‘Quantitative Ceasing’: Reverse Quantitative Easing and its Effect on U.S. Corporate Credit Markets

Jack Deperrior
{"title":"‘Quantitative Ceasing’: Reverse Quantitative Easing and its Effect on U.S. Corporate Credit Markets","authors":"Jack Deperrior","doi":"10.4079/2578-9201.2(2019).07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank has begun gradually unwinding its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, investors are anxious to see how credit markets will react to the end of U.S. quantitative easing and the dawn of tighter monetary policy. This paper tests if corporate credit markets are behaving differently now that the total stock of assets on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is declining; the research employs a sum of leastsquares time series regression that aims to measure the causal relationship between Federal Reserve assets and three different corporate credit spreads (investment grade, BBB and high yield) before and after the policy change. The results indicate that the basic correlation between Federal Reserve assets and corporate credit spreads is altered by the policy change. However, when controlling for other explanatory variables, the analysis shows that the causal relationship remains unchanged. This paper therefore concludes that there are stronger explanatory forces that are keeping corporate credit spreads low despite declining Federal Reserve assets. In the heat of the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (Federal Reserve) purchased substantial quantities of government sponsored enterprise (GSE) debt, non-performing mortgage backed securities (MBS) and United States Treasury debt on the secondary market to provide stimulus to the U.S. economy and liquidity to its vital financial markets. The process, known by investors across the globe as “quantitative easing,” can be an effective monetary policy tool for central bankers to use when policy rates are already at or approaching zero. The policy has proven quite useful in the United States as all the major market indices are now well above precrisis highs, unemployment is the lowest it has been in two decades and the economy is growing at an impressive rate of 3.5% so far in 2018. Amidst the economic recovery, the Federal Reserve Bank announced in late October 2017 that it was planning to reduce the bank’s stock of reserve assets from $4.5 trillion to approximately $3 trillion by 2020. To avoid disrupting secondary markets, the Federal Reserve’s plan is to gradually allow the bonds and other securities on its balance sheet to come due without reinvesting the proceeds rather than flooding the secondary market with billions of dollars in securities all at once. As of September 2018, the Federal Reserve has successfully shed close to $200 billion in assets off its balance sheet. Since the Federal Reserve is now pivoting to a less aggressive monetary policy by allowing assets to mature without refinancing and hiking its trademark Federal Funds Rate which directly affects cost of overnight bank borrowing and indirectly affects institutional and retail lending – there are several essential questions that investors should be asking themselves: (1) How are the prices of riskier credit securities responding to the Federal Reserve’s policy change? (2) Are the prices of credit instruments reacting differently according to the risk associated with the underlying quality of debt? (3) If credit spreads are still decreasing despite the Federal Reserve’s transition to tighter monetary policies, what is causing them to do so? Since Figures 1, 2 and 3 show that corporate credit spreads are continuing to decline despite the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise rates and sell off assets, this paper hypothesizes that the inverse relationship between corporate credit spreads and Federal Reserve Assets has been disrupted and the two variables are now positively correlated. If true, it could imply that investors are not accounting for enough credit risk in the corporate debt markets and are therefore mispricing the securities that fall within each of the three sub-asset classes. The next section describes relevant research INTRODUCTION Economics, CCAS ‘19, jdeperrior1@gwu.edu","PeriodicalId":371706,"journal":{"name":"The George Washington University Undergraduate Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The George Washington University Undergraduate Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4079/2578-9201.2(2019).07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank has begun gradually unwinding its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, investors are anxious to see how credit markets will react to the end of U.S. quantitative easing and the dawn of tighter monetary policy. This paper tests if corporate credit markets are behaving differently now that the total stock of assets on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is declining; the research employs a sum of leastsquares time series regression that aims to measure the causal relationship between Federal Reserve assets and three different corporate credit spreads (investment grade, BBB and high yield) before and after the policy change. The results indicate that the basic correlation between Federal Reserve assets and corporate credit spreads is altered by the policy change. However, when controlling for other explanatory variables, the analysis shows that the causal relationship remains unchanged. This paper therefore concludes that there are stronger explanatory forces that are keeping corporate credit spreads low despite declining Federal Reserve assets. In the heat of the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (Federal Reserve) purchased substantial quantities of government sponsored enterprise (GSE) debt, non-performing mortgage backed securities (MBS) and United States Treasury debt on the secondary market to provide stimulus to the U.S. economy and liquidity to its vital financial markets. The process, known by investors across the globe as “quantitative easing,” can be an effective monetary policy tool for central bankers to use when policy rates are already at or approaching zero. The policy has proven quite useful in the United States as all the major market indices are now well above precrisis highs, unemployment is the lowest it has been in two decades and the economy is growing at an impressive rate of 3.5% so far in 2018. Amidst the economic recovery, the Federal Reserve Bank announced in late October 2017 that it was planning to reduce the bank’s stock of reserve assets from $4.5 trillion to approximately $3 trillion by 2020. To avoid disrupting secondary markets, the Federal Reserve’s plan is to gradually allow the bonds and other securities on its balance sheet to come due without reinvesting the proceeds rather than flooding the secondary market with billions of dollars in securities all at once. As of September 2018, the Federal Reserve has successfully shed close to $200 billion in assets off its balance sheet. Since the Federal Reserve is now pivoting to a less aggressive monetary policy by allowing assets to mature without refinancing and hiking its trademark Federal Funds Rate which directly affects cost of overnight bank borrowing and indirectly affects institutional and retail lending – there are several essential questions that investors should be asking themselves: (1) How are the prices of riskier credit securities responding to the Federal Reserve’s policy change? (2) Are the prices of credit instruments reacting differently according to the risk associated with the underlying quality of debt? (3) If credit spreads are still decreasing despite the Federal Reserve’s transition to tighter monetary policies, what is causing them to do so? Since Figures 1, 2 and 3 show that corporate credit spreads are continuing to decline despite the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise rates and sell off assets, this paper hypothesizes that the inverse relationship between corporate credit spreads and Federal Reserve Assets has been disrupted and the two variables are now positively correlated. If true, it could imply that investors are not accounting for enough credit risk in the corporate debt markets and are therefore mispricing the securities that fall within each of the three sub-asset classes. The next section describes relevant research INTRODUCTION Economics, CCAS ‘19, jdeperrior1@gwu.edu
“量化停止”:反向量化宽松及其对美国企业信贷市场的影响
由于美国联邦储备理事会(美联储,fed)已开始逐步缩减其4.5万亿(兆)美元的资产负债表,投资者急切地想知道信贷市场对美国量化宽松政策的结束和货币政策收紧的开端将作何反应。本文测试的是,在美联储(fed)资产负债表上的总资产存量下降之际,企业信贷市场的表现是否有所不同;该研究采用了最小二乘时间序列回归的总和,旨在衡量政策变化前后美联储资产与三种不同企业信用利差(投资级、BBB级和高收益)之间的因果关系。结果表明,美联储资产与企业信用利差之间的基本相关性受到政策变化的影响。然而,当控制其他解释变量时,分析表明因果关系保持不变。因此,本文得出的结论是,尽管美联储资产不断下降,但仍有更强的解释力量使企业信贷息差保持在低位。在2008-2009年金融危机最严重的时候,美国联邦储备银行(美联储)在二级市场上购买了大量政府支持企业(GSE)债务、不良抵押贷款支持证券(MBS)和美国国债,以刺激美国经济,并为其重要的金融市场提供流动性。这一过程被全球投资者称为“量化宽松”,当政策利率已经达到或接近零时,央行行长可以使用这一有效的货币政策工具。事实证明,该政策在美国非常有用,因为所有主要市场指数现在都远高于危机前的高点,失业率是20年来的最低水平,2018年迄今为止,经济增长率达到了令人印象深刻的3.5%。在经济复苏的背景下,美联储于2017年10月下旬宣布,计划到2020年将银行的储备资产存量从4.5万亿美元减少到约3万亿美元。为了避免扰乱二级市场,美联储的计划是逐步允许其资产负债表上的债券和其他证券到期,而不进行再投资,而不是一次性向二级市场注入数十亿美元的证券。截至2018年9月,美联储已经成功地从资产负债表上剥离了近2000亿美元的资产。由于美联储现在正转向一种不那么激进的货币政策,允许资产在没有再融资的情况下到期,并提高其标志性的联邦基金利率(直接影响银行隔夜借款成本,间接影响机构和零售贷款),投资者应该问自己几个基本问题:(1)风险较高的信贷证券的价格如何响应美联储的政策变化?(2)信贷工具的价格是否会根据与债务潜在质量相关的风险做出不同的反应?(3)如果在美联储转向紧缩货币政策的情况下,信贷息差仍在下降,那么是什么原因导致了这一趋势?由于图1、2和3显示,尽管美联储决定加息并抛售资产,但企业信用利差仍在继续下降,本文假设企业信用利差与美联储资产之间的反向关系已经被打破,两个变量现在正相关。如果这是真的,这可能意味着投资者没有充分考虑到公司债券市场的信用风险,因此对属于这三种子资产类别的证券进行了错误定价。下一节介绍相关研究INTRODUCTION Economics, CCAS ' 19, jdeperrior1@gwu.edu
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信