[ by Howard Haykin ] Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal challenged opponents of money market fund reform to make up their minds.  The Journal points to several issues or concerns that essentially support such reforms:

• An allegedly rare failure - i.e., "breaking the buck" - has been repeated more than 300 times.
• Money Market Funds ("MMFs") are pools of securities that can rise and fall in value, and investors need to know that.
• The Journal's argued for greater transparency, and they are encouraged by the SEC proposal which would allow a fund's Net Asset Value ("NAV") to float, like they do for other securities.
• Reform opponents first responded (to increased transparency) that allowing investors to see more accurate pricing would cause investors to flee money funds for unregulated, shadowy ventures operating offshore.  That argument was quickly dismissed.
• Fast forwarding to the end, the Journal makes this observation:  "Perhaps the weakest argument from opponents is that because the SEC updated its money-fund rules in 2010, the commission shouldn't pursue true reform until it has studied the impact of the rule changes. By this logic Republicans shouldn't try to repeal Dodd-Frank or ObamaCare."

A History of Money Funds, presented in the Friday, 6/22 edition of Journal's "Review and Outlook" Section, concludes with this thought:

"Genuine reformers should be looking to protect taxpayers wherever there's an opportunity, and in this case we have an Obama appointee taking on a big well-funded lobby and trying to eliminate an implicit taxpayer backstop. How often does that happen?"

To access the referenced WSJ position piece, go to: [WSJ "Review and Outlook",  6/22/12].