Example collocations logo

Funds in sentence

2629 examples of Funds in a sentence

Given that roughly half of current public spending on social programs fails to deliver better outcomes for the poor, simply directing more funds through existing channels is unlikely to have much of an impact.
If borrowers default on their off-balance-sheet loans, banks might choose to protect their reputations by covering the difference using internal funds, thereby transferring the risk onto their balance sheets and increasing the NPL ratio.
This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds.
When funds are directed at improving border-management systems and procedures – the very issues covered by the trade-facilitation negotiations – the impact is particularly significant.
There were no entitlements to cut or government funds to re-direct.
But the Bank’s core philosophy has rested on lending, with interest, to middle-income countries and channeling the ensuing funds to the poorest countries eligible for assistance.
Often, the default option is unsuitable for most individuals – for instance, it typically allocates all savings to low-return money-market funds.
Sunstein and Thaler would have the employer choose a default option that works for most people, such as 60% in equities, 30% in bonds, and 10% in money-market funds.
This, they believe, is better than the current typical default option of putting individuals’ money into money-market funds.
But it may be worse: coordinating everyone into risky asset investments may be more dangerous than coordinating them into boring investments like money-market funds.
Money-Market ResistanceCAMBRIDGE – The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently rejected proposed rules aimed at making money-market funds safer in a financial crisis – a rejection that has caused consternation among observers and other regulators.
Given the risks that money market funds can pose to the global financial system, as shown by their destabilizing role in the 2008 financial crisis, it is not hard to see why they are worried.
Money-market funds take excess cash from investors and use it to purchase short-term IOUs from businesses, banks, and other financial institutions.
In 2012, American “prime” money-market funds, which buy bank and corporate debt, were worth nearly $1.5 trillion.
The money flowing through these funds went to many of the world’s largest banks, including not just the obvious US suspects (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi), but also major European and Japanese banks such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Bank of Tokyo, Sumitomo, Credit Suisse, and ING.
These six international banks alone accounted for nearly 20% of the prime money-market funds’ value.
Many readers know how money-market funds work: An investor buys a $1.00 share from the XYZ fund, which keeps each share’s value at a constant $1.00, allowing the investor to believe that the money – invested in a pool of safe, secure, but not always government-guaranteed assets – is on deposit.
All money-market funds then became suspect, and many investors fled – withdrawing one-third of a trillion dollars in a single week.
Since much of the money-market funds’ assets are IOUs from the world’s biggest banks, the withdrawals weakened the already-shaky global banking system.
The Federal Reserve, seeking to stem the growing panic and stabilize the American and international banking system, promptly guaranteed the value of all money-market funds.
The proposals that the SEC rejected were aimed at making money-market funds more robust by requiring that each fund maintain capital reserves or let its value “float” – and not be rounded up – to reflect its true, underlying risk.
The proposal would also have required that money-market funds hold back a fraction of some redemptions, thereby making investors take some risk that funds might not have complete transactional liquidity if their investments weakened.
If money-market funds had to maintain capital reserves, industry representatives argued, yields to investors would decline and the industry’s profits would suffer.
And, if retail investors saw their money-market funds’ values declining from the amount that they had invested, and if they knew that they could not get all of their money back immediately, the funds would become less attractive.
As a result of the SEC’s inaction, money-market funds will continue to operate outside the scope of bank-style rules on capital and reserves, even though investors treat them like bank accounts.
But the 2008 financial crisis showed that, when push comes to shove, the government will backstop money-market funds nonetheless.
The rejected proposals are thus good policy: money-market funds should be made safer – via capital requirements and liquidity restrictions – because they already receive a de facto government guarantee.
One might think that banks would counter-balance the mutual-fund industry’s lobbying efforts, because the likely effect of forcing money-market funds to pay for more of their systemic costs would be to expand funds flowing directly to banks.
But inflows through money-market funds are not so bad for banks, which get the cash without having to set aside reserves or pay for deposit insurance.
Its lobbyists told the SEC commissioners that current rules already did everything possible to ensure safety; that retail investors want money-market funds’ steady value; that change would hurt all investors; and that the recent Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation disrupts regulators’ ability to bail out money-market funds next time.
BackNext