By Ted Howard
In the November issue of iTreasurer, we delve into the aftermath of two big regulatory and tax issues: money market reform and the US Treasury’s new tax rules on inversions, otherwise known as Section 385. We also discuss recent visits by intrepid NeuGroup reporters to recent conferences in Vienna and Orlando, Florida.
Beginning is our look at the aftermath of Treasury’s Section 385 implementation. Despite expectations for a bad outcome, Section 385 turned out to be not nearly as onerous as expected. Corporates got the carve-outs that they were looking for; however, Treasury kept certain parts of the rules that will keep treasurers busy nonetheless. Also in a bit of history, making the distinction between debt and equity has been controversial for more than 30 years. And in an attempt to sort out the jungle of court decisions related to the issue, Congress made 385 part of the Internal Revenue Code in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury license to “issue regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated… as stock or indebtedness.”
In our peer group meeting summary this month we showcase the Global Cash and Banking Group. At its meeting in California in the spring, members discussed the future of eBAM and whether treasury sees any value in it; this is because eBAM adoption rates have been low due to a lack of standardization among banks. Members also discussed M&A integration and the importance of building a model to integrate/divest businesses in a more efficient manner as well as the resurgence of in-house banks.
Reporting on the proceedings at October’s Eurofinance meeting in Vienna, contributing editor Anne Friberg discusses whether treasury reached its “tipping point.” The answer is “yes, probably,” writes Ms. Friberg: “a tipping point toward a broader and more strategic remit, under increasing pressure to do more with less, but with opportunities to take advantage of innovation from banks and fintechs, while perhaps faced with bank relationship challenges in the context of the choice to bundle or unbundle certain services.”
Contributor John Hintze writes that there could be some hope for beleaguered prime funds now that the October 14 SEC rules have kicked in. That’s because two trends are shaping up that could bring cash back to the funds after it left for government funds ahead of the new rules. “One is that spreads between institutional prime and government MMFs have widened since the October 14 compliance deadline of new rules,” Mr. Hintze writes. “The second is that prime fund portfolios’ weighted average maturities (WAMs) have lengthened somewhat. These shifts may eventually bring back some lost luster to prime funds for corporate treasurers, but so far inflows have yet to materialize, and views split sharply about whether they ever will.”
Nonetheless, there remain skeptics who doubt that prime will recover any of the departed cash. “From what we’ve heard, no matter what the yield on prime MMFs, they’re not going to see money return,” one observer noted in the story.
Enjoy the issue.