[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Breakdown in classrooms Students using AI can’t read write or solve basic math “Don’t you dare enforce the law!” Can the Annual Theft of $521,000,000,000 From the Federal Budget Be Stopped? Another conspiracy theory confirmed This should infuriate every American Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Nationwide Injunctions in Trump v. CASA Older Employees Can’t Retire – FORCED to Work Minimum Wage The Met Office is Unable to Name the Sites Providing Estimated Temperature Data For its 103 Non-Existent Stations EPA Targets Engine Start-Stop Systems In Cars Scientists find toxic metals linked to autism in popular toothpaste FRAGMENTS OF HIV-AIDS VIRUS INSIDE COVID VACCINES. Harvard Hammered: Feds Yank An Additional $450 Million In Grants TOTAL WAR: TRUMP SHUTS DOWN THE IRS 45,000 AGENTS FIRED! Netanyahu: Israel Will Finish War in Gaza, Drive Out 50% of Palestinians Something has to change with Big Pharma... NOW. Your Mitochondria Need THIS to Be Healthy. A Conversation with Nicolas Verhoeven, PhD Ben Shapiro MELTS DOWN Over Trump Deprioritizing Israel Tulsi Gabbard FIRES the Top Two Deep State Officials from the National Intelligence Council World Health Organization: 57 Children in Gaza Killed by Malnutrition Since March Amid Israeli Siege Pop Star Ed Sheeran Admits "Every Area Of London" Is Dangerous Now Dr. David Martin discusses a proposed bioweapons attack scheduled for July 2025. MSNBC horribly suggests the genocide against the SA refugees is justified. Cheap Tomatoes (And Immigration) SOTT Earth Changes Summary - April 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval, Turmeric Lowers Blood Pressure-How To Get the Most Out Of It Magistrate Judge Issues Warning to US Attorney Alina Habba and ICE After Arrest of Newark Mayor UK PM Starmer Slammed For Daring To Suggest Immigrants Should "Speak English" How $21 TRILLION Went Missing From U.S. Tax Payers! -Catherine Austin Fitts Diddy’s Collapse Was No Accident – Whitney Webb Connects the Dots! CANADIAN Soldiers Spill Hard Truth about Russia Ukraine War

Business/Finance
See other Business/Finance Articles

Title: This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied - The Sequel
Source: Zero Hedge
URL Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/gover ... account-has-been-denied-sequel
Published: Jul 19, 2012
Author: Tyler Durden
Post Date: 2012-07-20 21:40:15 by Buzzard
Keywords: None
Views: 61

Two years ago, in January 2010, Zero Hedge wrote "This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied" which became one of our most read stories of the year. The reason? Perhaps something to do with an implicit attempt at capital controls by the government on one of the primary forms of cash aggregation available: $2.7 trillion in US money market funds. The proximal catalyst back then were new proposed regulations seeking to pull one of these three core pillars (these being no volatility, instantaneous liquidity, and redeemability) from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7.

A key proposal would give money market fund managers the option to "suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets." In other words: an attempt to prevent money market runs (the same thing that crushed Lehman when the Reserve Fund broke the buck). This idea, which previously had been implicitly backed by the all important Group of 30 which is basically the shadow central planners of the world (don't believe us? check out the roster of current members), did not get too far, and was quickly forgotten. Until today, when the New York Fed decided to bring it back from the dead by publishing "The Minimum Balance At Risk: A Proposal to Mitigate the Systemic Risks Posed by Money Market Funds". Now it is well known that any attempt to prevent a bank runs achieves nothing but merely accelerating just that (as Europe recently learned). But this coming from central planners - who never can accurately predict a rational response - is not surprising. What is surprising is that this proposal is reincarnated now. The question becomes: why now? What does the Fed know about market liquidity conditions that it does not want to share, and more importantly, is the Fed seeing a rapid deterioration in liquidity conditions in the future, that may and/or will prompt retail investors to pull their money in another Lehman-like bank run repeat?

Here is how the Fed frames the problem in the abstract:

This paper introduces a proposal for money market fund (MMF) reform that could mitigate systemic risks arising from these funds by protecting shareholders, such as retail investors, who do not redeem quickly from distressed funds. Our proposal would require that a small fraction of each MMF investor’s recent balances, called the “minimum balance at risk” (MBR), be demarcated to absorb losses if the fund is liquidated. Most regular transactions in the fund would be unaffected, but redemptions of the MBR would be delayed for thirty days. A key feature of the proposal is that large redemptions would subordinate a portion of an investor’s MBR, creating a disincentive to redeem if the fund is likely to have losses. In normal times, when the risk of MMF losses is remote, subordination would have little effect on incentives. We use empirical evidence, including new data on MMF losses from the U.S. Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to calibrate an MBR rule that would reduce the vulnerability of MMFs to runs and protect investors who do not redeem quickly in crises.

And further:

This paper proposes another approach to mitigating the vulnerability of MMFs to runs by introducing a “minimum balance at risk” (MBR) that could provide a disincentive to run from a troubled money fund. The MBR would be a small fraction (for example, 5 percent) of each shareholder’s recent balances that could be redeemed only with a delay. The delay would ensure that redeeming investors remain partially invested in the fund long enough (we suggest 30 days) to share in any imminent portfolio losses or costs of their redemptions. However, as long as an investor’s balance exceeds her MBR, the rule would have no effect on her transactions, and no portion of any redemption would be delayed if her remaining shares exceed her minimum balance.

The motivation for an MBR is to diminish the benefits of redeeming MMF shares quickly when a fund is in trouble and to reduce the potential costs that others’ redemptions impose on non? redeeming shareholders. Thus, the MBR would be an effective deterrent to runs because, in the event that an MMF breaks the buck (and only in such an event), the MBR would ensure a fairer allocation of losses among investors.

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

This Federal Reserve proposal brought to mind an old Bachman-Turner Overdrive song:

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]