Ideally, transparent markets make better markets. In some
cases, though, when certain market participants have a
disproportionate amount of power, transparency ends up benefiting
certain investors at the expense of others.
That fundamental idea is at the heart of a debate currently
going on in an important corner of the financial markets. At
issue is whether
money market mutual funds
should disclose the value of their assets on a daily basis and
the possible impact on fund companies and investors of all
types.
Money-market mutual funds: A systemic risk?
Ever since the financial crisis,
money market mutual funds have worried
regulators
. With one major fund having had to liquidate during the crisis
at less than the traditional $1-per-share price that funds
target, and with the
government having had to provide guarantees for
money funds
for years following the crisis, the SEC has looked at numerous
ways to try to prevent similar disruptions from occurring. These
included the draconian solution of forcing money market mutual
funds to have floating share prices, which would have rendered
the funds basically unusable for most investors.
In an effort to avoid that harsh level of regulation, many
money market fund companies have voluntarily started providing
daily disclosure of the true net asset value of their funds.
Although
Goldman Sachs
,
JPMorgan Chase
, and
Federated Investors
cater largely to institutional investors for whom such technical
information is commonplace and readily understood, what's
arguably more surprising is the fact that some other companies
that run money market funds for retail investors have followed
suit. Fidelity and
Schwab
, which have huge client bases with millions of ordinary
investors using their money funds, have started disclosing these
figures as well.
The smart holdout
One company that
hasn't
gone along with the crowd, though, is investor-owned Vanguard
Group. Vanguard argues that its retail investors haven't asked
for such technical information, and moreover that the
fluctuations at its flagship Prime Money Market Fund have been
relatively small.
But there could be a much bigger benefit from not disclosing
figures on a daily basis. By doing so, money funds avoid
potential manipulation from large institutional investors seeking
to take advantage of tiny fluctuations in prices.
A simple example
Under current practice, investors are allowed to buy or sell as
many shares of money funds as they want at a constant price of $1
per share. For most investors, the fact that those shares might
actually be worth $1.0001 or $0.9999 isn't very important; the
small disparities don't add up to much on typical retail account
sizes.
But for institutions, profiting from tiny disparities is part
of their business model. With precise information about money
fund values, institutions can take advantage of less
sophisticated money-fund investors by performing arbitrage-based
transactions. Here's how it would work:
- When a money fund NAV is above $1, institutions would buy
fund shares and sell commercial paper on the open market. With
interest from the money fund calculated on a slightly higher
share value, institutions would end up slightly ahead.
- Conversely, when NAV falls below $1, institutions would
sell shares for $1 and buy commercial paper at a slight
discount. Again, the profits would be small, but on large
balances, they would amount to real money.
Worst of all, repeated application of these purchases and
sales could eventually put the fund at risk, creating downward
pressure on share prices. The net impact would be to funnel
wealth to the institutions for whom these small disparities would
add up to enough to justify using the strategy.
Holding the line
It may seem uncharacteristic of Vanguard to avoid making its
money funds transparent. However, if doing so protects ordinary
investors from manipulative practices of institutions seeking to
take advantage of them, then I think everyone should support
Vanguard's decision.
Smart investors don't leave more money in cash than they need
for short-term needs. Instead, the right stock investments can
earn you a lot better returns. If you haven't seen Motley Fool
co-founder David Gardner's method for
finding market-beating stock picks
, now's your chance. For a limited time, David's offering a
personal tour of his
Supernova
service, and all you need to do to get instant access
is click here.
Fool contributor Dan Caplinger owns warrants on JPMorgan
Chase. You can follow him on Twitter @DanCaplinger. The Motley
Fool recommends Federated Investors and Goldman Sachs. The Motley
Fool owns shares of JPMorgan Chase. Try any of our Foolish
newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold
the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse
range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has
a disclosure policy.
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights
reserved. The Motley Fool has a
disclosure policy
.