• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews

C-NAV to V-NAV: what would a rule change mean?

1
  • by Editor
  • in Treasury
  • — 1 May, 2012

With rumblings afoot across the pond about a move from constant net asset value money market funds to ones with a variable net asset value, we asked two leading fund managers to explain the underlying issues and assess the potential impact on local authority wholesale depositors. 

Taking part in the questionnaire were James Bevan, CIO, CCLA and Dennis Gepp, CIO, Federated Prime Rate Capital Management LLP 

Room151: Why is the SEC proposing to move money market funds (MMFs) from a constant to a variable net-asset-value?

James Bevan: It is clear that there has been confusion in the market place as to whether money market funds were in fact a form of bank account, with capital underwritten by the operator. Given the confusion, the EC went through a process of consultation to “increase understanding of what shadow banking actually is and does, and what regulation or supervision may be appropriate.” The EC have listed the entities and activities which may be identified as part of the shadow banking system – and MMFs are at the top of the list.

The challenge is that either funds must convert from a CNAV (constant net asset value) to a VNAV (variable net asset value) or introduce a varying list of controls and support measures which may be called upon. Such measures may include holding back shareholders’ funds; increasing the capital held by the provider/sponsor firm of MMFs; possible insurance to mitigate credit risk, or a reserve set-up which is funded by reducing the daily yield paid to shareholders.

The SEC hopes that by forming a distinction between CNAV and VNAV funds, investors will have a clearer understanding as to the nature of the risk they run in depositing with a MMF.

Dennis Gepp: The SEC has not to date proposed to amend its rules in order to move MMFs from a constant or stable net asset value (NAV) to a variable NAV. The SEC Chairman and certain members of the SEC Staff have, however, discussed that as a possibility. Proposal of a change to the current rule requires an affirmative vote by three of the five sitting SEC Commissioners to seek public comment on the proposed change. After that, public comment is required, and an analysis of the comments and an economic assessment of the rule change is required to be conducted, followed by a second affirmative vote by a majority of the SEC Commissioners to adopt a rule amendment. The process of adopting a rule, even after it is proposed, can take many months, and agencies sometimes decide not to adopt a rule in final form, based on comments and data gathered after a rule is proposed.

The current MMF rule permits the use of a stable net asset value by MMFs that meet the stringent requirements of the rule. These include: maintenance of 10% overnight liquidity and 30% or more 7-day liquidity as a percentage of assets, 60-day or shorter weighted average maturity, stringent transparency, credit quality and diversification requirements, as well as publication of “shadow pricing” of the shares at a floating NAV based on market values of the portfolio. There is also a requirement to consider departing from stable value pricing or close the fund if the amortized cost departs by 1/2 cent or more per share from the floating NAV.

Those advocating the proposed change suggest various reasons why it would be beneficial. These include a view that the use of a stable net asset value makes MMFs vulnerable to “runs” by withdrawing investors, although the empirical data from the performance of fixed and floating NAV funds during the 2008 financial crisis does not appear to support that assertion. Additionally, even though there are prominent disclosures in MMF offering documents and marketing literature stating that they may lose value and are not guaranteed, the SEC Chairman has said that a continuously floating NAV will help educate investors that MMF shares can lose value.

It is worth noting that normally the “shadow price” per share calculated and disclosed by MMFs using mark-to-market portfolio asset values (essentially a floating NAV disclosed in arrears to investors under US rules) is either exactly the same as the stable NAV of a dollar per share or within a few one-hundredths of a cent per share of that price, although occasionally in very stressed situations the “shadow price” may vary one or two tenths of a cent from a dollar. In the forty-year history of MMFs, only two MMFs failed to fully repay investors at a stable NAV of $1/share. One of those MMFs that “broke the buck” paid investors 96 cents per share, and the other repaid investors over 99 cents per share, at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Room151: Why does it matter to us in the UK?

James Bevan: The shift in the rules adds complexity, will carry costs for MMFs seeking to be classed as CNAVs which will affect returns for investors, and may mis-lead as the real nature of risk. After all, the choice of counterparties is much more complex and demanding than whether a fund is formally designated CNAV or VNAF, both types of funds will clearly be run with the practical intention of retaining constant net asset value. Even after designation, question marks must remain as to whether CNAV funds will actually protect NAV in the event of a material crisis in global banking and markets. The result is that informed choice will remain a key requirement for investors.

Dennis Gepp: Constant net asset value (CNAV) pricing for shares of MMFs makes them more useful than floating NAV MMFs in a variety of consumer and business processes in the UK. The CNAV allows for same day settlement of purchases and redemptions of MMF shares. This is a key benefit to investors, allowing them to manage their cash balances more effectively, and also permits the use of MMFs to hold cash balances in securities brokerage accounts and other arrangements where customer cash is needed to settle transactions as they occur on a daily basis. VNAV funds settle one day later, because the market price information needed to value VNAV MMF shares is not available until after the market closes. VNAV Funds therefore are not as useful to hold cash as CNAV MMFs.

A change in U.S. requirements for MMFs may cause a change in standards in the UK and elsewhere in the world where many money funds maintain a stable NAV, and may cause regulators in other countries to impose similar standards requiring use of floating NAV.

Room151: What will the impact be on the money market fund industry?

James Bevan: History shows that through the global financial crisis in 2007-08 investors redeemed from some CNAV funds but not from others, and from some VNAV funds but not from others. The reality is that investors did not redeem because of the pricing structure of money funds, but because of concerns about the credit quality of their portfolios. Yet MMFs must now choose whether they should be CNAV or VNAV, and if they chose the former, they must face increased costs, and by extension offer lower returns than otherwise would be the case. Of course the money market fund industry and indeed all industry participants should welcome the efforts of regulators to address the risks and realities of financial crisis. But this approach may turn out to be misleading and unhelpful against the goals of delivering transparency and clarity of choice for investors.

Dennis Gepp: A variety of U.S. consumer groups, state and local government representatives, corporate treasurers, money fund sponsors, academics, and others have submitted comments to the SEC urging the SEC not to abandon the stable NAV for MMFs and making the point that a change from the current stable NAV (daily $1/share pricing) to a continuously floating NAV will make MMFs much less useful to retail and institutional investors and result in a significant shrinkage of the MMF industry.  This, in turn, will in the view of many commentators, reduce funding available to business and state and local governments whose short-term notes are owned by MMFs.

Room151: Should local authority investors be concerned?

James Bevan: Local authority investors should be focused on the nature and scale of the risks they face. It follows that local authority investors should seek to understand how their fund managers seek to control risk whilst adding value against an inter-bank benchmark. There can be no substitute for detailed and ongoing due diligence by and of the manager – and any reliance on labels may prove to be a trap for the unwary.

Dennis Gepp: Yes. A change in U.S. requirements for MMFs may cause a change in standards in the UK and elsewhere in the world where many money funds maintain a constant NAV, and may cause regulators in other countries to impose similar standards requiring use of floating NAV.   This could mean that Local Authorities may no longer be able to benefit from the diversification and economies of scale that a CNAV fund offers or have access to funds offering same day settlement for their cash.

Share

You may also like...

  • David Green: Taking a ‘balanced view’ of borrowing 12 Oct, 2020
  • Q&A: Why the UK Social Bond is a winner Q&A: Why the UK Social Bond is a winner 30 Jul, 2015
  • Security, liquidity & yield – in that order? Security, liquidity & yield – in that order? 24 Sep, 2012
  • Manchester cleans up with airport investment Manchester cleans up with airport investment 20 Sep, 2013

1 Comment

  1. mtatnell says:
    2012/05/11 at 14:32

    Many readers will be aware that Aviva Investors have managed approximately £10bn in VNAV funds for around 4 years now and so I couldn’t help but notice in the article the common miss-conception that VNAV funds cannot provide same day liquidity.

    The Aviva Investors Sterling Liquidity, Euro Liquidity & Government Liquidity Funds are all VNAV, AAA rated funds and have provided same day liquidity to all our investors every working day for almost 4 years.

    The Aviva Investors VNAV Liquidity funds comply with the same regulatory requirements and follow the same accounting principles as a CNAV fund.

    Our funds have also maintained a 1.000 share price, provided diversification and a whole host of other benefits to our investors since original inception almost exactly 10 years ago.

    Perhaps there is life after CNAV after all!

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 23 hours ago

    New realities of investing cash and liquidity: “What to do now?”: Sponsored article: Brian Buck looks at the “unique challenge” for cash management strategies. As investors assess the ongoing impact of the pandemic on their business, levels of cash and… dlvr.it/RqVbk9 pic.twitter.com/ZElVASmEUV

    Room151 1 day ago

    Extra finance promised by the government receives a broad welcome: Sponsored article: The financial pressures facing local authorities this year continue to pose challenges for council treasurers. While the launch of the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination… dlvr.it/RqTzTF pic.twitter.com/HCjH0pyHR5

    Room151 1 day ago

    A savvy approach to managing your cash: Sponsored article: Caroline Hedges examines the need for active cash management to achieve a higher than average return. Last year saw the already mountainous pile of negative-yielding debt around the[...] dlvr.it/RqTzMK pic.twitter.com/uP0RQYTJLt

    Room151 2 days ago

    Putting alternatives at the heart of multi-asset portfolios: Sponsored article: Nick Edwardson looks at the assets that provide the “most attractive opportunities”. We believe that asset allocation is the primary driver of investment returns and that the… dlvr.it/RqQ2Qt pic.twitter.com/WLBzvRRRUQ

    Room151 2 days ago

    Thriving in the pandemic: Avoiding the stragglers: Sponsored article: George Crowdy looks at the sectors providing opportunities for sustainable investment. Throughout much of 2020, we talked about why sustainable investing has thrived in the pandemic,… dlvr.it/RqQ2NQ pic.twitter.com/dxiPWKFsPl

    Room151 2 days ago

    The development of CCLA’s mental health benchmark: Sponsored article: Amy Browne examines the importance of investing in mental health in the workplace. We are living through a public health emergency in more ways than one. Physical health[...] dlvr.it/RqQ2Jx pic.twitter.com/o6yRSCX3oF

    Room151 3 days ago

    Brexit: What the EU trade deal means for the UK economy: Sponsored article: Hetal Mehta looks at the impact of Brexit on economic prospects. Four and a half years after voting to leave the EU, on Christmas Eve the UK finally[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDt pic.twitter.com/No62srfE8h

    Room151 3 days ago

    Cash dethroned: The quest for liquid yield: Sponsored article: Peter Hunt and George Carne ask how treasury departments can balance the need for yield and liquidity. The massive stimulus and waves of liquidity provided by central banks[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDj pic.twitter.com/05g6Zhu1kU

    Room151 3 days ago

    Richard Harbord: Delayed “capital determinations” make section 25 opinions a new crunch point: The severe pressure on local government budgets now means section 151 officers confront a tricky call on  whether they can make a judgement on the robustness… dlvr.it/RqLBDV pic.twitter.com/vTAbDKFzkI

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    PWLB Consultation: Analysis straight from Dickens: Helen Radall and Paul McDermott present a legal examination of the new PWLB borrowing rules as Charles Dickens might have imagined it. Free and easy PWLB (“Marley” to his friends)[...] dlvr.it/RnmwLq pic.twitter.com/yFxcPrQqEG

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Room151’s top stories from a momentous year: 2020 was the year in which local government grappled with Covid-19, funding strains, controversy over borrowing rules and the threat of financial collapse. It has been an exhausting and historic[...] dlvr.it/RnlpZg pic.twitter.com/g3myNyox6J

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Tracy Bingham: 2020, a year best forgotten but also one of learning: Many will rush to erase 2020 from their memories but, writes Tracy Bingham, there were also many lessons about finance teams, strategic planning and leadership. 2020: A year we’d… dlvr.it/RnlpY2 pic.twitter.com/m7G1krrtCu

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Settlement must address ‘precarious’ local government finances: Dan Bates crosses his fingers for “no nasty surprises” in this week’s funding settlement but argues the “bigger prize” is post-Covid financial certainty. Thursday (17 December) should be the… dlvr.it/Rnj9dG pic.twitter.com/KLKjjuBqJE

    Room151 1 month ago

    PWLB consultation: Big change on the way but there are ‘grey areas’ and opportunities: The consultation on PWLB borrowing has concluded creating a new landscape for funding property acquisition. Our experts look at the implications. Tracie Langley The… dlvr.it/RndRvJ pic.twitter.com/KEqXEBmEfq

    Room151 1 month ago

    2021: Better income outcomes?: Sponsored article: Investors should be mindful of structural challenges posed to income generation as a result of rapid thematic change. Jon Bell looks at the prospects for the coming year.[...] dlvr.it/RndRsw pic.twitter.com/TxVk8aXkMq

    Room151 1 month ago

    Capturing the ‘spirit’ of borrowing rules and a sequel for interest rate swaps: The year in treasury has been marked by a return for interest rate swaps and new rules from PWLB on borrowing for yield. Jackie Shute asks whether they will sprinkle[...] dlvr.it/RnQwv7 pic.twitter.com/it5FApdCcl

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story Moody’s reveal MMF strategies in H2 2011
  • Next story Making sense of the current market, and a perspective of the Kay challenges

© Copyright 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK