Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is Monetary System as Systemic and International as Coronavirus?

This piece was originally part of “Special Edition Roundtable: Money in the Time of Coronavirus” by JustMoney.org platform.

By Elham Saeidinezhad

The coronavirus crisis has sparked different policy responses from different countries. The common thread among these reactions is that states are putting globalization on pause. Yet, re-establishment of central bank swap lines is making “money,” chiefly Eurodollars, the first element that has become more global in the wake of the Coronavirus outbreak. This is not an unexpected phenomenon for those of us who are armed with insights from the Perry Mehrling’s “Money View” framework. The fact that the monetary system is inherently international explains why the Fed reinstalled its standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements with five other central banks just after it lowered its domestic federal fund’s target to zero percent. However, the crisis also forces us to see global dollar funding from a lens closer to home: the fact that the Eurodollar market, at its core, is a domestic macro-financial linkage. In other words, its breakdown is a source of systemic risk within communities as it disrupts the two-way connection between the real economy and the financial sector. This perspective clarifies the Fed’s reactions to the crisis in hand. It also helps us understand the recent debate in the economics profession about the future of central bank tools.

The Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09 confirmed the vital importance of advancing our understanding of macro-financial linkages. The Coronavirus crisis is testing this understanding on a global scale. Most of the literature highlights the impact of sharp fluctuations in long-term fundamentals such as asset prices and capital flows on the financial positions of firms and the economy. In doing so, economists underestimate the effects of disturbances in the Eurodollar market, which provides short-term dollar funding globally, on real economic activities such as trade. These miscalculations, which flow from economists’ natural approach to money as a veil over the real economy, could be costly. Foreign banks play a significant role in the wholesale Eurodollar market to raise US dollar financing for their clients. These clients, usually multinational corporations, are part of a global supply chain that covers different activities from receiving an order to producing the final goods and services. Depending on their financial positions, these firms either wish to hold large dollar balances or receive dollar-denominated loans. The deficit firms use the dollar funding to make payments for their purchases. The surplus firms, on the other hand, expect to receive payments in the dollar after selling their products. The interconnectedness between the payment system and global supply chains causes the Eurodollar market to act as a bridge between the real economy and the financial sector.

The Coronavirus outbreak is putting a strain on this link, both domestically and globally: it is disrupting the supply chain, forcing every firm along the chain to become a deficit agent in the process. The supply chain moves products or services from one supplier to another and is essentially the sum of all firms’ sales. These sales (revenues) are, in effect, a measure of payments, the majority of which occur in the Eurodollar market. A sharp shock to sales, as a result of the outbreak, precipitates a lower ability to make payments. When an output is not being shipped, a producer of final goods in China does not have dollar funding to pay the suppliers of intermediate products. As a result, firms in other countries do not have dollars either. The trauma that the coronavirus crisis injects into manufacturing and other industries thus lead to missed payments internationally. Missed payments will make more firms become deficit agents. This includes banks, which are lower down in the hierarchy, and the central banks, which are responsible for relaxing the survival constraints for the banking system. By focusing on the payments system and Eurodollar market, we are able to see the “survival constraint” in action.

The question for monetary policy is how far central banks decide to relax that survival constraint by lowering the bank rate. This is why central banks, including the Fed, are reducing interest rates to zero percent. However, the ability to relax the survival constraint for banks further down in the hierarchy depends also on the strength of foreign central banks to inject dollar funding into their financial system. The Fed has therefore re-established the dollar swap line with five other major central banks. The swap lines are available standing facilities and serve as a vital liquidity backstop to ease strains in global funding markets. The point to hold on to here is that the U.S. central bank is at a level in the hierarchy above other central banks

Central banks’ main concern is about missed payments of U.S. dollars, as they can deal with missed payments in local currency efficiently. In normal circumstances, the fact that non-U.S. central banks hold foreign exchange reserves enables them to intervene in the market seamlessly if private FX dealers are unable to do so. In these periods, customer-led demand causes some banks to have a natural surplus position (more dollar deposits than loans) and other banks to have an inherent deficit position (more dollar loans than deposits). FX dealers connect the deficit banks with the surplus banks by absorbing the imbalances into their balance sheets. Financial globalization has enabled each FX dealer to resolve the imbalance by doing business with some U.S. banks, but it seems more natural all around for them to do business with each other. During this crisis, however, even U.S. banks have started to feel the liquidity crunch due to the negative impacts of the outbreak on financial conditions. When U.S. banks pull back from market-making in the Eurodollar market, there will be a shortage of dollar funding globally. Traditionally, in these circumstances, foreign central banks assume the role of the lender of last resort to lend dollars to both banks and non-banks in their jurisdiction. However, the severity of the Coronavirus crisis is creating a growing risk that such intermediation will fracture. This is the case as speculators and investors alike have become uncertain of the size of foreign central banks’ dollar reserve holding.

To address these concerns, the Fed has re-established swap lines to lend dollars to other central banks, which then lend it to banks. These particular swap lines arrangements were originally designed to help the funding needs of banks during 2008. However, these swap lines might be inadequate to ease the tension in the market. The problem is that the geographic reach of the swap lines is too narrow. The Fed has swap lines only with the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank. The reason is that the 2008-09 financial crisis affected many banks in these particular jurisdictions severely and their economies were closely intertwined with the US financial system. But the breadth of the current crisis is more extensive as every country along the supply chain is struggling to get dollars. In other words, the Fed’s dollar swap lines should become more global, and the international hierarchy needs to flatten.

To ease the pressure of missed payments internationally, and prevent the systemic risk outbreak domestically, the Fed and its five major central bank partners have coordinated action to enhance the provision of liquidity via the standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements. These tools help to mitigate the effects of strains on the supply chain, both domestically and abroad. Such temporary agreements have been part of central banks’ set of monetary policy instruments for decades. The main lessons from the Coronavirus outbreak for central bank watchers is that swap lines and central bank collaborations are here to stay – indeed, they should become more expansive than before. These operations are becoming a permanent tool of monetary policy as financial stability becomes a more natural mandate of the central banks. As Zoltan Pozsar has recently shown, the supply chain of goods and services is the reverse of the dollar funding payment system. Central banks’ collaboration prevents this hybridity from becoming a source of systemic risk, both domestically and internationally.

LINK TO JUSTMONEY.ORG website
LINK TO ECONOMIC QUESTIONS WEBISTE

Update: On March 19, 2020, the Fed announced the establishment of temporary U.S. dollar liquidity arrangements with other central banks such as Reserve Bank of Australia, the Banco Central do Brasil, the Danmarks Nationalbank (Denmark), the Bank of Korea, the Banco de Mexico, the Norges Bank (Norway), the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden).

Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is “Tokenisation” Our Apparatus Towards a Dealer Free Financial Market?

By Elham Saeidinezhad

The death of the Jimmy Stewart style “traditional banking system” was accelerated by the birth of securitization in the financial market. Securitization made the underlying assets, such as mortgage loans, “tradable” or “liquid.” Most recently, however, a new trend, called “tokenization,” i.e., the conversion of securities into digital tokens, is emerging that is decidedly different from the earlier development. While securitization created a dealer centric system of market-based credit that raise funds from investors, tokenization is a step towards building a “dealer free” world that reduces fees for investors. In this world, dealers’ liquidity provision is replaced by “smart” or “self-executing” contracts, protocols, or code that self-execute when certain conditions are met. The absence of dealers in this structure is not consequential in standard times. When markets are stable, people assume the mechanical convertibility of the tokenized asset into its underlying securities. However, the financial crisis threatens this confidence in the convertibility principle and could lead to massive settlement failures. These systemic failures evaporate liquidity and create extensive adjustments in asset prices. Such an outcome will be responded by policymakers who try to limit these adverse feedback loops. But the critical question that is remained to be answered is the central banks will save whom and which, not a very smart contract.

New technologies created money and assets. For centuries, these assets, mostly short-term commercial papers, were without liquidity and relied upon the process of “self-liquidation.” However, the modern financial market, governed by the American doctrine, improved this outdated practice and relied on “shiftability” or “market liquidity” instead. Shiftability (or salability) of long-term financial securities ensured that these assets could be used to meet cash flow requirements, or survival constraints, before their maturity dates. The primary providers of liquidity in this market are security dealers who use their balance sheets to absorb trade imbalances. The triumph of shiftability view, because of depression and war, has given birth to the “asset-backed securities” and securitization. This process can encompass any financial asset and promotes liquidity in the marketplace.

ABS market continues to evolve into new securitization deals and more innovative offerings in the future. Tokenization is the next quantum leap in asset-based securitization. Tokenization refers to the process of issuing a blockchain token that digitally represents a real tradable asset such as security. This process, in many ways, is like the traditional securitization with a twist. The “self-executing” feature of these contracts discount the role of dealers and enable these assets to be traded in secondary markets by automatically matching buyers with sellers. The idea is that eliminating dealers will increase “efficiency” and reduce trading costs. 

The issue is that digital tokens may be convertible to securities, in the sense that the issuer of digital tokens holds some securities on hand, but that does not mean that these tokenized assets represent securities or are at the same hierarchical level as them. When an asset (such as a digital token) is backed by another asset (such as security), it is still a promise to pay. The credibility of these promises is an issue here, just as in the case of other credit instruments, and the liquidity of the tokenized instruments can help to enhance credibility. In modern market-based finance, which is a byproduct of securitization, the state of liquidity depends on the security dealers who take the imbalances into their balance sheets and provide market liquidity. 

The only constant in this evolving system is the natural hierarchy of money. Tokenization disregards this inherent feature of finance and aims at moving towards a dealer free world. A key motivation is to create a “super asset” by lowering the estimated $17–24 billion spent annually on trade processing. The problem is that by considering dealers as “frictions” in the financial market, tokenization is creating a super asset with no liquidity during the financial crisis. Such shiftability ultimately depends on security dealers and other speculators who are willing to buy assets that traders are willing to sell and vice versa and use their balance sheets when no one else in the market does. Tokenization could jeopardize the state of liquidity in the system by bypassing the dealers in the name of increasing efficiency. 

Link to economic questions website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Promises All the Way Down: A Primer on the Money View

This post is originally part of a symposium on the Methods of Political Economy in Law and Political Economy Blog.

By Elham Saeidinezhad

It has long been tempting for economists to imagine “the economy” as a giant machine for producing and distributing “value.” Finance, on this view, is just the part of the device that takes the output that is not consumed by end-users (the “savings”) and redirects it back to the productive parts of the machine (as “investment”). Our financial system is an ornate series of mechanisms to collect the value we’ve saved up and invest it into producing yet more value. Financial products of all sorts—including money itself—are just the form that value takes when it is in the transition from savings to investment. What matters is the “real” economy—where the money is the veil, and the things of value are produced and distributed.

What if this were exactly backwards? What if money and finance were understood not as the residuum of past economic activity—as a thing among other things—but rather as the way humans manage ongoing relationships between each other in a world of fundamental uncertainty? These are the sorts of questions asked by the economist Perry Mehrling (and Hyman Minsky before him). These inquiries provided a framework that has allowed him to answer many of the issues that mystify neoclassical economics.

On Mehrling’s “Money View,” every (natural or artificial) person engaged in economic activity is understood in terms of her financial position, that is, in terms of the obligations she owes others (her “liabilities”) and the obligations owed to her (her “assets”). In modern economies, obligations primarily take the form of money and credit instruments. Every actor must manage the inflow and outflow of obligations (called “cash flow management”) such that she can settle up with others when her obligations to them come due. If she can, she is a “going concern” that continues to operate normally. If she cannot, she must scramble to avoid some form of financial failure—bankruptcy being the most common. After all, as Mehrling argues, “liquidity kills you quick.” This “survival constraint” binds not only today but also at every moment in the future. Thus, generally, the problem of satisfying the survival constraint is a problem of matching up the time pattern of assets (obligations owed to an actor) with the time pattern of liabilities (obligations an actor owed to others). The central question is whether, at any moment in time, there is enough cash inflow to pay for the cash flows.

For the Money View, these cash flows are at the heart of the financial market. In other words, the financial system is essentially a payment system that enables the transfer of value to happen even when a debtor does not own the means of payment today. Payment takes place in two stages. When one actor promises something for another, the initial payment takes place—the thing promised is the former’s liability and the latter’s asset. When the promise is kept, the transaction is settled (or funded), and the original asset and liability are canceled.

The Hierarchy of Debt-Money

What makes finance somewhat confusing is that all the promises in question are promises to pay, which means that both the payment and the settlement process involve the transfer of financial assets. To learn when an asset is functioning as a means of payment and when it is operating as a form of settlement requires understanding that, as Mehrling has argued, “always and everywhere, monetary systems are hierarchical.” If a financial instrument is higher up the hierarchy than another, the former can be used to settle a transaction in the latter. At the top of the hierarchy is the final means of settlement—an asset that everybody within a given financial system will accept. The conventional term for this type of asset is “money.” In the modern world, money takes the form of central bank reserves—i.e., obligations issued by a state. The international monetary system dictates the same hierarchy for different state currencies, with the dollar as the top of this pyramid. What controls this hierarchy in financial instruments and differentiates money (means of final settlement) from credit (a promise to pay, a means of delaying final settlement), is their degree of “liquidness” and their closeness to the most stable money: the U.S. central bank reserves.

Instruments such as bank deposits are more money-like compared to the others since they are promises to pay currency on demand. Securities, on the other hand, are promises to pay currency over some time horizon in the future, so they are even more attenuated promises to pay. Mehrling argues that the payments system hides this hierarchy by enabling the firms to use credit today to postpone the final settlement into the future.

The Money View vs. Quantity and Portfolio Theories

Viewing the world from this perspective allows us to see details about financial markets and beyond, that the lens of neoclassical economics does not. For instance, the lack of attention to payment systems in standard monetary theories is a byproduct of overlooking the essential hierarchy of finance. Models such as Quantity Theory of Money that explore the equilibrium amount of money in the system systematically disregards the level of reserves that are required for the payment system to continuously “convert” bank deposits (which are at the lower layer of the hierarchy) into currency on demand.

Further, unlike the Money View, the Portfolio Choice Theory (such as that developed by James Tobin), which is at the heart of asset pricing models, entirely abstracts from the role of dealers in supplying market liquidity. These models assume an invisible hand that provides market liquidity for free in the capital market. From the lens of supply and demand, this is a logical conclusion. Since a supplier can always find a buyer who is willing to buy that security at a market price, there is no job for an intermediary dealer to arrange this transaction. The Money View, on the other hand, identifies the dealers’ function as the suppliers of market liquidity—the clearinghouse through which debts and credits flow—which makes them the primary determinant of asset prices.

The Search for Stable Money

The Money View’s picture of conventional monetary policy operations is very distinct from an image that a trained monetary economist has in mind. From the Money View’s perspective, throughout the credit cycle, one constant is the central bank’s job to balance elasticity and discipline in the monetary system as a way of controlling the flow of credit. What shapes the dynamic of elasticity and discipline in the financial system is the daily imbalances in payment flows and the need of every agent in the system to meet a “survival” or “reserve constraint.”

In normal times, if a central bank, such as the Fed, wants to tighten, it raises the federal fund target. Raising the cost of the most liquid form of money in the system will then resonate down the monetary hierarchy. It immediately lowers the profitability of money market dealers (unless the term interest rate rises by the full amount). Because money market dealers set the funding cost for dealers in capital markets (i.e. because they are a level up in the hierarchy of money), capital market dealers will face pressure to raise asset prices and long-term interest rates. These security dealers are willing to hold existing security inventories only at a lower price, hence higher expected profit. Thus the centrally determined price of money changes the value of stocks.

Central Bankers as Shadow Bankers

The Money View’s can also help us see how the essence of credit has shifted from credit that runs through regulated banks to “market-based credit” through a shadow banking system that provides money market funding for capital market investing. Shadow banking system faces the same problems of liquidity and solvency risk that the traditional banking system faces, but without the government backstops at the top of the hierarchy (via Fed lender of last resort payouts and FDIC deposit insurance). Instead, the shadow banking system relies mainly on dealers in derivatives and in wholesale lending. Having taken on responsibility for financing the shadow banks, which financed the subprime mortgage market, these dealers began to run into problems during the financial crisis. Mehrling argues that the reality of the financial system dictates Fed to reimagine its role from a lender last resort to banks to the dealer of last resort to the shadow banking system.

Conclusion

We have been living in the Money View world, a world where almost everything that matters happens in the present. Ours is a world in which cash inflows must be adequate to meet cash outflows (the survival or liquidity constraint) for a single day. This is a period that is too short for creating any elasticity or discipline in production or consumption, the usual subject matter of economics, so we have abstracted from them. Doing so has blinded us to many important aspects of the system we live in. In our world, “the present determines the present.”

This piece is also featured in justmoney.org website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is Money View Ready to Be on Trial for its Assumptions about the Payment System?

A Review of Perry Mehrling’s Paper on the Law of Reflux

By Elham Saeidinezhad

Perry Mehrling’s new paper, “Payment vs. Funding: The Law of Reflux for Today,” is a seminal contribution to the “Money View” literature. This approach, which is put forward by Mehrling himself, highlights the importance of today’s cash flow for the survival of financial participants. Using Money View, this paper examines the implications of Fullarton’s 1844 “Law of Reflux” for today’s monetary system. Mehrling uses balance sheets to show that at the heart of the discrepancy between John Maynard Keynes’ and James Tobin’s view of money creation is their attention to two separate equilibrium conditions. The former focuses on the economy when the initial payment takes place. At the same time, the latter is concerned about the adjustments in the interest rates and asset prices when the funding is finalized.

To provide such insights into several controversies about the limits of money finance, Mehrling’s analysis relies intensely on one of the fundamental premises of the Money View; the notion that the payment system that enables the cash flow to transfer from a deficit agent to the surplus agent is essentially a credit system. However, when we investigate the future that the Money View faces, this sentiment is likely to be threatened by a few factors that are revolutionizing financial markets. These elements include but are not limited to the Fed’s Tapering and post-crisis financial regulations that constrain banks’ ability to create new credit. These restrictions force the payment system to rely less on credit and more on reserves. Hence, the future of Money View will hinge on its ability to function under new circumstances where the payment system is no longer a credit system. This puzzle should be investigated by those of us who consider ourselves as students of this View.

Mehrling, in his influential paper, puts on his historical and monetary hats to clarify a long-standing debate amongst Keynesian economists on the money creation process. In understanding the effect of money on the economy, “old” Keynesians’ primary focus has been on the market interest rate and asset prices when the initial payment is taking place. In other words, their chief concern is how asset prices change to make the new payment position an equilibrium. To answer this question, they use the “liquidity preference framework” and argue that asset prices are set as a markup over the money rate of interest. The idea is that once the new purchasing power is created, the final funding can happen without changing asset prices or interest rates. The reason is that the initial increase in the money supply remains entirely in circulation by creating a new demand for liquid balances for various reasons. Put it differently, although the new money will not disappear on the final settlement date, the excess supply of money will be eliminated by the growing demand for money. In this situation, there is no reflux of the new purchasing power.

In contrast, the new Keynesian orthodoxy, established by James Tobin, examines the effects of money creation on the economy by focusing on the final position rather than the initial payment. At this equilibrium, the interest rate and asset prices will be adjusted to ensure the final settlement, otherwise known as funding. In the process, they create discipline in the monetary system. Using the “Liquidity preference framework”, these economists argue that the new purchasing power will be used to purchase long-term securities such as bonds. In other words, the newly created money will be absorbed by portfolio rebalancing, which leads to a new portfolio equilibrium. In this new equilibrium, the interbank credit will be replaced by a long-term asset, and the initial payment is funded by new long-term lending, all outside the traditional banking system. Tobin’s version of Keynesianism extracted from both the flux of bank credit expansion and the reflux of subsequent contraction by only focusing on the final funding equilibrium. It also shifts between one funding equilibrium and another since he is only interested in final positions. In the new view, bank checkable deposits are just one funding liability, among others, and their survival in the monetary system entirely depends on the portfolio preferences of asset managers.

The problem is that both views abstract from the cash flows that enable a continuous payment system. These cash flows are critical to a successful transition from one equilibrium to another. Money View labels these cash flows as “liquidity” and puts it at the center of its analysis. Liquidity enables the economy to seamlessly transfer from initial equilibrium, when the payment takes place, to the final equilibrium, when the final funding happens, by ensuring the continuity of the payment system. In the initial equilibrium, payment takes place since banks expand their balance sheets and create new money. In this case, the deficit bank can borrow from the surplus bank in the interbank lending market. To clear the final settlement, the banks can take advantage of their access to the central bank’s balance sheet if they still have short positions in reserve. Mehrling uses these balance sheets operations to show that it is credit, rather than currency or reserves, that creates a continuous payment system. In other words, a credit-based payment system lets the financial transactions go through even when the buyers do not have means of payment today. These transactions, that depend on agents’ access to liquidity, move the economy from the initial equilibrium to the ultimate funding equilibrium. 

The notion that the “payment system is a credit system” is a defining characteristic of Money View. However, a few developments in the financial market, generated by post-crisis interventions, are threatening the robustness of this critical assumption. The issue is that the Fed’s Tapering operations have reduced the level of reserves in the banking system. In the meantime, post-crisis financial regulations have produced a balance sheet constrained for the banking system, including surplus banks. These macroprudential requirements demand banks to keep a certain level of High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) such as reserves. At the same time, the Global Financial Crisis has only worsened the stigma attached to using the discount loan. Banks have, therefore, become reluctant to borrow from the Fed to avoid sending wrong signals to the regulators regarding their liquidity status. These factors constrained banks’ ability to expand their balance sheets to make new loans to the deficit agents by making this activity more expensive. As a result, banks, who are the leading providers of the payment system, have been relying less on credit and more on reserves to finance this financial service.

Most recently, Zoltan Pozsar, a prominent scholar of the Money View, has warned us that if these trends continue, the payment system will not be a credit system anymore. Those of us who study Money View realize that the assumption that a payment system is a credit system is the cornerstone of the Money View approach. Yet, the current developments in the financial ecosystem are fundamentally remodeling the very microstructure that has initially given birth to this conjecture. It is our job, therefore, as Money View scholars, to prepare this framework for a future that is going to put its premises on trial. 

link to economic questions website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Where Does Profit Come from in the Payments Industry?

“Don’t be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value.”

Arthur Miller

By Elham Saeidinezhad

The recent development in the payments industry, namely the rise of Fintech companies, has created an opportunity to revisit the economics of payment system and the puzzling nature of profit in this industry. Major banks, credit card companies, and financial institutions have long controlled payments, but their dominance looks increasingly shaky. The latest merger amongst Tech companies, for instance, came in the first week of February 2020, when Worldline agreed to buy Ingenico for $7.8bn, forming the largest European payments company in a sector dominated by US-based giants. While these events are shaping the future of money and the payment system, we still do not have a full understanding of a puzzle at the center of the payment system. The issue is that the source of profit is very limited in the payment system as the spread that the providers charge is literally equal to zero. This fixed price, called par, is the price of converting bank deposits to currency. The continuity of the payment system, nevertheless, fully depends on the ability of these firms to keep this parity condition. Demystifying this paradox is key to understanding the future of the payments system that is ruled by non-banks. The issue is that unlike banks, who earn profit by supplying liquidity and the payment system together, non-banks’ profitability from facilitating payments mostly depends on their size and market power. In other words, non-bank institutions can relish higher profits only if they can process lots of payments. The idea is that consolidations increase profitability by reducing high fixed costs- the required technology investments- and freeing-up financial resources. These funds can then be reinvested in better technology to extend their advantage over smaller rivals. This strategy might be unsustainable when the economy is slowing down and there are fewer transactions. In these circumstances, keeping the par fixed becomes an art rather than a technicality. Banks have been successful in providing payment system during the financial crisis since they offer other profitable financial services that keep them in business. In addition, they explicitly receive central banks’ liquidity backstop.

Traditionally, the banking system provides payment services by being prepared to trade currency for deposits and vice versa, at a fixed price par. However, when we try to understand the economics of banks’ function as providers of payment systems, we quickly face a puzzle. The question is how banks manage to make markets in currency and deposits at a fixed price and a zero spread. In other words, what incentivizes banks to provide this crucial service. Typically, what enables the banks to offer payment systems, despite its negligible earnings, is their complementary and profitable role of being dealers in liquidity. Banks are in additional business, the business of bearing liquidity risk by issuing demand liabilities and investing the funds at term, and this business is highly profitable. They cannot change the price of deposits in terms of currency. Still, they can expand and contract the number of deposits because deposits are their own liability, and they can expand and contract the quantity of currency because of their access to the discount window at the Fed. 

This two-tier monetary system, with the central bank serving as the banker to commercial banks, is the essence of the account-based payment system and creates flexibility for the banks. This flexibility enables banks to provide payment systems despite the fact the price is fixed, and their profit from this function is negligible. It also differentiates banks, who are dealers in the money market, from other kinds of dealers such as security dealers. Security dealers’ ability to establish very long positions in securities and cash is limited due to their restricted access to funding liquidity. The profit that these dealers earn comes from setting an ask price that is higher than the bid price. This profit is called inside spread. Banks, on the other hand, make an inside spread that is equal to zero when providing payment since currency and deposits trade at par. However, they are not constrained by the number of deposits or currency they can create. In other words, although they have less flexibility on price, they have more flexibility in quantity. This flexibility comes from banks’ direct access to the central banks’ liquidity facilities. Their exclusive access to the central banks’ liquidity facilities also ensures the finality of payments, where payment is deemed to be final and irrevocable so that individuals and businesses can make payments in full confidence.

The Fintech revolution that is changing the payment ecosystem is making it evident that the next generation payment methods are to bypass banks and credit cards. The most recent trend in the payment system that is generating a change in the market structure is the mergers and acquisitions of the non-bank companies with strengths in different parts of the payments value chain. Despite these developments, we still do not have a clear picture of how these non-banks tech companies who are shaping the future of money can deal with a mystery at the heart of the monetary system; The issue that the source of profit is very limited in the payment system as the spread that the providers charge is literally equal to zero. The continuity of the payment system, on the other hand, fully depends on the ability of these firms to keep this parity condition. This paradox reflects the hybrid nature of the payment system that is masked by a fixed price called par. This hybridity is between account-based money (bank deposits) and currency (central bank reserve). 

link to economic questions website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is the Recent Buyback Spree Creating Liquidity Problems for the Dealers?

“You are a side effect,” Van Houten continued, “of an evolutionary process that cares little for individual lives. You are a failed experiment in mutation.”


― John Green, The Fault in Our Stars

By Elham Saeidinezhad

The anxiaties about large financial corporations’ debt-funded payouts- aka “stock buybacks”- is reemerging a decade after the financial crisis. Companies on the S&P 500 have poured more than $5.3 trillion into repurchasing their own shares since 2010. The root cause of most concerns is that stock buybacks do not contribute to the productive capacities of the firm. Indeed, these distributions to stockholders disrupt the growth dynamic that links the productivity and pay of the labor force. Besides, these payments that come on top of dividends could weaken the firms’ credit quality. These analyses, however, fail to
appreciate the cascade effect that will hurt the dealers’ liquidity positions due to higher stock prices. Understanding this side effect has become even more significant as the share of major financial corporations, including JPMorgan, are trading at records, and are getting very expensive. That high-class problem should concern dealers who are providing market liquidity for these stocks and establishing short positions in the process. Dealers charge a fee to handle trades between the buyers and
sellers of securities. Higher stock prices make it more expensive for short selling dealers to settle the positions by repurchasing securities on the open market. If stocks become too high-priced, it might reduce dealers’ ability and willingness to provide market liquidity to the system. This chain of events that threatens the state of market liquidity is missing from the standard analysis of share buybacks. 

At the very heart of the discussion about share buybacks lay the question of how companies should use their cash. In a buyback, a company uses its cash to buy its own existing shares and becomes the biggest demander of its own stock. Firms usually repurchase their own stocks when they have surplus cash flow or earnings, which
exceed those needed to finance positive net present value investment
opportunities. The primary beneficiaries of these operations are shareholders who receive extra cash payments on top of dividends. The critical feature of stock buybacks is that it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the stock price. Since each remaining share gets a more significant piece of the profit and value, the companies bid up the share values and boost their own stock prices. The artificially high stock  prices can create liquidity andsettlement problems for the dealers who are making market for the stocks and have established short positions in the process.

Short selling is used by market makers to provide market liquidity in
response to unanticipated demand or to hedge the risk of a long position in the same security or a related security. On the settlement date, when the contract expires, the dealer must closeout- or settle- the
position by returning the borrowed security to the stock lender, typically by purchasing securities on the open market. If the prices
become too high, they will not have enough capital to secure their short sales. At this point, whoever clears their trade will force them to liquidate. If they continue losing money, dealers face severe liquidity problems, and they may go bankrupt. The result would be an illiquid market. To sum up, in recent years, buybacks by public firms have become an essential technique for distributing earnings to shareholders. Not surprisingly, this trend has started a heated debate amongst the critiques. The problem, however, is that most analyzes have failed to capture the effect of these operations on dealers’ market-making capacity, and the state of market liquidity, when share prices become too high. 

link to economic questions website

Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is Transiting to SOFR Affecting Firms’ Survival and Liquidity Constraints?

“Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful.” Margaret J. Wheatley

By Elham Saeidinezhad

In 2017, after a manipulation scandal, the former FCA Chief Executive Andrew Bailey called for replacing LIBOR and had made clear that the publication of LIBOR is not guaranteed beyond 2021. A new rate created by the Fed—known as the secured overnight financing rate, or SOFR- seems to pull ahead in the race to replace LIBOR. However, finding a substitute has been a very challenging task for banks, regulators, and investors. The primary worries about the transition away from the LIBOR have been whether the replacement is going to reflect the risks from short-term lending and will be supported by a liquid market that behaves predictably. Most of these concerns are rooted in the future. However, a less examined yet more immediate result of this structural change might be the current instabilities in the market for short-term borrowing. In other words, this transition to SOFR creates daily fluctuations in market prices for derivatives such as futures that are mark-to-market and in the process affects firms’ funding and liquidity requirements. Understanding these side effects might be a key to understanding the puzzling situation that the Fed is currently facing which is the turbulence in the repo market.

This shift to the post-Libor financial market has important implications for the prices of the futures contracts and firms’ liquidity constraints. Futures are derivatives that take or hedge a position on the general level of interest rates. They are also “Mark-to-Market,” which means that, whenever the futures prices change, daily payments must be made.  The collateral underlying the futures contract, as well as the futures contract itself, are both marked to market every day and requires daily cash payments. LIBOR, or London Interbank Offer Rate, is used as a reference for setting the interest rate on approximately $200 trillion of financial contracts ranging from home mortgages to corporate loans. However, about $190 trillion of the $200 trillion in financial deals linked to LIBOR are in the futures market.  As a result, during this transition period, the price of these contracts swings daily, as the market perceives the future value of the alternative rate to be.  In the process, these fluctuations in prices generate cash flows that affect liquidity and funding positions of a variety of firms that use futures contracts, including hedge funds that use them to speculate on Federal Reserve policy changes and banks that use them to protect themselves against interest-rate hikes when they lend money.

To sum up, the shift from LIBOR to SOFR not only is changing market structure but also generating cash flow consequences that are putting extra pressure on money market rates.  While banks and exchanges are expanding a market for secondary financial products tied to the SOFR, they are using futures to hedge investors from losing money or protecting borrowers from an unexpected rise in their payments. In doing so, they make futures prices swing. These fluctuations in prices generate cash flows that affect liquidity positions of firms that invest in futures contracts. Money markets, such as the repo, secure the short-term funding that is required by these firms to meet their cash flow commitments. In the process of easing worries, banks are consistently changing the market price of the futures, generating new payment requirements, and putting pressure on the short-term funding markets. To evaluate the effects of this transition better, we might have to switch our framework from the traditional “Finance View” to “Money View.” The reason is that the former view emphasizes the role of future cash flows on current asset prices while the latter framework studies the impact of today’s cash flow requirements on the firm’s survival constraints.

LINK TO ECONOMIC QUESTIONS WEBSITE
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

When it Comes to Sovereign Debt, What is the Real Concern? Level or Liquidity?

“What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?” Adam Smith

By Elham Saeidinezhad

The anxieties around the European debt crisis (often also referred to as eurozone crisis) seems to be a thing of the past. Eurozone sovereigns have secured record-high order books for their new government bond issues. However, emerging balance-sheet constraints have limited the primary dealers’ ability to stay in the market and might support the view that sovereign bond liquidity is diminishing. The standard models of sovereign default identify the origins of a sovereign debt crisis to be bad “fundamentals,” such as high debt levels and expectations. These models ignore the critical features of market structures, such as liquidity and primary dealers, that underlie these fundamentals. Primary dealers – the banks appointed by national debt agencies to help them borrow from investors- act as market makers in government bond auctions. These primary dealers provide market liquidity and set the price of government bonds. Most recently, however, primary dealers are leaving Europe’s bond markets due to increased pressure on their balance sheets. These exits could decrease sovereign bonds’ liquidity and increase the cost of borrowing for the governments. It can sow the seeds of the next financial crisis in the process. Put it differently, primary dealers’ decision to exit from this market might be acting as a warning sign of a new crisis in the making. 

Standard economic theories emphasize the role of bad fundamentals such as high debt levels in creating expectations of government default and reaching to a bad-equilibrium. The sentiment is that the sovereign debt crisis is a self-fulfilling catastrophe in nature that is caused by market expectations of default on sovereign debt. In other words, governments can be subjected to the same dynamics of fickle expectations that create run on the banks and destabilize banks. This is particularly true when a government borrows from the capital market over whom it has relatively little influence. Mathematically, this implies that high debt levels lead to “multiple equilibria” in which the debt level might not be sustainable. Therefore, there will not be a crisis as long as the economy reaches a good equilibrium where no default is expected, and the interest rate is the risk-free rate. The problem with these models is that they put so much weight on the role of expectations and fundamentals while entirely abstract from specific market characteristics and constituencies such as market liquidity and dealers.

Primary dealers use their balance-sheets to determine bond prices and the cost of borrowing for the governments. In doing so, they create market liquidity for the bonds. Primary dealers buy government bonds directly from a government’s debt management office and help governments raise money from investors by pricing and selling debt. They typically are also entrusted with maintaining secondary trading activity, which entails holding some of those bonds on their balance sheets for a period. In Europe, several billion euros of European government bonds are sold every week to primary dealers through auctions, which they then sell on. However, tighter regulations, such as MiFID II, since the financial crisis has made primary dealing less profitable because of the extra capital that banks now must hold against possible losses. Also, the European Central Bank’s €2.6tn quantitative easing program has meant national central banks absorbed large volumes of debt and lowered the supply of the bonds. These factors lead the number of primary dealers in 11 EU countries to be the lowest since Afme began collecting data in 2006. 

This decision by the dealers to exit the market can increase the cost of borrowing for the governments and decrease sovereign bonds’ liquidity. As a result, regardless of the type of equilibrium, the economy is at, and what the debt level is, the dealers’ decision to leave the market could reduce governments’ capacity to repay or refinance their debt without the support of third parties like the European Central Bank (ECB) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Economics models that study the sovereign debt crisis abstracts from the role of primary dealers in government bonds. Therefore, it should hardly be surprising to see that these models would not be able to warn us about a future crisis that is rooted in the diminished liquidity in the sovereign debt market.

link to economic questions website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is Debt a Sin?

By Elham Saeidinezhad

“Oh, sinnerman, where you gonna run to?
Sinnerman where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna run to?
All on that day
We got to run to the rock”
Nina Simone

In the recent world bank report published in the first week of January, the Washington D.C.-based group said there had been four waves of government debt accumulation over the last 50 years. In 2018, for instance, global debt climbed to a record high of about 230% of gross domestic product (GDP). The critical drivers of the national debt level are government expenditures on welfare programs such as health insurance, education, and social security. The report, aligned with the premises of standard macroeconomic theories, warns that these episodes will not have a happy ending. The recommendation, therefore, is to reduce these public programs.  The issue is that these results are generated by unrealistic assumptions about interest rates and the economics of financial institutions that motivates supply-demand frameworks. Once we consider more sensible assumptions about interest rates and financial institutions’ business models, there might be a more happy ending for governments’ initiatives to support welfare programs.

To elaborate on this point, let’s start by understanding the “Market for loanable funds” model that is the most preliminary yet well-known supply and demand framework to study the effects of government debt. This theory predicts that higher government budget deficit reduces national saving, which is the source of the supply of loanable funds. Because the public debt does not influence the amount that households and firms want to borrow to finance investment at any given interest rate, it does not alter the demand for loans. As a result, the supply-demand framework suggests that in the new equilibria, the interest rate will rise. Higher interest rates, in return, crowd out private investment by increasing borrowing costs. This process will create a vicious cycle that undermines economic growth since investment is one of the main components of aggregate output.

The challenge is that these models are based on very unreliable assumptions. First, they assume that there is only one type of financial institution in the market for loans. These institutions’ only resource to make these loans is the savers’ money. In reality, however, rather than being merely an intermediary between the savers and the borrowers, financial institutions use their balance sheets to create different types of private credit.  Further, these theories propose that demand and supply forces in the credit market are the primary determinant of the interest rate. In modern economies, nevertheless, the interest rate is set by the ability and willingness of these institutions to use their balance sheets and continue making the market for new loans. This ability depends on factors such as their access to short-term funding rather than supply and demand forces. To sum up, once we take more realistic assumptions into account, we might find a happier ending for governments’ decisions to finance programs such as health insurance and unemployment benefit that enhance public welfare.

link to econeveryday website
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Is the Fed Losing Steam in Controlling Interest Rate?

By Elham Saeidinezhad

As the final countdown to bring in 2020 begins, new concerns have emerged regarding the Fed’s continuous ability to control the interest rate. Developments in the financial market such as growing U.S. budget deficit, investors’ increased cash hoarding desire, and pressures on the money market rates such as repo rates are urging these fears.  The sentiment is that the Fed’s control over interest rate determines the price of reserves, which in turn eliminates any form of excess supply or excess demand in the market for reserve. In doing so, the Fed maintains its authority to stabilize the money market where the price of short-term funding is determined. The problem is that in modern finance, most financial participants finance their liquidity requirements mainly through selling their securities holdings, or using them as collateral, rather than demanding for reserves directly.  In other words, the availability of market liquidity, which refers to the ability to raise some money by selling holdings of financial assets, has a higher priority than the supply of reserves. Therefore, as Perry Mehrling argues, and this blog highlights, the central bank watchers’ focus should deviate from the Fed’s ability to control the price of reserves, which is federal funds rate, to its ability to affect market and funding liquidity. This also entails an intellectual migration from a supply and demand framework toward a Flow of Funds accounting perspective.

To understand this point, let’s start by understanding the standard monetary economics view of the interest rate. In this framework, the money rate of interest is determined directly by the supply and demand for state money or reserves. The idea is that the Fed can accurately target the federal funds rate to control supply and demand for the money even though this interbank lending rate is determined in the market. The notion that the reserve balances held at the Fed are the ultimate means of interbank settlement gives the Fed this power. This sentiment of “monetary liquidity” got upheld in postwar economic discussion. The further integration of the money supply and demand framework with the “Liquidity preference” framework of Keynes made it an integral part of the standard economist’s toolkit. The issue is that this analytical strategy overlooks the role of borrowing and private credit in the money market by treating the money rate of interest as determined directly by the supply and demand for reserves. In modern finance, however, the dishoarding of money balances is only one way of satisfying the liquidity needs when cash outflow (use of funds) is larger than cash inflow (source of funds).

The other two methods are borrowing or selling financial assets. The former requires access to “funding liquidity,” and the latter involves the availability of “market liquidity.” More importantly, the dealers supply both liquidities. Banks provide funding liquidity by acting as dealers in the money market and earning the spread between overnight rate and term rates. In the process, they set the price of funding liquidity which is the short-term interest rate. Securities dealers, on the other hand, provide market liquidity and determine asset prices by taking on price risk and making the inside spread, which is the difference between the bid and ask prices. In doing so, both dealers take the deficit players’ settlement issues onto their own balance sheets and set short-term and long-term interest rates respectively. To sum up, it is crucial to observe that first, liquidity is a form of credit, not reserve money. Second, the interest rate, or price of liquidity, is determined by the expansion of dealer balance sheets on both sides rather than supply and demand for reserves.