There are good reasons and bad reasons for setting up a funded revocable living trust (RLT) –  here is one of the better reasons:  FDIC insurance has been increased and now covers each beneficiary’s interest in an RLT up to $250,000 each.

 See the FDIC website explanation here.

The legislation authorizing the increase in deposit insurance coverage limits makes the change effective October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2009.

A beneficiary must be a person, charity or another non-profit organization (as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service). All other beneficiaries are not eligible for separate coverage as revocable trust deposits.

While the owners [grantors] of a trust may benefit from the trust during their lifetimes, they are not considered beneficiaries for the purpose of calculating deposit insurance coverage. Beneficiaries are those identified by the owner to receive an interest in the trust assets when the last owner dies. Unlike POD accounts, the beneficiaries do not have to be identified by name in the deposit account records of the bank.   But the account title at the bank has to show that the account is owned by the RLT.

For example, if the RLT holds $1 million in a bank account and provides that on the grantor’s death, the trust is distributed in 1/4 shares to the grantor’s four children, there is $ 1 million of FDIC insurance on the account.

Blogging credit to Liza Weiman Hanks, author of  Everyday Estate Planning.

 

 

 

"It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good "

                                                              –old proverb

The current low valuation levels in the financial markets present some unique opportunities for estate tax and income tax planning.  Low values give the opportunity for transferring assets on very advantageous terms, freezing low values, and recognizing losses for income tax planning.   

Here is a list of excellent strategies reprinted from North Carolina Estate Planning Blog:

1)      If you are not selling options or using margin trading, you should revoke your margin agreements.  This reduces your risk by ensuring that your securities are not lent.

2)     Roth IRA conversions should be aggressively reviewed.
 
3)      Loss Harvesting, while remaining in the market should be reviewed.
 
4)      For now, if you have over $100,000 [over $250,000 for IRAs and certain other retirement accounts]  in one bank you should consider using several banks.
 
5)     GRATs to freeze (for tax purposes) the value of depressed stocks should be implemented.
 
6)     Large gains should be taken under the 15% tax rate compared to a higher future tax rate.
 
7)     Tax efficient asset allocation between Roth’s, Qualified Plans and outside accounts should be reviewed.
 
8)      Parents should aggressively gift and sell closely-held business interests to trusts for children and Grandchildren.
 
9)      Taxable Gifts, incurring a gift tax, will be in vogue under a new administration.
 
10)    Oil and Gas will continue to provide tax and financial planning opportunities.
 
11)     Have an expert review all life insurance policies.
 
12)     Consider funding dynasty trusts today ($2,000,000) and on January 1, 2009 ($1,500,000). [Or a total of $3,500,000 in 2009]
 
 
 From Bob Keebler, CPA

 

 

"Hell hath no fury like a white knight spurned."

           – Jonathan D. Glater writing for the Wall Street Journal.

 

 

Wachovia had a "silent run" losing scads of big depositors. Citigroup came to the rescue – loaning them cash.  With FDIC guidance, Citigroup stepped in to prevent Wachovia from collapsing on Monday September 29 having made a deal to buy Wachoiva for $ 1 per share. The loans, in an undisclosed amount, were made with the idea that the Citigroup acquisition of Wachovia was a done deal.

How does Wachovia thank Citigroup? By turning tail and making a deal with Wells Fargo.

Citigroup claims Wachovia was contractually barred in an exclusivity agreement from negotiating with anyone else until October 6.  The Wells Fargo deal was struck in the wee hours of the morning on October 3.

Is this deja vu? Twenty years ago the brawl was Pennzoil and Texaco over Getty Oil. In that fight Pennzoil was the jilted suitor turned away by Getty in favor of a deal with Texaco. Pennzoil claimed  that Texaco jumped into the middle of its deal with Getty Oil. There was no formal, written merger contract between Getty and Pennzoil, but the jury found that an "informal agreement" was still binding and found in favor of Pennzoil. The result: An $11 billion verdict against Texaco that bankrupted the company.

Citigroup’s press release said "a transaction with Wells Fargo is in clear breach of an exclusivity agreement between Citigroup and Wachovia. In addition, Wells Fargo’s conduct constitutes tortious interference. . . "  Sounds nasty.  Here’s a copy of the agreement. You be the judge.

As Glater reported in the Wall Street Journal, courts do not always tolerate companies’ efforts to tie their own hands, especially when doing so might hurt investors.   Wachovia might have been in worse trouble if it didn’t pursue the Well Fargo deal which was a much better deal for shareholders ($7 per share instead of $ 1 per share). They could have been breaching their fiduciary duty. 

Wachovia is incorporated in North Carolina and that state’s law will determine its directors’ duties to its shareholders.  

The Wells Fargo/ Wachovia deal was worth $15.1 billion in stock – obivously better for shareholders than Citigroups’s proffered $2.2 billion. Not to mention the taxpayers come off better not having to absorb any Weachovia liabilities. Will Citigroup sue? And can it win? Who knows. What about all the Wachovia shareholders who dumped their stock when they heard the terms of the Citigroup deal which valued Wachovia stock at just $1 per share. Were they deceived?

This deal is far from over.  Stay tuned.

 

The Toronto Sun reports that Heath Ledger’s 2-year-old daughter, Matilda, will inherit his entire estate.  Apparently, the family "gave" all the money to Matilda.  Heath’s estate is estimated at $16.3 million.

See the my earlier post, The Joker, describing the issues in Ledger’s estate.  His will, executed two years before the birth of his daughter Matilda, did not include her.

Interestingly, Ledger’s father, Kim ledger, told the newspapers that "Our family has gifted everything to Matilda."    I doubt that very much.  You think they were found to be the beneficiaries and then gave their inheritance to Matilda, paying gift tax?  I’ll bet they just agreed not to pursue their claims.  However they want to spin it – the result is the same –  Keith’s little girl inherits.

Blogging credit to San Diego Estate Center.

Now there is another fight.  ReliaStar Life Insurance Company is refusing to pay on Heath’s $12.5 million life insurance policy claiming that he committed suicide.  The New York City inquest found that Heath’s death was due to an accidental prescription drug overdose.  If the insurance company is acting in bad faith –  that could triple the award to Matilda.

 

William F. Buckley, the conservative columnist who died  in February 27, 2008,  had one son, Christopher Buckley.  Christopher has two children, Caitlin and William, with his now-estranged wife, Lucy. Christopher had an affair with book publicist Irina Woelfle and together they had a son, Jonathan, now age 8.

William F. Buckley’s will contained this provision: "I intentionally make no provision herein for said Jonathan, who for all purposes . . . shall be deemed to have predeceased me."

Jonathan’s mother is seeking more child support form Christopher Buckley, who currently pays $3,000 per month.  Her petition notes that there has been a substantial change in Christopher’s income (since his father died and he inherited).

The New York Post’s headline for the story:  NOT ONE ‘BUCK’LEY FOR YOU!

Why is this news?  It shouldn’t be.  It is another example of the overweening sense of entitlement that children (and more remote issue) have to inherit their parents’ estates.  Children have no right to their parents’ estate let alone grandchildren.  How many times have I met with an ailing client’s children and found that the children think the estate is already theirs –  except for the minor inconvenience that Dad is still drawing breath.  Isn’t the support of Jonathan his father’s problem and responsibility?  Really.

I love this post from Gerry Beyers’ Wills, Trust and Estates Prof Blog:

Testamentary gift conditioned on method of body disposition.

It reminds me of the Jewish Halachic Will which utilizes exactly the same methodology: the testator getting his way by using his will to impose a legally enforceable severe financial penalty for not following his wishes.

Background:  The primary scriptural sources for the laws of inheritance will be found in the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy (Parshas Pinchas (Numbers 27, 1-11) and Zelophehad’s daughters). The second census of the population of the individual tribes took place just before entering the Land of Canaan (see Numbers, Chapter 26), and portions of the Promised Land were to be allocated, by lot, to each tribe in accordance with their population.

The tribes of Reuben and Gad were permitted to "inherit" and settle the land East of the Jordan River due to their great "multitude of cattle" (see Chapter 32). Each sub-tribal "family" was to be given a specific portion of land for a perpetual inheritance. In this context, the collective "petition" presented by the daughters of Zelophehad resulted in the promulgation of specific statutes comprising the earliest inheritance law in the Bible.

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 13th book, the Book of Civil Law (Sefer Mishpatim) contains five treatises, the fifth of which is entitled "Laws Concerning Inheritance.

The order of inheritance is as follows (taken from The Code of Maimonides, Book Thirteen, The Book of Civil Laws, translated from the Hebrew by Jacob J. Rabinowitz, New Haven: Yale University Press 1949. The Order of Inheritance is stated in Treatise Five: Inheritance, Chapter I, p. 259 – 260.):

1.      If a person died, his children shall inherit him, and they are prior to everyone else, and males are prior to female.

2.    A female never shares in the inheritance with a male. If the decedent left no children, his father shall inherit him; but by a rule derived from Tradition a mother does not inherit her children.

3.     Whosoever is prior in the order of inheritance, his issue is also prior. Therefore, if a person, whether a man or woman, die leaving a son, the son shall inherit everything. If there be no son living, we look to the son’s issue. If there be a son’s issue, whether male or female, even a son’s daughter’s daughter’s daughter, to the end of time, they shall inherit everything. If there be no son’s issue, we resort to the daughter. If there be no daughter living we look to the daughter’s issue. If there be a daughter’s issue, whether male or female, to the end of time, such issue shall inherit everything. If there be no daughter’s issue, the inheritance resorts to the decedents father. If the father is not living, we look to the father’s issue, that is to the decedent’s brothers. If there be a brother of the decedent or a brother’s issue, he, or they, shall inherit everything. If there be no issue of a brother or of a sister, seeing that there is no issue of the decedent’s father, the inheritance resorts to the father’s father. If the father’s father is not living, we look to the issue of the father’s father, that is to the decedent’s father’s brothers. The males are prior to the females and the issue of the males are also prior to the females, just as in the case of the issue of the decedent himself. If there be no brothers of the decedent’s father no issue of such brothers, the inheritance shall resort to the father’s father’s father. And in this manner the inheritance continues to ascend up to Reuben. {Query: why Reuven?] . . . ."

4.    The first-born takes a double portion in his father’s property. For it is written To give him a double portion (Deut. 21:17).

5.     " . . . . The daughters right to maintenance is one of the rights of the ketubbah. When the amount of property left the father is large, the daughters are entitled to their maintenance and the sons inherit everything, except that the daughters are to be endowed with one tenth of the value of the property each, in order to enable them to wed. When the amount of the property is small the sons take nothing and everything goes for the maintenance of the daughters.

6.     One may not constitute as an heir him whom the Law does not constitute as his heir; nor may one remove the inheritance from an heir – although this is a matter pecuniary – because in the division of Scripture treating of inheritances it is said And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgement (Num 27:11), that is to say: this Law is not subject to change and a condition qualifying it is not valid. Whether the decedent gave his instructions while he was in heath or while he was lying sick, whether orally or in writing, they are not valid.

7.     All this applies only if he uttered his words in the language of inheritance, but if he gave by way of gift, his words shall stand. Therefore, if one divided his property among his sons by word of his mouth while he was lying sick, giving more to one and less to another, or giving to the first-born a share equal to that of the other brother, his words shall stand. But if he utters his words in the language of inheritance, they are of no effect

It has been clear since talmudic times that Jews have wished to deviate from this stated succession wish to will assets to wives, daughters, charities and friends. Today, the influences of secular culture on the Jewish community and the modern idea of private property and individual rights has made this more common.

This is one of the ways for a testator to comply with halacha and yet distribute his estate the way he wants:

In a technique commonly referred to as a "Halachic Will." the testator creates an indebtedness in favor of those he wishes to benefit, e.g., wife and daughters, by executing a promissory note in their favor. Under halacha, this note is valid even if no loan was given. A debt for a huge sum, well in excess of the total value of the estate is created, but does not mature and is not payable until one hour before death. The huge sum is not going to be paid, but will be used as leverage for carrying out the terms of the will. The note, by its terms, gives to the halachic heirs (the sons) the option of paying the debt or receiving a stated legacy in lieu of having to discharge the debt. The legacy is the amount willed to the chosen beneficiary who holds the note.  Thus, the halachic heirs chose to be beneficiaries under the will which deviates from the Jewish law of inheritance.

High-profile Allentown PA defense attorney John P. Karoly Jr.,  was indicted September 25, 2008 by a federal grand jury on charges he and two others conspired to defraud his brother’s and sister-in-law’s estates of millions using fake wills.

John J. Shane, a doctor Karoly often used as an expert witness and Karoly’s son, John P. Karoly III, were also named in the indictment.  Each of the three is charged with single counts of conspiracy and two felony counts of wire fraud, according to federal authorities.

As reported at www.lehighvalleylive.com:

"Karoly’s brother and sister-in-law, Peter Karoly, and Lauren B. Angstadt, died Feb. 2, 2007, in a Massachusetts plane crash that also killed the pilot. Peter Karoly was a prominent Allentown attorney, and Angstadt was a dentist.

The couple had no children and each left multi-million-dollar estates. Shortly after their deaths, authorities allege the three defendants conspired to create fake wills dated June 2, 2006, intended to supercede authentic wills prepared in 1985."

Karoly has won multimillion-dollar settlements in brutality and misconduct suits against the Bethlehem and Easton police departments.  His attorney, Robert Goldman, says he thinks Karoly has been targeted because of these successful suits against police officers.

Karoly’s deceased brother was also a lawyer and they used to practice together.  In 1986 they had a rift and split up their law practice.

According to the indictment, as reported by Matt Birkbeck for Of The Morning Call:

"Nine days after the crash, John Karoly told family members that Peter gave him a sealed package in June 2006 to place in storage.

When John Karoly learned that Peter’s authentic will, filed in 1985, was submitted for probate to Northampton County Court on Feb. 15, 2007, Karoly created fraudulent wills for his brother and sister-in-law and subsequently enlisted Shane to sign them as a witness.

Karoly also tried to get a family member from South Carolina, identified only as ”J.F.,” to sign the fraudulent wills as a witness but J.F. refused.

The indictment continues:

On Feb. 20, 2007, Karoly began notifying family members, including sisters in Florida and New Jersey, that he had found the ”original will” of Peter Karoly inside the sealed envelope that was in storage, and that it bequeathed the bulk of his estate to John Karoly, along with gifts to his two sons and various nieces and nephews.

That will and a fictitious Angstadt will were submitted to Northampton County Court on Feb. 22, 2007. The eight-page Peter Karoly will, dated June 2, 2006, left all of Peter’s money and property to his wife. But if she died, the majority share of the estate would go to John Karoly, including all cases, clients, awards, verdicts, monies and receivables from Peter Karoly’s law firm.

John Karoly was also left Peter’s law practice and law office at 1511-25 Hamilton St. in Allentown, all investment and brokerage accounts owned by Peter Karoly and his wife, and control of eRAD, a medical imaging company based in Greenville, S.C., that Peter Karoly founded and ran as chief executive officer.

Peter Karoly’s 1985 will liquidated the law firm and divided all property and money among family members of Peter Karoly and his wife, The Morning Call reported in 2007.

Soon after being notified of the new will, Karoly’s sisters protested, claiming it was fraudulent. FBI agents raided John Karoly’s home in May 2007, seizing boxes of documents and computer files."

Blogging credit to Prof. Gerry Beyer at Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog.

Here is Neil Hendershot’s post when the wills were contested in April 2007.

 

Neil Hendershot has a terrific post on his blog called "Liquid Trust" or "Living Trustworthiness"?   With tongue in cheek, he talks of buying trust in a bottle (like Love Potion No. 9) to solve the nation’s financial crsis.

"Liquid Trust is the world’s first Trust Enhancing Body Spray, specially formulated to increase trust in the wearer.

Scientists have recently discovered a chemical that makes people trust each other. For the first time, you can have the world in the palm of your hands…It all starts with Trust."

On a more serious note, what Neil points out is that in the midst of the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression, we find ourselves in a world without integrity, without honesty and accountability. 

As David Francis says, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, when "so many people engaged in so many aspects of finance have lost their ethical compass and put their short-term personal gains above other considerations, such as was the case in the subprime mortgage market in the US, it can have a "profound macroeconomic impact." In other words, the broad economy gets hurt by greed and selfishness as ensuing financial losses mount and trust fades."

Which brings me to the current Congressional debate over whether Washington should enact an extraordinary bailout of the country’s financial system.   

Sen. Sherrod Brown, (Ohio-D), said calls from his constituents about the plan have been universally negative. He told the story of one constituent who drove to Washington:

"He quite rightly asked why we were rushing to bailout companies whose leaders got rich gambling with other people’s money,"

There is plenty of blame to go around for the current crisis.   Part of being trustworthy is being accountable. 

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it:  If the bailout passes, "The party is over for this compensation for CEOs who take the golden parachute as they drive their companies into the ground. … The party is over for financial institutions taking risks [and] at the same time privatizing any gain they may have while they nationalize the risk, asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab,"

Did you know you can turn in tax cheats for bounty?

Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes payments for detecting underpayment of tax and detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws or "conniving" (love that word) at the same.

 

As pointed out by Timothy W. Maier, writing forInsight on the News, offering cash incentives for information about alleged criminals is a time-honored technique. In addition to the IRS, which collects about an additional $100 million from tax cheats annually by paying out rewards anywhere from $2 million to $5 million, the FBI, according to Meier, claims to have captured 140 suspects through its 53-year-old "Most Wanted" program as a result of offering millions in cash. And look at the success of the TV program America’s Most Wanted in bringing criminals to justice.

Maier reminds us that "[r]ewards paid by authorities date back to the Bible when Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. They were common in England in the 18th century when thieves were paid for police tips, and they continued to be popular in the Wild West where bounties routinely were offered and paid to gunmen such as Bob Ford, who for $10,000 shot the notorious outlaw Jesse James in the back on April 3, 1882. Today, rewards even are announced to try to throw off police or deceive the public as O.J. Simpson may have done when he offered $1 million to find the "real killers" of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman."

If you want to report suspected tax fraud, use IRS Form 3949-A, Information Referral. It can be downloaded at IRS.gov, or ordered by calling 1-800-829-3676. The report needs to include specific information about who is being reported, the suspected fraud being reported, how the fraud became known, when it took place, the amount of money involved and any other information that might be helpful in an investigation. You are not required to identify yourself , although it is helpful to do so. The IRS says that your identity can be kept confidential.

You may be entitled to a reward, but keep in mind it is completely discretionary whether you will be given a reward. You have no legal right to a reward. In order to apply for a reward you must file Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information. The quality of your information is critical because the IRS is swamped with leads – many of them vindictive – things like reports of tax fraud by former spouses and former bosses. The IRS has limited resources and, of course, pursues leads with the best chance of bringing in substantial revenue.

According to IRS Policy Statement 4-27, while the amount of the rewards and whether one is payable at all is completely discretionary, in general , the Service will follow these guidelines:

  •  For specific and responsible information that caused the investigation or, in cases already under audit, materially assisted in the development or identification of an issue or issues and resulted in the recovery, or was a direct factor in the recovery, the reward shall be 15 percent of the amounts the Service recovers, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million.
  • For information that caused the investigation or in cases already under audit, caused an investigation of an issue or issues, and was of value in the determination of tax liabilities although not specific, the reward shall be 10 percent of the amounts the Service recovers, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million.

  • For general information that caused the investigation, but had no direct relationship to the determination of tax liabilities, the reward shall be 1 percent of the amounts recovered, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million. 

How likely are you to get a reward? IRS senior program analyst says "We determined from a study that one in 10 informants actually asks for a reward and approximately one in 10 of those gets one." In fiscal 2002, the IRS paid $7.7 million in rewards that led to $66.9 million in additional collections. There were 6,982 reward claims filed during that period and only 215 rewards allowed in full. Don’t start spending your reward money until you get it.

Just about any word used to describe this behavior has a negative connotation: stool pigeon, tattle-tale, snitch, rat, squealer, informant, fink, whistle-blower. Should you turn in a cheat and a fraud?

Much has been written about the issue in connection with business ethics. Look at the treatment of people who expose wrongdoing in their companies in the media. People who report wrong-doings by their companies are subjected to persecution, pariah status, and blacklisting. They often are ostracized by co-workers, lose their jobs and can’t find work in the same industry.

According to Jim Hillesheim, Professor of Education at The University of Kansas, it is a social fact that honest employees rarely report theft committed by unscrupulous coworkers or managers. Psychologists and behavioral scientists offer various explanations, but the most prevalent one is that the hesitation to report theft is due to fear of being thought of as a tattletale. Reporting a theft or other wrongdoing is seen as a violation of a deeply entrenched code of conduct that demands that one not be thought of as a snitch.

Children get the message that they should not be "tattletales." Years later as adults, when they should be seeing the world in adult terms they are still afraid to come forward. As Hillesheim says, "we need only to ponder how horrible society would be if no one, having witnessed a crime, would step forward to help police, because he or she did not want to be thought of as a tattletale.

Remember, you can come forward with information and not claim reward. What is your motivation, after all?

Reserve Primary Fund (Ticker RFIXX), a money market fund with $62 billion in net assets, today wrote off $785 million of debt issued by the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers, reports Christopher Condon for Bloomberg.com.

The Board of Trustees of The Reserve Primary Fund issued a news release today (September 16, 2008).  In the release they stated that the $785 million write-off in Lehman Brothers debt brought their net asset value to $0.97 per share.  "Effective today and until further notice, the proceeds of redemptions from The Primary Fund will not be transmitted to the redeeming investor for a period of up to seven calendar days after the redemption.  The seven-day redemption delay will not apply to debit card transactions, ACH transactions or checks written against the assets of the Primary Fund provided that any such transaction from an investor, individually or in the aggregate, does not exceed $10,000." 

The Reserve, according to their website,  is "a leading  cash management provider for institutions, banks, brokers, advisors, and individual investors."  They created the world’s first money market fund in 1970.   The Reserve Primary Fund is currently rated AAAm by Standard & Poor’s (that’s their highest rating) and Aaa by Moody’s (also their highest rating).

This is the first time since 1994 that a money-market fund’s net asset value has fallen below the $1 per share level.

Jon Markham warned about this in December 2007.  See his article "Your ‘Safe’ Money Isn’t So Safe"  at MSN Money.  Markham, who was prescient indeed, says:

"Brokerages have pledged to shrink their exposure to SIVs [Structured Investment Vehicles] and tacitly pledged to support money market funds’ values in the event that the mortgage-backed securities in which they are invested go belly-up. But they are not obligated to do so — and in a doomsday scenario, which is not all that hard to imagine, brokerages will have a snowball’s chance in hell of making good on their winks and nods, considering more than $3 trillion is at risk."

What is a money market fund?

A money market fund is a mutual fund that pools investors’ money and invests in short-term, high-grade debt obligations issued by corporations, banks and the U.S. government. The fund manager aims to keep the share price at $1.00. The yield fluctuates over time.

I’ll bet you think of it just like a checking account that pays more interest than you can get at the bank. If you read the prospectus, you would have read something like this: "An investment in a money market fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although the fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in the fund." Do you understand what that means? If you have $10,000 in a money market fund, market fluctuations could cause your investment to be worth less than that – maybe $9,900. Maybe $8,500. Did you realize that this is possible?

What happens when a money fund’s yield is less than its management fee? They can only pay out what they take in, minus expenses. Many money funds have been waiving expenses in the current low-interest rate environment. When a money market fund’s share price falls below $1  it is called  "breaking the buck."

Not so long ago – in early 2004, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, referring to "breaking the buck,"  said:  "I don’t think anyone would do that."  Why? It would break investors’ trust in the $2.2 trillion industry, prompting many to take their money elsewhere. John Bogle and others like him thought that the fund companies would opt to close out the fund altogether and return money to shareholders rather than risk the net asset value falling below $1. The safety and security of the entire money fund industry would be called into question. Any fund company allowing their money market fund to break the buck would have a public relations nightmare on their hands.  That was 2004, now here we are.

Nevertheless, the point is, if you had read and understood the money market funds prospectus, you would have known that losing money in the fund was a possibility. And it could happen.

Note: A money market mutual fund is not the same as a bank money market deposit account. A bank money market deposit account is not a mutual fund – it’s a bank deposit and it is insured by the FDIC. Its yield is whatever the bank chooses to pay.