In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
Money Market Funds (MMFs) are open-ended, collective investment schemes. They invest in short-term debt instruments issued by financial and non-financial corporate entities, sovereign governments and related agencies, as well as supranational bodies, among others. The MMF investment in such instruments provides an essential source of financing for these entities, one that often complements traditional bank financing through loans, especially for non-financial companies. Typically, money market instruments include commercial paper (CP), certificates of deposit (CDs), short term bonds, as well as bank deposits and repurchase agreements (repo and reverse repo).
International work is well underway to review existing standards applicable to MMFs, accompanied by work at the ESMA and European Commission levels in Europe. EFAMA refutes some of the commonly held misconceptions around MMFs, and seeks to inform future policy amendments based on facts and direct experience from European MMF managers.
In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the functioning of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR).
While cognisant of the FSB’s strict timelines in view of upcoming G20 summits, these should not come at the expense of a necessary and more informed debate on the causes at the root of last year’s stresses in global short-term funding markets (STFMs) and on ways to remedy these in the future. In fact, the options presented in the consultation report appear hurried and dismissive of critical facts, calling therefore for a deeper engagement with the global financial and investing community at large.
In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the functioning of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR).
While cognisant of the FSB’s strict timelines in view of upcoming G20 summits, these should not come at the expense of a necessary and more informed debate on the causes at the root of last year’s stresses in global short-term funding markets (STFMs) and on ways to remedy these in the future. In fact, the options presented in the consultation report appear hurried and dismissive of critical facts, calling therefore for a deeper engagement with the global financial and investing community at large.
The pandemic-induced market events experienced in March 2020 have marked the first true ‘stress-test’ for European MMFs, following the introduction of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR) in 2017. Despite the severity of the liquidity stress in the secondary market for short-term instruments and the significant outflows experienced by European MMFs across all three of the MMFR-identified categories (public debt CNAV, LVNAV and VNAV), funds proved resilient.
The growth in MMF net assets occurred against the backdrop of resolute actions by governments and monetary authorities
across the world to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 crisis.