Moody's Revised MMF Rating Proposal Still Faces Scrutiny

Moody's proposes to still factor in a fund sponsor’s ability and willingness to support a 'distressed fund' in ratings

More On Legal & Compliance

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Preventing and Dealing with Client Complaints Although the SEC has not provided specific guidance on how client complaints should be handled, a firm’s policies and procedures should provide clear direction how to do so, as neglecting complaints can exacerbate a bad situation.
  • Pay-to-Play Rule Violating the pay-to-play rule can result in serious consequences, and RIAs should adopt robust policies and procedures to prevent and detect contributions made to influence the selection of the firm by a government entity.

Market participants are objecting to a proposal by Moody’s Investor Service to rate money market funds by factoring in a fund sponsor’s ability and willingness to support a “distressed fund”—that is, a fund that’s about to “break the buck” or is in financial distress.

Last September, Moody’s originally proposed that the sole determinant it would use in rating a money market fund would be based on a fund sponsor’s ability and willingness to support a distressed fund. But after receiving negative feedback on its proposal—including comments from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke—Moody’s decided to revise its proposal.

In its revised proposal, released on Jan. 18, 2011, Moody’s “opted to lessen the impact that would be placed on fund sponsor support,” in determining a money market fund’s rating, says Jacob Nygren, a manager with Treasury Strategies in Chicago. Moody’s revised proposal states that, “...our expectation [is] that funds rated in the top category (Aaa-mf) would be sponsored by firms having an investment grade or equivalent credit profile.” Moody’s revised rating methodology also states that, “the quality of a fund’s sponsor will continue to be a factor in our ratings.”

John Walsh, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, wrote in a Feb. 17 letter to Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., a member of the House Financial Services Committee, that the Comptroller’s office is “...opposed to any policy that creates an expectation that a national bank will be relied upon to provide support to a sponsored fund.”

Anthony Carfang, a partner at Treasury Strategies, says that “Moody’s recent modification of its proposed ratings methodology does not clearly and fully focus on a fund’s own characteristics separate from a fund’s sponsor.” Treasury Strategies, he said, “continue[s] to believe that Moody’s rating methodology must be consistent with current regulation and never assert pressure on fund sponsors to expressly or tacitly undertake to support their funds as a condition to receiving the highest credit rating.”

Reprints Discuss this story
This is where the comments go.