Despite this week's equity rally, investors are nervous about the future. They still fear a double dip. For that reason they are running to pour funds into money markets.

EPFR Global, which tracks the flows of money market funds, reported that money market funds had their greatest inflows in 18 months, some $33.5 billion.

Some of the world's biggest fund managers are now holding up to 40% cash in their portfolios. The main driver behind the flow of funds into money markets is fear, fear of another market slide. Chris Tuffy of Credit Suisse said: "This is about capital preservation."

According to a study recently published in the Journal of Accounting Research, journalists are a lot better, or at least faster, at spotting signs of accounting fraud and corporate shenanigans than the SEC. Harvard Professor Gregory Miller measured the frequency of reporters beating the SEC to the punch in uncovering fraud and found that in roughly one-third of the 263 cases of accounting fraud confirmed by the SEC between 1987 and 2002, members of the press alleged wrongdoing before the SEC or the company announced any investigation.

The Columbia Journalism Review sums up the findings nicely: "And while beating the SEC to an investigation is like beating Porky the Pig in a bicycle race up the Alps, we concede it's not nothing."

I e-mailed Marketwatch columnist Herb Greenberg (Full disclosure: He's one of my heroes.) about the findings, because he was the only journalist to have proactively uncovered a case of accounting fraud before the SEC more than once; he's done that five times.

Given the relative speed with which journalists uncover fraud, I asked him whether the SEC could learn anything from the methods employed by journalist-gumshoes. Greenberg dismissed that idea saying that "There's a difference between reporting a story and formally investigating and finding legal fault .... No, nothing they can learn."

He added that that much-maligned band of investors known as short-sellers are often sources for investigative reporters, calling them the "first line of defense for investors because they're putting their own money on the line." But he said that really good information usually comes from "former employees, analysts, and mutual fund managers who have SOLD stocks for reasons other than valuation."

SEC Chairman Chris Cox called on the mutual fund industry to join him in the "war on complexity." Cox discussed the difficulties that investors have in comparing mutual funds using the SEC's Edgar Database. He also called for more disclosures about 401(k) fees and performance, saying that "We will continue to purge all the legalese and convert it to plain English. But getting rid of the gobbledygook is no easy task. But we want to give every investor the info to achieve sound investment decisions."

I'm highly skeptical about the odds of mutual funds making it easier for investors to compare expenses and performance because, if they did, most people wouldn't buy most mutual funds. If people had a solid understanding of mutual funds and the factors impacting their performance, pretty much everyone would buy the lowest cost index fund they could find. Needless to say, that wouldn't be good news for most investment management companies.

However, instead of complex disclosures and spreadsheets that 99% of individual investors really don't care about, I have a plan. Every mailing/advertisement/prospectus discussing a mutual fund should be required to contain a red piece of paper with the following:

DEAR INVESTOR:

Most likely, the mutual fund that is soliciting your business brags about its track record and its management team's expertise. As an investor, there's something you need to know: None of that matters.

Past performance, Ivy League credentials, and colorful promotional literature have very little impact on a fund's future performance. Here's what matters: The expense ratio. By keeping your costs as low as possible, you will beat more than 80% of actively managed funds.

Investment legends including Warren Buffett, John Bogle, and Burton Malkiel (to say nothing of Ben Stein and Suze Orman) have all said that most investors should stick with passively managed, low-cost index mutual funds. If the fund being advertised here does not fit that description, we strongly advise you to toss the mailing into your recycling bin.

Best of luck in your pursuit of wealth.

Your Friends at the Securities and Exchange Commission

While it's hard to imagine Peter Lynch tossing Dan Loeb-ian epithets at incompetent executives, there is evidence that mutual fund managers are waking up from their long slumber and joining hedge funds in the fight for stronger corporate governance. Increasingly, prominent funds are pushing for governance changes, mergers and sales, and changes in management.

According to the Wall Street Journal (registration required), the change is motivated by practical factors: increased media and regulatory scrutiny of corporate governance is casting an eye at mutual funds (who for years have not been proactive shareholders), and they are facing competition from hedge funds for investor dollars.

I'm thrilled to see mutual funds stepping up to the plate, and taking on their responsibilities to shareholders. For too long it seems, management teams have been insulated from the shareholders by the mutual funds that wouldn't do anything. As Carl Icahn has said, "With some exceptions, the wrong people are running U.S. companies. It's been that way for years, and it hasn't gotten much better." With increased spotlight on management at publicly traded companies, and the specter of activist hedge funds and less-lethargic mutual funds haunting the boardrooms of corporate America, maybe that will change.