With the recent discussion of the risks of money market funds, I am taking a good look at the cash and short-term bond vehicles in my portfolio. I am most concerned about the two "stable value funds" I am holding in my 401(k) accounts.
Stable value funds are opaque. There used to be some publicly available mutual funds of this type, but these offerings all closed up shop by 2004. (source) There seems to be some unusual accounting practices involved, since mutual funds must be marked to market every night (fair-value accounting), while the securities in stable value funds are not liquid enough to mark (contract-value accounting). Stable value funds are still available in some 401(k) plans. In 2005 FASB reaffirmed that contract-value accounting was legit for retirement plan assets. (source)
There are occasional mentions of "wrapper agreements" in the marketing. I think these are used to synthesize marked-to-market prices on the illiquid contracts. Or perhaps "wrapper agreements" are the "guarantee" part of guaranteed investment contract. I have no idea, and this stuff is pretty boring to sift through.
So I turned to the fair and balanced reporting at the Stable Value Investment Association:
I hold one run by SSgA. The prospecto-blurb which is available on the web talk about "high quality investment contracts" issued by financial institutions, "as well as short-term investment products". 86% of issues held are AA+ or higher. The same portion is concentrated in only 4 issuers: UBS AG (Syn.), Royal Bank of Canada, Monumental Life Insurance Co, and Bank of America NA.
My wife has one run by Invesco. 95% of issues are AA of higher. Oddly enough this fund is concentrated in 2 the 4 issuers I listed above.
Hmm. Any insights into the nutritional value of this sausage recipe?
Stable value funds are opaque. There used to be some publicly available mutual funds of this type, but these offerings all closed up shop by 2004. (source) There seems to be some unusual accounting practices involved, since mutual funds must be marked to market every night (fair-value accounting), while the securities in stable value funds are not liquid enough to mark (contract-value accounting). Stable value funds are still available in some 401(k) plans. In 2005 FASB reaffirmed that contract-value accounting was legit for retirement plan assets. (source)
There are occasional mentions of "wrapper agreements" in the marketing. I think these are used to synthesize marked-to-market prices on the illiquid contracts. Or perhaps "wrapper agreements" are the "guarantee" part of guaranteed investment contract. I have no idea, and this stuff is pretty boring to sift through.
So I turned to the fair and balanced reporting at the Stable Value Investment Association:
Stable Value Funds deliver safety and stability by preserving principal and accumulated earnings. They are similar to money market funds but offer considerably higher returns. Their returns make them comparable to intermediate bonds minus the volatility. They are the largest conservative investment in defined contribution retirement plans with over $396 billion in assets.
My wife has one run by Invesco. 95% of issues are AA of higher. Oddly enough this fund is concentrated in 2 the 4 issuers I listed above.
Hmm. Any insights into the nutritional value of this sausage recipe?
Comment