Showing posts with label portfolio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label portfolio. Show all posts

Friday, May 11, 2012

Proposed money market mutual fund rules!

A money market fund manager's worst nightmare is large redemptions which can cause a money market fund to break the proverbial "buck", particularly, in a volatile market. The new rule that the SEC is considering would make shareholders much more mindful of the actual value of each share held in a money market mutual fund portfolio, generally, referred to as the net Asset Value or NAV. 

If shareholders panic unnecessarily in a volatile market and make redemption requests, it could actually force the Portfolio Manager of the Money Market Fund to redeem securities whose current market value may have declined significantly or below par in order to raise the cash needed to meet redemptions.When a money market fund sells securities prior to the security's redemption date, a gain or loss is recognized which is then distributed to all shareholders. Therefore, the actions of some shareholders can result in tax consequences for all the shareholders of a money market fund.

As a Portfolio Manager of a Money Market Fund, I once had to placate a large shareholder that was irate because a family member did not receive a duplicate statement that he requested from the funds' shareholder services subsidiary. He was a Trustee of a large family trust that represented 60% of a state specific tax-exempt money market fund. Liquidating 60% of the entire portfolio in and making the funds available in three business days would cause the fund to break the buck.

I decided not to panic! First, I called the Shareholder Services people and read them the Riot Act! The amazing thing is that they still hadn't sent the shareholder the duplicate statement! They had merely entered a change in the statement so he would receive duplicate statements at the beginning of the following month. I asked them to send duplicate statements for the previous six months, an apology letter signed by a Vice President, and a small gift. Turned out they had a Starbucks coffee boxed gift that included a mug! Perfect -- who does not like Starbucks!

Next I called the shareholder, he was entertaining friends to an early dinner --  his AARP club! He was very irritated by the call -- I had interrupted his dinner! This wasn't looking good -- not going according to my plan! I told him I was the Money Market Portfolio Manager and asked him politely, if I could call back the next day -- making sure that I said, "Sir", "Please" and "Thank you" in the most perfect English accent. By the time I put the phone down, he was very calm. 

The next day I called the Shareholder -- thank God for FedEx and Starbucks! FedEx had already delivered the duplicate statements, the apology letter, and the Starbucks gift. Mr. Shareholder was beaming and very proud that he was actually talking to the Money Market Portfolio Manager! After a profuse apology and assurance that duplicate statements would be delivered going forward, Mr. Shareholder decided not to withdraw the funds. 

I was so relieved  -- a Starbucks gift and an apology had saved the day! There was no need to sale securities to generate cash to meet the large redemption request! Phew! One of the Vice Presidents of Shareholder Services called to congratulate me for pulling it off; otherwise, we would have had a major disaster and all because of a duplicate statement!

Scroll down to read the snippet below and the full article at the link.

=======


Proposed money market mutual fund rules draw fire


Updated 2/19/2012 3:43 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering proposals they say will make money market mutual funds safer — and the mutual fund industry loathes them.

  • Thinkstock

Thinkstock



Money market funds, unlike bank money market accounts, are uninsured mutual funds that invest in high-quality, short-term debt issued by the government, corporations and municipal entities. The funds have $2.6 trillion in assets. The two proposals, each considered an alternative to the other, will be put out for public comment in late March or early April.

•Money funds would abandon the accounting convention that lets them keep share prices at a constant $1. The change would drive home the point to investors that money funds aren't federally insured, thus discouraging panic if a fund's share price fell below $1 — breaking the buck, in fund parlance.
Money funds already have to calculate and disclose their "shadow net asset value" — what the share price would be if each security were priced each day as a stock fund's is. For example, the Fidelity Cash Reserves money fund had a shadow price of $1.0002 on Nov. 30, according to a filing with the SEC. You can find a money fund's shadow price by looking at form N-MFP via the SEC's Edgar system.
The change could make every money fund transaction into a taxable event, forcing investors to calculate miniscule gains and losses in share prices, the fund industry argues. And institutional investors don't like the risk of losing money. "One company treasurer told me, 'If I don't get a dollar in and a dollar out, you don't get my dollar,' " says Paul Stevens, CEO of the Investment Company Institute, the funds' trade group.
•Money funds would have to keep a capital reserve in case of large redemptions. They would also put a 30-day hold on 3% to 5% of an account — a move also aimed at discouraging massive redemptions.
Source -- click on the link to read more:
Proposed money market mutual fund rules draw fire – USATODAY.com

Friday, April 23, 2010

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages

Since his case is pending litigation I will just present the facts without much commentary.

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-59

Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.

"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."

Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."

The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.