The Fragility of Short-Term Secured Funding Markets

This paper develops an infinite-horizon model of financial institutions that borrow short-term and invest in long-term assets that can be traded in frictionless markets. Because these financial intermediaries perform maturity transformation, they are subject to potential runs. We derive distinct liquidity, collateral, and asset liquidation constraints, which determine whether a run can occur as a result of changing market expectations. We show that the extent to which borrowers can ward off an individual run depends on whether it has sufficient liquidity, collateral, and asset liquidation capacity. These determinants depend on the borrower’s (endogenous) balance sheet and on (exogenous) fundamentals. Systemic runs are possible if shocks to the valuation of collateral held by outside investors are sufficiently strong and uniform, and if the system as a whole is exposed to high short-term funding risk. The theory has policy implications for prudential regulation and lender-of-last-resort interventions

The Fragility of Short-Term Secured Funding Markets

This paper develops an infinite-horizon model of financial institutions that borrow short-term and invest in long-term assets that can be traded in frictionless markets. Because these financial intermediaries perform maturity transformation, they are subject to potential runs. We derive distinct liquidity, collateral, and asset liquidation constraints, which determine whether a run can occur as a result of changing market expectations. We show that the extent to which borrowers can ward off an individual run depends on whether it has sufficient liquidity, collateral, and asset liquidation capacity. These determinants depend on the borrower’s (endogenous) balance sheet and on (exogenous) fundamentals. Systemic runs are possible if shocks to the valuation of collateral held by outside investors are sufficiently strong and uniform, and if the system as a whole is exposed to high short-term funding risk. The theory has policy implications for prudential regulation and lender-of-last-resort interventions

Market liquidity and banking liquidity: linkages, vulnerabilities and the role of disclosure.

During the course of 2007, global financial markets went through noticeable periods of turbulence. In particular, complex credit markets suffered a marked set-back. Oddly, turmoil in these fairly new markets contributed to severe liquidity shortages in short-term money and interbank markets, triggering repeated large-scale monetary interventions by central banks worldwide. Recent events have thus demonstrated that banks are considerably intertwined in fi nancial markets; dependent on and exposed to them as regards liquidity. The aim of this article is to better understand this complex relationship and to frame relevant aspects of the latest fi nancial market turmoil accordingly. In particular, we explore the mechanics of a market liquidity crisis and its impact on individual banks’ liquidity, as well as possible spillovers to other banks. These dynamics of course raise a number of policy issues. Here, we focus on the role that greater disclosure to markets on banks’ liquidity situation itself could play as a market-stabilising device. In summary, global banks have increasingly integrated into capital markets and in terms of both funding and asset liquidity rely considerably on functioning, liquid financial markets. This is particularly visible in the shift towards secured lending transactions; growth of the securitisation market; the broadening of collateral to encompass complex products with shifting levels of market liquidity; and the rise in committed credit or liquidity lines to sponsored special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and corporates. While some of the recent developments in fi nancial market liquidity can be attributed to technological progress, importantly, more temporary factors resulting from an environment of low interest rates have accelerated market liquidity beyond sustainable levels. While, per se, banks’ ability to “liquify” assets represents a positive development which should help mitigate the fundamental liquidity risk that banks face, increased sensitivity with respect to market liquidity risk has also created new vulnerabilities with respect to sudden reversals of market liquidity. Importantly, adverse circumstances could trigger a combined increase in demands on liquid assets via margin requirements and activation of credit lines and reduced liquidity of assets and related market funding sources. The severe loss of liquidity in asset-backed securities markets and its repercussions on global interbank markets during 2007 provide a vivid illustration of the channels that link market liquidity to banks’ funding and asset liquidity and of the wider externalities of idiosyncratic liquidity shocks. How can these risks be addressed? Together with active liquidity management, disclosure may represent one tool through which such vulnerability may be reduced. A large literature exists on the merits of transparency in banking. Greater transparency should alleviate refi nancing frictions related to asymmetric information. When information problems are however deeper and concern aggregate uncertainty, improved disclosure on credit fundamentals may be less effective to restore confidence. Instead, better information on liquidity itself may be necessary. We explore the current availability of information on banks’ liquidity and funding risks. Overall, information appears to be limited –failing to disclose in a comprehensive and comparable way the underlying dynamics of liquidity demands and funding sources. But liquidity is volatile and banks are subject to inherent liquidity mismatches. Can greater disclosure in this area ever be a useful tool to reinforce market discipline in a systemically stabilising fashion? While this question merits serious reflection, the 2007 market events have shown that current information gaps are large and need addressing.

Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity

We provide a model that links an asset's market liquidity - i.e., the ease with which it is traded - and traders' funding liquidity - i.e., the ease with which they can obtain funding. Traders provide market liquidity, and their ability to do so depends on their availability of funding. Conversely, traders' funding, i.e., their capital and the margins they are charged, depend on the assets' market liquidity. We show that, under certain conditions, margins are destabilizing and market liquidity and funding liquidity are mutually reinforcing, leading to liquidity spirals. The model explains the empirically documented features that market liquidity (i) can suddenly dry up, (ii) has commonality across securities, (iii) is related to volatility, (iv) is subject to "flight to quality", and (v) comoves with the market, and it provides new testable predictions.

Monetary Policy in an Era of Capital Market Inflation

The theory of capital market inflation argues that the values of long- term securities markets are determined by a disequilibrium inflow of funds into those markets. The resulting over-capitalization of companies leads to increased fragility of banking and undermines monetary policy and stable relationships between short- and long-term interest rates, such as that postulated by Keynes in his theory of the speculative demand for money. Moreover, while the increased fragility of banking is an immediate effect, capital market inflation also creates an unstable Ponzi financing structure in the capital market as a whole.

Leveraging and risk taking within the German banking system: Evidence of the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008

The present study is centered primarily on determining whether the German banking system is to be characterized by procyclical behavior from 2000 to 2011 and to what extent specific sectors of the German banking system showed significant balance sheet operations to increase their leverage within years of booming asset prices. First, the results of this study show that the different sectors of the German banking system operate their business more or less procyclically. Second, the study provides some empirical evidence that banks increasing their leverages during periods of extraordinary high returns provided in the financial markets preferred funding their assets by shortterm lending in the interbank market. Third, the study clarified that banks, preferring high leverages, can apparently be characterized by a high volatility of return on assets and low distances to default over the observation period. Finally, the examined regression models provide some empirical evidence that requirements on countercyclical capital buffers should be considered by regulatory authorities in the context of macroeconomic indicators.Liquidity and leverage; financial crises, asset pricing; information and market efficiency; government policy and regulation, international financial markets, funding policy; financial risk and risk management; capital and ownership structure; countercyclical capital buffers; distance to default

Financial market liquidity and the lender of last resort.

In the summer 2007, difficulties in the US subprime mortgage markets have led to disruptive developments in many financial market segments, in particular in interbank money markets, where central banks in the US and in Europe repeatedly intervened to restore smooth market functioning. This article investigates the circumstances in which liquidity shortages may appear in fi nancial markets and evaluates a number of options available to the lender of last resort wishing to restore fi nancial stability. It also suggests that the consideration of balance sheet data is not sufficient for evaluating the risks of leveraged financial entities. Instead, the analysis calls for an explicit consideration of collateral pledges, market illiquidity, and potential non-availability of market prices. Our main messages can be summarised as follows. First, we provide a clear hierarchy across policy alternatives. Taking a risk-efficiency perspective, it turns out that targeted liquidity assistance is preferable to market-wide non-discriminatory liquidity injections. In particular, when liquidity may be alternatively used for speculative purposes during the crisis, non-discriminating open market operations may attract unfunded market participants that divert funding resources away from its best uses in the financial sector. As a consequence, targeted liquidity assistance may become strictly superior. Second, we suggest that forced asset sales may lead to disruptive market developments in a context where financial investors are highly leveraged. Assuming away external funding or renegociability of debt contracts, a fully leveraged investor hit by a liquidity shock would have to liquidate some assets. When markets are not perfectly liquid, asset liquidation depresses market prices. Under standard risk management constraints, lower prices induce a re-evaluation of marked-to-market balance sheets, provoke margin calls, and trigger further selling. In the worst scenario, the leveraged investor may not be able to face the sum of liquidity outfl ows and subsequent margin calls. In that case, the market for illiquid assets breaks down, rendering the valuation of such assets an ambiguous exercise. For investors, such potential trading disruptions imply that the loss that triggers operational default is likely to be much smaller than suggested by standard risk measures.