Search results

Recently the world economy was confronted to the worst financial crisis since the great depression. This unprecedented crisis started in mid-2007 had a huge impact on the European government bond market. But what are the main drivers of this “perfect storm” that since 2009 affects EU government bond market as well? To answer this question, we propose an empirical study of the determinants of the sovereign bond spreads of EU countries with respect to Germany during the period 2003–2010. Technically, we address two main questions. First, we ask what share of the change in sovereign bond spreads is explained by changes in the fundamentals, liquidity, and market risks. Second, we distinguish between EU member states within and outside the Euro area and question whether long-term determinants of spreads affect EU members uniformly. To these ends, we employ panel data techniques in a regression model where spreads to Germany (with virtually no default risk) are explained by set of traditional variables and a number of policy variables. Results reveal that large fiscal deficits and public debt as well as political risks and to a lesser extent the liquidity are likely to put substantial upward pressures on sovereign bond yields in many advanced European economies.

This chapter conducts an event study of 30 quantitative easing (QE) announcements made by 21 central banks on daily government bond yields and bilateral US dollar exchange rates in March and April 2020, in the midst of the global financial turmoil triggered by the COVID-19 outbreak. The chapter also investigates the transmission of innovations to long-term interest rates in a standard GVAR model estimated with quarterly pre-COVID-19 data. The authors find that QE has not lost effectiveness in advanced economies and that its international transmission is consistent with the working of long-run uncovered interest rate parity and a large dollar shortage shock during the COVID-19 period. In emerging markets, the QE impact on bond yields is much stronger and its transmission to exchange rates is qualitatively different than in advanced economies. The GVAR evidence that the authors report illustrates the Fed’s pivotal role in the global transmission of long-term interest rate shocks, but also the ample scope for country-specific interventions to affect local financial market conditions, even after controlling for common factors and spillovers from other countries. The GVAR evidence also shows that QE interventions can have sizable real effects on output driven by a very persistent impact on long-term interest rates.

Theory suggests that as long as a country runs a balanced budget regime, there is no linkage between fiscal variables and the interest rates. In the case of fiscal expansion that is not sufficiently covered by government revenues, however, the government has two options to finance its deficit: printing money or additional borrowing. Both options lead to an increase in the risk premia on government bonds. One strand of literature focuses on a currency crisis that emerges as a necessary outcome in light of contradictions between fixed exchange rate, and fiscal and financial fundamentals. If government bonds are denominated in domestic currency, the government can reduce their real value by higher inflation or by devaluation of the national currency. In order to bear this risk foreign investors require a currency risk premium. Governments can eliminate the risk of currency devaluation by issuing bonds denominated in foreign currencies, but the default risk remains and it depends on public finances. Another strand of the literature looks at the relation between fiscal variables and government bond yields in the framework of portfolio balance model.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to assess the role of collateralizable wealth and systemic risk in explaining future asset returns.

Methodology/approach – To test this hypothesis, the chapter uses the residuals of the trend relationship among housing wealth and labor income to predict both stock returns and government bond yields. Specifically, it shows that nonlinear deviations of housing wealth from its cointegrating relationship with labor income, hwy, forecast expected future returns.

Findings – Using data for a set of industrialized countries, the chapter finds that when the housing wealth-to-income ratio falls, investors demand a higher risk premium for stocks. As for government bond returns: (i) when they are seen as a component of asset wealth, investors react in the same manner and (ii) if, however, investors perceive the increase in government bond returns as signaling a future rise in taxes or a deterioration of public finances, then they interpret the fall in the housing wealth-to-income ratio as a fall in future bond premia. Finally, this work shows that the occurrence of crisis episodes amplifies the transmission of housing market shocks to financial markets.

Originality/value of chapter – These findings are novel. They also open new and challenging avenues for understanding the dynamics of the relationship between the housing sector, stock market and government bond developments, and the banking system.

The dynamics between five-year US Treasury bonds and interest rate swaps are examined using bivariate threshold autoregressive (BTAR) models to determine the drivers of spread changes and the nature of the lead–lag relation between the two instruments. This model is able to identify the economic – or threshold – value that market participants consider significant before realigning their portfolios. Specifically, three different regimes are identified: when the swap spread in the previous week is either high or low, the Treasury bond market leads the swap market. However, when the swap spread is low, none of the markets leads each other. Thus, yield movements are shown to be governed by the direction and magnitude of the change in the swap spread, which in turn provides an economic insight into the rebalancing between swap and bond portfolios.

The five-, 10-, and 20-year yields of Japanese government bonds (JGBs) co-move with the six- and 12-month basis swap rates under the quantitative and qualitative easing policy regime introduced by the Bank of Japan (BOJ). The 10- and 20-year JGB yields are in a one-to-one relationship with the six- and 12-month basis swap rates. A cheaper yen gives foreign investors strong incentives to buy 10- and 20-year JGBs under the quantitative and qualitative easing policy regime. A cheaper yen also gives foreign investors some incentives to buy five-year JGBs under the same regime. However, JGB yield does not co-move with basis swap rate under the negative interest rate policy regime. After the BOJ introduced the negative interest rate policy, the trend observed under the quantitative and qualitative easing policy regime changed.

Recent U.S. Treasury yields have been constrained to some extent by the zero lower bound (ZLB) on nominal interest rates. Therefore, we compare the performance of a standard affine Gaussian dynamic term structure model (DTSM), which ignores the ZLB, to a shadow-rate DTSM, which respects the ZLB. Near the ZLB, we find notable declines in the forecast accuracy of the standard model, while the shadow-rate model forecasts well. However, 10-year yield term premiums are broadly similar across the two models. Finally, in applying the shadow-rate model, we find no gain from estimating a slightly positive lower bound on U.S. yields.

Inefficiencies in the fiscal and monetary systems of the Ottoman Empire led to a higher debt burden over time and the bankruptcy for the Ottoman state in 1875. To deal with these inefficiencies, reforms were implemented: supervisory organizations were established and the gold standard was adopted. How did investors at the Istanbul Bourse view these reforms? We manually collected data on the price of Ottoman government bonds on the Bourse from 1873 to 1883. Using the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) methodology, we identify short-run and permanent changes in volatility of bond returns subsequent to the reforms. Our results suggest investors responded positively, by accepting lower yield premia, to adoption of the gold standard, and foundation of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration which had European sponsors, but did not respond positively to reforms that relied on purely local institutions.

This paper re-examines the relationship between interest rate changes and bank stock returns using the Japanese experience. Specifically, we test the relationship under two different regulatory regimes. During the first regime (1975–1983), there was strict regulation of the financial system and significant oversight of bank activities, whereas the latter regime (1984–1994) represented a period of financial liberalization and interest rate deregulation. The results presented here indicate that interest rate changes negatively affected Japanese bank equity in the post-regulatory period, but not during the period of heavy regulation. Additionally, we also find that most of the short-term rate effects were channeled through volatility proxies while long-term effects were channeled through yield spread and shape effects. These findings represent new and important insights into the relationship between interest rate changes and bank stock returns.