|
||||
|
||||
Reforming Money Market FundsMartin N. BailyBrookings Institution John Y. CampbellHarvard University - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) John H. CochraneUniversity of Chicago - Booth School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Douglas W. DiamondUniversity of Chicago - Booth School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Darrell DuffieStanford University - Graduate School of Business Kenneth R. FrenchDartmouth College - Tuck School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Anil K. KashyapUniversity of Chicago - Booth School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Frederic S. MishkinColumbia Business School - Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) David S. ScharfsteinHarvard Business School - Finance Unit; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Robert J. ShillerYale University - Cowles Foundation; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Yale University - International Center for Finance Matthew J. SlaughterDartmouth College - Tuck School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Hyun Song ShinPrinceton University - Department of Economics Jeremy C. SteinHarvard University - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Rene M. StulzOhio State University (OSU) - Department of Finance; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) January 14, 2011 Tuck School of Business Working Paper No. 2011-86 Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper No. 109 Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 12-13 Abstract: The current stable-NAV model for prime money market funds exposes fund investors and systemically important borrowers to runs like those that occurred after the failure of Lehman in September 2008. This working paper, by the Squam Lake Group, argues that, to reduce this risk, funds should have either floating NAVs or buffers provided by their sponsors that can absorb losses up to a level to be set by regulators. We suggest alternative designs for such a buffer, as well as considerations that should be taken into account when determining its required size.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 10 working papers seriesDate posted: January 19, 2011 ; Last revised: February 20, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.531 seconds