Tag: Debt

Categories
Elham's Money View Blog Search For Stable Liquidity Providers Series

Do Distributional Effects of Monetary Policy Passthrough Debt than Wealth?

By Elham Saeidinezhad

Who has access to cheap credit? And who does not? Compared to small businesses and households, global banks disproportionately benefited from the Fed’s liquidity provision measures. Yet, this distributional issue at the heart of the liquidity provision programs is excluded from analyzing the recession-fighting measures’ distributional footprints. After the great financial crisis (GFC) and the Covid-19 pandemic, the Fed’s focus has been on the asset purchasing programs and their impacts on the “real variables” such as wealth. The concern has been whether the asset-purchasing measures have benefited the wealthy disproportionately by boosting asset prices. Yet, the Fed seems unconcerned about the unequal distribution of cheap credits and the impacts of its “liquidity facilities.” Such oversight is paradoxical. On the one hand, the Fed is increasing its effort to tackle the rising inequality resulting from its unconventional schemes. On the other hand, its liquidity facilities are being directed towards shadow banking rather than short-term consumers loans. A concerned Fed about inequality should monitor the distributional footprints of their policies on access to cheap debt rather than wealth accumulation.

Dismissing the effects of unequal access to cheap credit on inequality is not an intellectual mishap. Instead, it has its root in an old idea in monetary economics- the quantity theory of money– that asserts money is neutral. According to monetary neutrality, money, and credit, that cover the daily cash-flow commitments are veils. In search of the “veil of money,” the quantity theory takes two necessary steps: first, it disregards the payment systems as mere plumbing behind the transactions in the real economy. Second, the quantity theory proposes the policymakers disregard the availability of money and credit as a consideration in the design of the monetary policy. After all, it is financial intermediaries’ job to provide credit to the rest of the economy. Instead, monetary policy should be concerned with real targets, such as inflation and unemployment.

Nonetheless, the reality of the financial markets makes the Fed anxious about the liquidity spiral. In these times, the Fed follows the spirit of Walter Bagehot’s “lender of last resort” doctrine and facilitates cheap credits to intermediaries. When designing such measures, the Fed’s concern is to encourage financial intermediaries to continue the “flow of funds” from the surplus agents, including the Fed, to the deficit units. The idea is that the intermediaries’ balance sheets will absorb any mismatch between the demand-supply of credit. Whenever there is a mismatch, a financial intermediary, traditionally a bank, should be persuaded to give up “current” cash for a mere promise of “future” cash. The Fed’s power of persuasion lies in the generosity of its liquidity programs.

The Fed’s hyperfocus on restoring intermediaries’ lending initiatives during crises deviates its attention from asking the fundamental question of “whom these intermediaries really lend to?” The problem is that for both banks and non-bank financial intermediaries, lending to the real economy has become a side business rather than a primary concern. In terms of non-bank intermediaries, such as MMFs, most short-term funding is directed towards shadow banking businesses of the global banks. Banks, the traditional financial intermediaries, in return, use the unsecured, short-term liquidity to finance their near-risk-free arbitrage positions. In other words, when it comes to the “type” of borrowers that the financial intermediaries fund, households, and small-and-medium businesses are considered trivial and unprofitable. As a result, most of the funding goes to the large banks’ lucrative shadow banking activities. The Fed unrealistically relies on financial intermediaries to provide cheap and equitable credit to the economy. In this hypothetical world, consumers’ liquidity requirements should be resolved within the banking system.

This trust in financial intermediation partially explains the tendency to overlook the equitability of access to cheap credit. But it is only part of the story. Another factor behind such an intellectual bias is the economists’ anxiety about the “value of money” in the long run. When it comes to the design of monetary policy, the quantity theory is obsessed by the notion that the only aim of monetary theory is to explain those phenomena which cause the value of money to alter. This tension has crept inside of modern financial theories. On the one hand, unlike quantity theory, modern finance recognizes credit as an indispensable aspect of finance. But, on the other hand, in line with the quantity theory’s spirit, the models’ main concern is “value.”

The modern problem has shifted from explaining any “general value” of money to how and when access to money changes the “market value” of financial assets and their issuers’ balance sheets. However, these models only favor a specific type of agent. In this Wicksellian world, adopted by the Fed, agents’ access to cheap credit is essential only if their default could undermine asset prices. Otherwise, their credit conditions will be systemically inconsequential, hence neutral. By definition, such an agent can only be an “institutional” investor who’s big enough so that its financial status has systemic importance. Households and small- and medium businesses are not qualified to enter this financial world. The retail depositors’ omission from the financial models is not a glitch but a byproduct of mainstream monetary economics.

The point to emphasize is that the Fed’s models are inherently neutral about the distributional impacts of credit. They are built on the idea that despite retail credit’s significance for retail payment systems, their impacts on the economic transactions are insignificant. This is because the extent of retail credit availability does not affect real variables, including output and employment, as the demand for this “type” of credit will have proportional effects on all prices stated in money terms. On the contrary, wholesale credit underpin inequality as it changes the income and wealth accumulated over time and determines real economic activities.

The macroeconomic models encourage central bankers to neglect any conditions under which money is neutral. The growing focus on inequality in the economic debate has gone hand in hand to change perspective in macroeconomic modeling. Notably, recent research has moved away from macroeconomic models based on a single representative agent. Instead, it has focused on frameworks incorporating heterogeneity in skills or wealth among households. The idea is that this shift should allow researchers to explore how macroeconomic shocks and stabilization policies affect inequality.

The issue is that most changes to macroeconomic modeling are cosmetical rather than fundamental. Despite the developments, the models still examine inequality through income and wealth disparity rather than equitable access to cheap funding. For small businesses and non-rich consumers, the models identify wealth as negligible. Nonetheless, they assume the consumption is sensitive to income changes, and consumers react little to changes in the credit conditions and interest rates. Thus, in these models, traditional policy prescriptions change to target inequality only when household wealth changes.

At the heart of the hesitation to seriously examine distributional impacts of equitable access to credit is the economists’ understanding that access to credit is only necessary for the day-to-day operation of the payments system. Credit does not change the level of income and wealth. In these theories, the central concern has always been, and is, solvency rather than liquidity. In doing so, these models dismiss the reality that an agent’s liquidity problems, if not financed on time and at a reasonable price, could lead to liquidations of assets and hence insolvency. In other words, retail units’ access to credit daily affects not only the retail payments system but also the units’ financial wealth. Even from the mainstream perspective, a change in wealth level would influence the level of inequality. Furthermore, as the economy is a system of interlocking balance sheets in which individuals depend on one another’s promises to pay (financial assets), their access to funding also determines the financial wealth of those who depend on the validations of such cash commitments.

Such a misunderstanding about the link between credit accessibility and inequality is a natural byproduct of macroeconomic models that omit the payment systems and the daily cash flow requirement. Disregarding payment systems has produced spurious results about inequality. In these models, access to liquidity, and the smooth payment systems, is only a technicality, plumbing behind the monetary system, and has no “real” effects on the macroeconomy.

The point to emphasize is that everything about the payment system, and access to credit, is “real”: first, in the economy as a whole, there is a pattern of cash flows emerging from the “real” side, production and consumption, and trade. A well-functioning financial market enables these cash flows to meet the cash commitments. Second, at any moment, problems of mismatch between cash flows and cash commitments show up as upward pressure on the short-term money market rate of interest, another “real” variable.

The nature of funding is evolving, and central banking is catching up. The central question is whether actual cash flows are enough to cover the promised cash commitments at any moment in time. For such conditions to be fulfilled, consumers’ access to credit is required. Otherwise, the option is to liquidate accumulations of assets and a reduction in their wealth. The point to emphasize is that those whose access to credit is denied are the ones who have to borrow no matter what it costs. Such inconsistencies show up in the money market where people unable to make payments from their current cash flow face the problem of raising cash, either by borrowing from the credit market or liquidating their assets.

The result of all this pushing and pulling is the change in the value of financial wealth, and therefore inequality.  Regarding the distributional effects of monetary policy, central bankers should be concerned about the effects of monetary policy on unequal access to credit in addition to the income and wealth distribution. The survival constraint, i.e., agents’ liquidity requirements to meet their cash commitments, must be met today and at every moment in the future.

To sum up, in this piece, I revisited the basics of monetary economics and draw lessons that concern the connection between inequality, credit, and central banking. Previously, I wrote about the far-reaching developments in financial intermediation, where non-banks, rather than banks, have become the primary distributors of credit to the real economy. However, what is still missing is the distributional effects of the credit provision rather than asset purchasing programs. The Fed tends to overlook a “distributional” issue at the heart of the credit provision process. Such an omission is the byproduct of the traditional theories that suggest money and credit are neutral. The traditional theories also assert that the payment system is a veil and should not be considered in the design of the monetary policy. To correct the course of monetary policy, the Fed has to target the recipients of credit rather than its providers explicitly. In this sense, my analysis is squarely in the tradition of what Schumpeter (1954) called “monetary analysis” and Mehrling (2013) called “Money View” – the presumption that money is not a veil and that understanding how it functions is necessary to understand how the economy works.

Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Forget About the “Corona Bond.” Should the ECB Purchase Eurozone Government Bond ETFs?

By Elham Saeidinezhad

In recent history, one of a few constants about the European Union (EU) is that it follows the U.S. footstep after any disaster. After the COVID-19 crisis, the Fed expanded the scope and duration of the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) to ease the fiscal conditions of the states and the cities. The facility enables lending to states and municipalities to help manage cash flow stresses caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In a similar move, the ECB expanded its support for the virus-hit EU economies in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Initiatives such as Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) allow the ECB to open the door to buy Greek sovereign bonds for the first time since the country’s sovereign debt crisis by announcing a waiver for its debt. 

There the similarity ends. While the market sentiment about the Fed’s support program for municipals is very positive, a few caveats in the ECB’s program have made the Union vulnerable to a market run. Fitch has just cut Italy’s credit rating to just above junk. The problem is that unlike the U.S., the European Union is only a monetary union, and it does not have a fiscal union. The investors’ prevailing view is that the ECB is not doing enough to support governments of southern Europe, such as Spain, Italy, and Greece, who are hardest hit by the virus. Anxieties about the Union’s fiscal stability are behind repeated calls for the European Union to issue common eurozone bonds or “corona bond.” Yet, the political case, especially from Northern European countries, is firmly against such plans. Further, despite the extreme financial needs of the Southern countries, the ECB is reluctant to lift its self-imposed limits not to buy more than a third of the eligible sovereign bonds of any single country and to purchase sovereign bonds in proportion to the weight of each country’s investment in its capital. This unwillingness is also a political choice rather than an economic necessity.

It is in that context that this piece proposes the ECB to include the Eurozone government bond ETF to its asset purchasing program. Purchasing government debts via the medium of the ETFs can provide the key to the thorny dilemma that is shaking the foundation of the European Union. It can also be the right step towards creating a borrowing system that would allow poorer EU nations to take out cheap loans with the more affluent members guaranteeing the funds would be returned. The unity of EU members faces a new, painful test with the coronavirus crisis. This is why the Italian Prime Minister Guiseppe Conte warned that if the bloc fails to stand up to it, the entire project might “lose its foundations.” The ECB’s decision to purchase Eurozone sovereign debt ETFs would provide an equal opportunity for all the EU countries to meet the COVID-19 excessive financial requirements at an acceptable price. Further, compared to the corona bond, it is less politically incorrect and more common amongst the central bankers, including those at the Fed and the Bank of Japan.

In the index fund ecosystem, the ETFs are more liquid and easier to trade than the basket of underlying bonds. What lies behind this “liquidity transformation” is the different equilibrium structure and the efficiency properties in markets for these two asset classes. In other words, the dealers make markets for these assets under various market conditions. In the market for sovereign bonds, the debt that is issued by governments, especially countries with lower credit ratings, do not trade very much. So, the dealers expect to establish long positions in these bonds. Such positions expose them to the counterparty risk and the high cost of holding inventories. Higher price risk and funding costs are correlated with an increase in spreads for dealers. Higher bid-ask spreads, in turn, makes trading of sovereign debt securities, especially those issued by countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, more expensive and less attractive.

On the contrary, the ETFs, including the Eurozone government bond ETFs, are considerably more tradable than the underlying bonds for at least two reasons. First, the ETF functions as the “price discovery” vehicle because this is where investors choose to transact. The economists call the ETF a price discovery vehicle since it reveals the prices that best match the buyers with the sellers. At these prices, the buying and selling quantities are just in balance, and the dealers’ profitability is maximized. According to Treynor Model, these “market prices” are the closest thing to the “fundamental value” as they balance the supply and demand. Such an equilibrium structure has implications for the dealers. The make markers in the ETFs are more likely to have a “matched book,” which means that their liabilities are the same as their assets and are hedged against the price risk. The instruments that are traded under such efficiency properties, including the ETFs, enjoy a high level of market liquidity.

Second, traders, such as asset managers, who want to sell the ETF, would not need to be worried about the underlying illiquid bonds. Long before investors require to acquire these bonds, the sponsor of the ETF, known as “authorized participants” will be buying the securities that the ETF wants to hold. Traditionally, authorized participants are large banks. They earn bid-ask spreads by providing market liquidity for these underlying securities in the secondary market or service fees collected from clients yearning to execute primary trades. Providing this service is not risk-free. Mehrling makes clear that the problem is that supporting markets in this way requires the ability to expand banks’ balance sheets on both sides, buying the unwanted assets and funding that purchase with borrowed money. The strength of banks to do that on their account is now severely limited. Despite such balance sheet constraints, by acting as “dealers of near last resort,” banks provide an additional line of defense in the risk management system of the asset managers. Banks make it less likely for the investors to end up purchasing the illiquid underlying assets.

That the alchemists have created another accident in waiting has been a fear of bond market mavens and regulators for several years. Yet, in the era of COVID-19, the alchemy of the ETF liquidity could dampen the crisis in making by boosting virus-hit countries’ financial capacity. Rising debt across Europe due to the COVID-19 crisis could imperil the sustainability of public finances. This makes Treasury bonds issued by countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy less tradable. Such uncertainty would increase the funding costs of external bond issuance by sovereigns. The ECB’s attempt to purchase Eurozone government bonds ETFs could partially resolve such funding problems during the crisis. Further, such operations are less risky than buying the underlying assets.

Some might argue the ETFs create an illusion of liquidity and expose the affluent members of the ECB to an unacceptably high level of defaults by the weakest members. Yet, at least two “real” elements, namely the price discovery process and the existence of authorized participants who act as the dealers of the near last resort, allows the ETFs to conduct liquidity transformation and become less risky than the underlying bonds. Passive investing sometimes is called as “worse than Marxism.” The argument is that at least communists tried to allocate resources efficiently, while index funds just blindly invest according to an arbitrary benchmark’s formula. Yet, devouring capitalism might be the most efficient way for the ECB to circumvent political obstacles and save European capitalism from itself.

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