You are probably familiar with the various bank bailout plans floating around (in the U.S., U.K., Belgium in conjunction with the Netherlands and so on). These plans require government to lay out cash which can come from one of two sources:
1. Treasury borrowing
2. The central bank "printing" money (or Quantitative Easing)
This last source is achieved by the central bank buying usually (and lately in the U.S., not only) Treasury securities from investors (usually dealers). How does the central bank pay for these purchased securities securities? By an electronic transaction that debits the traders' accounts in their respective commercial banks. These electronic checks represent new reserves for the commercial banking system that can now proceed to extend new credit to customers (the Money Multiplier). The problem of late is that even as the Federal Reserves Bank increases the banking system's reserves, these banks do not use them to extend additional credit to customers. Read an article in today's Financial Times about it: "Bank set to deploy quantitative easing"
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
International Capital Markets
Several articles relating to international capital market could be found in recent newspaper articles. The New York Times reported on Friday (“Global Worries Over U.S. Stimulus Spending”) that Mexico’s ex-president (Ernesto Zedillo) expressed in a Davos talk concerns about the Obama stimuli plan. His concerns are well founded; the money for financing the suggested plan will have to be raised by issuing Treasury securities. As an example, on January 22 the U.S. Treasury auctioned $40 billion in new 2-year notes—a new record. Investors who use their money to buy these Treasury notes cannot (or, rather, do not want to) use it to purchase developing countries’ bonds. Why? Treasuries are a safe heaven during these volatile times.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, please look up for “Why Venturing Abroad Still Makes Sense for Funds Investors”. The article focuses on the one of the main conclusions of Modern Portfolio Theory that investors who include more asset classes in their portfolios benefit from improved mean-variance investment opportunities. In the MPT lingo: Sharpe’s capital market line becomes steeper. The lower the correlation between the various classes, the better is the investment opportunities. The question therefore is whether the correlation coefficient between the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 is low enough for investors to be tempted to allocate some of their portfolio weights to this latter index. The common wisdom is that
1. Globalization causes the correlation between national equity markets to increase over time
2. The correlation between various national stock markets is particularly strong during turbulent periods.
Several books provide data regarding the correlation structure of the global capital market. Bekaert and Hodrick (Exhibit 13.6) provide a matrix of cross correlations between 22 developed markets. Countries that have close trade relations are characterized by highly correlated stock market returns. For example: the correlation between the monthly rates of return on the U.S. and Canadian capital markets are 0.73 while the equivalent figure with Japan is 0.31. These authors used the 1980 to 2008 period. Bruno Solnik, one of the highly regarded scholars in this area reports similar figures by using 1971-1994 data. Quite a stability.
What about the claim that during turbulent periods the correlation tends to strengthen? I computed the correlation between the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 indices over the last three month and it was amazingly low, approximately 0.16. Observing the data, it appeared to me that the rate of return on the Nikkei tends to follow that of the previous day’s S&P rate. When I correlated the lagged Nikkei on the S&P, the correlation jumped up to 0.62. This seems to confirm the above point 2.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, please look up for “Why Venturing Abroad Still Makes Sense for Funds Investors”. The article focuses on the one of the main conclusions of Modern Portfolio Theory that investors who include more asset classes in their portfolios benefit from improved mean-variance investment opportunities. In the MPT lingo: Sharpe’s capital market line becomes steeper. The lower the correlation between the various classes, the better is the investment opportunities. The question therefore is whether the correlation coefficient between the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 is low enough for investors to be tempted to allocate some of their portfolio weights to this latter index. The common wisdom is that
1. Globalization causes the correlation between national equity markets to increase over time
2. The correlation between various national stock markets is particularly strong during turbulent periods.
Several books provide data regarding the correlation structure of the global capital market. Bekaert and Hodrick (Exhibit 13.6) provide a matrix of cross correlations between 22 developed markets. Countries that have close trade relations are characterized by highly correlated stock market returns. For example: the correlation between the monthly rates of return on the U.S. and Canadian capital markets are 0.73 while the equivalent figure with Japan is 0.31. These authors used the 1980 to 2008 period. Bruno Solnik, one of the highly regarded scholars in this area reports similar figures by using 1971-1994 data. Quite a stability.
What about the claim that during turbulent periods the correlation tends to strengthen? I computed the correlation between the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 indices over the last three month and it was amazingly low, approximately 0.16. Observing the data, it appeared to me that the rate of return on the Nikkei tends to follow that of the previous day’s S&P rate. When I correlated the lagged Nikkei on the S&P, the correlation jumped up to 0.62. This seems to confirm the above point 2.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Central Banks and Currency Controls
Introduction
Any International Finance textbook contains a good chapter on currency regimes (or systems). Bekaert and Hodrick (2009) dedicate Chpater 5 to this issue. Eun and Resnick (2009) have a shorter discussion (p. 54) as do Kim and Kim (2006, p. 86).
A 1913 law establishing the Federal Reserves Bank (the Fed or FRB) charged it with four functions:
1. Assure stable price levels
2. Assure stable sustainable economic growth
3. Minimize (non-frictional) unemployment
4. Assure stable exchange rate for the U.S. dollar (USD)
This last task, also called, central bank intervention in currency markets. To fully understand the intervention process by the Fed, I request you read an excellent brief FRB publication titled "U.S. Foreign Exchange Intervention".
Exchange Rates Systems (a rough description)
To what purpose and how do central banks intervene? There are several basic exchange rates regimes or systems that are maintained by central banks' actions:
i. Floating exchange rates that allow a country's exchange rate (mostly against the USD) to float freely as determined by supply and demand. All major central banks allow their currencies to float (e.g., USD, GBP, EUR, JPY CFH). As you can learn from the above recommended FRB publication, the FRB is committed to intervening to "counter disorderly market conditions" that remain undefined.
ii. Fixed (or pegged) exchange rates. Under this regime, the central bank intervenes daily to keep the value of its currency constant against another currency. Bahrain, for example, fixed the value of its dinar to the USD at a rate of 2.65957 USD/BHD.
This means that the central bank of Bahrain will sell and buy US at this rate.
iii. Managed floating rates. Under this system a country's central bank intervenes occasionally not in order to counteract disorderly market condition but to manipulate the value of its currency with some economic objective in mind.
How does a country choose a system?
It is difficult to give a general answer to this question but here are a few thoughts:
A central bank should allow its currency to float freely if it wishes to control interest rates in its country. In sum: it gives up objective number four in the above list in order to manage objectives 1 and 2. To understand this, assume the U.S. had pegged its currency against the EUR at a rate of 1.5 USD/EUR. If U.S. consumers' demand for European goods increases, importers convert USD into EUR to finance the purchase of goods in Europe. This may push the exchange rate to above 1.5:1 (higher supply of USD causes it to weaken). To bring the exchange rate back to 1.5:1 the FRB must generate additional demand for the U.S. currency by raising interest rates. Higher interest rates cause European investors to shift their money into U.S. investments. To do so they must convert their euro into U.S. dollars. This resulting higher demand for the USD should move the exchange rate back toward towards 1.5:1. Higher U.S. interest rates may however cause a decline in the U.S. economic activity as well as elevate unemployment.
Why peg a currency? There are several possible situations where a country might prefer this regime:
a) The case of China: The Chinese government adopted a growth agenda that is based on exporting goods to the rest of the world (but mainly to the U.S.). To achieve its goal it had to make sure that its export products are reasonably cheap for U.S. consumers. It (non-officially) committed itself to an exchange rate that undervalued the yuan. This meant that Chinese exporters who sold their products for USD had to yield these dollars to the People Bank of China for approximately 8.2 CHY/USD. To do so, the People Bank must print yuans and inflation may (and did) raise its head. Luckily enough, Chinese citizens are very thrifty and they use this excess yuans to purchase Chinese government securities (this is called yuan sterilization)
b) A country that pegs its currency to the USD (for example) must offer the same interest rates as in the U.S. (otherwise: a money machine can be build to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities inherent in any discrepancy). This mechanism disciplines the country's central bank. It cannot print as much money as it wishes because this will lower its interest rate below that of the U.S.
Why choose a managed float?
a) The Chinese example: After may years of maintaining its currency on (approx.) 8.2 to the dollar, the Chinese government decided to slowly enhance its value. You can see the graph in a WSJ article dated January 23 ("U.S. Stance on the Yuan Gets Tougher"). This was accomplished by gradually changing the official exchange rate. Note however that the process stopped in mid-2008. Following the start of the financial crisis in the U.S., a decline in U.S. demand for Chinese goods motivated the Chinese government to stop appreciating the yuan.
b)The Russian Example. Russian consumers and foreign investors in Russia dislike large fluctuations in the value of the ruble. Consumer don't like it when the price of a Mercedes in Moscow goes up by 20% in a week. Likewise, a German investor who invests in a St. Petersburg shopping mall may want to know that when time comes to sell the investment, she will be able to convert her rubles into euros at a reasonable rate. For all these reasons, the Russian central bank acts to reduces exchnage rates volatility by intervening in currency markets ("Russia Signals a Halt in Ruble Devaluation" The WSJ, January 23)
Any International Finance textbook contains a good chapter on currency regimes (or systems). Bekaert and Hodrick (2009) dedicate Chpater 5 to this issue. Eun and Resnick (2009) have a shorter discussion (p. 54) as do Kim and Kim (2006, p. 86).
A 1913 law establishing the Federal Reserves Bank (the Fed or FRB) charged it with four functions:
1. Assure stable price levels
2. Assure stable sustainable economic growth
3. Minimize (non-frictional) unemployment
4. Assure stable exchange rate for the U.S. dollar (USD)
This last task, also called, central bank intervention in currency markets. To fully understand the intervention process by the Fed, I request you read an excellent brief FRB publication titled "U.S. Foreign Exchange Intervention".
Exchange Rates Systems (a rough description)
To what purpose and how do central banks intervene? There are several basic exchange rates regimes or systems that are maintained by central banks' actions:
i. Floating exchange rates that allow a country's exchange rate (mostly against the USD) to float freely as determined by supply and demand. All major central banks allow their currencies to float (e.g., USD, GBP, EUR, JPY CFH). As you can learn from the above recommended FRB publication, the FRB is committed to intervening to "counter disorderly market conditions" that remain undefined.
ii. Fixed (or pegged) exchange rates. Under this regime, the central bank intervenes daily to keep the value of its currency constant against another currency. Bahrain, for example, fixed the value of its dinar to the USD at a rate of 2.65957 USD/BHD.
This means that the central bank of Bahrain will sell and buy US at this rate.
iii. Managed floating rates. Under this system a country's central bank intervenes occasionally not in order to counteract disorderly market condition but to manipulate the value of its currency with some economic objective in mind.
How does a country choose a system?
It is difficult to give a general answer to this question but here are a few thoughts:
A central bank should allow its currency to float freely if it wishes to control interest rates in its country. In sum: it gives up objective number four in the above list in order to manage objectives 1 and 2. To understand this, assume the U.S. had pegged its currency against the EUR at a rate of 1.5 USD/EUR. If U.S. consumers' demand for European goods increases, importers convert USD into EUR to finance the purchase of goods in Europe. This may push the exchange rate to above 1.5:1 (higher supply of USD causes it to weaken). To bring the exchange rate back to 1.5:1 the FRB must generate additional demand for the U.S. currency by raising interest rates. Higher interest rates cause European investors to shift their money into U.S. investments. To do so they must convert their euro into U.S. dollars. This resulting higher demand for the USD should move the exchange rate back toward towards 1.5:1. Higher U.S. interest rates may however cause a decline in the U.S. economic activity as well as elevate unemployment.
Why peg a currency? There are several possible situations where a country might prefer this regime:
a) The case of China: The Chinese government adopted a growth agenda that is based on exporting goods to the rest of the world (but mainly to the U.S.). To achieve its goal it had to make sure that its export products are reasonably cheap for U.S. consumers. It (non-officially) committed itself to an exchange rate that undervalued the yuan. This meant that Chinese exporters who sold their products for USD had to yield these dollars to the People Bank of China for approximately 8.2 CHY/USD. To do so, the People Bank must print yuans and inflation may (and did) raise its head. Luckily enough, Chinese citizens are very thrifty and they use this excess yuans to purchase Chinese government securities (this is called yuan sterilization)
b) A country that pegs its currency to the USD (for example) must offer the same interest rates as in the U.S. (otherwise: a money machine can be build to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities inherent in any discrepancy). This mechanism disciplines the country's central bank. It cannot print as much money as it wishes because this will lower its interest rate below that of the U.S.
Why choose a managed float?
a) The Chinese example: After may years of maintaining its currency on (approx.) 8.2 to the dollar, the Chinese government decided to slowly enhance its value. You can see the graph in a WSJ article dated January 23 ("U.S. Stance on the Yuan Gets Tougher"). This was accomplished by gradually changing the official exchange rate. Note however that the process stopped in mid-2008. Following the start of the financial crisis in the U.S., a decline in U.S. demand for Chinese goods motivated the Chinese government to stop appreciating the yuan.
b)The Russian Example. Russian consumers and foreign investors in Russia dislike large fluctuations in the value of the ruble. Consumer don't like it when the price of a Mercedes in Moscow goes up by 20% in a week. Likewise, a German investor who invests in a St. Petersburg shopping mall may want to know that when time comes to sell the investment, she will be able to convert her rubles into euros at a reasonable rate. For all these reasons, the Russian central bank acts to reduces exchnage rates volatility by intervening in currency markets ("Russia Signals a Halt in Ruble Devaluation" The WSJ, January 23)
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Connecting newspaper articles with class material
"There is only one alternative to the dollar" in the January 5 Financial Times is an interesting discussion of the fate of the USD as reserve currency. I find the following quote interesting:
If the US stimulus policy revives the economy by spring or summer, the dollar could rally further. The risk posed by US policy comes from potential market concerns about monetary policy becoming inflationary. The current growth rate of the Fed’s balance sheet is totally unprecedented.
A similar sentiment has been expressed in yesterday's WSJ (did you come across this?)
As discussed in the Relative Purchasing Power class discussion, if the inflation rate in the U.S. will exceed that of other countries, exchange rates should reflect this difference through a depreciated dollar. It is possible though that the Fed will react by raising interest rates. This, according to the Interest Parity Relationship should result in a stronger dollar. So, should we expect the USD to depreciate (high expected inflation) or to appreciate (higher interest rates)? Who knows.
If the US stimulus policy revives the economy by spring or summer, the dollar could rally further. The risk posed by US policy comes from potential market concerns about monetary policy becoming inflationary. The current growth rate of the Fed’s balance sheet is totally unprecedented.
A similar sentiment has been expressed in yesterday's WSJ (did you come across this?)
As discussed in the Relative Purchasing Power class discussion, if the inflation rate in the U.S. will exceed that of other countries, exchange rates should reflect this difference through a depreciated dollar. It is possible though that the Fed will react by raising interest rates. This, according to the Interest Parity Relationship should result in a stronger dollar. So, should we expect the USD to depreciate (high expected inflation) or to appreciate (higher interest rates)? Who knows.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
What is Money?
One of you guys called my attention to "When It Comes to Cash, A Thai Village Says, 'Baht, Humbug!'" from today's Journal. This article touches upon the question of what makes money money. This gives me the opportunity to refer you to an interesting article by Hal Varian in the New York Times from way back ("Paper currency can have value without government backing". Professor Varian is in my opinion one of the most erudite economists in the U.S. You might also want to read his article in today's Journal ("Boost Private Investment to Boost the Economy"). It makes for a good commentary about the limited effect that government has on the current economic situation.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
International Diversification
I suggested in a recent email message that you avoid reading Chapter 13 in Bekaert and Hodrick. This chapter is tedious and its main points can made in a much briefer manner. Serendipitously, an article from today's WSJ titled "Swimming with the Currency " is very helpful. The article touches upon several points
First, when investing in a foreign investment, the rate of return in terms of the domestic currency (say USD) is affected by both the performance of the investment in the foreign asset (stock or bond) and the performance of the foreign currency itself (see my December 17 email message). Let me pick an example from this article relating to results of investing in the Brazilian stock market (the Bovespa index). During 2008 the Bovespa declined 41% in local prices and the Brazilian real lost 55% of its value against the USD. This means a total loss of 73.45% (compute!!!)
The second important point in this article is what it calls geographical diversification. Modern portfolio theory tells us that the more assets you include in your portfolio, the better are the risk-return opportunities. If you remember the mean-standard deviation capital market line, this means that the slope of this line is steeper when more assets are included. In short, don't attempt to outperform your domestic market by investing in foreign stocks. Do so in order to mitigate domestic market's variability. Hopefully, when your domestic market performs badly, foreign ones might mitigate this loss.
A few additional observations about international diversification:
1. The lower the correlation between the rates of return between the domestic and foreign markets, the better are the diversification opportunities. See page 465 for a tabulation of the historical correlations between various economies (Exhibit 13.5). Which countries seem to be good vehicles for international diversification?
2. Although you can't see it from Exhibit 13.5, these correlations tighten over time. Because we live in a global economy, all local economies are interrelated and are becoming more so with time.
3. What is the meaning of a "foreign" company anyhow? Is Toyota a foreign company? a huge part of its production and sales take place in the U.S.
The third important concept in this article is called translation exposure which is completely ignored by Bekaert and Hodrick. Here is the gist of this concept. According to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) U.S. corporation should consolidate the financial results of their subsidiaries --including foreign subsidiaries). When a the currency of the foreign subsidiary appreciates against the domestic currency, the subsidiary's assets appreciate. This appreciation enhances the parent corporation's income for the year. Obviously, the opposite might happen and profits could be dampened.
First, when investing in a foreign investment, the rate of return in terms of the domestic currency (say USD) is affected by both the performance of the investment in the foreign asset (stock or bond) and the performance of the foreign currency itself (see my December 17 email message). Let me pick an example from this article relating to results of investing in the Brazilian stock market (the Bovespa index). During 2008 the Bovespa declined 41% in local prices and the Brazilian real lost 55% of its value against the USD. This means a total loss of 73.45% (compute!!!)
The second important point in this article is what it calls geographical diversification. Modern portfolio theory tells us that the more assets you include in your portfolio, the better are the risk-return opportunities. If you remember the mean-standard deviation capital market line, this means that the slope of this line is steeper when more assets are included. In short, don't attempt to outperform your domestic market by investing in foreign stocks. Do so in order to mitigate domestic market's variability. Hopefully, when your domestic market performs badly, foreign ones might mitigate this loss.
A few additional observations about international diversification:
1. The lower the correlation between the rates of return between the domestic and foreign markets, the better are the diversification opportunities. See page 465 for a tabulation of the historical correlations between various economies (Exhibit 13.5). Which countries seem to be good vehicles for international diversification?
2. Although you can't see it from Exhibit 13.5, these correlations tighten over time. Because we live in a global economy, all local economies are interrelated and are becoming more so with time.
3. What is the meaning of a "foreign" company anyhow? Is Toyota a foreign company? a huge part of its production and sales take place in the U.S.
The third important concept in this article is called translation exposure which is completely ignored by Bekaert and Hodrick. Here is the gist of this concept. According to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) U.S. corporation should consolidate the financial results of their subsidiaries --including foreign subsidiaries). When a the currency of the foreign subsidiary appreciates against the domestic currency, the subsidiary's assets appreciate. This appreciation enhances the parent corporation's income for the year. Obviously, the opposite might happen and profits could be dampened.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Money supply and the Fed's Actions
Many of you elected to use the December 18 article titled "Japan Looks Set to Follow U.S. Rate Cut". Several of you had difficulty conceptualizing the mechanism of the money supply. As stated by a class participant:
The article mentions that as part of the “quantitative easing” approach, the Fed may consider buying U.S. Treasuries to create funding for new programs. I am not clear how the U.S. federal government purchasing its own securities provides additional funding in a real sense.
To clarify this issue I will guide you through the following steps:
1. Economic activity is promoted by banks extending credit
2. When credit is granted by a bank, it create a "deposit" available to the borrower for check writing.
3. Banks are limited by reserve requirements (stipulated by the Fed) as to how much credit they can extend. Currently, for every 10 dollars in deposits the bank must hold a reserve of one dollar. The more the reserves available to a bank the more deposits (and hence credit) it can create.
4. When the Fed buys securities from dealers, it pays them money that is automatically deposited in their bank accounts.
5. This extra money constitutes new (and therefore additional)reserves that enable banks to lend more (see point 3 above) by creating new loans (deposits).
6. Because bank deposits constitute a component of the money supply, we say that by purchasing securities the Fed helps increase the money supply or the quantity of money.
7. Note that if banks refuse to use the new reserves to grant new loans (as they currently do) , the money supply may not grow.
The article mentions that as part of the “quantitative easing” approach, the Fed may consider buying U.S. Treasuries to create funding for new programs. I am not clear how the U.S. federal government purchasing its own securities provides additional funding in a real sense.
To clarify this issue I will guide you through the following steps:
1. Economic activity is promoted by banks extending credit
2. When credit is granted by a bank, it create a "deposit" available to the borrower for check writing.
3. Banks are limited by reserve requirements (stipulated by the Fed) as to how much credit they can extend. Currently, for every 10 dollars in deposits the bank must hold a reserve of one dollar. The more the reserves available to a bank the more deposits (and hence credit) it can create.
4. When the Fed buys securities from dealers, it pays them money that is automatically deposited in their bank accounts.
5. This extra money constitutes new (and therefore additional)reserves that enable banks to lend more (see point 3 above) by creating new loans (deposits).
6. Because bank deposits constitute a component of the money supply, we say that by purchasing securities the Fed helps increase the money supply or the quantity of money.
7. Note that if banks refuse to use the new reserves to grant new loans (as they currently do) , the money supply may not grow.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Newspaper Article
There are two interesting articles that appeared in the press in the last couple of days. Friday's New York Times article titled "Chinese Savings Helped Inflate American Bubble" is long but instructive. It demonstrates how all nations are linked to each other in this global economy. Yesterday' Wall Street Journal included a major long article titled "The Isle That Rattled the World ". Please make sure to read at least one of these articles.
Not Quite Global Finance
Some years ago I was frequently hosting in my office a representative of one of the largest textbook publishers. The guy is no longer with this company and, yet, he felt compelled to write me for advice regarding the situation in capital markets. Here is his message:
It has been a long time. I hope you and your loved ones are doing well. I was just contemplating the repercussions of an over supply of T bills and thought you might explain what the treasury and fed can do to counter this serious problem. I thought at first the fed could print more money which may result later in hyper inflation, but I still need your opinion. Please see the Bloomberg article below:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiw3cE2FfsLU&refer=home
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Following is my response:
Hi:
Good hearing from you. I believe the Treasury is in a bind. Currently, it is able to sell a bunch of T-bills because of the flight-to-safety effect; investors, motivated by anxiety regarding capital markets, are more than glad to lend their money to the Treasury at practically zero interest. Should the Treasury be successful in comforting investors, interest rates will go up as they will require higher rates. At some point, to avoid too high of interest rates, the Fed will have to interfere by printing money. High inflation might follow. I was aware of this possibility in September when I moved a bunch of money into TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) and promptly lost 7%.Markets' fear of deflation pushed down the value of such inflation-linked securities (they pay less interest when the CPI declines though their face value cannot sink below 100%). Markets have reversed themselves to a large extent. My current loss on such TIPS has declined to just 1.2%.
At my stage of life, my goal is to guard the purchasing power of my savings. I was not hyperventilating over the 7% loss because, had deflation taken place, my consumption would have cost less. In this sense, I was hedged. Since you are far from retirement and you might need the money for your daughters' education, I am not sure that long-term TIPS are for you. You may want to consider I-Bond sold directly to the public by the Federal Reserve Bank (of Richmond, given your Roanoke domicile). I believe that currently, you can do so up to $10,000 per year (down from $30,000 a couple of years ago). Your wife can purchase a similar amount.
I Hope all is well with you.
Happy New Year.
A concluding remark: my students too are invited to write me in the future when they encounter a work or personal life financial dilemmas. I am proud for granting my students five-year warranty on they finance education.
It has been a long time. I hope you and your loved ones are doing well. I was just contemplating the repercussions of an over supply of T bills and thought you might explain what the treasury and fed can do to counter this serious problem. I thought at first the fed could print more money which may result later in hyper inflation, but I still need your opinion. Please see the Bloomberg article below:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiw3cE2FfsLU&refer=home
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Following is my response:
Hi:
Good hearing from you. I believe the Treasury is in a bind. Currently, it is able to sell a bunch of T-bills because of the flight-to-safety effect; investors, motivated by anxiety regarding capital markets, are more than glad to lend their money to the Treasury at practically zero interest. Should the Treasury be successful in comforting investors, interest rates will go up as they will require higher rates. At some point, to avoid too high of interest rates, the Fed will have to interfere by printing money. High inflation might follow. I was aware of this possibility in September when I moved a bunch of money into TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) and promptly lost 7%.Markets' fear of deflation pushed down the value of such inflation-linked securities (they pay less interest when the CPI declines though their face value cannot sink below 100%). Markets have reversed themselves to a large extent. My current loss on such TIPS has declined to just 1.2%.
At my stage of life, my goal is to guard the purchasing power of my savings. I was not hyperventilating over the 7% loss because, had deflation taken place, my consumption would have cost less. In this sense, I was hedged. Since you are far from retirement and you might need the money for your daughters' education, I am not sure that long-term TIPS are for you. You may want to consider I-Bond sold directly to the public by the Federal Reserve Bank (of Richmond, given your Roanoke domicile). I believe that currently, you can do so up to $10,000 per year (down from $30,000 a couple of years ago). Your wife can purchase a similar amount.
I Hope all is well with you.
Happy New Year.
A concluding remark: my students too are invited to write me in the future when they encounter a work or personal life financial dilemmas. I am proud for granting my students five-year warranty on they finance education.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Vareity of WSJ Articles
There are several good articles that you should read in today's Wall Street Journal. Even before you get to the Money and Investments section, you should find in page A12 an article describing (for the n-th time) what the carry trade is all about (I intend to write a special entry on this). The second paragraph refers to the "policy rate". This is no other than the federal funds rate. You might recall how the FRB controls this rate (not always successfully) by lending and borrowing Treasury securities through repurchase agreements (see previous posting on repos). A similar reference to the federal funds rate can be found in page C2 ("For Dollar, December Blues").
Let's move to the Market Place section. The main item is titled: "Siemens to Pay Huge Fine in Bribery Inquiry". Corruption is a major problem in international trade. The book (Bekaert and Hodrick (p. 510) provides a short analysis of this issue. The book mentioned the Transparency International Index. Table 14.1 provides a table of Legal Systems Quality. I fail to see why these measures convey any information. For example, is the U.S. legal system more efficient than Germany because it evicts tenants faster (40 vs. 331 days) or is this a reflection of the fact that capital has more say in our country?
At any rate: The book refers to the Transparency International corruption index. In its 2008, this organization ranked Germany as number 14 in the world in terms of transparency while Argentina is 109. Is a country "transparent" because it gives rather than takes bribes? Another good source is the Global Integrity organization reporting that The wealthier G8 (Investigate!!!)countries suffer from similar corruption challenges as developing countries.
And then there is the Journal Report section whose subject today is Business Insights. Why don't you look into the Global Business article titled: "In Emerging Markets, Know What Your Partner Expects". All of these expectations have something to do with thuggery. The "pleasures" of doing business in emerging markets: first you have to look for a partner who will help you with bribery and then you are pursued by the SEC for paying bribes. Usually the "partner" is the ruler's cousin (as is often the case in Saudi Arabia) isn't that some type of bribery?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sovereign Risk
Bekaert and Hodrick (p. 508) define sovereign risk as the risk of a government defaulting on its bonds payments (this is different from what appears on Investopedia and YourDictionary). You should read an article in today's Washington post titled:"Calling Foreign Debt 'Immoral' Leader Allows Ecuador to Default". Yesterday's Wall Street Journal also had an auricle on this subject that you might (or not) want to use for your next submission. I am using the Post's article because it relates a comment from a Moody's senior analyst. Well, less than a month ago,Moody's has downgraded Ecuador's sovereign debt but gently: it moved it to Caa1. It was only last April that Moody's still rated Ecuador as B3. At any rate, as you can read in the Post's article, investors have already taken this into consideration and traded this debt at a very deep discount (though not as bad a discount as Moody's stock which lost 75% of its value in the last two years.
The relevant chapter to read is: Chapter 14. BUT: please skip all sections that contain formulas Such as 14.2.
The relevant chapter to read is: Chapter 14. BUT: please skip all sections that contain formulas Such as 14.2.
Friday, December 12, 2008
No Extraordinary News
I have not found something of value in today's press. I suggest you watch the Short View from yesterday about the end of the dollar rally.
In a different vein (it has nothing to do with Global Finance)read the press today about the Adventures of Mr. Madoff. The guy stole $50 billion from his customers. These customers included some of the biggest finance brains on Wall Street and, yet, they believed his record of 1.00% to 1.20% (per month ) month after month for years. This is the equivalent of offering the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount
In a different vein (it has nothing to do with Global Finance)read the press today about the Adventures of Mr. Madoff. The guy stole $50 billion from his customers. These customers included some of the biggest finance brains on Wall Street and, yet, they believed his record of 1.00% to 1.20% (per month ) month after month for years. This is the equivalent of offering the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A Common Fallacy Regarding USD "Abroad"
A Tuesday (12/9) column in the New York Times suggested the following partial solution to the current credit crunch: Give U.S. MNC corporations a tax holiday so that they repatriate their foreign retained earnings.
Many U.S. Corporations have foreign subsidiaries that do not use their earnings to pay their American parent company dividends. The writer suggests a tax "amnesty" (since these companies broke no law why is that an amnesty?) that will encourage the U.S parents to order their subsidiaries to start paying dividends. This, according to the writer, will "bring home dollars held abroad without paying corporate taxes of 35%". These extra dollars should supposedly help alleviate the credit crunch.
To understand why this argument is nonsensical you should recall that foreign subsidiaries keep their retained earnings in foreign currencies abroad. For them to bring this money back home they will need to convert it into USD. When selling their foreign currency, these corporations are going to be paid with a check drawn on a U.S. bank. The final outcome of this exercise would therefore be for ownership of these dollars (that are already deposited in a NY bank) to change. No new dollars are added to the banking system and liquidity remains unchanged.
Besides, What is the columnist talking about when he refers to a 35% tax rate? According to the U.S. Tax Code, parent owes no tax on dividends paid by a wholly owned subsidiary. Even dividends from a partially owned subsidiary are not taxed at this rate. Is there any tax accountant in this class who can help me with this?
Many U.S. Corporations have foreign subsidiaries that do not use their earnings to pay their American parent company dividends. The writer suggests a tax "amnesty" (since these companies broke no law why is that an amnesty?) that will encourage the U.S parents to order their subsidiaries to start paying dividends. This, according to the writer, will "bring home dollars held abroad without paying corporate taxes of 35%". These extra dollars should supposedly help alleviate the credit crunch.
To understand why this argument is nonsensical you should recall that foreign subsidiaries keep their retained earnings in foreign currencies abroad. For them to bring this money back home they will need to convert it into USD. When selling their foreign currency, these corporations are going to be paid with a check drawn on a U.S. bank. The final outcome of this exercise would therefore be for ownership of these dollars (that are already deposited in a NY bank) to change. No new dollars are added to the banking system and liquidity remains unchanged.
Besides, What is the columnist talking about when he refers to a 35% tax rate? According to the U.S. Tax Code, parent owes no tax on dividends paid by a wholly owned subsidiary. Even dividends from a partially owned subsidiary are not taxed at this rate. Is there any tax accountant in this class who can help me with this?
Chinese Yuan (CHY)
A student sent me the following question:
China for some time has undertaken policies to devalue its currency (speculated to be ~15-40%) to maintain its competitive position in regards to pricing of exports. First question is does China use it reserves to maintain this artificial valuation? Secondly, the money expansion in the Chinese economy could have contributed to the free capital bubble of late; is this a reasonable conclusion?
Here is the story: Until recently, all foreign currency collected by Chinese importers had to be converted in the People Bank of China (PBC) into Yuan at a rate that most economists consider as artificially low. This favorable rate made Chinese goods over-competitive in world markets. The undervaluing policy achieved two things:
1. It kept the Chinese economy humming (full employment is extremely important to the Chinese government)
2. It allowed the People Bank to accumulate huge foreign currency reserves that it invested mostly in the U.S. (this serves as a buffer against quick capital outflow from China)
Look at the above graph extracted from Yahoo Finance. As you can see, the yuan (CHY) was convertible at the People Bank at 8.26 CHY/USD for a long period. Starting in mid 1985, due to pressure from the U.S. and Europe, the People Bank started revaluing the yuan (lower number means more value; member this?). So my answer to this student is: yes, China is maintaining its currency on what most economists consider an artificially low level. But no, it does not use its reserves to do so. It actually accumulates reserves in the process.
A note: because the current global crisis brought about a decline in demand for Chinese manufactured goods, the PBC started recently to, again, let the CHY slip in value to increase demand. It is currently trading at about 6.8563 CHY/USD
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
China's Currency
Today's Currency section of the WSJ has an article on the status of China's currency (Yuan or Rininmbi; two names for same currency. You may want to complement this article with a short video on the Financial Times Short View section (under the title The China Fear)
Doha Talks
There is a short note in today's WSJ relating to the Doha trade talks. Please read it and connect it with the information provided in our textbook (pp. 3-4). To enhance your understanding, you might want to use a search engine. The list of tariffs levied by the U.S. on foreign goods is just mind boggling. You can access the International Trade Commission's to inspect the list. Note that horses can be imported for free but asses require some tariff!! Likewise, a tariff of 9.9 cents/kg is levied on Brazil nuts while only 4.4 cents/kg should be paid on imported Cashew nuts.
Monday, December 8, 2008
REPO Transactions
Did you know that there is an extremely active market in which banks borrow from (lend to) each other overnight? This market is called the . Banks usually borrow in this market for one of two reasons:
1. They have reserves shortage and borrow in order to reach the reserves ratio required by the FRB (currently, this ratio (reserves to demand deposits) is 10%.
2. When they need to respond to customers' cash needs immediately and simply don't have the money.
One of the most important tools available to the FRB in controlling the money supply in the economy is by intervening in this market. For example: If the FRB aims at increasing the money supply, it should lend money to say security dealers. This loan is made by crediting they accounts in their commercial banks. Banks have now more money to lend and the money supply goes up. To contract the money supply, the FRB will call back such loans. Let's look at the cash flow associated with such a loan:
The problem is that the dealer in the above transaction may default on her loan. The Fed therefore needs some collateral. This is achieved by tailoring this loan as a repurchase agreement:
Note that if the security dealer fails to repay the loan on Tuesday (by repurchasing the securities from the FRB for $10,001,100), the FRB keeps the securities “sold” to it on Monday.
Exercise:
Do you see the similarity between this repurchase agreement and the “forward” transaction executed between Goldman Sachs and in Example 3.7 in the book? (page 89).
1. They have reserves shortage and borrow in order to reach the reserves ratio required by the FRB (currently, this ratio (reserves to demand deposits) is 10%.
2. When they need to respond to customers' cash needs immediately and simply don't have the money.
One of the most important tools available to the FRB in controlling the money supply in the economy is by intervening in this market. For example: If the FRB aims at increasing the money supply, it should lend money to say security dealers. This loan is made by crediting they accounts in their commercial banks. Banks have now more money to lend and the money supply goes up. To contract the money supply, the FRB will call back such loans. Let's look at the cash flow associated with such a loan:
The problem is that the dealer in the above transaction may default on her loan. The Fed therefore needs some collateral. This is achieved by tailoring this loan as a repurchase agreement:
Note that if the security dealer fails to repay the loan on Tuesday (by repurchasing the securities from the FRB for $10,001,100), the FRB keeps the securities “sold” to it on Monday.
Exercise:
Do you see the similarity between this repurchase agreement and the “forward” transaction executed between Goldman Sachs and in Example 3.7 in the book? (page 89).
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Leveraged Buyouts
Here is a short Tutorial about leveraged buyouts (LBO)
An LBO firm (such as Carlyle, the Apollo Group) is acting along the following line:
1. Identify a firm that is inefficiently managed (call it target)
2. Obtain a bridge loan from a bank (say $10 billion)
3. Use the loan to purchase the stock of the target in addition to $0.200 billion of its own equity
4. Once the LBO firm owns 100% of the target's equity, it makes it borrow A LOT (say $9.8 billion)
5. The LBO firm makes target pay it a dividend of $10 billion
6. The LBO firm repays the bank
Final result:
The LBO firm invested $200 million in a highly leveraged target.
If target does well, the LBO firm is bound to double or triple its money. This is usually carried out by selling the levered company to a third party or by selling it in a public stock issuance. If the opposite is true, the target will go bankrupt and the LBO is not likely to recoup its $200 million investment.
A relevant articles from the WSJ are: "The Bell Tolls for Private Equity" and "Appollo VI Faces a a Bumpy Landing"
Where else can the process fail?
By the time the takeover deal is finalized, the bank may withdraw the bridge loan leaving the LBO firm in hot waters.
An LBO firm (such as Carlyle, the Apollo Group) is acting along the following line:
1. Identify a firm that is inefficiently managed (call it target)
2. Obtain a bridge loan from a bank (say $10 billion)
3. Use the loan to purchase the stock of the target in addition to $0.200 billion of its own equity
4. Once the LBO firm owns 100% of the target's equity, it makes it borrow A LOT (say $9.8 billion)
5. The LBO firm makes target pay it a dividend of $10 billion
6. The LBO firm repays the bank
Final result:
The LBO firm invested $200 million in a highly leveraged target.
If target does well, the LBO firm is bound to double or triple its money. This is usually carried out by selling the levered company to a third party or by selling it in a public stock issuance. If the opposite is true, the target will go bankrupt and the LBO is not likely to recoup its $200 million investment.
A relevant articles from the WSJ are: "The Bell Tolls for Private Equity" and "Appollo VI Faces a a Bumpy Landing"
Where else can the process fail?
By the time the takeover deal is finalized, the bank may withdraw the bridge loan leaving the LBO firm in hot waters.
Foreign Direct Investments
Definition
This term appears in Chapter 1 that I requested you read before our first meeting. As you may recall from this chapter (p. 15) FDI occurs when a company makes a significant investment that leads to a significant ownership (usually >10%) of a company in another country.
Example
BMW establishes a manufacturing facility in South Carolina. It establishes a fully-owned U.S. subsidiary and invests money in it.
In contrast:
Portfolio Investment is an investment that does not result in influencing the foreign company. (see page 119)
Example:
A U.S. mutual fund buys 5% ownership in a Japanese company.
How significant is FDI?
Exhibit 1.6 in the book is supposed to inform us that FDI is really important. Problem is, unless you are a developmental economist, the term in this table make no sense to you (what is the difference between FDI inflows and FDI inward flows for example?). To point out the importance of DFI, I refer you to a very important publication: The Federal Reserve Bank’s Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States. In page 30 of this publication you will find (Line 36) that in the first two quarters of 2008, foreign residents poured $696.8 billion into the U.S. in the form of DFI while, from line 56, you may learn that during the same two quarters U.S. residents invested $618.60 billion abroad. In sum, we are talking big bucks here.
Argument in favor of FDI (bottom of page 27)
1. Allocative efficiency (is that English?). Employing capital when it is most
productive.
This is nothing but a code word for employing labor where it is cheapest.
2. Technology spillover. Proponents claim that when U.S. companies manufacture in China, the host country gain access to U.S. technology not available to China.
Why is that good? Usually, host country operators will sooner or later confiscate this new technology and compete with the U.S. directly.
3. Additional savings Missing from the book is an obvious argument: to sell in Thailand for example and avoid shipping cost, you may want to establish a plant in Thailand.
Before committing to any FDI, the risk associated with such investments should be fully understood. This risk is usually referred to as country risk (the whole of Chapter 14 is dedicated to this subject. READ IT!!!)
Country Risk is usually divided into two components:
a. Political risk
i. Probability of nationalization. See the case of how Exxon has been kicked out of Venezuela. So the book’s claim that “outright expropriations have been rare in recent times” is somewhat outdated. You may also want to learn about the travails of BP in Russia
ii. Contract repudiation. See examples in the book (page 509).
iii. Taxes and egulations. In addition to the examples in the book, see yesterday’s WSJ article (12/6/08) about how the Indian tax authority decided to levy a $2 billion retroactive capital gains tax on Vodafone.( “Vodafone's Tax Bill to Slow Deals in India”)
iv. Exchange controls
v. Ethnic unrest
vi. Home country restrictions
b. Economic/financial risk
See factors in page 508 in the book.
This term appears in Chapter 1 that I requested you read before our first meeting. As you may recall from this chapter (p. 15) FDI occurs when a company makes a significant investment that leads to a significant ownership (usually >10%) of a company in another country.
Example
BMW establishes a manufacturing facility in South Carolina. It establishes a fully-owned U.S. subsidiary and invests money in it.
In contrast:
Portfolio Investment is an investment that does not result in influencing the foreign company. (see page 119)
Example:
A U.S. mutual fund buys 5% ownership in a Japanese company.
How significant is FDI?
Exhibit 1.6 in the book is supposed to inform us that FDI is really important. Problem is, unless you are a developmental economist, the term in this table make no sense to you (what is the difference between FDI inflows and FDI inward flows for example?). To point out the importance of DFI, I refer you to a very important publication: The Federal Reserve Bank’s Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States. In page 30 of this publication you will find (Line 36) that in the first two quarters of 2008, foreign residents poured $696.8 billion into the U.S. in the form of DFI while, from line 56, you may learn that during the same two quarters U.S. residents invested $618.60 billion abroad. In sum, we are talking big bucks here.
Argument in favor of FDI (bottom of page 27)
1. Allocative efficiency (is that English?). Employing capital when it is most
productive.
This is nothing but a code word for employing labor where it is cheapest.
2. Technology spillover. Proponents claim that when U.S. companies manufacture in China, the host country gain access to U.S. technology not available to China.
Why is that good? Usually, host country operators will sooner or later confiscate this new technology and compete with the U.S. directly.
3. Additional savings Missing from the book is an obvious argument: to sell in Thailand for example and avoid shipping cost, you may want to establish a plant in Thailand.
Before committing to any FDI, the risk associated with such investments should be fully understood. This risk is usually referred to as country risk (the whole of Chapter 14 is dedicated to this subject. READ IT!!!)
Country Risk is usually divided into two components:
a. Political risk
i. Probability of nationalization. See the case of how Exxon has been kicked out of Venezuela. So the book’s claim that “outright expropriations have been rare in recent times” is somewhat outdated. You may also want to learn about the travails of BP in Russia
ii. Contract repudiation. See examples in the book (page 509).
iii. Taxes and egulations. In addition to the examples in the book, see yesterday’s WSJ article (12/6/08) about how the Indian tax authority decided to levy a $2 billion retroactive capital gains tax on Vodafone.( “Vodafone's Tax Bill to Slow Deals in India”)
iv. Exchange controls
v. Ethnic unrest
vi. Home country restrictions
b. Economic/financial risk
See factors in page 508 in the book.
Monday, September 29, 2008
What Are They Talking About?
Today's Journal contains an article (Lehman's Demise Triggered Cash Crunch Around Globe). Many in the press and the finance community blame Credit Default Swaps (CDS) for the current travails of capital markets. The article reports that Fed (FRB) has been pushing Wall Street for month to establish a clearinghouse for CDS. This means that unlike the current situation, all such contracts will have to pass through a central body that will record them. This will enable the Fed to, first, have a general picture of what is happening in this field and, second, allow it to regulate it.
Recall: CDS are in essence insurance contracts. Like all insurance types they make sense only when the risk is non-systemic. To understand this, consider home insurance. The insuring company will be able to honor it when the risk is non-systemic. But if a giant hurricane is going to hit the whole U.S. at once (systemic disaster) all insurance companies will fail to honor their obligations. The same holds true for credit insurance. In normal times when a few companies default on their loans in a random manner, credit swaps on such companies will be honored. But what happens if the economy hits a bump and thousands of companies default on their loans? So, I really don't understand how regulation could have prevented the current crisis.
The only way top remove the risk of systemic failure of the CDS market is to ban this type of contract altogether.
Recall: CDS are in essence insurance contracts. Like all insurance types they make sense only when the risk is non-systemic. To understand this, consider home insurance. The insuring company will be able to honor it when the risk is non-systemic. But if a giant hurricane is going to hit the whole U.S. at once (systemic disaster) all insurance companies will fail to honor their obligations. The same holds true for credit insurance. In normal times when a few companies default on their loans in a random manner, credit swaps on such companies will be honored. But what happens if the economy hits a bump and thousands of companies default on their loans? So, I really don't understand how regulation could have prevented the current crisis.
The only way top remove the risk of systemic failure of the CDS market is to ban this type of contract altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)