The editorial "Taxpayers and Money Market Funds" (May 9) disregards the considerable progress that has resulted in the resistance of money market funds during the financial crisis. It has also ruled out the economic interference and proliferation of resulting dangers coming from a long-questioned “solution”. The fact that the shares issued from the money market funds are not insured means that the funds are not guaranteed. Records of the previous years show an unequaled record of solidity. The higher demand for money market funds irrespective of the possibility of the almost zero returns is a caution that significant changes to this creation will result in severe market disruption. The idea of the floating value of money market funds does not minimize the risk; the flexibility of this idea was proved in the year 2008 when the ultra-short value was floated. Fluctuating the value of the money market will lead to another expensive and distracting regulatory liability on a still-fragile economy. The idea will also drive away from the investors who are legally required to have cash in an unwavering value account. The retail investors will also withdraw because they desire to have access to their property and market money funds cannot offer. The advantages of floating funds are minimal compared to the enormous cost. Banks cannot absorb many trillions in deposits without a substantial danger increase. Institutional financiers are not likely to collect money into an undiversified bank account in any situation. As a result, a lot of money will find alternatives. This money will end up operating in free danger-limiting regulations, and the risk that can occur from this is enormous. Finally, one has to certify that taxpayers do not concentrate on money market funds. There is a need to reserve the worth and features of money market funds. More posts written b Maisy can get find at https://essaysprofessor.com/case-study-writing-service.html