Protecting Nonprofits’ Cash Amid Turmoil

In the wake of several notable bank failures and subsequent volatility in financial markets, investors are naturally concerned about keeping their money safe while earning a decent return. Nonprofit organizations are no exception, and the decision on where to keep their funds will likely depend on several factors, such as the organization’s investment and spending policies as well as liquidity needs.

Traditional banks

A regional bank may offer advantages such as ease of access to funds, more personalized service, and potentially higher interest rates than those offered by larger national banks. However, there may also be risks associated with keeping funds in a regional bank, such as the bank’s financial stability and the possibility of fraud.

The recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank have raised concerns among nonprofit leaders and directors who have a fiduciary duty to their constituents. Even if they believe their banks are sound, the upside of being “right” is far outweighed by the downside of being “wrong.”

While many regional banks experienced deposit outflows after the bank failures, large banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo saw a surge of inflows. According to Bloomberg News, Bank of America saw $15 billion in new deposits in a few days alone¹. Depositors aggressively moved their money to the large banks that are perceived to be “too big to fail.” The flight to safety comes at a cost, however, as deposits at the large banks typically pay little or no interest.

U.S. Treasuries

On the other hand, investing in a one-year ladder of U.S. Treasuries may offer better yields as well as greater security and stability compared to keeping funds in a regional or large bank. U.S. Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which makes them relatively safe investments. However, investing in U.S. Treasuries may also come with certain drawbacks, such as potentially lower yields than other investment options, such as commercial paper, corporate bonds, and other cash management vehicles.

“Laddering” simply means buying a series of bonds maturing at different times during the coming 12 months. For example, if an organization has $4 million in a bank for short-term needs, they could buy $1 million in a U.S. Treasury maturing in three months, $1 million maturing in six months, $1 million maturing in nine months, and $1 million maturing in one year. Currently, the blended rate of return for a one-year U.S. Treasury ladder in this example is 4.66% (less any fees or expenses). Moreover, the organization would always have cash maturing every three months, allowing them to access liquidity or reinvest for another year.

Any near-term liquidity needs could be satisfied by investing in high-yielding U.S. Treasury money market funds, also currently yielding above 4.00%. The downside of these funds is that rates fluctuate daily. In other words, while you can lock in a guaranteed government rate using a U.S. Treasury ladder strategy, these money market rates could drop if and when the Federal Reserve starts cutting interest rates.

Ultimately, the decision on where to keep a nonprofit organization’s funds should be made after carefully considering the organization’s specific financial situation and objectives, and consulting with a financial advisor or accountant. In a world of higher interest rates, how a nonprofit organization manages their cash is increasingly important and can make the difference between worrying about the safety of their funds, or successfully continuing to fund their mission.