A key trend in the 2017 AFP Liquidity Survey was that organizations have no plans to put invest in prime money market funds, following the 2016 reforms by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But could that change sometime soon?
Let’s back up for a moment. An exodus from prime and municipal funds was not unexpected; we’ve been saying for years that imposing a stable net asset value (NAV) and liquidity fees and gates could lead treasurers to eschew these funds in favor of government or Treasury funds.
And that’s pretty much what happened. According to the Investment Company Institute (ICI) government funds received $851 billion of inflows in 2016, while prime and municipal money market had $881 billion in outflows. And overall, more than $1.15 trillion has left non-government funds since 2015.
What could cause a move back?
But while much of the talk around money funds has been around why corporates left, AFP’s survey attempted to dig a little deeper. We asked practitioners what might entice them to come back. Would it be a stable NAV? Is it a certain number of basis points? Is it the uncertainty around it?
What we found was that there may be a dim light at the end of the tunnel for the corporate treasury/prime fund relationship.
While 41 percent of organizations said that they do not plan to invest in prime funds at all, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they might invest in prime if the NAV doesn’t fluctuate very much. Another 20 percent said that they would consider investing in prime funds if the spread between prime funds and other investments becomes significant. Larger and publicly owned organizations would be more likely to move back to prime due to such a spread than smaller companies would.
But how significant would that spread need to be? We asked that too. A third of respondents said that their organizations would invest in prime funds if the spread were at least 50 basis points or more. That’s pretty substantial, but another 18 percent would invest if the spread was only 15 basis points.
On the other hand, 40 percent said that they wouldn't invest in prime, regardless of the spread--and that’s 10 percentage points higher than last year.
Planning for the future
There is currently legislation on the table that could ultimately restore the stable NAV. At this juncture, we really have no idea how all of this is going to shake out. But should the floating NAV go away entirely, logic would tell you that we’d see another mass exodus—back into prime funds.
In the meantime though, if you’re trying to determine what to do with your money in the face of the new regulations, you have several options out there that many of your peers are taking advantage of. Respondents to the survey are making use of the following tactics:
- Separately managed accounts (31 percent)
- Ultrashort funds (26 percent)
- Extending maturities (21 percent).
Additionally, organizations are trying some other tools and strategies:
- 2a-7 like funds with stable NAVs (26 percent)
- ETFs bonds or cash strategies (16 percent)
- Doing direct repo transactions (14 percent).
Whatever your decision, just be clear that for now, the money market fund landscape is vastly different than it was just a few short years ago. We may see a shift back to the way it was before—but if not, then treasury and finance professionals will need to reconsider their long-term investment strategies.
For additional insights download the 2017 AFP Liquidity Survey, underwritten by State Street Global Advisors.
You can also benchmark your organization’s short-term investment strategy with the AFP Liquidity Dashboard, open for a limited time to registered users of the AFP site.
Tom Hunt, CTP, is director of treasury services for AFP.