Those low interest rate U-Zirpers at the BIS
In the battle between Austerians and Stimulants, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) knows where it stands. In its latest annual report the central banks’ bank takes aim at everything from delayed fiscal adjustments to the extended period of low interest rates in places like the UK and US.
The whole thing reads like a confirmation of every risk you might have suspected, to date, could accompany extended loose and unconventional monetary policy. It’s BIS’s job to identify risks, of course, but seldom are they so . . . forthright, or wide-ranging. Rage against the Zirp, dear BIS.
The summary:
. . . policymakers will need to consider the distortions caused by prolonged conditions of monetary ease. After all, sustained low interest rates have been identified by many as an important factor that contributed to the crisis (see BIS, 79th Annual Report, Chapter I). At the same time, policymakers should also closely monitor the distortions arising from unconventional monetary policy tools. These include price distortions in bond markets that can result from changes in central banks’ criteria for eligible repo collateral and from their asset purchases. Artificially high asset prices in certain markets might delay the necessary restructuring of private sector balance sheets. There are also distortions in market activity that arise from central banks’ increased intermediation during the crisis. Moreover, the asset purchases have exposed central banks to considerable credit risk, which together with the changed balance sheet composition may expose them to political pressures.
History offers little guidance on the economic significance of the side effects of unconventional monetary policy. By contrast, distortions arising from low interest rates have been observed in the past. In this chapter, we review these risks in the current context and argue that, if not addressed soon, they may contain the seeds of future problems at home and abroad. In doing so, we draw on lessons from the run-up to the financial crisis of 2007–09 and on Japanese experiences since the mid-1990s . . .
Uh oh — subprime and the Lost Decade? You know what’s coming — a rather stunning indictment of certain current central bank policies. Some choice bits recounted below, with our highlights.
For a start, the risks of that steep yield curve:
Low policy rates in combination with higher long-term rates increase the profits that banks can earn from maturity transformation, ie by borrowing short-term and lending long-term. Indeed, part of the motivation of central banks in lowering policy rates was to enable battered financial institutions to raise such profits and thereby build up capital. The heightened attractiveness of maturity transformation since the crisis was reflected in rising carry-to-risk ratios in 2009 and early 2010 (Graph II.1, bottom right-hand panel). Increasing government bond yields, caused by ballooning deficits and debt levels and a growing awareness of the associated risks, make the yield curve even steeper and reinforce the appeal of maturity transformation strategies.
However, financial institutions may underestimate the risk associated with this maturity exposure and overinvest in long-term assets. As already noted, interest rate exposures of banks as measured by VaRs remain high. If an unexpected rise in policy rates triggers a similar increase in bond yields, the resulting fall in bond prices would impose considerable losses on banks. As a consequence, they might face difficulties rolling over their short-term debt. These risks may have increased somewhat in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis, because the poor credit environment for banks and the greater availability of central bank funding have left many banks with funding structures skewed towards shorter maturities. A squeeze on banks’ wholesale funding might set off renewed asset sales and further price declines.
On extend and pretend, or the ‘evergreening,’ of loans:
One legacy of the financial crisis and the years preceding it is the need to clean up the balance sheets of financial institutions, households and the public sector, which finds itself in a poor fiscal position, partly as a result of the rescue measures adopted during the crisis. Low policy rates may slow down or even hinder such necessary balance sheet adjustments. In the financial sector, the currently steep yield curve provides financial institutions with a source of income that may diminish the sense of urgency for reducing leverage and selling or writing down bad assets (see also Chapter VI). Central banks’ commitment to keep policy rates low for extended periods, while useful in stabilising market expectations, may contribute to such complacency.
Past experience has shown that low policy rates allow “evergreening”, ie the rolling-over of non-viable loans. During the protracted run of low nominal interest rates in Japan in the 1990s, banks there permitted debtors to roll over loans on which they could afford the near zero interest payments but not repayments of principal. Banks evergreened loans instead of writing them off in order to preserve their own capital, which was already weak due to the earlier fall in asset prices. This delayed the necessary restructuring and shrinking of financial sector balance sheets. Moreover, the presence of non-viable (“zombie”) firms sustained by evergreened loans probably limited competition, reduced investment and prevented the entry of new enterprises.
And the international side effects of the search-for-yield:
Capital flows allow a better allocation of economic resources, and inflows are important contributors to growth, especially in emerging market economies. In the current situation, however, they may lead to further asset price increases and have an inflationary impact on the macroeconomy. They have also caused an appreciation of those target currencies that float, which corresponds to a tightening of monetary conditions in those countries. Nevertheless, further interest rate increases seem likely, and these may attract even more funds from abroad. This exposes the receiving economies to the risk of rapid and large capital outflows and the reversal of exchange rate pressures in the event of a change in global macroeconomic, monetary and financial conditions or in investors’ perception thereof. Chapter IV discusses the issues associated with capital flows to emerging markets in more detail.
The major worry then is what happens should these government efforts fail. All of their policies — Zirp, quantitative easing, debt forbearance, etc. — are predicated on the idea that markets just need time to start functioning again. That has so far not happened and, in the meantime, central banks are stuck.
As BIS puts it:
Unlike [in 2008], however, we have hardly any room for manoeuvre. Policy rates are already at zero and central bank balance sheets are bloated. Although private sector debt has started to decline, public debt has taken its place, with sovereign fiscal positions already on an unsustainable path in a number of countries. In short, macroeconomic policy is in a vastly worse position than it was three years ago, with little capacity to combat a new crisis – it will be difficult to find a source of further treatment should another emergency arise. Regaining the ability to react to economic and financial crises, by putting policies onto sustainable paths, is therefore a priority for macroeconomic policy.
Crikey. That’s quite a lot for so early in the morning.
