Tag: Treynor Model

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

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

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

Can Shadow Banking Replace Traditional Banking? We Will See Soon Enough

By Elham Saeidinezhad

“A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” Jean De La Fontaine

The shift in the provision of financial intermediation away from traditional banks towards the shadow banking system highlights the evolving structure of the financial market. The recent disorder in the short-term repo market has created new openings for money managers. Money managers, such as money market funds and investment funds, are hoarding unusually large amounts of cash in anticipation of the excessive demand for liquidity on December 31st. In doing so, they are planning to serve both as the primary cash providers and the lender of near last resort in the repo market. Traditionally, the latter is the role that the large banks are inclined to have in the repo market. This shift in market structure from banking to shadow banking system seems to be the unintended consequence of the Fed’s tapering and regulatory requirements. It is also no accident that the change in the investment strategy of money managers coincides with the unwillingness of the large banks to borrow from the discount window of the Fed. This reluctance by banks cost the financial system the recent turmoil in the overnight lending market in September. The repo market experiment at the end of December, where money managers are preparing to take over the banks’ role, will be a real-world stress test of this new system.

In this piece, we focus on three factors that derive these changes in the market structure. These forces include Basel III regulatory requirements, Fed’s tapering, and the reluctance of banks to use the discount window to prevent the run on them. Post-crisis macroprudential requirements demand banks to keep a certain level of High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) such as reserves. For example, JPMorgan Chase keeps about $120 billion in reserves at the Fed and will not let it dip below $60 billion on any given day. These requirements reduced banks’ ability to be intermediaries between the Fed and other players. Further, the Fed’s tapering that involved the reduction of the Fed asset purchases reduced the amounts of reserves in the banking system. These factors constrained banks’ ability to provide cash in the repo market during September turbulences. Meanwhile, although the amounts of reserves in the system have shrunk, banks are reluctant to use the Fed’s credit facilities, including the discount window. The Global Financial Crisis has only worsened the stigma attached to using the discount loan for at least two reasons: first, the Dodd-Frank requires the name of the banks that borrow from the discount window to be released. Second, banks are worried that borrowing money from the Fed spur a run on these institutions.

Soon, the resilience of the most critical market for short-term borrowing will be tested when stress hits the system under a new condition. In this unique situation, when there is excessive demand for the cash, both the primary provider of funding liquidity and the lender of near last resort will be shadow banking system, who does not have the Fed’s backstop, rather than the large banks, who do. Perry Mehrling defines shadow banking as the money market funding of capital market lending. In this system, money market funds are primary providers of the funding liquidity. These funds are plotting to seize the new opportunity of becoming the lender of near last resort in December mostly because the large banks did not intervene when the repo rates hiked in September. The main question that remains to be answered is whether this new system will survive extensive pressure. After all, the bolstered role of shadow banking in the repo market is an unintended, rather than planned, consequences of post-crisis macroeconomic and regulatory changes.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Which regulatory requirements have constrained the ability of the banks to lend to the repo market?
  2. What does the lender of near last resort mean?
  3. Who are the main players in the shadow banking system?
link to mcgraw-hill econeveryday page
Categories
Elham's Money View Blog

Should the Fed Open its Balance Sheet to the Securities Dealers? A Lesson from the Recent Wild Swings in the Repo Rate

By Elham Saeidinezhad

“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new” -Socrates

If the Fed’s understanding of the existing problems in the repo market is weak or incomplete, it might attempt to solve the wrong problems, and then implement the wrong solution. Financial participants and the Fed alike are trying to comprehend what triggered the short-term rates in the repo market to rise to 10 percent overnight from nearly 2 percent in September. The “liquidity shortage” that was created by the inaction of large banks to lend cash in the face of the excessive liquidity demands on that day is marked as one of the “triggers.” Since then, the Fed is seeking to tackle the liquidity shortage by lending cash to eligible banks and offering its own repo trades at target rates. Most recently, for example, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York injected $68.343 billion to the financial market on Friday, November 15th, in the form of repurchase agreements.

These large banks are intermediaries between the Fed and the rest of the system, and the idea is that they will re-lend this money in the repo market. Nonetheless, while the Fed is weighing the recent “triggering” stories, it might be approaching the issue with a wrong perspective.  What we saw in the repo market in September has been a tragedy in the making as a result of both the Fed’s own “Tapering” that started in 2013 and the post-Crisis Basel III regulatory framework. The former reduced the number of reserves in the system while the latter put a strain on the balance sheets of the large banks and dampened their ability to lend to the market. Under these conditions, when the liquidity needs are higher than usual, the securities dealers, who are the main demanders of cash in the repo market, face a liquidity crunch. In the process, they put upward pressure on repo rates. The problem is that the Fed tends to overlook the balance sheet constraints that the banks face when examining the current developments in the wholesale money market. Once taking balance sheet restrictions into account, a more structural solution might involve opening the Fed’s balance sheets to the securities dealers. 

To elaborate on this point, let us start by understanding the relationship between the interbank lending market and the repo market. The cash-rich lenders in the repo market are mostly hedge funds and other wholesale money managers, while the demanders for cash are securities dealers. The securities dealers use the repo market to finance their securities holdings while providing market-liquidity. Whenever the demand for cash is higher than its supply, banks enter the repo market to fill the gap by expanding their own balance sheet. Before the financial crisis, the banks used to finance these operations by using the Fed’s intraday credit facility and then settle these payments overnight by borrowing from other banks. After the crisis, banks stopped using these credit facilities to avoid being penalized by regulators. Regulatory requirements such as Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which requires banks to hold high-quality liquid assets, mostly reserves, limits the ability of large banks to engage in such operations due to the higher costs imposed on their balance sheets. 

At the same time, the Fed’s Tapering reduced the number of reserves that these large banks are holding as a whole. The combination of these factors reduced banks’ ability to enter the repo market and lend on margin whenever there is a shortage of liquidity. In these circumstances, it should not be surprising that these banks did not seize the arbitrage opportunity when the shock hit the repo market in September even though they seem to be rich in reserves. The Fed’s tendency to discount the balance sheet limitations that the banks face when studying the current events in the repo market might prove to be costly. The Fed’s “taper tantrum” has reduced the number of reserves in the system while the regulations have created balance sheets constraints for large banks, who are the lender of the near-last resort in the repo market. These balance sheet restrictions lead to liquidity problems for the rest of the system and especially the dealers.

In a market-based economy, where the price of capital and collateral depends on the state of market-liquidity, the survival of the financial market depends on well-functioning securities dealers. These dealers create market-liquidity by financing their securities position in the repo market. Therefore, if the securities dealers’ access to the funding-liquidity becomes uncertain or very expensive at times, it might endanger the whole financial system. To sum up, given the recent structural changes in the financial ecosystem and banks’ business models, it might be time for the Fed to think about more structural solutions, such as opening its balance sheet directly to the securities dealers. After all, it is not accidental that the Fed’s continuous liquidity injections have not been entirely successful in stabilizing the repo market considering that the large banks have minimal balance sheet space to channel these reserves.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What was the main source of financing for large banks before the financial crisis? Did it change after the crisis?
  2. Why do Basel III regulatory requirements want banks to hold more liquid assets?
link to mcgraw-hill econeveryday page