CPSS: Innovations in retail payments

Innovations in retail payments

CPSS Publications No 102
May 29, 2012

http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss102.htm

 

Over the past decade, a number of innovative developments in retail payments have emerged. Many central banks take an interest in retail payments as part of their role in maintaining the stability and efficiency of the financial system and preserving confidence in their currencies. Although most retail payment systems are not considered systemically important, their potential weaknesses with regard to security and reliability could nonetheless affect the financial system and the economy. Innovations in retail payments can therefore raise policy issues for central banks.

In June 2010, the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) set up a working group to investigate developments in retail payments, focusing especially on innovations. This report, produced by that group, first provides an overview of innovative retail payment activities in the CPSS and other selected countries from a fact-finding exercise, which attempted to cover influential developments in retail payment instruments and schemes over the past decade. Based on the trends observed and the economics of retail payments, the report identifies a number of exogenous and endogenous factors that could serve as drivers for retail payment innovations or as barriers to them. The analysis was also used to suggest some pointers as to what can be expected over the next five years. Finally, the report identifies a number of issues for central banks concerning their various responsibilities and tasks as catalysts, overseers and/or operators of payment systems. 

Walking Hand in Hand: Fiscal Policy and Growth in Advanced Economies. By Carlo Cottarelli & Laura Jaramillo

Walking Hand in Hand: Fiscal Policy and Growth in Advanced Economies. By Carlo Cottarelli & Laura Jaramillo
May 01, 2012
IMF Working Paper No. 12/137

Summary: Implementation of fiscal consolidation by advanced economies in coming years needs to take into account the short and long-run interactions between economic growth and fiscal policy. Many countries must reduce high public debt to GDP ratios that penalize longterm growth. However, fiscal adjustment is likely to hurt growth in the short run, delaying improvements in fiscal indicators, including deficits, debt, and financing costs. Revenue and expenditure policies are also critical in affecting productivity and employment growth. This paper discusses the complex relationships between fiscal policy and growth both in the short and in the long run.

Order a print copy: http://www.imfbookstore.org/IMFORG/WPIEA2012137

Appendix. Short-run Determinants of CDS Spreads in Advanced Economies

Introduction

Since the global financial crisis and ensuing sovereign crisis in Europe, financial markets’ assessment of credit risk for advanced economies has changed significantly. Before the crisis, the valuation of advanced economy sovereign debt treated default as a very low probability event, and therefore liquidity risk rather than default risk was seen as the dominant driver of financing costs in advanced economies. However, as the recent crisis in Europe unfolded, assessment of credit risk came to the forefront, taking into account country-specific fundamentals. In response, several countries have made progress in adopting fiscal consolidation plans, although this has not always been met with a reduction in sovereign spreads. The current crisis has shown that while markets are concerned with large debt and fiscal deficits, they also worry about low growth and its effect on debt dynamics, as wells as the feasibility of fiscal adjustment in an environment of very weak economic activity.

While a few studies have looked at sovereign spreads in advanced economies since the onset of the global crisis, we focus here on credit default swap (CDS) spreads in advanced economies during 2011, the height of the euro area crisis. Under the assumption that underlying global factors (such as global risk aversion) are behind general co-movements of CDS spreads, our analysis seeks to identify the set of country specific factors that explain the divergence of spreads across countries during the most recent phase of the global crisis. The results highlight the current short-termism of markets, which makes fiscal policy management more difficult.14 In particular, it shows that lower debt and deficit to GDP ratios lead to lower CDS spreads, but so too does faster short-term growth. There is further evidence of a nonlinear relationship between growth and sovereign bond spreads: spreads are more likely to increase if growth declines from an already low rate and the fiscal tightening is large. If growth deteriorates enough as a result of a fiscal tightening, spreads could actually rise even as the deficit falls.


Background

As fiscal fundamentals have become a growing concern of financial markets, the sovereign CDS market for advanced economies has become increasingly large.15 Several European advanced economies are now among the ten largest single name CDS exposures by net notional position (Figure A1), and since September 2009 investors can trade index products on a basket of Western European sovereign CDS.[For further information on Markit iTraxx SovX Western European Index see http://www.markit.com/assets/en/docs/commentary/credit-wrap/SovX.pdf.] With rising size and liquidity, sovereign CDS spreads now provide more reliable signaling of sovereign credit risk.

The literature on the determinants of CDS spreads in advanced economies since the onset of the financial crisis— typically focusing on a narrow set of countries and using data only through 2010—has highlighted the importance of global factors with an increasingly prominent role of country-specific factors as the crisis progressed.  Longstaff et al. (2011) show that sovereign credit risk can be linked to global factors, based on a dataset of 28 advanced and emerging economies over the period October 2000-January 2010.  Similarly, Fontana and Scheicher (2010) find that the recent repricing of sovereign credit risk in the CDS market is mostly due to common factors. Dieckmann and Plank (2011) find—for a group of 18 advanced economies between January 2007 and April 2010—that the state of the world financial system as well as a country’s domestic financial system has strong explanatory power for the behavior of CDS spreads, with euro area countries especially sensitive. Forni et al. (2012) find that domestic financial and global factors explain movements in CDS spreads, using a panel dataset of 21 advanced economies over the period January 2008-October 2010.

As the crisis has progressed, differentiation across sovereign CDS spreads has increased significantly (Figure A2), underscoring that markets are reassessing the effect of country specific-factors on default risk. This implies that looking at historical correlations can overshadow some of the important relationships that have emerged as the crisis has evolved.  In this context, this appendix attempts to shed light on the particular state of the markets in 2011, at the height of the euro area crisis. 

Empirical Model Estimation

Sovereign CDS spreads in several European countries reached historical highs during 2011.  High deficits and debt to GDP ratios have typically been a precondition for such a surge, as countries that saw their overall deficit to GDP ratio rise into the double digits or a sizeable increase in their stock of debt faced increasing market pressure (mostly in the euro area).  However, there are several indications that other elements beyond fiscal fundamentals were at play. First, countries that announced sizeable fiscal adjustment plans in 2011 were not necessarily greeted with a reduction in spreads (Figure A3). Second, countries with weak fiscal accounts (such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) did not pay high spreads in 2011, which could in part be attributed to the effects of quantitative easing strategies by central banks in these countries (Figure A4).

With this in mind, this appendix assesses in a more consistent way why 5-year CDS spreads differ across a sample of 31 advanced economies,18 by looking at a set of macroeconomic and fiscal fundamentals, based on a simple OLS cross-section regression. A cross-section analysis is preferred to a panel regression given the desired focus on market behavior in the latest phase of the crisis. In particular, a cross-section allows for a larger number of countries to be included, which adds greater variation to the dataset than does the time dimension (as this analysis covers only one crisis episode).19 CDS spreads (average for 2011) are drawn from Markit20 and transformed into logs in line with Edwards (1984). Fiscal variables used as regressors are drawn from the September 2011 Fiscal Monitor (IMF 2011a), while macroeconomic variables are drawn from the September 2011 World Economic Outlook (IMF 2011b). Regressors include:

• Macroeconomic variables: real GDP growth rate and growth squared; projected real GDP in 2014; projected potential real GDP growth, averaged over 2011-16; inflation rate for 2011.
• Near-term fiscal variables: General government primary balance and general government debt as a ratio to GDP. For Australia, Canada, and Japan, net debt to GDP is used, in view of the sizeable amount of their assets.
• Long-term fiscal variables: Net present value of the increase in public pension spending during 2010-50 as a ratio to GDP (from IMF, 2010c); net present value of the increase in public health care spending during 2010-50 as a ratio to GDP (from IMF, 2010d); projected primary balance to GDP in 2014; projected debt to GDP in 2014.
• Investor base: General government debt of the country in question held by its national central bank (from the IMF International Financial Statistics) and, in the case of Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., by foreign central banks, based on the latest available data.

Estimation Results

Table A1 provides the results of the model. Column 1 reports a general specification in which all variables are included. The following columns illustrate the specification search, with insignificant variables dropped one by one. Column 5, the preferred specification, provides a relatively good fit with an adjusted R-squared of 0.76. The results illustrate the current short-termism of markets:

• Fiscal variables are important, with markets focusing primarily on short-term developments (the projected primary deficit and debt in 2011). The primary balance is only significant for euro area countries. The coefficients on deficits and debt are broadly in line with what has been found by previous econometric work, though at the lower end of the range.22 For a country with CDS spreads of 200 basis points, a 1 percentage point increase in the debt ratio raises the spread by about 3 basis points and a 1 percentage point increase in the deficit raises the spread by 35 basis points.  Given the log-linear specification, the larger the initial level of the CDS spread, the larger the impact on spreads, in basis points, of an increase in deficit and debt ratios; consistently, a weakening of fiscal variables has a more negative impact in countries with higher initial deficit and debt ratios.

• Long-term fiscal variables are not found to be significant. The coefficients on future debt and deficits and on public pension and health spending were not found to be significant. This suggests that reforms to entitlement spending or measures that would only have a long term impact would not necessarily be rewarded by markets in the short run. This result underscores the difficulty of providing credible information to markets in this area and the need for more effective communication of the effect of such reforms on the soundness of public finances.

• Short-term growth is important (higher growth leading to lower spreads), while potential growth and future growth are not significant. This relationship is found to be nonlinear—with a positive coefficient on the squared growth term—as spreads are more likely to increase when growth is already low and fiscal tightening is larger.23 Based on these results, if the fiscal multiplier is sufficiently large (higher than 0.7 based on the estimated coefficients), the improvement in spreads from a lower deficit could be offset by the negative impact of adjustment on short-term growth, which also acts through the short-term rise in the debt to GDP ratio (see Figure 5 in the main text).

• Central bank financing (either from national central banks or from foreign central banks) is important in lowering spreads, as long as it is not inflationary. This coefficient is higher than the one on the debt ratio, implying that the effect of purchases by national central banks (and by foreign central banks for reserve currencies) goes beyond the effect of reducing the overall supply of government bonds sold to the public. This probably reflects confidence effects provided by the presence of the central bank in the market. Note, however, that the central bank holdings variable does not include purchases by the ECB through the Securities Market Program.24 The coefficient for inflation is highly significant, and thus implies that central bank purchases are effective in moderating spreads only if they are not inflationary. Given the large accumulation of excess reserves by banks, inflation pressures currently remain at bay in most countries. The respite in sovereign bond markets, following the long-term refinancing operations (LTRO) of the European Central Bank (ECB) are a further example of the confidence effects of central bank intervention. These results suggest that the availability of financing from an entity with sufficiently large resources could help reduce spreads in the current environment.

Conclusions

The cross-section estimates point to the current short-term vision of markets, with special concern for near-term growth prospects. This could possibly reflect strong risk aversion after four years of market turmoil. These results imply that tighter fiscal policy could actually lead to wider, rather than narrower, spreads in the short term. It is important to note, however, that the euro area crisis is still not fully resolved and financial markets remain unsettled, therefore these results may reflect the particular state of markets in 2011 rather than more permanent features, something that a cross section cannot shed light on. Moreover, it would be important to assess the direct effect on spreads of other variables beyond fiscal fundamentals, such as exposure to contingent liabilities from the banking sector. Potential simultaneity issues (e.g., between spreads and growth) also deserve additional attention.

Optimal Liquidity and Economic Stability. By Linghui Han & Il Houng Lee

Optimal Liquidity and Economic Stability. By Linghui Han & Il Houng Lee
IMF Working Paper No. 12/135
May 2012

Summary: Monetary aggregates are now much less used as policy instruments as identifying the right measure has become difficult and interest rate transmission has worked well in an increasingly complex financial system. In this process, little attention was paid to the potential spillover of excess liquidity. This paper suggests a notional level of "optimal" liquidity beyond which asset prices will start to rise faster than the GDP deflator, thereby creating a gap between the face value and the real purchasing value of financial assets and widen the wedge in income between those with capital stock and those living on salaries. Such divergence will eventually lead to an abrupt and disorderly adjustment of the asset value, with repercussions on the real sector.

Order a print copy: http://www.imfbookstore.org/IMFORG/WPIEA2012135

Excerpts

Introduction

The definition of money has evolved but is still anchored on the notion that money provides ready access to current and future goods and services, i.e., cash value. Liquidity is often defined as assets that can be easily converted into cash, and now includes most financial assets as financial innovations and financial deepening have enabled them to be readily converted into money. In this regard, the definition of money can be broadened to equal liquidity.

The traditional conceptual framework of money and price dynamics, however, has not kept up with the expanding concept of money. The formalization of the conceptual framework of the role of money M probably started with the infamous Fisher’s “equation of exchange” MV = PT, where M is money, V is velocity, P the price level and T the level of transactions.  Since it assumes that V and T are fixed and M is exogenous, an increase in M will lead to an exact proportional increase in the price level. The Cambridge school highlights money’s role as a store-of-wealth (including for precautionary motive) and defines M/P = kY where k is the Cambridge constant capturing the opportunity cost of money (interest). Thus, k is not institutionally fixed but changing. This is equivalent to Fisher's equation if one recognizes that real income (Y) and transactions (T) are identical and k=1/V.

Keynes further enriched the Cambridge equation by providing three motives for money, i.e., transaction, precautionary, and speculative. Money demand is affected by income and interest rates, so that Md = L(r, Y) where r is the average of rate of return on illiquid assets.  The basic propositions are L’(r) < 0 due to the opportunity cost, and L’(Y) > 0. These motives provide the basis for holding a larger amount of money within the economy. In Milton Friedman’s general form of money demand Md introduces the generalized portfolio constraint (Md - Ms) + (Bd - Bs) + (Yd - Ys) = 0 which connects the goods market with the money and bond markets. A monetary expansion (Ms) can be offset by an excess demand for goods. Then output Ys will rise and money demand Md will rise so that the goods market and money market are brought back into equilibrium.

Increasingly less attention is paid to the interconnectedness between money and the real sector, and thus on a mechanism for correction if money exceeds a notional optimal level. In large part, this is because the relationship between money in the classical sense and the real economy has weakened with the expansion of financial market instruments. Money M as used in Fisher’s equation is now only a fraction of instruments of transaction and as a store of value. Similarly, Friedman’s generalized portfolio constraint no longer captures the complexity of the current financial system. Indeed, M (narrowly defined money) is only relevant in influencing short term liquidity condition, and hence the short term interest rate.

Accordingly, in several countries monetary aggregates are now playing a relatively minor role in monetary policy formulations. The former Federal Reserve Governor L. Mayer noted that “money plays no role in today’s consensus macro model.” Consistent with this view, the Federal Open Market Committee does not specify a monetary aggregate as a target. Indeed, Bernanke (2006) stated that targeting monetary aggregates have not been effective in “constraining policy or in reducing inflation.” He attributes this to the recurrent instability in the relationship between money demand framework associated with deregulation and financial innovation. While the Federal Reserve continues to monitor and analyze monetary developments, he argued against heavy reliance on monetary aggregate in policy formulation.

These views are supported by Woodford (2007), who reviewed inflation models with no roles for money and suggested that these models are not inconsistent with elementary economic principles. Using a basic new Keynesian model, he showed (implicitly) that central banks’ inflation target credibility and their reaction function (policy rate) are adequate in setting a path for the price level without explicitly modeling a role for money.

In Europe, on the other hand, monetary aggregates are not fully dismissed in policy formulation. As noted by Kahn and Benolkin (2007), the European Central Bank continues to regard money as one of the factors determining inflation outlook over the medium term.  Even then, its focus is more on identifying an appropriate money demand framework and less on redefining money that better captures the growing complexity of the financial market.

These said, studies on the role of monetary aggregates have evolved but with focus on their relations with asset prices, especially in light of the disruptive boom and bust cycles of the latter on growth. Borio and Lowe (2002) identified gaps in credit, asset price, and investment, respectively, as periods when the actual deviates from the trend by a sizable amount. They found that the credit gap is the best indicator of an impending financial crisis.  The importance of credit to equity and property boom/bust episodes is supported also by Helbling and Terrones (2003) where they found the monetary aggregate to be more relevant for equity, rather than, for housing prices.

Gerdesmeier and others (2009) found asset price booms to follow rapid growth in monetary aggregates (money and credit) and eventually lead to asset price busts. They do so by constructing an asset price indicator composed of stock price and house price markets, similar to the work by Borio and others (1994) where the index was compiled using residential property, commercial property and share prices. Gerdesmeier found that changes in their composite index were consistent with the rapid increase in credit growth that followed the relaxation of constraints in the wake of financial liberalization during the 1980s.

Against these developments, this paper suggests an expanded definition of money, i.e., liquidity, which includes all financial assets held by the nonfinancial private sector. Then a notional level of “optimal” liquidity is proposed beyond which asset prices will start to rise faster than the GDP deflator, thereby creating a “Gap” between the face value and the real purchasing value of financial assets. Such a divergence will eventually lead to an abrupt and disorderly adjustment of the asset value, with repercussions on the real sector. This work provides value added by identifying a monetary aggregate the optimal value of which can be targeted at a level consistent with real sector fundamentals. These in turn are defined as the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services. When the Gap widens, it will not only lead to a boom/bust cycle, but also worsen income disparity between those holding capital stock and those who rely on income flows.


Summary and conclusion

Although money in the narrow sense matters less in an increasingly complex financial system, the quantity of a broader measure of monetary aggregate is still very relevant to the real economy. We find that the liquidity defined as the total financial assets held by the nonfinancial sector is an important determent of the value of the physical capital. This is because those who issue a financial asset must have corresponding earnings, including valuation gains, on the liability side that match the value of the issuance. The value of the earnings of a physical asset in turn is the real net present value of return of the capital stock, which depreciates over time, multiplied by the price of the capital stock.

The optimal amount of liquidity is attained at the level where it equals the real earnings times the GDP deflator. This is because the nominal earnings (income flows) of capital by default are measured as a scale to nominal GDP (i.e., relevant because of purchasing power). A Gap is created if the amount of liquidity exceeds this optimal level, which will be reflected through a fall in the GDP deflator/price of capital ratio. In other words, if the Gap arises due to a rapid expansion in liquidity, this will push up the price level of the capital stock at a much faster pace than the GDP deflator. As a result, this gap will (i) lead to a boom and bust cycle if left unchecked, which is disruptive to the economy, and (ii) worsen income inequality by rewarding those with capital stock more than those who depend on flow of income.

While it is true that interest rate transmission mechanism has become an effective monetary policy instrument aimed at controlling inflation, monetary aggregate is also still relevant to providing economic stability. By broadening the definition of money to include all financial assets held by the nonfinancial private sector, and then targeting the total to a level that is consistent with the optimal level liquidity as discussed in this paper, economic and price stability can be achieved. To achieve this desired outcome, monetary policy will have to use a combination of interest rate and monetary aggregate as the intermediate target.

Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions

Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions. By Kenichi Ueda and Beatrice Weder
IMF Working Paper No. 12/128

Summary: Claimants to SIFIs receive transfers when governments are forced into bailouts. Ex ante, the bailout expectation lowers daily funding costs. This funding cost differential reflects both the structural level of the government support and the time-varying market valuation for such a support. With large worldwide sample of banks, we estimate the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus. It was already sizable, 60 basis points, as of the end-2007, before the crisis. It increased to 80 basis points by the end-2009.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=25928.0

Excerpts

Introduction

One of the most troubling legacies of the financial crisis is the problem of “too-systemically important-to-fail” financial institutions. Public policy had long recognized the dangers that systemically relevant institutions pose for the financial system and for public sector balance sheets, but in practice, this problem was not deemed to be extremely pressing. It was mainly dealt with by creating some uncertainty (constructive ambiguity) about the willingness of government intervention in a crisis.

The recent crisis since 2008 provided a real-life test of the willingness to intervene. After governments have proven their willingness to extended large-scale support, constructive ambiguity has given way to near certainty that sufficiently large or complex institutions will not be allowed to fail. Thus, countries have emerged from the financial crisis with an even larger problem: Many banks are larger than before and so are implicit government guarantees. In addition, it also becomes clear that these guarantees are not limited to large institutions. In Europe, smaller institutions with a high degree of interconnectedness, complexity, or political importance were also considered too important to fail.

The international community is addressing the problem of SIFIs with a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, the probability of SIFIs failure is to be reduced through higher capital buffers and tighter supervision. On the other hand, SIFIs are to be made more “resolvable” by subjecting them to special resolutions regimes (e.g., living wills and CoCos). A number of countries have already adopted special regimes at the national level or are in the process of doing so. However, it remains highly doubtful whether these regimes would be operable across borders. This regulatory coordination failure implies that creditors of SIFIs continue to enjoy implicit guarantees.

Subsidies arising from size and complexity create incentives for banks to become even larger and more complex. Hence, eliminating the value of the implicit structural subsidy to SIFIs should contribute to reducing both the probability and magnitude of (future) financial crises. Market participants tend to dismiss these concerns by stating that these effects may be there in theory but are very small in practice. Therefore, it requires an empirical study to quantify the value of state subsidies to SIFIs. This is the aim of this paper. 

How can we estimate the value of structural state guarantees? As institutions with state backing are safer, investors ask for a lower risk premium, taking into account the expected future transfers from the government. Therefore, before crisis, the expected value of state guarantees is the difference in funding costs between a privileged bank and a non-privileged bank. A caveat of this reasoning is that this distortion might affect the competitive behaviors and the market shares of both the subsidized and the non-subsidized financial institutions. Therefore, the difference in observed funding costs may include indirect effects in addition to the direct subsidy for SIFIs.

We estimate the value of the structural subsidy using expectations of government support embedded in credit ratings. Overall ratings (and funding costs) of financial institutions have two constituent parts: their own financial strength and the expected amount of external support.  External support can be provided by a parent company or by the government. Some rating agencies (e.g., Fitch) provide regular quantitative estimates of the probability that a particular financial institution would receive external support in case of crisis. We isolate the government support component and provide estimates of the value of this subsidy as of end-2007 and end-2009.

We find that the structural subsidy value is already sizable as of end-2007 and increased substantially by the end-2009, after key governments confirmed bailout expectations. On average, banks in major countries enjoyed credit rating bonuses of 1.8-3.4 at the end-2007 and 2.5-4.2 at the end-2009. This can be translated into a funding cost advantage roughly 60bp and 80bp, respectively.

The use of ratings might be considered problematic because rating agencies have been known to make mistakes in their judgments. For instance, they have been under heavy criticism for overrating structured products in the wake of the financial crisis. However, whether rating agencies assess default risks correctly is not important for the question at hand. All that matters is that markets use ratings in pricing debt instruments and those ratings influence funding costs.  This has been the case.6 Therefore, we can use the difference in overall credit ratings of banks as a proxy for the difference in their structural funding costs. Our empirical approach is to extract the value of structural subsidy from support ratings, while taking into account bank-specific factors that determine banks’ own financial strength as well as country-specific factors that determine governments’ fiscal ability to offer support.

A related study by Baker and McArthur (2009) obtains a somewhat lower value of the subsidy, ranging from 9 bp to 49 bp. However, the difference in results can be explained by different empirical strategies: Baker and McArthur use the change in the difference in funding costs between small and large US banks before and after TARP. With this technique, they identify the change in the value of the SIFIs subsidy, which is assumed to be created by the government bailout intervention. However, they cannot account for a possible level of bailout expectations that may have been embedded in prices long before the financial crisis. This ignorance is a drawback of all studies that use bailout events to quantify the value of subsidy: They can be quite precise in estimating the change in the subsidy due to a particular intervention but they will underestimate the total level of the subsidy if the support is positive even in tranquil times. In other words, they cannot establish the value of funding cost advantages accruing from expected state support even before the crisis.

This characteristic is the distinct advantage of the rating approach. It allows us to estimate not only the change of the subsidy during the crisis but also the total value of the subsidy before the crisis. As far as we are aware, there are only a few previous papers which use ratings. Soussa (2000), Rime (2005), and Morgan and Stiroh (2005) used similar approaches to back out the value of the subsidy. However, our study is more comprehensive by including a larger set of banks and countries and also by covering the 2008 financial crisis.

Assuming that the equity values are not so much affected by bailouts but the debt values are, the time-varying estimates of the government guarantees can be calculated using a standard option pricing theory.9 However, the funding cost advantage in crisis reflects two components: first, the structural government support and, second, a larger risk premium due to market turmoil. If we calculate the value of one rating bonus only in crisis times, the value of bonus would be larger because of the latter effect. However, when designing a corrective levy, the value of the government support should not be affected by these short-run market movements. For this reason, the long-run average value of one rating bonus—used here to calculate the total value of the structural government support—should be more suitable as a basis for a collective levy than real-time estimates for the market value of the government guarantees. 


Interpretation and conclusion

Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries.  Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength.

In interpreting these results, it is important to check if the averages mask large differences across countries. In fact, the overall rating bonuses in a section of large countries seem remarkably similar (Summary Table 9). For instance, mean support of Japanese banks was unchanged at 3.9 in 2007 and 2009. This implies, based on regressions without distinguishing advanced and developing countries, that overall ratings of systemically relevant banks profited by 2.9-3.5 notches from expected government support in 2007, with the value of this support increasing to 3.4-4.2 notches in 2009. For the top 45 U.S. banks, the mean support rating increased from 3.2 in 2007 to 4.1 in 2009. This translates into a 2.4-2.9 overall rating bonus for supported banks in 2007 and a much higher, 3.6-4.5, notch impact in 2009. In Germany, government support started high at 4.4 in 2007 and slightly increased to 4.6 in 2009. This suggests a 3.3-4.0 overall rating advantage of supported banks in 2007 and a 4.1-5.1 notch rating bonus in 2009.

For selected countries that have large banking centers and/or have been affected by the financial crisis, average government support ratings are about 3.6 in 2007 and 3.8 in 2009 on average (see Table 2, based on U.S. top 45 banks). Thus the overall rating bonuses for supported banks in this sample of countries are 2.7-3.2 in 2007 and 3.4-4.2 in 2009.

Our three-notch impact, on average, for advanced countries in 2007 is comparable to the results found by Soussa (2000) and Rimes (2005), although their studies are less rigorous and based on a smaller sample. In addition, Soussa (2000) reports structural annualized interest rate differentials among different credit ratings based on the average cumulative default rates (percent) for 1920-1999, calculated by Moody’s.17 According to his conversion table, when issuing a five-year bond, a three-notch rating increase translates into a funding advantage of 5 bp to 128 bp, depending on the riskiness of the institution.18 At the mid-point, it is 66.5 bp for a three-notch improvement, or 22bp for one-notch improvement. Using this and the overall rating bonuses described in the previous paragraph, we can evaluate the overall funding cost advantage of SIFIs as around 60bp in 2007 and 80bp in 2009.

This is helpful information, for example, if one would like to design a corrective levy on banks, which extracts the value of the subsidy. The funding cost advantage can be decomposed into the level of the government support and the time-varying risk premium. If a corrective levy were to be designed, it should not be affected by short-run market movements but should reflect only the long-run average value of rating bonuses, used here to calculate the total value of the structural government support. As discussed above, we find that the level of the structural government support has increased in most countries in 2009 compared to 2007. Still, we note that our estimate for the value of government support is lower than the real-time market value during crisis.

Our estimate may be also an overestimate of the required tax rate that would neutralize the (implicit) SIFI subsidy, since the competitive advantage of a guaranteed firm versus a nonguaranteed firm can be magnified (the former gains market share and the latter loses market share). One possibility is that the advantages and disadvantages are equally distributed between the two firms. Then, the levy rate that would eliminate the competitive distortion is smaller than the estimated difference in the funding costs. In this simple example, it would be half of the values given above. Nevertheless, the corrective tax required to correct the distortion of government support would remain sizable.

BCBS: Models and tools for macroprudential analysis

Models and tools for macroprudential analysis
BCBS Working Papers No 21
May 2012

The Basel Committee's Research Task Force Transmission Channel project aimed at generating new research on various aspects of the credit channel linkages in the monetary transmission mechanism. Under the credit channel view, financial intermediaries play a critical role in the allocation of credit in the economy. They are the primary source of credit for consumers and businesses that do not have direct access to capital markets. Among more traditional macroeconomic modelling approaches, the credit view is unique in its emphasis on the health of the financial sector as a critically important determinant of the efficacy of monetary policy.

The final products of the project are two working papers that summarise the findings of the many individual research projects that were undertaken and discussed in the course of the project. The first working paper, Basel Committee Working Paper No 20, "The policy implications of transmission channels between the financial system and the real economy", analyses the link between the real economy and the financial sector, and channels through which the financial system may transmit instability to the real economy. The second working paper, Basel Committee Working Paper No 21, "Models and tools for macroprudential analysis", focuses on the methodological progress and modelling advancements aimed at improving financial stability monitoring and the identification of systemic risk potential. Because both working papers are summaries, they touch only briefly on the results and methods of the individual research papers that were developed during the course of the project. Each working paper includes comprehensive references with information that will allow the interested reader to contact any of the individual authors and acquire the most up-to-date version of the research that was summarised in each of these working papers.

http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs_wp21.htm