U.S. Treasury Insurance for Money Market Funds

As many of you know, there’s a big difference between money market savings accounts and money market mutual funds. The former is held at a bank, and subject to FDIC insurance coverage. In contrast, the latter is typically held at an investment company or brokerage and, while money market funds are designed to maintain a price of $1/share, they’re still technically mutual funds. Thus, despite being functionally equivalent (more or less) to their bank-based counterparts, there’s always a chance that money market funds will “break the buck” (i.e., allow share values to fall below $1) such that you’ll wind up losing principal.

With that as a backdrop, I wanted to spend a bit of time talking about the U.S. Treasury’s recently announced money market mutual fund insurance program. In case you weren’t aware, the Treasury recently introduced this plan in an attempt to increase confidence in money market funds and combat a recent run by panic-stricken investors who were pulling their money out at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, while this plan guarantees that participating funds won’t “break the buck,” it’s still nowhere near as good as FDIC insurance coverage.

Here’s why:

  1. The guarantee is limited only to funds that voluntarily participate. The good news here is that most major fund companies have thrown their hats into the ring, meaning that the vast majority of these sorts of funds are now covered.
  2. The guarantee only applies to money invested prior to September 19th. Because this was intended to stop people from liquidating their holdings, new contributions aren’t covered.
  3. Your investment returns may suffer as a result of this plan.While the funds companies are responsible for paying the costs of this insurance, it’s likely that they’ll ultimately pass it along to investors in the form of slightly higher expense ratios.
  4. The coverage is only temporary. As of right now, the coverage is slated to last only three months. While it’s possible that the Treasury will extend the plan, there are no guarantees.

So… Unless you already had money in place in a covered fund, the Treasury’s guarantee is a complete non-issue for you. In fact, it could be viewed as somewhat of a negative in light of the fact that participating companies will have to pay a bit extra for the coverage, and those costs will ultimately come out of your pocket. This is exactly why Fidelity and Vanguard both dragged their feet before agreeing to participate. Both companies are extremely well capitalized, and neither one saw this as a necessary step to protect their funds.

If you’re concerned about the preservation of capital, you would be well advised to stick to bank accounts that are covered by FDIC insurance (note that FDIC coverage was recently increased to $250k), or credit union accounts that are protected by NCUA insurance.

Published on October 13th, 2008 - One Comment
Filed under: Economy, Saving & Investing
email this article email this article - bookmark it

About the author: Nickel is the founder and editor-in-chief of this site. He's a thirty-something family man who has been writing about personal finance since 2005, and guess what? He's on Twitter!

Related articles...

» Cashing in With the Vanguard Tax Exempt Money Market Fund
» Inside the Economic Rescue Plan: One Giant Bailout
» Making Sense of Tax Efficient Money Funds
» From the Archives (September 7th – September 13th)
» Historical FDIC Insurance Limits
» From the Archives (August 24th – August 30th)
» Transferring 403(b) Funds via a 90-24 Transfer
» Vanguard Changes Transaction Rules

Was this article useful? Please sign up to receive our content via e-mail:

You will receive only the daily updates, and can unsubscribe at anytime.

Comments (scroll down to add your own):

  1. I wonder if this will prompt them to buy less creditworthy securities. They could get extra yield by switching from A1-rated to A3-rated — that pays for the insurance, and if things don’t work out, someone else picks up the tab! If this regulation does to commercial paper what the S&L reforms did to commercial real estate, it will be a disaster.

    Comment by Taxrascal — Oct 14th 2008 @ 12:06 pm

Leave a comment

Subscribe without commenting

  1. < $10,000
 

Disclaimer...

The terms of third-party offers referenced on this website are subject to change without notice. While we strive to maintain timely and accurate information, offer details may be out of date. Visitors should thus verify the terms of any such offers prior to participating in them. Please see our terms of service for additional details.