Abstract
In this paper, we argue that bank-sponsored prime institutional money market funds (PI-MMFs) are different from non-bank-sponsored PI-MMFs. This difference can arise because the sponsoring bank holding companies (BHCs) can extend shadow insurance to ailing affiliated MMFs. We hypothesize that PI-MMFs price this shadow insurance through higher expense ratios. Indeed, after September 2008 when industry risk increased, expense ratios were seven basis points higher than those of non-BHC-sponsored MMFs. This increase is of similar size to the average deposit insurance premium charged by the FDIC in 2008. We also show, despite higher expense ratios, the redemptions in BHC sponsored MMFs were lower in contrast to expectations of prior literature.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
