IOSCO published a report that examines the factors affecting liquidity, under stressed conditions, in the secondary corporate bond markets. The report notes that changes in the structure of secondary corporate bond markets have altered the way that liquidity is provided in these markets. These changes result from things such as post-crisis regulations that have reduced the capacity of intermediaries to provide liquidity in secondary corporate bond markets, greater risk aversion on part of intermediaries, gradual introduction of electronic trading, and significant growth in the size of these markets resulting from central banks’ quantitative easing policies and low rates of return on other financial assets.
The report is prepared by an IOSCO committee on emerging risks. The findings of this report are drawn from a review of the literature on liquidity in corporate bond markets under normal and stressed conditions, an examination of past episodes of stress in corporate bond markets, and discussions with a broad range of industry stakeholders. The key findings of the report include:
- The structure of corporate bond markets has evolved since the financial crisis, driven primarily by changes in the behavior of market intermediaries and in the supply of and demand for corporate bonds.
- A reduction in the capacity and desire of dealers to participate in corporate bond markets as principals could mean that future movements in bond prices in times of stress will be more acute than before.
- Several characteristics of corporate bond markets should reduce the risk that strong price movements in bond markets will generate broader economic stress. These include effective liquidity management by issuers of corporate debt, reduced leverage and fewer leveraged players in the market than before the financial crisis, and the low frequency with which many corporations enter primary bond markets for financing.
- The willingness, resources, and ability of market participants to provide sufficient demand-side liquidity to help stabilize markets will be critical factors in determining how corporate bond markets operate under stress.
- Mutual funds are unlikely to be a source of either considerable selling or price volatility under stress, particularly those funds with managers who have instituted strong liquidity management processes, including plans for operating under stressed conditions.
Overall, significant structural changes that have taken place in corporate bond markets since the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing financial reforms have likely reduced the ability of traditional liquidity suppliers to lean against the wind. Intermediaries reduced their supply of liquidity and increased the number of agency-based transactions they conduct for their clients relative to the principal-based transactions, in both normal times and times of stress. On the positive side, asset managers, including managers of mutual funds, appear to recognize the problem and believe they have liquidity risk management arrangements that should allow them to handle an increase in redemption requests from their clients, without having to conduct ‘fire sales’ of their corporate bond assets.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Post-Crisis Regulation, Corporate Bonds, Market Liquidity, Liquidity Risk, IOSCO
Previous ArticleOSFI Proposes Guideline on Internal Model Oversight for Insurers
Next ArticleBCBS Publishes Summary of the Meeting in June 2019
HKMA announced the publication of a report on fintech adoption and innovation in the banking industry in Hong Kong.
BIS published a working paper that examines the drivers of cyber risk, especially in context of the cloud services.
ECB launched consultation on a guide specifying how the Banking Supervision expects banks to consider climate-related and environmental risks in their governance and risk management frameworks and when formulating and implementing their business strategy.
ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/16) on amendments to the prudential framework in EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).
SRB published the final Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) policy under the Banking Package.
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the March 31, 2020 interim final rule that provides a five-year transition period for the impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) methodology on regulatory capital.
ECB published results of the March 2020 survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.
FINMA published guidance (06/2020) on extending or discontinuing various exemptions that were granted due to the COVID-19 crisis.
SRB launched a consultation on the minimum data needed for valuation of a bank in resolution.