When comparing money market mutual funds a few patterns arose. First, when it comes to expense ratios, or the annual fees you’ll pay to own the funds, 0.25% is a threshold that separates the top and bottom half of the money market mutual funds in my short list. When it comes to yields, 2.1% is a defining 7-Day Yield threshold. For YTD yields, 1.4% is a benchmark that separates the pack.
While some mutual funds are index funds, which aim to track the performance of a specific market index, most are actively managed, meaning fund managers follow an investment strategy to buy and sell a variety of securities in an attempt to beat the market. There are funds that focus on nearly every part of the market, and buyers can invest in a variety of assets including equities, bonds, real estate and commodities.
A money market mutual fund, often referred to as a ‘money market fund’, is a low-risk investment with the goal of earning interest while still providing liquidity. Money market funds were developed in the 1970s before bank money market accounts were allowed. A money market fund is typically invested in short-term high-quality debt products, making it less risky than a mutual fund invested in stocks or longer term bonds.
Generally, a high-rate money market account pays a higher APY than a checking account because banks can assume that your money will be in there for a longer period. Yes, you could withdraw from a money market account – just like you could in a checking account – but a money market account has built-in restrictions because its transactions are restricted under Regulation D. Unlike a checking account, money market accounts are limited to six “convenient” transfers and withdrawals per month. According to the Federal Reserve, these restricted transfers and withdrawals include transfers to another account to act as overdraft protection, direct bill payments, telephone transfers, withdrawals initiated by fax, computer, email or internet instruction, and transfers or withdrawals made by check, debit card or other similar method used to pay other third parties.
While cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that are managed through advanced encryption techniques, many governments have taken a cautious approach toward them, fearing their lack of central control and the effects they could have on financial security. Regulators in several countries have warned against cryptocurrency and some have taken concrete regulatory measures to dissuade users. Additionally, many banks do not offer services for cryptocurrencies and can refuse to offer services to virtual-currency companies. Gareth Murphy, a senior central banking officer has stated "widespread use [of cryptocurrency] would also make it more difficult for statistical agencies to gather data on economic activity, which are used by governments to steer the economy". He cautioned that virtual currencies pose a new challenge to central banks' control over the important functions of monetary and exchange rate policy. While traditional financial products have strong consumer protections in place, there is no intermediary with the power to limit consumer losses if bitcoins are lost or stolen. One of the features cryptocurrency lacks in comparison to credit cards, for example, is consumer protection against fraud, such as chargebacks.
The market of cryptocurrencies is fast and wild. Nearly every day new cryptocurrencies emerge, old die, early adopters get wealthy and investors lose money. Every cryptocurrency comes with a promise, mostly a big story to turn the world around. Few survive the first months, and most are pumped and dumped by speculators and live on as zombie coins until the last bagholder loses hope ever to see a return on his investment.
1) Controlled supply: Most cryptocurrencies limit the supply of the tokens. In Bitcoin, the supply decreases in time and will reach its final number sometime around the year 2140. All cryptocurrencies control the supply of the token by a schedule written in the code. This means the monetary supply of a cryptocurrency in every given moment in the future can roughly be calculated today. There is no surprise.
The first money market mutual fund to break the buck was First Multifund for Daily Income (FMDI) in 1978, liquidating and restating NAV at 94 cents per share. An argument has been made that FMDI was not technically a money market fund as at the time of liquidation the average maturity of securities in its portfolio exceeded two years. However, prospective investors were informed that FMDI would invest "solely in Short-Term (30-90 days) MONEY MARKET obligations". Furthermore, the rule restricting which the maturities which money market funds are permitted to invest in, Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, was not promulgated until 1983. Prior to the adoption of this rule, a mutual fund had to do little other than present itself as a money market fund, which FMDI did. Seeking higher yield, FMDI had purchased increasingly longer maturity securities, and rising interest rates negatively impacted the value of its portfolio. In order to meet increasing redemptions, the fund was forced to sell a certificate of deposit at a 3% loss, triggering a restatement of its NAV and the first instance of a money market fund "breaking the buck".
A high-rate money market account can be both a worthwhile investment and a shorter-term savings tool for liquid money. It’s a worthwhile investment for money that needs to earn a competitive APY (annual percentage yield) and be kept safe. One of the safest places is an eligible account at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) bank that’s within FDIC insurance limits. If your money market account is at an FDIC bank -- or has National Credit Union Share Insurance (NCUSIF) protection if it’s at an National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) credit union – then your account is covered if it’s within coverage limits.
In 1983, the American cryptographer David Chaum conceived an anonymous cryptographic electronic money called ecash. Later, in 1995, he implemented it through Digicash, an early form of cryptographic electronic payments which required user software in order to withdraw notes from a bank and designate specific encrypted keys before it can be sent to a recipient. This allowed the digital currency to be untraceable by the issuing bank, the government, or any third party.
A second solution, more focused on money market funds directly, is to re-regulate them to address the common misunderstandings, and to ensure that money market "depositors", who enjoy greater interest rates, thoroughly understand the actual risk they are undertaking. These risks include substantial interconnectedness between and among money market participants, and various other substantial systemic risks factors.
But while cryptocurrencies are more used for payment, its use as a means of speculation and a store of value dwarfs the payment aspects. Cryptocurrencies gave birth to an incredibly dynamic, fast-growing market for investors and speculators. Exchanges like Okcoin, Poloniex or shapeshift enables the trade of hundreds of cryptocurrencies. Their daily trade volume exceeds that of major European stock exchanges.
In response, on Friday, September 19, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced an optional program to "insure the holdings of any publicly offered eligible money market mutual fund—both retail and institutional—that pays a fee to participate in the program". The insurance guaranteed that if a covered fund had broken the buck, it would have been restored to $1 NAV. The program was similar to the FDIC, in that it insured deposit-like holdings and sought to prevent runs on the bank. The guarantee was backed by assets of the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund, up to a maximum of $50 billion. This program only covered assets invested in funds before September 19, 2008, and those who sold equities, for example, during the subsequent market crash and parked their assets in money funds, were at risk. The program immediately stabilized the system and stanched the outflows, but drew criticism from banking organizations, including the Independent Community Bankers of America and American Bankers Association, who expected funds to drain out of bank deposits and into newly insured money funds, as these latter would combine higher yields with insurance. The guarantee program ended on September 18, 2009, with no losses and generated $1.2 billion in revenue from the participation fees.