Category: Financial Markets

ASX ‘Monopoly’ Tipped to Continue Thanks to Blockchain

From Investor Daily.

According to Morningstar analysts, the ASX’s decision to move its cash equities clearing and settlement system (CHESS) to distributed ledger, or blockchain, technology would further strengthen the exchange’s “strong competitive position”.

“Although DLT has enormous potential, few real-world examples of DLT use have emerged which makes ASX somewhat of a leader in the space, being the first stock exchange to commit to DLT in a meaningful way,” the report said.

The new system would have a number of benefits for stakeholders and stockbroking firms in the form of administrative savings as well as “richer, more timely and more accurate data”.

“ASX currently generates around AUD 100 million or 13 per cent of group revenue from clearing and settlement of cash equities which we expect to benefit from the new system via the monetisation of new functionality and services.”

The adoption of blockchain technology would further cement the ASX’s protection against competition, identified as “regulation and network effects”, the report said.

“The federal government and regulators have sought to increase competition for nearly a decade, but the process of regulatory reform is slow and still has many obstacles to overcome.

“A government report found that even if competition were allowed in cash equities clearing, competitors are unlikely to emerge, as the regulatory requirement to maintain operations and regulatory capital in Australia reduce potential synergies for overseas clearinghouses.”

And even if the regulatory barriers were removed, a ‘network effect’ would still provide the ASX protection against competition, the report indicated.

“Competitors can easily create the technology required for a rival exchange, but investors are unlikely to switch to a less liquid market.”

The report pointed to the attempt of the “sole viable alternative exchange to the ASX”, Chi-X, to launch a rival equities exchange in 2011, which only attracted market share of 10 per cent and “appear[ed] to plateau due to a lack of market depth”.

Furthermore, the technical aspect of integrating local market participants such as stockbrokers would then create “switching costs”, which would also dissuade them from moving to another securities exchange.

However, the report also signalled that lack of competition had served to somewhat “undermine” the ASX as it led to “a culture that lacks innovation and efficiency”, and that blockchain could serve to pose a “material threat”.

Nonetheless, the ASX’s willingness to explore the implications of new technologies, capital-light business model, high dividend payout ratios, lack of appetite for acquisitions, debt-free balance sheet and strong cash conversion all meant it had secured a “monopoly in the Australian primary listed equity market”.

ASX Selects Distributed Ledger Technology to Replace CHESS

The ASX has announced its intention to replace CHESS using distributed ledger technology (DLT) developed by its technology partner Digital Asset (DA).

This is an excellent example to highlight that distributed ledger is so much more than just the Bitcoin bubble.

Distributed Ledger technology combines a number of different core elements that support the transfer process and recordkeeping:

  • Peer-to-peer networking and distributed data storage provide multiple copies of a single ledger across participants in the system so that all participants have a shared history of all transactions in the system.
  • Cryptography, in the form of hashes and digital signatures, provides a secure way to initiate a transaction that helps verify ownership and the availability of the asset for transfer.
  • Consensus algorithms provide a process for transactions to be confirmed and added to the single ledger.

CHESS (Clearing House Electronic Subregister System) is the system used by ASX to record shareholdings and manage the clearing and settlement of equity transactions in Australia. It was world-leading when introduced in the 1990s, providing name-on-register functionality, electronic communications and removing paper share certificates. It continues to be a robust and reliable system. ASX is now taking the opportunity to replace CHESS with a next generation post-trade platform using contemporary technology.

Today’s decision follows the successful build of enterprise-grade DLT software for core equity clearing and settlement functions, and the completion of extensive suitability testing by ASX and DA over the past two years. The testing confirms ASX’s confidence in the functional, capacity, security and resilience capabilities of DA’s application of DLT to meet the needs of Australia’s financial marketplace and maintain the highest regulatory and operational standards. The testing included two independent third party security reviews of DA’s technology.

The testing was conducted in parallel with a stakeholder consultation program, which included briefing of regulators, to enable ASX to develop a comprehensive understanding of what the market wants in replacing CHESS.

ASX will now work with stakeholders on finalising the scope of Day 1 functionality for the new system, drawing on its extensive consultation that will continue in 2018. Day 1 functionality and the proposed timing for transition are expected to be released for market feedback at the end of March 2018.

The new system will be operated by ASX on a secure private network where participants are known, ‘permissioned’ to have access, and must comply with ongoing and enforceable obligations.

The system will be designed without access barriers to non-affiliated market operators and clearing and settlement facilities. It will also give ASX’s customers choice as to how they use ASX’s post-trade services. Customers will be able to connect in a similar way they do today, with the addition of using contemporary global ISO 20022 messaging, or they may interact directly with the distributed ledger. The transition period to the new system will be determined in consultation with stakeholders.

Dominic Stevens, ASX Managing Director and CEO, said: “ASX has been carefully examining distributed ledger technology for almost two-and-a-half years, including the last two years with Digital Asset, in order to understand its potential application. Having completed this work, we believe that using DLT to replace CHESS will enable our customers to develop new services and reduce their costs, and it will put Australia at the forefront of innovation in financial markets. While we have a lot more work still to do, today’s announcement is a major milestone on that journey.”

Peter Hiom, ASX Deputy CEO, said: “ASX has consulted extensively on the needs and priorities for replacing CHESS, including with customers, share registries, software vendors, other exchanges and industry associations. I am very grateful for their input and support. We’ve given over 80 DLT system demonstrations to more than 500 attendees, and conducted over 60 CHESS replacement workshops for more than 100 organisations from the global financial services industry.
“ASX has also formed a strong partnership with Digital Asset over the past two years, and we’re confident we have chosen the right partner. Together, we look forward to continuing to work with the industry as we finalise the requirements and the roadmap for implementation of the new system.”

Blythe Masters, Digital Asset CEO, said: “After so much hype surrounding distributed ledger technology, today’s announcement delivers the first meaningful proof that the technology can live up to its potential. Together, DA and our client ASX have shown that the technology not only works, but can meet the requirements of mission critical financial infrastructure.”

Coinciding with today’s decision, ASX will exercise its pro-rata right to participate in DA’s recent Series B fundraising and subscribe for US$3.5 million convertible notes. ASX and DA have agreed to work exclusively on DLT in Australia and New Zealand. This agreement applies while the Day 1 functionality of the new system is being finalised, and will continue subject to agreement of the full contractual arrangements for the development and support of the new system. These decisions underscore ASX’s strong commitment to working with DA to unlock the benefits of DLT.

Banks Pay More Than Half Of All Dividends In Australia

Data from the latest Janus Henderson Global Dividend Index  reveals that Australia’s banks pay $6 out of every $11 of the country’s dividends each year but dividends are growing slowly given already high payout ratios.

Leading is Commonwealth Bank which raised its per share payout 3.7 per cent on the back of steady profit growth, but National Australia, Westpac and ANZ all held their dividends flat.

CBA and Westpac were identified in the report as the world’s fourth and sixth biggest dividend payers respectively, with Chinese and Taiwanese technology and manufacturing companies taking the top three place.

Overall, Australian dividends typically peaked in the third quarter and this year was no different. Payouts jumped to a record $22.8 billion, up 17.0 per cent on a headline basis, boosted by a stronger Australian dollar. But resources apart, dividend growth in Australia was  sluggish.

More broadly, the headline growth of global dividends in Q3 2017 jumped by 14.5 per cent to US$328.1 billion and underlying growth was 8.4%, the fastest in nearly 2 years. Data is to 30th Sept 2017.

The Asia-Pacific region led with dividends up 36.2% to $69.6illion, equivalent to an underlying increase of 121%.  China Mobile accounted for almost half of the region’s headline increase and three-quarters of Hong Kong’s with a huge $8.4 billion special, the largest single payment in the world in Q3, helping Hong Kong’s total dividends reach a record $25.2 billion.

While every region saw global dividends increase, payment records were broken in Australia, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

They say that after record second and third quarters, the world’s listed companies are comfortably on course to deliver the highest ever annual total this year. They expect 2017 dividends of $1.249 trillion, an increase of 7.4%, which is $91 billion higher than their previous estimate.

Note all figures are in US$.

ASIC accepts enforceable undertakings from ANZ and NAB to address conduct relating to BBSW

ASIC says Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) and National Australia Bank (NAB) have today entered into enforceable undertakings (EUs) with ASIC in relation to each bank’s bank bill trading business and their participation in the setting of the Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW), a key Australian benchmark and reference interest rate.

On 10 November 2017, the Federal Court made declarations that each of ANZ and NAB had attempted to engage in unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply of financial services in attempting to seek to change where BBSW set on certain dates (in respect of ANZ, on 10 occasions in the period 9 March 2010 to 25 May 2012, and in respect of NAB, on 12 occasions in the period 8 June 2010 to 24 December 2012). The Court also declared that each bank failed to do all things necessary to ensure that they provided financial services honestly and fairly.

The Federal Court imposed pecuniary penalties of $10 million each on ANZ and NAB for the attempts to engage in unconscionable conduct in respect of the setting of BBSW. The Court also noted that each of ANZ and NAB will give EUs to ASIC which provides for them to take certain steps and to pay $20 million to be applied to the benefit of the community, and that each will pay $20 million towards ASIC’s investigation and other costs.

Background

ASIC commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against ANZ on 4 March 2016 (refer: 16-060MR) and against NAB on 7 June 2016 (refer: 16-183MR). The EUs form part of an agreed resolution to those proceedings.

On 16 November 2017 Jagot J of the Federal Court published her decision in both the ANZ and NAB proceedings ([2017] FCA 1338).

On 5 April 2016, ASIC commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against the Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) (refer: 16-110MR). These proceedings are ongoing.

ASIC has previously accepted enforceable undertakings relating to BBSW from UBS-AG, BNP Paribas and the Royal Bank of Scotland (refer: 13-366MR, 14-014MR, 14-169MR). The institutions also made voluntary contributions totaling $3.6 million to fund independent financial literacy projects in Australia.

In July 2015, ASIC published Report 440, which addresses the potential manipulation of financial benchmarks and related conduct issues.

The Government has recently introduced legislation to implement financial benchmark regulatory reform and ASIC has consulted on proposed financial benchmark rules.

Is The Global Banking Network Really De-globalising?

An IMF working paper “The Global Banking Network in the Aftermath of the Crisis: Is There Evidence of De-globalization?” released today, shows that contrary to popular belief, the Global Banking Network has not shrunk since the GFC in the simple way often thought. Using complex and innovative modelling, they conclude that the banking world in some ways is connected more deeply, and with greater complexity than before. This means that players in one location could be impacted more severely by events in other geographies. They conclude that the hidden dynamics of the global banking network after the crisis suggest that the assertion that cross-border lending has shrunk globally seems to miss out significant details. They refrain from assessing the risk impact of this observation.

However, we conclude, like our digital world, global banking is more financially networked than ever, suggesting that risks could be propagated widely and in unexpected directions.

The global financial crisis in 2008-09 underscores the unique role of financial interconnectedness in transmitting and propagating adverse shocks. Previous literature stresses the significance of network structure in generating contagion,  lays out detailed mechanisms of contagion through balance-sheet effects, is followed by a large body of theoretical and empirical research on interbank markets, mostly within a single country or region, that focuses on modeling banks’ behavior in response to shocks in the financial system. Cross-border implications of the banking network, however, are mostly ignored due to scarcity of data and rich country-level heterogeneity that may lower the explanatory power of a unified framework.

The sharp fall in global cross-border banking claims after the crisis has been persistent, either measured in Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Locational Banking Statistics (LBS) or BIS Consolidated Banking Statistics (CBS). This persistent aggregate decline in cross-border banking claims has been considered evidence of financial deglobalization. In this paper, we consider the validity of the financial de-globalization argument by studying the evolution of the global banking network before, during and after the crisis, with a particular focus on the aftermath of the crisis. Instead of trying to establish the role of the network in propagating the crisis at a global level, we take the role of the global banking network as given and seek to investigate the impact of the crisis on the network. In this context, our key contributions to the literature are twofold: (i) we measure and map the global banking network using a model-free and data driven approach; and (ii) we analyze the evolution of the network using network analysis tools, including some novel applications, that are relevant given the  characteristics of the global banking network and the available data.

The foremost challenge in constructing the global banking network is to map and identify an accurate and comprehensive network structure using the available data on cross-border banking flows. Researchers face a tradeoff between data coverage and frequency. High frequency data, such as banks’ daily transactions, often contain a limited number of banks within a country, while datasets with a good coverage of global lending mainly report country-level aggregate statistics, and are updated infrequently. This challenge is further complicated by the difficulty in identifying the composition, sources and destinations of bank flows, primarily due to the use of offshore financial centers as important financial intermediaries. Not only are global banks able to conduct cross-border lending via entities in their headquarters and offshore financial centers, but also they can lend domestically through subsidiaries and/or branches within the border of the borrower countries. BIS International Banking Statistics (IBS), through its two datasets (LBS and CBS), offer the best available data to map the international bank lending activity across countries. This is especially the case of the CBS dataset, which consolidates gross claims of each international banking group on borrowers in a particular country, aggregating those claims following the nationality of the parent banks. This nationality-based nature of CBS is an advantage over LBS, which follows a residency-based principle, and thus obscures the linkages between the borrower country and the parent bank institution, when lending originates in affiliates located in third countries (e.g., off-shores financial centers). A disadvantage of using CBS is that it registers the full claims of the affiliates, independent of how those assets were funded (e.g., a claim of a foreign affiliate that is fully funded with local domestic depositors is still counted as a claim from the country of the parent bank on the borrower country where the affiliate is located). In order to avoid this overstatement of financial linkages, which are large in the case of emerging countries as shown in the next section, we combine BIS CBS data with bank level data, taking into account the claims of foreign affiliates and the local deposit funding used by subsidiaries and branches.

We use the improved measure of cross-border banking linkages to  onstruct a sequence of global banking networks, and apply tools from network theory to analyze the evolution of economic and structural properties of the network. We take a step further to incorporate this important discussion into our choice of metrics to identify important players and trace the structural evolution of the global banking network. We provide an in-depth discussion of network measure choice based on the structural context of a core-periphery, asymmetric and unbalanced network structure and in the economic context of characterizing banking flows at the country level.

We introduce measures of node importance that capture  distinct aspects of global banking linkages. In particular, we use recursively defined Katz-Bonacich centrality and authority/hub measure to characterize country importance based on its connection to and dependence on other important countries, as well as a novel application of modularity in order to capture the regional fragmentation of the network. The flexibility of our network configuration allows us to use a small number of network metrics to reveal distinct aspects of network structure and node importance.

We find that the overall shrinkage of cross-border bank lending after the crisis, which has been the key argument behind the claims on financial de-globalization, is also reflected in the average number of links and their strength in the global banking network.

However, rich details on the evolution of the network suggest that this argument is overly simplified.

While connections within traditional major global lenders (banks in France, Germany, Japan, UK, and US) became sparser, many non-reporting countries located at the periphery of the network are more connected, mainly due to the rise of non-major global lenders out of Europe. Measured in metrics of node importance, these lenders have been steadily climbing up the rank, resulting in a corresponding decline of European lenders in status and borrowers’ decreasing dependence on traditional lending countries. Moreover, we find substantial evidence indicating increasing level of regionalization of the global banking network. Even though post-crisis retrenchment of major global and non-major European banks’ operation in the aggregate was just partially offset by the rest of the BIS reporting countries’ regional expansion, their targeted expansions have increased regional interlinkages through both direct cross-border and affiliates’ lending. More formally, using network modularity as a novel application to assess the quality of network cluster structure based on region divisions, we find that this measure increases after the crisis, thus indicating, from the perspective of network theory, that some form of regionalization characterizes the post-crisis dynamics of the global banking network. Finally, we also confirm this regionalization process through a regression analysis of the evolution of cross-border lending. After controlling by geographical distance and trade relationships as well as lender and borrower characteristics, we find a statistically significant increase in cross-border lending when both borrower and lender belong to the same region, especially in the case of peripheral lenders during the post-crisis period.

We show that without proper adjustment, country-level banking statistics suffer from multiple data issues that distort the actual role of each country in cross-border lending, and increase the difficulty of accurately detecting key players in the network. We find evidence confirming the overall shrinkage in the scale of cross-border bank lending using a variety of network analysis tools. Moreover, these methods capture rich dynamics that occur inside the global banking network and are not captured by traditional aggregate indicators.

Using a set of centrality measures with meaningful economic interpretations, we delve substantially deeper to capture the interconnectedness faced by each country. While the structural stability of the highly concentrated global banking network is mainly due to the stability of major global lenders, we observe decline in importance for non-major global European lenders and a corresponding rise in the ranks for lenders from other region, comprised of mostly emerging market lenders. The hidden dynamics of the global banking network after the crisis suggest that the assertion that cross-border lending has shrunk globally seems to miss out significant details.

NOTE: IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the authors and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.

With a new futures market, Bitcoin is going mainstream

From The Conversation.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange will soon begin trading Bitcoin derivatives (futures contracts), signalling the cryptocurrency is now a mainstream asset class. Bitcoin has had limited use in the mainstream economy in part because the volatility of its price. The value of the currency might go up or down significantly between the time a deal is struck and delivery.

The introduction of Bitcoin futures contracts will allow investors to manage this risk, and make it safer to hold and trade in Bitcoin. This will make the cryptocurrency more accessible to individuals and businesses, and encourage developers to build more products and services on top of the technology.

Futures and other derivatives are contracts between two parties to fix the price of an underlying asset (currencies, shares, commodities etc.) over a period of time or for a future transaction. The buyer of these contracts commits to purchase the underlying asset at a set price and at a certain date, and the seller commits to sell.

There are two main uses for these contracts. First, to reduce price risk by freezing future prices. The second use is speculation. For instance, a speculator would commit to buy a commodity/share/currency at a certain time, hoping that the market price at the time of delivery is higher than the price set in the contract.

Airlines commonly buy long term oil future contracts to hedge against the potential increase in fuel price, or to take advantage of what they believe to be a low price.

Similarly, future contracts will enable traders to lock in the value of Bitcoin for a defined period of time. This effectively removes the risk associated with fluctuation in value. In addition, since these contracts will be traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the exchange effectively guarantees that both buyers and sellers will abide by the agreement.

In 2010, one Bitcoin was worth less than one hundredth of an Australian cent. As of Monday the 6th of November, the price is near A$10,000.

The market capitalisation of Bitcoin is now well over A$160 billion, which is larger than the GDP of most small countries. As the price of Bitcoin has grown, so too have transaction volumes, showing an increasing use of the cryptocurrency.

As a result, Bitcoin is starting to look like a credible investment in any respectable financial portfolio.

Although, this is not the first futures contract for cryptocurrency. Futures contracts already exist for both Ethereum and Monero.

But the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s futures contract is significant as the CME group manages not only the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, but also the Chicago Board of Trade and New York Mercantile Exchange and Commodity Exchange. Combined, these exchanges represent the largest derivative market in the world.

The decision to issue futures contracts on Bitcoin rather than another derivative is also significant. So far Bitcoin derivatives have mainly been swap agreements. A swap is a commonly used financial tool where two parties agree to swap financial instruments, such as interest or currencies. The key point is that the two parties, the buyer and seller, make a deal directly with each other.

As a swap agreement is not done through an exchange, the risk of a party not delivering on the agreement can be quite high. If one party decides to opt out, the agreement has to be terminated. This leaves the other party exposed.

Futures contracts eliminate this “counterparty” risk, as the exchange clears the transaction and guarantees delivery. And unlike swaps, futures contracts are standardised (in term of size, how much is going to be traded, and maturity date etc.). This means futures contracts can be traded at any time until maturity, making them very liquid and accessible.

The lack of a futures market in Bitcoin was a significant barrier to it becoming a mainstream asset class. You can buy and sell forward contracts on the Fijian dollar, for instance, meaning that institutional funds anywhere in the world can hold Fijian dollars in their portfolio and manage the risks of that asset.

But they cannot yet do that with Bitcoin. Until now, there has been no way to offload the risks associated with fluctuating prices. An investor could always hold the cryptocurrency, but they would do so fully exposed to price volatility.

The introduction of Bitcoin futures contracts will allow traders to hedge against this volatility and eliminate the currency risk. This will make Bitcoin more attractive for both individuals and corporations.

As crypto-assets become a mainstream investment class, other products emerge around them (such as exchange traded funds). It will also have a similar effect to that of mainstreaming share ownership – enabling a much larger fraction of the population to diversify their asset portfolios and income streams.

This will unlock some of the value currently being built on cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology – new products and services – that are currently only accessible to a relatively small number of the early enthusiasts and those helping build the technology.

The increased flow of investment funds into Bitcoin will likely push prices up further, but it will also incentivise more work to build products and services on the technology. Bitcoin just went mainstream.

Authors: Jason Potts, Professor of Economics, RMIT University; Marie-Anne Cam, Senior Lecturer in Finance, RMIT University

NAB settles BBSW court case for $50m

From InvestorDaily.

In an announcement made late on Friday, NAB admitted that on 12 occasions between 2010 and 2011 its employees “attempted to engage in unconscionable conduct in breach of the ASIC Act”.

The settlement will see NAB fork out a $10 million penalty, cover ASIC’s costs of $20 million and donate $20 million to an ASIC-nominated financial consumer protection fund – all of which will be reflected in its 2017 financial year results.

NAB is the second of three major banks to settle with ASIC following claims of rigging the bank bill swap rate (BBSW). ANZ has already settled, leaving Westpac as the last bank remaining defending the court case.

Commenting on the settlement, NAB group chief executive Andrew Thorburn said the way BBSW was calculated “had changed since that time”.

“We accept we did not meet the high standards of professional conduct that ASIC, the community and NAB expects of itself, in that market during that period,” Mr Thorburn said.

“The ASX is now responsible for the administration of BBSW and NAB fully supports the reforms that are being introduced by the ASX to enhance trust and transparency in the BBSW market.

The Best Indicator Yet Rates Are On Their Way Up

The US 10-Year Bond Rates climbed above 2.4% yesterday and provides a strong signal that interest rates in the USA are on their way up as the FED reduces QE and moves benchmarks higher. After the Trump effect took hold late last year, we reached a peak in March, before falling away but the current rates are level with those in May.

There will be a knock on effect on the global capital markets of course, and as Australian Banks are net borrowers of these funds, will feel the effect of more expensive capital, and this is likely to flow through to their product pricing. As Treasury Head John Fraser said today:

“…though global monetary conditions can also impact upon the wholesale funding costs of Australian banks”.

We suspect the markets are underestimating the potential for rates rises, and soon.

 

How Might Increases in the Fed Funds Rate Impact Other Interest Rates?

From The St. Louis Fed Blog.

The Federal Reserve’s main instrument for achieving stable prices and maximum employment is the target for the federal funds rate. The idea is that by affecting the rate at which banks lend to each other overnight, other interest rates may be affected. In turn, this would also affect nominal variables (such as inflation) and real variables (such as output and employment).

In December 2015, the Fed ended seven years of near-zero policy rates. Through a series of increases since then, the target rate has been gradually raised by one percentage point. The current monetary policy outlook, as stated recently by Fed Chair Janet Yellen, is to continue increasing the target rate due to worries that a strong labor market may create inflationary pressures.1

Questions about Rate Increase Impacts

The fed funds rate is thus expected to continue rising in the near future. This would undoubtedly mean that other short-term interest rates will increase in tandem.

But what about long-term interest rates? What would the impact be on those rates that arguably matter the most for real economic activity, such as mortgages rates, Treasury bond yields and corporate bond yields?

The future is always hard to predict, but we can take an educated guess by looking at the recent behavior of short-term and long-term interest rates, and how they move with the fed funds rate.

Impact on Treasury Yields

The figure below displays three key interest rates over a period of 30 years:

  • The federal funds rate
  • The interest rate on a one-year Treasury bond
  • The interest rate on a 10-year Treasury bond

As we can see, the fed funds rate and the one-year Treasury rate track each other very closely. Although it is still debatable whether the Fed leads or follows the market, movements in the policy rate are associated with similar movements in short-term interest rates.2

In contrast, the interest rate on a 10-year Treasury bond does not appear to move as closely with the fed funds rate. While there appears to be some co-movement, the 10-year interest rate appears to follow its own declining path.3

Impact on Mortgage Rates

Is the interest rate on a 10-year Treasury bond representative of long-term interest rates? The next figure compares this rate to the average rate on a 30-year mortgage.

Clearly, the two move very closely together, though there is a difference in level due to the higher risk, lower liquidity and longer term of mortgages. If we were instead to look at other long-term interest rates, such as the average rate on corporate bonds, the results would be similar.

Impact on the Yield Curve

Given that movements in the fed funds rate are closely linked to movements in short-term interest rates, but less so to movements in long-term interest rates, changes in the policy rate are likely to impact the yield curve.4 The next figure compares the fed funds rate with the difference between 10-year and one-year Treasury bond rates.

This difference is meant to represent the yield curve at each moment in time with a single number. Note that there is a strong negative correlation between the fed funds rate and the term premium of Treasury bonds. When the policy rate increases, the spread between one- and 10-year Treasury bonds decreases.

Although it is still too early to tell, this pattern appears to be present in the latest period of interest rate hikes.

Overall Impact of Fed Funds Rate Target Increases

If the past is any evidence, the projected increase in the fed funds rate will successfully raise short-term interest rates but have a limited impact on long-term interest rates. This will imply a reduction in the term premium for bonds and loans.

These observations rely on the Fed not letting inflation stray significantly away from its annual target, which has been set at 2 percent. It is thus likely that, despite the continuing rate hikes, the government, firms and households will all continue to enjoy historically low interest rates on their long-term liabilities.

There is, of course, the possibility that some unforeseen and fundamental change in the economy will drive long-term interest rates up, but this increase would unlikely be driven by monetary policy alone.

Notes and References

1 For example, see Appelbaum, Binyamin. “Janet Yellen Says Fed Plans to Keep Raising Rates,” New York Times, Sept. 26, 2017.

2 The interest rate on a three-month Treasury bond would look even more similar to the fed funds rate.

3 For further analysis on these trends, see Martin, Fernando M. “A Perspective on Nominal Interest Rates,” Economic Synopses, No. 25, 2016.

4 The yield curve plots interest rates as a function of maturity dates.

S&P 500 Reaches New Heights (Again)

The US index has reached another high and a 5-year view highlights the strong growth, and momentum since Trump won the election last year.

So, what are the expectations ahead? Well, according to a piece from Moody’s:

An overvalued equity market and an extraordinarily low VIX index offer no assurance of impending doom for US equities. Provided that interest rates do not rocket higher, expectations of corporate earnings growth should be sufficient for the purpose of avoiding a severe equity market correction that would doubtless include the return of corporate bond yield spreads in excess of 700 bp for high yield and above 200 bp for Ba a-rated issues.

For now, the good news is that early September’s Blue Chip consensus expects core profits, or pretax profits from current production, to grow by 4.4% in 2017 and by 4.5% in 2018. Moreover, earnings-sensitive securities should be able to shoulder the 2.5% 10-year Treasury yield projected for 2017’s final quarter. However, the realization of a projected Q4-2018 average of 3.0% for the 10-year Treasury yield could materially reduce US share prices.

Since 1982, there have been seven episodes when the month-long average of the market value of US common stock sank by at least -10% from its then record high. Only two of the seven were not accompanied by at least a -5% drop by core profits’ moving yearlong average from its then record high.

In conclusion, the rich valuation of today’s US equity market very much warns of at least a -10% drop in the market value of US common stock in response to either unexpectedly high interest rates or a contraction of profits. Perhaps, the prudent investor should be braced for at least a -20% plunge in the value of a well-diversified portfolio at some point during the next 18 months.