SIZE AND HETEROGENEITY MATTER. A MICROSTRUCTURE-BASED ANALYSIS OF REGULATION OF SECONDARY MARKETS FOR GOVERNMENT BONDS.

This paper deals with the economics of secondary markets for government bonds. Ultimately, the analysis is shaped by a public policy goal: assessing the elements of a regulatory framework for these markets. In that regard, the decisive role of market structure leads to a critical review of microstructure conclusions relevant specifically for government debt markets. It is argued that the nature of information asymmetries and matching costs in government debt markets determines a bias towards a fragmented microstructure at odds both with exchange-like arrangements and with ordinary regulatory approaches. Hence, a generic conclusion highlights the risks of blindly transposing regulatory principles from the equity markets area without due regard to the specifics of the bond market. As a specific application of this idea, the paper critically reviews electronic trading platforms that emulate exchange-like order execution solutions. More specifically, the paper opposes the hybrid microstructure (pure limit order book plus affirmative quoting obligation) faced by European primary dealers and the arbitrage-based approach to market-making found in US inter-dealer markets. The Citigroup disruptive trade in August 2004 is analyzed from this perspective. Government bond regulation is argued to necessarily depart from ordinary approaches also because it captures the diverse interests of various governmental agencies. As an application of this principle, the paper discusses repo and short-selling regulation in government bond markets. The atypical market structure and the multi- agency endeavour around government bond markets raise the chances of regulatory failures. Nevertheless, it is argued that a reliance on competition, integrative infrastructure and basic systemic protections as over-arching principles for regulation is consistent with recommendations from relevant economic theory. Finally, political economy issues arising in implementation of transparency, disclosure or retail investor protection will be addressed in the context of selected country cases.government bonds, microstructure, regulation

Central bank Financial Independence

Central bank independence is a multifaceted institutional design. The financial component has been seldom analysed. This paper intends to set a comprehensive conceptual background for central bank financial independence. Quite often central banks are modelled as robot like maximizers of some goal. This perspective neglects the fact that central bank functions are inevitably deployed on its balance sheet and have effects on its income statement. A financially independent central bank exhibits the adequate balance sheet structure and earnings generation capacity to efficiently perform its functions. From a long term perspective, as far as the demand for banknotes is maintained seignorage waters down any central bank financial independence concern. However, from a short term perspective central bank financial vulnerability may condition its effective independence. Vulnerability may be real or accounting based. However, no matter its origin, institutional solutions are needed to minimize their impact. Adequate capitalization turns out to be a key issue. Alternatively, contingent capital in the form of institutional arrangements to bear central bank losses may be a (second- best) solution. The paper analyses in the context of simple VAR model the interplay between capitalization, accounting rules and dividend distribution. This analysis is preceded by a thorough discussion of the risk return profile of central banks net return on assets. Three main conclusions shape the input to the capitalization model. Central banks return on assets can be very volatile from a short term perspective. From a medium term perspective, natural earnings generation cycles dampen down volatility. On average, central banks net return on assets typically exhibits a discount over government debt financing cost. These observations shape the central bank financing planning problem as follows. Namely, the size of the discount relative to the social costs that would arise in case of a lack of central bank independence, along with central bank exposure to risks and the volatility thereof, determine the incentives of the government to maintain an excess of financial assets in the form of central bank capital. Actually, the working of smoothing mechanisms operating across time on central banks earnings leads to a distinction between short term and medium term capital, i.e. the optimum capital solution is a band. In the same vein, the need to maintain optimal consistence between central bank financial strength and dividends distribution policy leads also to smoothing proposals for pay out policy.Central Banking Capital, Independence, Accounting, Profits