The weekly read on where institutional credit meets the wealth channel.
AT A GLANCE
EDITOR’S NOTE
Cash used to be the boring bit. The place your money sat while you worked out what to actually do with it – nobody wrote about the parking, because there was nothing to write about.
That’s changed. Money market funds now have their own rulebook, their own redemption mechanics and, since the FCA’s reforms and MiCA landed this year, a much more clearly defined place in the regulatory perimeter. The number that actually stopped me this week was $8.29 trillion sitting in US money market funds (Crane Data, June 2026) – bigger than the entire US ETF industry, bigger than the entire US high-yield bond market, and growing by roughly the size of Europe’s whole AAA CLO UCITS ETF category every fortnight for a year. We spent an entire issue on that category last month. Money funds add one of them every two weeks and don’t even mention it.
Nobody’s really talking about this, which is odd, because it’s arguably the biggest thing to happen in retail finance in years. Perhaps it’s because it didn’t arrive with a bang. It just kept growing.
Here’s the bit that matters. Money funds became the wealth channel’s answer once the hiking cycle started paying people to hold cash. That made perfect sense at the time. What’s more surprising is what happened next. The hiking cycle ended. The money didn’t move. Yields on the top hundred US funds were still near 3.5% at the end of April. The retail slice of that $8.29 trillion, going by the Fed’s own numbers, is roughly $2.25 trillion. Money funds are now 4.5% of total US household wealth, up from 3% before rates started climbing.
This issue looks beyond that headline number. We explain what the wrapper holds, what it promises, why regulators have spent so much time rewriting the rulebook, and what happens on the rare day the promise and the plumbing stop agreeing with each other.
Alper Deniz
Founder & Editor
Three things from the week to 9th July.
The FCA lands on 40/20 as guidance and drops the 50% idea. The Financial Conduct Authority’s Policy Statement on money market fund reform, published on 8th June, brought to a close a set of changes the market has been watching since the March 2020 dash for cash.
The headline decision is that the 50% weekly-liquid-asset floor floated in the 2023 consultation has gone. In its place: 40% weekly liquid assets for stable-NAV funds – public debt CNAVs and LVNAVs, which we’ll come to – and 20% for variable-NAV funds, expressed as supervisory guidance rather than a bright-line rule. Delinking, where liquidity fees and redemption gates were unhooked from breaches of the weekly-liquid-asset threshold, has been preserved. The FCA has also confirmed that legislation to repeal the retained UK Money Market Funds Regulation will follow before the end of 2026, handing the job over to the FCA rulebook instead. It’s a noticeably softer landing than the buy side expected. FCA statement
Weekly liquid assets, if the term is new to you, are simply the slice of a fund’s holdings that can be turned into cash within a week. Think of it as the shock absorber. The larger that buffer, the less the fund has to scramble if investors all decide they want their money back at once. Almost every regulatory debate in this issue comes back to one question: how big should that shock absorber be?
Three European regulators move together. The Central Bank of Ireland, France’s AMF and Luxembourg’s CSSF have opened a joint consultation, CP168, on liquidity requirements for European money market funds. The numbers mirror the FCA’s – 40% for CNAV and LVNAV funds, 20% for VNAV – and it’s open until 3rd August.
The numbers themselves aren’t the story. The story is that three national regulators, covering the jurisdictions that hold most European MMF assets, chose to consult together rather than separately. It’s the closest the euro-area money market fund regime has come to a coordinated supervisory conversation since the MMFR was introduced in 2017.
The MiCA transitional window closes. The last remaining transitional periods under MiCA – the EU’s rulebook for crypto issuers and service providers – ended on 1st July. Around a dozen euro-denominated e-money tokens are now fully authorised across the EU: Circle’s EURC via the ACPR, Banking Circle’s EURI via the CSSF, Société Générale-Forge’s EURCV via the ACPR, and a handful of others.
From here on, any e-money token issued into the EU sits under a regulatory framework that will feel familiar to anyone who knows money market funds: reserve composition, redemption rights, supervisory oversight of the issuer – the lot.
That, in many ways, is the thread running through this week’s issue. The technology is different, but the regulatory questions are becoming remarkably similar. Strip away the blockchain settlement layer and stablecoins are beginning to look much more like money market fund wrappers than they did only a few years ago.
$8.29 trillion in money market funds versus $1.8–3.2 trillion in private credit. Those two numbers tell a rather different story about the wealth channel than the one we’ve become used to hearing.
The dominant industry story of the past three years has been private credit’s arrival in the retail portfolio. On the numbers, it’s only the second-biggest thing to happen in retail credit allocation since 2022.
The biggest is the money market fund. US MMFs held $6.2 trillion at the start of 2023 and $8.29 trillion this June – up $2 trillion in two and a half years. The retail slice of that $8.29 trillion, best as we can tell from the Fed’s H.6 breakdown, is around $2.25 trillion. Private credit, on any measure available, is smaller. Preqin puts it at $1.8 trillion globally as of mid-2026. Moody’s puts it at $2 trillion. PIMCO’s analysts arrive at $3.2 trillion using a broader definition that folds in NAV lending and asset-based finance.
However you measure it, the conclusion barely changes. More retail money now sits in money market funds than in private credit.
The two wrappers aren’t really competing in the way the sell presentation decks like to suggest. A private credit fund yielding 9% and a money fund yielding 3.5% don’t sit on the same shelf for the same investor at the same moment. They are, however, competing for one particular decision. The retail advisor deciding how to rebalance between cash and something that looks more like a bond fund. And the whole private credit thesis rests on money leaving the money fund once the Fed starts cutting rates.
That stickiness matters, because it reshapes the private credit demand curve entirely. If MMFs are a $1 trillion drawdown waiting to happen once yields normalise, private credit’s fundraising path looks one way. If MMFs turn out to be a structural allocation that isn’t going anywhere, private credit is competing for a much smaller pool than the wealth-channel decks assume.
The world’s biggest weekly bond deal, and almost nobody calls it a deal.
The US Treasury has published its refunding schedule for July covering roughly $125 billion in gross issuance and raising around $41.7 billion in net new cash. Much of that money will be used to rebuild the Treasury General Account (TGA) – the US government’s operating balance at the Federal Reserve – from about $807 billion at the start of the month toward $1 trillion by month-end.
In primary-market terms, that’s a $125 billion deal sold in weekly tranches, priced at the front end, with a buyer base that’s known in advance and has nowhere else to put the money. It’s bigger than any private-market transaction likely to price this month, bigger than the entire European AAA CLO UCITS ETF category, yet it passes almost as routine.
That captive buyer base is money market funds. US MMFs already hold roughly $2.3 trillion of Treasury bills, more than a quarter of the entire outstanding bill stock. When Treasury issues bills, money funds buy them – the July schedule depends on exactly that. It’s effectively a Significant Risk Transfer happening every single week between the US government and the retail cash wrapper, except what’s being transferred isn’t credit risk (close to zero here) but duration risk, which is short by design.
Credit risk is the risk a borrower doesn’t pay back what they owe. For a Treasury bill it’s treated as effectively zero, since the US government can simply issue the dollars needed to repay. For a private credit loan, it’s the thing the fund manager is actually paid to underwrite.
Duration risk is the risk a bond’s price falls when interest rates rise. Longer-dated bonds carry more of it; shorter ones barely move. A one-month Treasury bill has almost none, which is exactly why money funds – whose investors expect a stable price – hold them in size.
The question the July calendar really raises is what it drains. Rebuilding the TGA pulls reserves out of the banking system, which puts upward pressure on repo rates and reduces balances at the Fed’s overnight Reverse Repo Facility – already down from a peak above $2.3 trillion in late 2022 to under $200 billion this summer. The RRP is worth a proper definition, because it comes up again later in this issue.
If the RRP runs dry before the TGA is rebuilt, the reserves have to come from bank deposits instead, and that’s where repo starts to matter, because repo is what money funds hold once the RRP runs out. The path from a Treasury refunding schedule to the front end of the market is direct and measurable, and most of July still lies ahead.
Quarter-end has made it more eventful still. 30th June brought the usual print-day squeeze in the repo market – SOFR spiked a handful of basis points into month-end, then settled back down, as it always does. The Treasury’s refunding announcement for the August–October quarter lands on 30th July, which happens to be the Wednesday of an FOMC decision week. If the TGA rebuild isn’t finished by then, that announcement will finish it.
Money market fund managers reading this already know all this. The point of spelling it out is that if you own an LTAF or an SRT, you’re also a participant in this same overnight funding market, whether you’ve noticed or not. What happens at the front end this month isn’t just a money-fund problem – it’s a funding-market story that runs through the whole wrapper theme. ApexTrader recap
LVNAV in Europe, 2a-7 in the US. Same job, different perimeter.
The two dominant money-market fund structures on either side of the Atlantic do the same job. Both turn a portfolio of short-dated debt – Treasury bills, agency paper, commercial paper, certificates of deposit, repo – into a $1 or €1 unit that clears same-day and looks, on a client statement, just like cash. Both sit under strict rules on what can be held and how the fund reprices if something goes wrong. And both were rewritten after the 2008 financial crisis, then rewritten again after March 2020.
Today, the products look far more alike than they did a decade ago. Most of the remaining differences sit in the rulebook rather than the wrapper itself.
LVNAV – Low Volatility NAV, the European structure brought in under 2017’s MMFR – quotes a stable price as long as the fund’s mark-to-market value stays within 20 basis points of par. Breach that collar and the fund flips to a variable NAV.
2a-7, the American structure named after the section of the Investment Company Act 1940 it sits under, allows a stable $1 price for government and retail funds, and since 2016 requires a floating NAV for prime institutional funds.
The US has its own equivalent safeguard, although it works differently. Stable-NAV funds have to break the buck if their shadow price drifts more than 50 basis points from par.
The meaningful differences today come down to three areas. What stands out is how similar the two regimes are becoming.
The first is the weekly-liquid-asset floor itself. The SEC raised it to 50% in the 2023 reforms. The FCA has landed at 40% for stable NAV and 20% for VNAV, and the CBI/AMF/CSSF consultation would bring those same numbers to the euro-area. The US floor sits ten percentage points above the European one at the top, largely because the SEC has been rewriting 2a-7 for longer and has more of the 2020 experience built into its rulebook.
The second is gates. The 2010 SEC amendments introduced a liquidity fee and gate framework tied to breaches of the weekly-liquid-asset threshold, before the 2023 reforms removed it. European MMFR had a similar link, which the FCA has now delinked, and which the CBI/AMF/CSSF consultation would delink further still. Despite starting in different places, both regimes have arrived at broadly the same destination: no automatic gates tied to liquidity thresholds.
The third is redemption pricing. The 2023 SEC reforms brought in a mandatory liquidity fee for prime institutional funds under stress. European MMFR doesn’t have a direct equivalent – the LVNAV structure leans on the collar and, in extremis, on the flip to VNAV.
Whether the CBI/AMF/CSSF consultation introduces a comparable fee mechanism is one of the biggest unanswered questions this summer.
Post-2023, the SEC took out the mechanical triggers. Post-2026, the FCA chose not to add them at all. The direction of travel now looks remarkably similar on both sides of the Atlantic. High liquidity floors remain, but the emphasis has shifted away from automatic triggers and towards supervisory judgement. It’s the same broad approach we’ve seen emerge across financial regulation over the past decade. Money market funds have simply arrived there a little later than most.
Isabel Schnabel, European Central Bank Executive Board, in a speech titled “From money market funds to stablecoins” delivered at the Bank for International Settlements, 4th June 2026 Full speech
The left panel shows why a US money market fund is really a Treasury-and-repo fund wearing a different name. Treasury bills and repurchase agreements together make up more than three-quarters of the $8.29 trillion. Agency paper is a smaller slice than most people assume, and commercial paper is now just a thin sliver – a leftover from the prime-fund shrinkage that followed 2016 and 2023.
The right panel is close to the mirror image. Certificates of deposit and commercial paper – short-dated bank paper, essentially – dominate European holdings. Government paper, the equivalent of the Treasury slice on the left, is a small share, with repo sitting somewhere in the middle. Put the two charts side by side at the same scale and the point makes itself before anyone’s said a word.
The reason the two pictures look so different comes down to the same reason 2a-7 and LVNAV differ. American money funds sit inside the deepest Treasury bill market in the world and have been steered by SEC rulemaking toward government paper. European money funds sit inside a shallower government-paper market and have leaned on bank certificates of deposit and commercial paper to get the liquidity that US funds get from bills.
The point of putting these two charts next to each other isn’t that one side is safer than the other. It’s that when the underlying collateral differs this much, “money market fund” turns out to be a category of promise rather than a category of holdings. Which is exactly why this summer’s regulatory conversation – the FCA in June, the CBI/AMF/CSSF from July, the SEC’s ongoing review of its own 2023 reforms – is worth watching closely. What’s actually sitting behind the promise is the whole ballgame.
And finally…
999 Years Ought to Cover It
A 999-year lease isn’t the sort of number you expect to see in modern finance.
Yet that’s exactly what Barclays agreed to on 30th June when it paid £750 million for a 999-year lease on its Canary Wharf headquarters. Not a new address across the road. The very building its staff have been walking into for years. According to MSCI data, it was Europe’s largest office transaction in almost four years and the first Canary Wharf building to change hands for more than £50 million in over two.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine years is one of those wonderfully odd features of English property law. It’s long enough that the number almost stops meaning anything. Barclays wasn’t around 999 years ago. Neither was Canary Wharf. Nor, for that matter, the Bank of England. Yet a lease stretching almost a millennium into the future is treated as perfectly ordinary.
Barclays says the deal is broadly neutral for capital and earnings, and mechanically that makes sense. Economically, it’s replacing a much shorter lease with something that’s about as close to a freehold as English law allows. Behind the eye-catching lease length sits a fairly straightforward property decision.
The more revealing part of the story, though, may be the one sitting across the table.
Over the past twelve months, Canary Wharf Group has completed more than £2 billion of refinancings, including a facility with Apollo. While Barclays has been securing long-term control of its headquarters, its landlord has been reshaping how the estate itself is financed, relying increasingly on insurance and private-credit capital alongside more traditional sources of funding.
That’s the detail that caught our attention.
One side of the transaction is locking in occupation for the foreseeable future. The other is continuing to diversify how one of Europe’s best-known office estates is funded.
Same building. Same transaction. Two very different financing stories.
That’s Issue #3 of the Structured Scoop. Thanks for spending part of your week with us. If something made you think, taught you something new or missed the mark entirely, we’d love to hear about it. We’ll see you in the next issue.
Stay updated with the latest insights and articles delivered to your inbox weekly.
Stay Informed with Our Updates
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and expert advice
on funding structures.
