offering the money market funds had not stepped in when necessary to support their fund (by way of infusing capital to reimburse security losses) and avoid having the funds break the buck.
This was done because the expected cost to the business from allowing the fund value to drop—in lost customers and reputation—was greater than the amount needed to bail it out. The first money market mutual fund to break the buck was First Multifund for Daily Income (FMDI) in 1978, liquidating and restating NAV at 94 cents per share. An argument has been made that FMDI was not technically a money market fund as, at the time of liquidation, the average maturity of securities in its portfolio exceeded two years.
However, prospective investors were informed that FMDI would invest “solely in Short-Term (30-90 days) MONEY MARKET obligations”. Furthermore, the rule restricting the maturities which money market funds are permitted to invest in, Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, was not promulgated until 1983. Prior to the adoption of this rule, a mutual fund had to do little other than present itself as a money market fund, which FMDI did.
Seeking higher yield, FMDI had purchased increasingly longer maturity securities, and rising interest rates negatively impacted the value of its portfolio. In order to meet increasing redemptions, the fund was forced to sell a certificate of deposit at a 3% loss, triggering a restatement of its NAV and the first instance of a money market fund “breaking the buck”. The Community Bankers US Government Fund broke the buck in 1994, paying investors 96 cents per share.
This was only the second failure in the then 23-year history of money funds and there were no further failures for 14 years. The fund had invested a large percentage of its assets into adjustable rate securities. As interest rates increased, these floating rate securities lost value. This fund was an institutional money fund, not a retail money fund, thus individuals were not directly affected.
No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds. However, as noted above, other failures were only averted by infusions of capital from the fund sponsors.
Leave a Reply