Money market sector risks 70 Table 15: Significant events – European MMFs 15/10/2008
ECB expands its collateral framework to secure longer-term financing for Euro-zone
financial markets. The expanded list of eligible assets includes all CDs and certain
subordinated debt instruments (with hair-cuts). The threshold for marketable and non-
marketable assets is lowered from A- to BBB-.
16/10/2008
The Irish central bank relaxes the requirement for CNAV MMFs to conduct weekly
reviews of discrepancies between market value and the amortised cost value for their
AuM.
19/10/2008
US Federal Reserve Board announces the Asset Backed Commercial Paper Money
Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF), providing loans to banks to purchase
ABCPs from US MMFs.
21/10/2008
US Federal Reserve Board launches Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF)
purchasing CDs and CPs with minimum requirements for ratings and remaining
maturities of 90 days or less from US MMFs.
November 2008
Several Luxembourg domiciled MMFs receive support from parent banks to meet
redemptions.
12/11/2008
AVIVA alters its Sterling and Euro liquidity funds from constant (CNAV) to variable net
asset value (VNAV) policy.
18/02/2009
SGAM reports losses resulting from the liquidity support measures to dynamic money
market funds in Q1 08 and valuation adjustments on some assets in Q4.
Source: Bengtsson (2011) 7.3.4 Suspended redemptions MMFs that operated in asset-backed securities markets and especially funds involved in US
subprime mortgage securities markets faced substantial redemption risk, whether as a result of
specific holdings or merely as a result of presence in the sector. In the context of stressed market
conditions, redemptions are potentially associated with losses as MMFs seek to liquidate assets in
illiquid markets. To stem declining share values, therefore, many MMFs suspended fund
redemptions or permitted them given a haircut on NAVs.
AXA Investment Management was the first to report losses on two of its MMFs by approximately
13% in July 2009, thereafter increasing to 21%. These funds were 'enhanced MMFs' that
emphasised the objective of maximising yield (relative to security of assets and liquidity), relative
to other MMFs. Reflecting this, they were not subject to the conservative credit risk limits of
IMMFA funds and so invested in relatively risky assets.
The funds had allocated 40% of assets under management to US subprime mortgages. However,
interestingly, these assets experienced losses even though they were not the US subprime
mortgage vintages that were downgraded (Johnson 2007; Tett 2007; and Burgess, 2007).
In any case, investors' response was to redeem capital. So in order to protect its reputation and
stem losses, AXA purchased fund shares at the prevailing NAV, thereby saddling itself with
outstanding market risk associated with the funds' holdings. Subscriptions to the funds were
simultaneously suspended.
Another example in which suspension of redemptions (and subscriptions) was employed was by
French asset manager ODDO in connection with its enhanced MMFs. The motivation for these
actions were quoted as difficulties in valuing differences between securities' fundamental values