Jump to content

Talk:Money market fund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

The statement that Reserve Fund was the first money fund in the world is inaccurate. At least one money market mutual fund, identical in every way to current money market funds, was set up and operational prior to the establishment of the Reserve Fund. This was Conta Garantia, founded in Brazil in 1968. It may be that the Reserve Fund was the first U.S. money market fund, but mention of the prior fund should not be deleted. Although the U.S. has the world's largest capital market, it is not the only market. The evidence is that the establishment of each of these two funds was independent of and done without being aware of the other.and i dont care what neone wites

a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds

[edit]

No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous and apparently indescribable events for money funds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.46.111 (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"No individual investor has lost money in a money market fund"

[edit]

No longer true with the Sentinel case (August, 2007)

64.142.13.174 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Steve P.[reply]

No, still true, Sentinel did not involve a money market fund.[1] John M Baker (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since changed by someone. False after the Financial Crisis came to a head in Sep '08. Elvey (talk)

Page is U.S. centric

[edit]

Can we make this page more general and less U.S. oriented?

MiddleAgedFart (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help? I am only familiar with the USian market. Cowbert (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info on how to short the money market funds? Mwahcysl (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

money market fund => money fund

[edit]

An anon editor from a shared IP has made a large number (dozens) of edits, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TD_Ameritrade&diff=270270919&oldid=268414758 replacing 'money market fund' with 'money fund'. Anyone think this is appropriate? Inappropriate? I'm used to the longer phrase, but wanted to see if there was consensus supporting the change, and this seemed a good place to check. Please comment. Perhaps it helps better differentiate bank money market accounts (typically insured and restricted) with money market funds.--Elvey (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This change was highly questionable and I regret that it was not reverted immediately. The original, longer phrase is more common and less ambiguous so there is good reason for the change. Whereas "Money market fund" might be confused with "Money market account", the phrase "money fund" could be confused with virtually any kind of finance topic. So I don't see any effect to that purpose. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First money market fund to break buck

[edit]

A recent edit asserts that First Multifund for Daily Income was the first money market fund to break the buck. The characterization of the fund as a money market fund is doubtful; the cited source (Forbes) states flatly that the fund was not a money market fund. The article now argues that the fund was a money market fund after all, but, in the absence of a reliable source, that appears to be original research. John M Baker (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source was Changing Times, the predecessor to Kiplinger's Personal Finance, not Forbes and while that 1981 article stated that FMDI was not technically a money market fund, the publication was, frankly, wrong. The article relies on restrictions regarding money market funds' average maturities to technically exclude FMDI from being a money market fund. While the referenced restrictions were proposed at the time of the article's publication, they didn't become *law* until the adoption of Rule 2-a7 in 1983. There wasn't even a hint of them at the time of FMDI's liquidation. The very first restrictions on portfolio maturities in money market funds came about through SEC exemptive orders in August of 1979, 9 months after FMDI broke the buck.
In addition to the Changing Times article I made reference to and provided a citation to the published decision of an SEC administrative proceeding against FMDI. The SEC decision states, among other things, that: FMDI was "generally known as a 'money market fund'." It further states that FMDI's prospectus and registration statement described it as a money market fund. In a footnote to the decision (which by the way was published *after* the Kiplinger's article) describing FMDI as a money market fund the SEC states:
Though the term "money market fund" is not defined in any
statutes or Commission rules thereunder, they are generally
considered to be those open-end investment companies whose
portfolios consist primarily of short-term debt obligations,
usually referred to as "money market instruments" (typically
U.S. Treasury bills and notes, certificates of deposit, bankers'
acceptances and commercial paper). These funds generally strive
to maintain a constant net asset value per share.
I believe a published SEC decision qualifies as a reliable source, not original research and clearly shows that the Changing Times article is factually incorrect in stating that FMDI was not technically a money market fund.
Actually, I was prompted to edit this wiki entry because I have been a little irked that both the financial media and the SEC consistently fail to mention Milton Mound's failure with FMDI. I honestly think the SEC just forgot about FMDI: it was small and very early in the Money Market Fund days (the SEC was actually conducting its first round of evidentiary hearings about amortized cost accounting when FMDI liquidated) and there were more significant fraudulent issues surrounding FMA and Milton Mound. But there is very little room to argue that in 1979 FMDI was not, in fact, a money market fund that broke the buck.
I had originally decided to include the Kiplinger's argument in the interest of fairness but am now tempted to remove any reference that FMDI was not a money market fund as it seems to just confuse the issue.Wadsworthj (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Intro Narrative?

[edit]

Moved this from the main page to this talk page. Yes the lead in is short but the TOC is right there. Since 2009 it has not been an issue with readers or numerious editors. However if someone feels compelled to expand by all means.

Rick (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Money market fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Money_market_fund&oldid=1201317518"