Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
What...you (for-whatever-reason) were unable to post that, yourself??
Not sure what it is that you're asking...
However:
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2009/spch062409ebw.htm
Oh....O.K. .....how to deal with "conservative"-paranoia, after their frat-boy has screwed-up the U.S.-economy....
"For more than three decades, rule 2a 7 has generally provided a sound framework in which money market funds have operated, largely without issue until the recent financial crisis that we have all faced. For money market funds, this culminated last fall when The Reserve Fund began experiencing a run on its Primary Fund that also spread to other Reserve funds. Ultimately, when The Primary Fund broke a buck, investors, mostly institutional, in other prime money market funds tried to redeem their holdings or move them to Treasury or government money market funds. And, this trend was no doubt intensified by the overall turbulence in the market for financial sector securities at the time.
Today, in proposing rules to strengthen the money market fund regulatory structure, we must recognize both that the system in place historically has served investors quite well, and that there are enhancements that we should consider in order to reflect the problems experienced by money market funds during the financial crisis and our experience with The Reserve Fund. One of the strengths of our financial regulatory system, and one of our strengths at the Commission, is that we never hesitate to re examine and improve upon what we have already done. These enhancements should make money market funds more resilient to certain short term market risks, and provide greater protections for investors in a money market fund that is unable to maintain a stable net asset value per share.
We are proposing to do this in several ways. For example, we would tighten the risk limiting conditions of rule 2a 7 by, among other things, requiring funds to maintain a portion of their portfolios in instruments that can be readily converted to cash, reducing the weighted average maturity of portfolio holdings, and limiting funds to investing in the highest quality portfolio securities. Also, we would require money market funds to report their portfolio holdings monthly to us. Further, we would permit a money market fund that has "broken the buck" to suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets.
Also, we are seeking comment on other potential changes in our regulation of money market funds. Specifically, we are requesting comment on whether money market funds should have "floating" rather than stabilized net asset values, and whether to require that funds satisfy redemption requests in excess of a certain size through in kind redemptions. I am particularly looking forward to comments on these broader ranging issues."
Yeah, they're reeeeaaaalllly tampering with things, alright.....