90% of additional Tier 1 instruments issued by banks globally in 4Q14 were for large Chinese banks

According to Fitch, nearly 90% of additional Tier 1 (AT1) instruments issued by banks globally in 4Q14 were issued by large Chinese banks. This resulted in Chinese banks, which were not present in the growing AT1 market before 4Q14 becoming the third-largest issuers of AT1 instruments behind UK and Swiss banks and accounting for around 20% of the USD131bn AT1 and other capital-trigger instruments.

Overall, banks issued around USD29bn in AT1 bonds in 4Q14, the second-strongest quarter after 2Q14. Fitch expects issuance volumes in 1H15 to remain dominated by Chinese banks which are likely to issue around USD50bn AT1 instruments in the short-term, mostly in local currency in their domestic market.

However, with the year-end results season under way and following tax status clarifications of AT1 instruments in several European countries, issuance from European banks will also likely remain solid, provided market conditions are conducive. This was evidenced by a EUR1.5bn issue by Netherlands-based Rabobank Group in January 2015.

Overall coupon omission and write-down/conversion risk in the AT1 market remained broadly stable in 4Q14. The write-down/conversion TDA (the issue size-weighted distance between the applicable common equity Tier 1 ratio of the issuer and the contractual write-down or conversion trigger) increased by a negligible 14bps to 679bps at end-4Q14, indicating marginally lower average write-down/conversion risk. In absolute terms, the write-down/conversion TDA widened to USD39.2bn at end-4Q14 from USD26.5bn at end-3Q14 largely as a result of the above-average size (in absolute terms) of the new Chinese issuers.

 

When Are Banks Too Big To Fail?

The Bank of England just published a research paper “Financial Stability Paper 32: Estimating the extent of the ‘too big to fail’ problem – a review of existing approaches – Caspar Siegert and Matthew Willison”.

The disorderly failure of a large financial institution could cause widespread disruption to the financial system. Because of this, authorities have often in the past been reluctant to see large institutions fail and preferred to use public funds to save them. To the extent that this is anticipated by a bank’s debt holders, these ‘too big to fail’ (TBTF) institutions may benefit from funding costs that are artificially low and insensitive to risk, a form of implicit subsidy from the government. Implicit subsidies could lead to resource misallocation in the economy because institutions are incentivised to choose excessively high levels of risk since their funding costs do not fully reflect the level of risk-taking. Moreover, banks that are not yet TBTF may have incentives to grow to being inefficiently large, in order to boost their chances of receiving government support.

  • First, the share price increase would reflect a TBTF bank’s lower debt costs since shareholders hold a residual claim on the bank’s profits. If an increase in the expectation that a bank will be bailed out reduces debt costs and these benefits are not fully passed on to the bank’s customers or employees this will increase expected profits and hence raise a bank’s share price. Thus, share price reactions could be an indirect measure of the impact of TBTF expectations on debt costs. But cross-sectional studies that compare TBTF and non-TBTF banks should fail to find this effect if they control for bank profitability.
  • Second, a capital injection into a bank that would otherwise have failed may mean that shareholders’ claims are diluted rather than being wiped out entirely as they would be if the bank became insolvent. If existing shareholders are not wiped out entirely they are partially insured in case of failure and will demand lower expected returns in order to invest into the bank. Consequently, share prices will be higher for a TBTF bank than for a non-TBTF bank for a given level of bank profitability.

The existence of the TBTF problem is now widely accepted by academics, politicians and regulators across the world. In 2009, G20 leaders called on the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to propose measures to reduce the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). The FSB has developed a framework for addressing the TBTF problem that includes:

  • Methodologies to identify institutions that are systemically important (for banks see Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2013), for insurers see International Association of Insurance Supervisors (2013), and for non-bank,
    non-insurer financial institutions see Financial Stability Board and International Organization of Securities Commissions (2014));
  • Policies to reduce the likelihood of SIFIs failing such as additional capital requirements (eg Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2013)) and enhanced supervision (Financial Stability Board (2012));
  • Policies to reduce the impact of SIFIs failing by ensuring arrangements are in place to effectively resolve those institutions (see Financial Stability Board (2011)).

As part of its work on reducing the impact of the failure of a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) the FSB is currently consulting on policy proposals to ensure that G-SIBs have sufficient capacity to absorb losses in resolution without requiring public support or threatening financial stability (Financial Stability Board (2014)). The policy proposals on such ‘total loss-absorbing capacity’ were welcomed by the G20 leaders at their Brisbane summit in November 2014.

But it raises the question, how big is the ‘too big to fail’ (TBTF) problem? Different approaches have been developed to estimate the impact being perceived as TBTF might have on banks’ costs of funding. One approach is to look at how the values of banks’ equity and debt change in response to events that may have altered expectations that banks are TBTF. Another is to estimate whether debt costs vary across banks according to features that make them more or less likely to be considered TBTF. A third approach is to estimate a model of the expected value of government support to banks in distress. They review these different approaches, discussing their pros and cons. Policy measures are being implemented to end the TBTF problem. Approaches to estimating the extent of the problem could play a useful role in the future in evaluating the success of those policies. With that in mind, the report  concludes by outlining in what ways they think approaches need to develop and suggest ideas for future research.

ASIC issues stop order on pre-prospectus publications by Bitcoin Group Limited

ASIC has placed a stop order prohibiting Bitcoin Group Limited (a proposed Bitcoin ‘miner’ in Australia) from publishing any statements concerning its intention to make an initial public offering of its shares until the lodgement of a prospectus.

ASIC’s concerns relate to publications posted by the company via a social media application ‘Wechat’ seeking expressions of interest from potential investors to subscribe for shares if there is a proposed listing on the Australian Securities Exchange. The publications were made before Bitcoin Group Limited was registered as an Australian company by ASIC and before the lodgement of a formal disclosure document (e.g. a prospectus). ASIC’s understanding is that the company particularly targeted potential investors from the Chinese community.

ASIC Commissioner John Price said, ‘ASIC will often review pre-prospectus advertising or publicity to ensure legal requirements are being met. This is because any statements made about a potential offer may influence the investment decisions of consumers who will not have the benefit of all material information that would be included in a prospectus.’

‘ASIC expects companies to be fully aware of their obligations regarding advertising or publicity that occurs before making a regulated disclosure document available to investors. If they do not observe these requirements, then ASIC will take necessary action so that investment decisions are made in a confident and fully informed environment.’

ASIC has taken the step of issuing a media release given the publicity raised by Bitcoin Group in relation to their intention to list on the ASX. In normal circumstances, the issuing of a stop order is made public on our website and in reference to the fundraising documents lodged with ASIC. On this occasion, no documents have yet been lodged with ASIC so we have issued a media release outlining our concerns and subsequent action.

ASIC’s action relates just to this company rather than Bitcoin generally.

Banks More Leveraged Into Housing Than Ever

Putting together data from the recent ABS releases, we can view some important data which shows that today Banks in Australia are deeper into property than ever they have been. As a result they are more leveraged (thanks to capital adequacy rules) and more exposed if prices were to turn. Meantime, other classes of commercial lending continues to decline.

To show this, we look first at the share of commercial lending which is investment housing related. These are the monthly flows, not the overall stocks of loans on book. On latest trend data, around 33 per cent of monthly lending is for investment housing. Its normal range was 20-25 percent, but thanks to a spike in investment for housing, and a fall in other commercial lending categories it has broken above 30 percent. From a capital and risk perspective, lending for investment housing is adjudged as less risky than other commercial lending categories.

InvestmentLendingAsShareOfCommercialDec2014Now, lets look at all lending for property, including owner occupied lending, investment lending, and alterations, again from a flow perspective. Now we find that 47 per cent of all monthly flows are property related, again, higher than it has traditionally been.

LendingDec14HousingVSAllFinally, in our earlier analysis we highlighted the relative stock of different loan types. Overall, only 33% of all lending is productive finance for business purposes. Household and consumer debt continues to rise strongly. Housing Lending is driving the outcomes.

SplitsDec2014

This is unproductive lending, simply feeding the debt beast, and inflating property to boot. It also means the banks have strong interests in keeping the beast fed, and the RBA, conscious of the need for financial stability, will continue to support the current mix. As Murray pointed out the government is guaranteeing the banks and if there was a failure the tax payer would pick up the tab.

Lending Growth In December Only Supported By Housing

The ABS published their lending finance data for December. Only Housing Lending increased. All other categories declined. We know that investment housing lending grew the fastest.

Comparing December, with November, the total value of owner occupied housing commitments excluding alterations and additions rose 0.9% in trend terms, and the seasonally adjusted series rose 3.8%.

LendingByCategoryDec2014The trend series for the value of total personal finance commitments fell 0.1%. Revolving credit commitments fell 0.4%, while fixed lending commitments rose 0.1%. The seasonally adjusted series for the value of total personal finance commitments fell 2.5%. Revolving credit commitments fell 5.2% and fixed lending commitments fell 0.4%.

The trend series for the value of total commercial finance commitments fell 2.9%. Revolving credit commitments fell 5.1% and fixed lending commitments fell 2.2%. The seasonally adjusted series for the value of total commercial finance commitments rose 0.4%. Revolving credit commitments rose 4.3%, while fixed lending commitments fell 0.9%.

The trend series for the value of total lease finance commitments fell 3.8% in December 2014 and the seasonally adjusted series fell 11.2%, following a fall of 6.7% in November 2014.

RBA Trading Economic Growth Against Sydney Property

In Glenn Stevens Opening Statement to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics today, we get a glimpse of the drivers to lower interest rates. In addition, they are prepared to cut rates even if it leads to more growth in the Sydney property market to drive growth, even if that lever is now less powerful than previously.

Since the hearing in August last year, the economy has continued to grow at a moderate, but below-trend pace. Inflation as measured by the CPI has been affected by movements in energy prices and government policy changes, but even aside from these effects, inflation is low and appears likely to remain so.

The international context is one in which the global economy likewise is growing, but according to most observers at a pace a little below its longer-run average. There are some notable differences in performance by region. The US economy has picked up momentum, growing above trend with a falling unemployment rate. China’s economy met its growth target in 2014. A slightly lower target seems likely to be set for 2015, perhaps something like 7 per cent. But that would still be robust growth for an economy of China’s size. On the other hand, the euro area and Japan have recorded lower growth rates than expected a year ago.

Commodity prices have fallen, in some cases quite sharply. These trends appear to reflect primarily major increases in supply, with some moderation in demand playing a role. That would appear to be the case for iron ore and oil prices (and, prospectively, liquefied natural gas prices, which are typically tied to oil prices). Base metals prices, where few significant supply changes have occurred, have fallen by much less.

So there has been what economists refer to as a ‘positive supply shock’: more of the product is available with lower prices. The effect of this on individual countries will vary, depending on whether they are a producer or a consumer of such raw materials. On the whole for the global economy, however, this is a positive development.

Inflation is quite low in a range of countries, and very low in some. The decline in energy prices is temporarily pushing headline CPI inflation rates even lower.

The very low interest rates in evidence around the world when we last met have fallen further. This has been most pronounced in Europe, where yields on long-term German sovereign debt have fallen to be about the same as those in Japan. German sovereign debt has recently traded at negative yields for terms as long as 5 years. Official deposit rates are negative in the euro area, and the European Central Bank has announced a large-scale asset purchase program – colloquially referred to as ‘quantitative easing’. The euro has depreciated. Some surrounding countries to which funds tend to flow in anticipation of further depreciation – such as Switzerland – have reduced interest rates to significantly below zero and indeed 10-year Swiss government debt has traded at a negative yield. The Swiss National Bank took the decision to remove the cap on the Swiss franc, as it assessed that the size of the intervention likely to be required to hold it was becoming just too large. This move occasioned considerable turbulence in foreign exchange markets.

Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve, faced with a strengthening US economy and having ended its asset purchase program last year, is expected to begin a gradual process of lifting its policy rate in a few months from now. So the monetary policies of the major jurisdictions look like they will be heading in differing directions. This means there is ample potential for further turbulence in financial markets this year.

The falls in prices for key export commodities are lowering Australia’s terms of trade and hence the purchasing power of our national income. This is a well-understood mechanism and has been the subject of much discussion. It will continue to constrain income growth for households and mining companies, and revenues for both state and federal governments, over the period ahead.

Resource export shipments are increasing strongly, as the capacity put in place by the period of high investment is put to use. At the same time, the high levels of capital spending by the resources sector, which had been a strong driver of domestic demand for several years, peaked during mid 2012 and turned down. All indications are that this downswing will accelerate this year. That has always been our forecast. The recent declines in commodity prices don’t change it, though they do reinforce that this trend is well and truly under way.

The various areas of domestic demand outside mining investment are mixed. Dwelling construction is rising strongly and commencements of new dwellings will reach a new high over the coming 12 months. Consumer spending is responding both to income trends and financial incentives, which are pulling in different directions. Growth in wages, by historical standards, is quite subdued. This and the fall in the terms of trade is working to restrain growth in disposable incomes. Working the other way, the fall in petrol prices, assuming it persists, is adding noticeably to the real incomes of consumers. Increased asset values, which push up gross measures of wealth, and low interest rates are also working to push consumption up relative to income. The net effect of these opposing forces is producing moderate, though not strong, consumption growth.

Meanwhile, at this point non-mining business investment spending is still very subdued. While several key fundamentals are in place for stronger performance, clear signs of a near-term strengthening remain unconvincing at this stage. This is a weaker outcome than we had expected six months ago. Public sector final spending – about one-fifth of aggregate demand – is fairly subdued, and the intent of governments, as you know, is to restrain their own spending over the period ahead. The lower exchange rate is likely to help export volumes outside the resources sector, and of late better trends have been observed in some services export categories including tourism and education.

Overall, growth in non-mining economic activity has picked up, but is still a little below average. Our expectation had been that a further pick-up would occur in 2015. When we reviewed our forecasts in late January, we didn’t feel that growth in the recent past had been materially different from what we had estimated a few months ago. But when we tried to look ahead, we concluded that there were fewer signs of a further pick-up in non-mining activity than we had hoped to see by now. As a result, the revised forecasts we took to the February Board meeting embodied a longer period of below-trend growth, and a higher peak in the rate of unemployment, than earlier forecasts. They also suggested that inflation was likely to remain pretty low over the forecast horizon. The inflation outlook was revised slightly lower, in part reflecting the effect of declining oil prices as well as the weaker outlook for economic activity.

At its meeting in February the Board considered that this revised assessment – that is, sub-trend growth for longer, a higher peak in the unemployment rate, slightly lower inflation – warranted consideration of some further adjustment to monetary policy, after a fairly long period during which the cash rate had remained steady. These were incremental changes to the outlook but all in a consistent direction.

Another factor in our consideration was dwelling prices, which have continued to increase. Price rises in Sydney are very strong, and they are pretty solid in Melbourne. On the other hand they are much more mixed elsewhere. Excluding Sydney, the rise for Australia as a whole over the past year was about 5 per cent. That is a healthy pace but not alarming, and some cities have seen price falls. Developments in the Sydney market remain concerning, but in the end we did not see these trends as overwhelming a case for a further easing in monetary policy that was made on more general grounds.

I note that, on the regulatory front, APRA has announced its supervisory approach to managing the potential risks posed by the rise in lending to investors in housing. This involves more intense scrutiny of investor loan portfolios growing at over 10 per cent per year, with the possibility, ultimately, of additional capital being required if APRA deems it necessary. APRA has also reiterated its expectations for other elements of lending standards such as interest rate buffers and floors. And ASIC has begun a review of interest-only lending in the context of consumer protection legislation. The Bank welcomes these steps and will keep working with other regulators in these areas.

The Board is also very conscious of the possibility that monetary policy’s power to summon up additional growth in demand could, at these levels of interest rates, be less than it was in the past. A decade ago, when there was, it seems, an underlying latent desire among households to borrow and spend, it was perhaps easier for a reduction in interest rates to spark additional demand in the economy. Today, such a channel may be less effective. Nonetheless we do not think that monetary policy has reached the point where it has no ability at all to give additional support to demand. Our judgement is that it still has some ability to assist the transition the economy is making, and we regarded it as appropriate to provide that support.

The forecasts published last week in the Statement on Monetary Policy assume a lower path for interest rates and a lower exchange rate than both earlier forecasts and the ones the Board responded to at the February meeting. These are assumptions rather than forecasts or commitments to a course of action.

It is worth noting that, despite concerns at various times about whether the exchange rate would adjust appropriately to our changing circumstances, it has been doing so over the period since we last met with the Committee. Against the US dollar it has fallen by around 17 per cent since our last hearing. The US dollar itself has been rising against all currencies, of course, so much of this movement is an American story rather than an Australian one. Against a basket of relevant currencies the Australian dollar has fallen by less, but the decline is still about 11 per cent since August. Further adjustment is probably going to occur.

One other development since our last meeting with the Committee was the final report of the Financial System Inquiry. This was quite a wide-ranging report and there is now a further period of consultation. I simply note that the Inquiry did not find major problems in the financial system, but did make recommendations about capital, to enhance the resilience of the banking system, and about loss-absorbency more broadly in the context of resolution. These will be mostly in the province of APRA to consider. The Inquiry also made some observations about payments matters, generally supporting the steps the Payments System Board has taken since its inception in 1998, and pointing to some areas where further steps may be appropriate. The Payments System Board will be considering these matters at its meeting next week.

Unemployment Leaps To 6.4% – ABS

According to the ABS, Australia’s estimated seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for January 2015 was 6.4 per cent, compared with 6.1 per cent for December 2014. This is the highest jobless figure since August 2002, when it also hit 6.4 per cent. However, in trend terms, the unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 per cent. The seasonally adjusted labour force participation rate remained at 64.8 per cent in January 2015.

The ABS reported the number of people employed decreased by 12,200 to 11,668,700 in January 2015 (seasonally adjusted). The decrease in employment was driven by decreased full-time employment for both males (down 26,000) and females (down 2,100). The decrease in full-time employment was partly offset by an increase in male part-time employment, up 17,800.

The ABS seasonally adjusted aggregate monthly hours worked series increased in January 2015, up 8.2 million hours (0.5 per cent) to 1,607.6 million hours.

The seasonally adjusted number of people unemployed increased by 34,500 to 795,200 in January 2015, the ABS reported.

The question is, can we trust the seasonally adjusted series, given part performance, revisions, and continued volatility?

First Time Investor Buyers Focused In NSW

After the ABS data came out yesterday, DFA updated its industry models, and included the status of First Time Buyer Investors, at a state level. We had already shown that there were many First Time Buyers who were not able to buy an owner occupied property, and were switching the an investment alternative, as a way to enter the market, and hedge on future value growth. Here is the updated picture, incorporating the latest DFA data and ABS revisions.

FTBINVandOODFADec2014The number of Investor First Time Buyers continues to grow. Combined, the total number of First Time Buyers is rising, reflecting the momentum in the market. First Time Buyers are more active than thought, even if the ABS misses the Investor data. However, if we look at the state splits, we see that it is all NSW. There are a small number of FTB in the other states buying investment property, but it is mainly a NSW phenomenon at the moment, though we think it likely other states will follow suite.

FTBDFAINVDec2014In fact, if you look at the comparative data, we see that there are significantly more Investor First Time Buyers than Owner Occupied First Time Buyers in NSW. Around 2,000 owner occupied First Time Buyers, but 3,500 Investor First Time Buyers. We also found that close to 80% of these investors went for an interest only loan (for tax and serviceability reasons).

NSWINVFTBDec2014Compare this with VIC, where the trend is just starting to take off. Again, in this small sample, interest only loans featured significantly. VICFTBINVDec2014Finally, if we look at the latest First Time Buyer barriers to purchase data by selected state from our surveys, we see that in NSW, they are more concerned about high prices, and finding a place to buy compared with other states. On the other hand, fear of unemployment was lower than in all other states, whilst in figures more strongly in QLD, SA and WA. (WA attitudes are changing fast as the mining boom subsides).

FTBDriversStatesDec2014So, one of the reasons for the growing of investment property lending, is the NSW led switch by First Time Buyers into the Investment Sector. From our surveys, we found that:

1. Most first time buyers were unable to afford to purchase a property to live in, in an area that made sense to them and were being priced out of the market.

2. However, many were anxious they were missing out on recent property gains, so decided to buy a less expensive property (often a unit) as an investment, thanks to negative gearing, they could afford it. They often continue to live at home meantime, hoping that the growth in capital could later be converted into a deposit for their own home – in other words, the investment property is an interim hedge into property, not a long term play. Some are also teaming up with friends to jointly purchase an investment, so spreading the costs.

3. About one third who purchased were assisted by the Bank of Mum and Dad, see our earlier post. More would consider an investment property by accessing their superannuation for property investment purposes, a bad idea in our view.

Given the heady state of property prices at the moment, this growth in investment property by prospective first time buyers is on one hand logical, on the other quite concerning.  We would also warn against increasing first time buyer incentives, as we discussed before.

Our analysis also highlights a deficiency in the ABS reporting, who are currently investigating the first time buyer statistics (because in some banks, first time buyers are identified by their application for a first owner grant alone). They should be tracking all first time buyer activity, not just those in the owner occupation category.

You can watch my earlier video blog on this subject here.

Why Market-Based Liquidity Is Important

According to the Bank of England, in a speech to regional business contacts on Wednesday, Dame Clara, External Member of the Financial Policy Committee, discussed the challenges of encouraging and promoting greater use of market-based finance at a time when the banking system is undergoing structural changes, which may be impacting on the liquidity of markets through which such finance is provided.

Dame Clara pointed out that the financial crisis highlighted the cost of overwhelming reliance on the banking system.

“So it seems sensible to secure the benefits that capital markets and market-based finance can clearly offer our companies; namely, funding alternatives and risk-management options against a more diverse group of counterparties. Indeed, pushing savings from a conservative bank deposit to real investment is critical to ensuring that risk-taking can produce future economic growth and prosperity.”

Dame Clara noted that whilst it is important to recognise that market-based finance can also present systemic risk – such as the financing mechanisms outside the banking system that helped to propagate risk from US sub-prime mortgages – a more balanced financial system should emerge in the long-term. This should make both the real economy and banking system more resilient to economic shocks, as well as help central banks step back from “last resort” measures and allow private markets to operate more widely and efficiently.

Dame Clara highlighted the important role of investment banks in helping this balance to be achieved. Firstly, by facilitating equity and bond issuance, and secondly by ensuring liquidity in the secondary market for those assets.

However, while recent reforms in the regulation of investment banks – including enhanced capital and liquidity standards – have made the core of the system much safer, Dame Clara is concerned that reduced activity by investment banks in capital markets could be making some markets more fragile. And this is not always adequately reflected in liquidity risk premia.

“The post-crisis package of prudential measures included multiple adjustments to capital requirements from levels that were far too low. This has greatly increased the resilience of the core banking system. However, it has also altered the economic model for capital markets intermediation, and will have acted as an additional disincentive to such activities, especially those related to low-margin market-making,”

“But despite these changes, some measures of liquidity risk premia appear compressed; the compensation that investors require for bearing liquidity risk in some corporate bond markets has actually fallen to below its long-term average. Fragile liquidity conditions in these markets render them vulnerable to sharp correction,” Dame Clara said, citing the wobble in high-yield markets in the summer of 2014 and the volatility in the US Treasury market in October last year as examples.

The financial system is on a path to a new market structure, with established investment banks acting more like brokers, and their clients – institutional investors, pension funds and hedge funds – increasingly being seen as the true providers of market liquidity.

In Dame Clara’s view intermediaries have a vital role to play – especially in markets for securities that are less amenable to exchange trading, like corporate bonds or bespoke derivatives.

“In order to ensure that capital markets can contribute to the stability and prosperity of the economy, without recourse to last resort liquidity provision, it is imperative that more thought is given to how we promote resilient capital markets during what could be a bumpy transition at a time of heightened geopolitical risk,” Dame Clara concluded.

“As the post crisis reform agenda beds down, it will be important to take stock of the cumulative impact and interaction of all the recent reforms. The goal is to achieve the right calibration for a financial system that is able to work towards a sound and strong economic future.”

We’re Most Likely To Use Multiple Devices – Survey

Reported in eMarketer, according to H2 2014 research from Asia-Pacific programmatic buying service provider Appier, digital device users in Australia are the most likely of those in any country in the region to own more than two—and more than three—devices. Nearly half of multidevice users in Australia reported using three or more digital devices, vs. 28% of those in last-place Japan or Taiwan, for example.

Multidevice users can be a headache for marketers trying to work out multichannel campaigns. Appier sought to determine how similarly—or differently—multidevice users behaved on their various internet access channels. The research found that more than half of users in Australia had completely different behaviors on each device—while 27% exhibited identical behaviors across devices. There was no discernible relationship between penetration of many devices in a market and users’ likelihood of using them similarly.

That can make it difficult for marketers to, first, identify individuals across all their devices, and second, deliver relevant and timely messages to them based on the device they are using. But there were also some patterns across populations in terms of device-related behaviors.

Appier found that across Asia-Pacific, PC traffic was higher on weekdays than weekends. Smartphone traffic, meanwhile, tended to spike on Saturdays, though users in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan actually used smartphones most on Wednesdays. Tablet traffic tended to fall most on weekends. And across devices, men were more active than women.