Upload
damon-hampton
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(VII) INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS
LECTURES 20 - 22
Question 1: What are the arguments in favor of open financial markets?
Question 2:Does it really work this way?
Question 3: How integrated are financial markets, and what are the remaining barriers?
Advantages of financial opening
• For a successfully-developing country, with high return to domestic capital, investment can be financed more cheaply by borrowing abroad than out of domestic saving alone.
• Symmetrically, investors in rich countries can earn a higher return on their saving by investing in emerging markets than they could domestically.
• Households can smooth consumption over time.• In the presence of uncertainty, investors can
diversify away some risks.
Classic gains from tradewine
textiles
•
In autarky, Portugal can onlyconsume what it produces.(Price mechanism puts it onfull-employment PPF & at the point maximizing consumers’ utility.)
Textiles are cheaper on world markets.
Under free trade, Portugal responds to new relative prices by
shifting into wine, where it has a comparative advantage….
…Portuguese consumption in textiles rises, which
it imports, thereby reaching a higher indifference curve.
Next, we do the gains from trade again, substituting period 0 & period 1, in place of wine & textiles.
today
future
•
•
Intertemporal optimizationWe will maximize the intertemporal utility function:u[C0] + β u[C1] where C0 ≡ consumption today; C1 ≡ consumption tomorrow;
u'(C) > 0; u''(C) < 0; β ≡ subjective discount factor, reflecting patience. 0<β<1.
Total resources available = Y0 + Y1.
where Y0 ≡ income today; Y1 ≡ income tomorrow; r ≡ real interest rate.
Total spending discounted to today = C0 + C1 .
Budget constraint: C1 = (1+r)(Y0-C0 ) + Y1.
Intertemporal utility subject to budget constraint: u[C0] + β u[(1+r)(Y0-C0 ) + Y1]
To maximize, differentiate with respect to C0: Þ Euler equation: u'[C0] + β u'[C1](-(1+r)) = 0.
Þ u'[C0]/u'[C1] = β (1+r)
A simple functional form
Let’s try the case of log utility: log[C0] + β log[C1] (a special case of iso-elastic utility functions)
Then Euler equation u'[C0]/u'[C1] = β (1+r)
becomes [1/C0]/[1/C1] = β (1+r).
=> = β (1+r).
Result: Agents choose higher consumption tomorrow than today if r is high and/or they are patient.
ITF220 Prof.J.Frankel
Welfare gains from open capital markets:
1. Even without intertemporalreallocation of output, Y0 & Y1,
consumers are better off (borrowing from abroad to smooth consumption).
2. In addition, firms can borrow abroad to finance investment.
WTP, 2007
The intertemporal optimization theory of the current account
ITF220 Prof.J.Frankel
The intertemporal-optimization theory of the current account, and welfare gains from international borrowing
Source: Caves, Frankel & Jones (2007) Chapter 21.5, World Trade & Payments, 10th ed.
=> domestic residents borrow from abroad, so that they can consume more in Period 0.
Assume interest rates in the outside world are closer to 0
than they were at home(the slope of the line
is closer to -1.0).
Welfare ishigher at
point B.
1. Financial opening with fixed output
●
●
future
today
High interest rate encourages agents to postpone consumption.
Y0
Y1
=> C0↑
THE INTERTEMPORAL-OPTIMIZATION THEORY OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT, AND WELFARE GAINS FROM INTERNATIONAL BORROWING, continued
Source: Caves, Frankel & Jones (2007) Chapter 21.5, World Trade &Payments.
Shift production from Period 0 to 1,and yet consume more in Period 0,thanks to foreigncapital flows.
Assume interest rates in the outsideworld are closer to 0 than
they were at home.
Welfare is higher at point C.
2. Financial opening with elastic output
●
●
●
future
today
ITF220 Prof.J.Frankel
Does this theory ever work in practice?
Norway discovered North Sea oil in 1970s. It temporarily ran a large CA deficit,
• to finance investment (while the oil fields were being developed)
• & to finance consumption (as was rational, since Norwegians knew they would be richer
in the future).
}
} Subsequently, Norway ran big CA surpluses.
Effect when countries open their stock markets to foreign investors, on cost of capital.
Liberalization occurs in “Year 0.”
Cost of capital falls,on average.
Peter Henry (2007) “Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation,“JEL, 45(4): 887-935.
Effect when countries open their stock markets to foreign investors, on investment.
Liberalization occurs in “Year 0.”
Investment rises,on average.
Peter Henry (2007) “Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation,“JEL, 45(4): 887-935.
Indications that financial marketsdo not always work as advertised
1) The Lucas Paradox
2) Pro-cyclical capital flows
3) Crises
Indications that financial markets do not always work as advertised
1) The Lucas paradox:
• Capital flows do not systematically go from rich countries (high K/L) to poor (low K/L). – Robert Lucas (1990), “Why Doesn’t Capital Flow from Rich
to Poor Countries?” AER.– Capital “flows uphill.”
• Possible explanation: In many developing countries investors cannot reap the potential returns to capital due to inferior institutions, especially inadequate protection of property rights. • -- Alfaro, Kalemli-Ozcan & Volosovych (2008).
Indications that financial markets do not always work as advertised
2) Pro-cyclicality:• Capital flows tend to be pro-cyclical, not counter-cyclical.
– E.g., Kaminsky, Reinhart & Végh (2005) “When it rains, it pours.”
• Possible explanations: In developing countries,• (i) given imperfect creditworthiness, investors require
collateral, e.g., tangible foreign exchange earnings. The value of the collateral is higher in booms than busts.
• (ii) Fluctuations that appear cyclical, in truth may signal changes in long-run growth prospects.
• -- Aguiar & Gopinath (2007).
Indications that financial markets do not always work as advertised
• Debt crises, currency crises, banking crises The 1982 international debt crisis; 1992-93 crisis in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism; EM currency crashes of the late 1990s:
1994-95 Mexico;1997 E.Asia, esp. Thailand, Korea & Indonesia; 1998 Russia, 2000 Turkey, 2001 Argentina, 2002 Uruguay.
2008-2015 2008-09 GFC (U.S. & U.K.: “North Atlantic Financial Crisis” !) Iceland, Hungary, Latvia, Ukraine, Pakistan…; The 2010-15 euro crisis (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus…).
3) Crises
Indications that financial markets do not always work as advertised, cont.
• Do investors punish countries when and only when governments follow bad policies?Large inflows often give way suddenly to large
outflows, with little news appearing in between to explain the change in sentiment.
Contagion sometimes spreads to countries that are unrelated, or where fundamentals appear stronger.
Recessions have been so big, it seems hard to argue that the system works well.
Economic crashes can be severe,
Source: Guillermo Calvo, 2006.
such as the East Asia crisis of 1997-98.
Empirical studies of financial opennessand economic performance,
reviewed by Kose, Prasad, Rogoff & Wei (2009),
often find little systematic relationship, in either direction.
• income -- Biscarri, Edwards, & Perez de Grarcia (2003); Klein & Olivei (1999); Edwards (2001); Martin & Rey (2002); Ranciere, Tornell & Westermann (2008);
• financial depth, institutional quality & other reforms -- Kaminsky & Schmukler (2003); Chinn & Ito (2002); Klein (2003); Obstfeld (2009); Kose, Prasad & Taylor (2009); Wei & Wu (2002); Prasad, Rajan & Subramanian (2007).
• Or macroeconomic discipline.-- Arteta, Eichengreen & Wyplosz (2001).
Some studies find that financial openness is helpful only if countries have already attained an adequate level of:
=> Conventional wisdom regarding sequencing: it is better to liberalize financial markets only after other reforms have been put in place. -- McKinnon (1993), Edwards (1984, 2008), and Kaminsky & Schmukler (2003).
I. Direct measures of barriers, e.g., IMF’s count of freedom from KA restrictions.
II. “Price tests”
III. “Quantity tests”
Measuring International
Financial Integration
Source: Kose, Prasad, Rogoff & Wei (2009)
Menzie Chinn & Hiro Ito, "A New Measure of Financial Openness," (Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2008), updated 2013 http://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Chinn-Ito_website.htm.
I. Direct Measure of Financial Liberalization Openness: Chinn & Ito
Chinn-Ito Measure of Financial Openness
The calculations are based on 4 categories in the IMF’s Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements & Exchange Restrictions: multiple exchange rates, current account
restrictions, capital account restrictions, and required surrender of export proceeds.
Measuring International Financial Integration, cont.
II. “Price” tests 1.Uniform price of an asset across markets E.g., arbitrage between China’s A shares and off-shore. 2. Interest rate parity (IRP): i) Covered interest parity (CIP); ii) Uncovered interest parity (UIP); iii) Real interest parity (RIP).
*Tracks the price premium (discount) of A-shares to H-shares of the largest and most liquid mainland China companies.From: Charles Schwab, 12/11/2014, “Surging Chinese A-Shares: What’s Next? ” Data source: FactSet, Bloomberg, as of 12/9/14.
Premium of “A shares” (held domestically), over “H shares” (held in Hong Kong)
1. Price of the same asset across borders
Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect went into effect Nov. 17, 2014
PBoC cut interest rates Nov. 21.
2. Interest Rate Parity:Why does i not equal i* ?
I. Currency factors • Expected currency depreciation• Exchange risk premiumThe total currency premium can be measured as the forward discount, or swap rate, or differential between domestic & local $-linked bonds.
II. Country factors…
Decomposition of the Nominal Interest Differential
i – i* ≡ country premium + currency premiume.g., ≡ ( i – i* - fd ) + fd
The country premium could be measured by the sovereign spread,Credit Default Swap, or covered interest differential (i-i*-fd).
The currency premium could be measured by the forward discount (fd), currency swap rate, or local spread of $-linked vs. domestic-currency bonds.
}fd ≡ (fd - Δse) + (Δse) exchange + expected risk nominal premium depreciation
WHY DOES i NOT EQUAL i* ?
II. Country factors, continued• Default risk –
• reflected in sovereign spreads or Credit Default Swaps• Capital controls –
• reflected in covered interest differentials• Taxes on cross-border investments• Transaction costs• Imperfect information• Risk of future capital controls
Total spread (Brazil rate minus LIBOR) =Currency premium (forward premium) + Country premium (spread)
Sovereign spreads
}}
Brazilian interest rate decomposed
1995-98
country premium + currency premium + LIBOR
Total spread over US T bill rate Currency swap rateCountry premium
Country premium ≡ total spread adjusted for currency premium
Total spread for Mexican sovereign bonds over US Treasury bill interest rate
Currency premium ≡ pesos/$ swap rate
Mexican spread decomposed: currency premium + country premium
Wenxin Du & Jesse Schreger, “Sovereign Risk, Currency Risk & Corporate Balance Sheets,” Oct. 14, 2014
Sovereign spreads
2004-13
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
2-Jun-03
30-Jul-03
26-Sep-03
26-Nov-03
28-Jan-04
26-Mar-04
25-May-04
23-Jul-04
21-Sep-04
19-Nov-04
20-Jan-05
21-Mar-05
18-May-05
18-Jul-05
14-Sep-05
14-Nov-05
13-Jan-06
15-Mar-06
12-May-06
10-Jul-06
EM
BI+
EMBI+
RSA EMBI+
Spreads were low for Emerging Market bonds in 2006, and even lower for South Africa.
Sovereign spreads, 2003-06
Global investors were under-pricing risk-- as also reflected in US corporate spreads, options prices, etc.
All of them shot back up in 2008.
Sovereign spreads for 5 euro countries shot up in the 1st half of 2010
Source:
Financial Times11/2/2007
Selling at a forward discountagainst the $:
Turkish lireArgentine pesoBrazilian real
Selling at a forward premiumagainst the $:
YenNew Taiwan $UAE dirham
The forward market
Spread is wider for Sol than є
┌┐┌┐ ┌ ┐┌┐ The forward market
Selling at a forward discountagainst the $:Hungarian forintRussian rubleTurkish lireArgentine pesoIndonesian rupiahS.African rand
Selling at a forward premiumagainst the $:S.Korean won
Financial Times Jan. 30, 2009
During Global Financial Crisis
COVERED INTEREST PARITY ( 1 + iTurkey )
Forward discount fd (F-S)/S
=> 1 + fd F/S=>
(1 + iTurkey ) = (1 + fd) (1 + iUS).
= (1 + fd + iUS + fd iUS).
Because (fd iUS) is small, iTurkey ≈ fd + iUS .
=> If the Turkish nominal interest rate exceeds the U.S. rate, then the lira sells at a discount in the forward exchange market.
(1/S) F( 1 + iUS )
where S is the spot rate in TL/$ and F is the forward rate.
=
Liberalization in a country that had controls on capital inflows.
}
Domestic & offshore interest rates,Germany, 1973-74
From: Marston (1989)
France kept its controls on capital outflows until the late 1980s.
Again, they produced an offshore-onshore differential, which shot up whenever there was speculation of a franc devaluation. Again, the differential disappeared after controls were removed.
{
Liberalization in a country that had controls on capital outflows
From: M. Mussa & M. Goldstein, “The Integration of World Capital Markets,” FRBKC, 1993.
Domestic & offshore interest rates,France, June 1973- June 1993
In late 2008 Covered Interest Parity surprisingly failed,in the Global Financial Crisis rush to the $ as safe haven.
Significant determinants are apparently counterparty risk & liquidity, proxied by financial stock CDS, VIX, implied fx volatility, OIS bid-ask spreads & Fed swap lines.
Inês Isabel Sequeira de Freitas Serra, ”Covered Interest Parity,” NOVA – School of Business & Economics, Lisbon, Jan. 2012 http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/9528
Covered interest differentials, using Overnight Index Swap interest rates, 2003-2011
THREE INTEREST RATE PARITY CONDITIONS
Investors decide whether to hold:
Arbitrage => parity condition.
Does it hold in practice?
Covered interest parity
$ deposits in New York vs. covered £ deposits in London
i$NY - i£
L = fd.
Yes, if default risk & capital controls are low .
Uncovered interest parity
$ deposits in NY vs. £ deposits in London uncovered.
i$NY - i£
L =
Δse
If risk is unimportant. Hard to tell in practice.
Real interest parity
Arbitrage is not directly relevant
i$NY - i£
L =
πUS
e- πUK
e
No, not in short run.
CIP
UIP
RIP
Summary of Interest Rate Parity conditionsto be used in L23-24: Exchange Rate Models
Covered interest parity i – i* = fd
+
No risk premium fd = Δse
=>
Uncovered interest parity i – i* = Δse,+
Ex ante Relative Δse = πe – π*e
Purchasing Power Parity
}
=> Real interest parity i – i* = πe – π*e .
}
III QUANTITY TESTS: some show rising integration
IMF
Quantity tests point to surprisingly low international integration
1. Home bias in portfolios: Do citizens of each country hold a basket of assets that is optimally diversified internationally?
2. Consumption risk-sharing: Are countries’ consumption levels correlated with each other more than country incomes?
3. Feldstein-Horioka test: Do countries’ Investment rates vary independently of their National Saving rates?
No
No
No
Feldstein-Horioka test of capital mobility
Regression: (I/GDP) = α + β (NS/GDP) + v.
Feldstein (1980) argued that if capital were perfectly mobile, we would find β = 0:countries with good investment opportunities could borrow abroad to finance them.
Instead, β was much closer to 1:Countries are apparently savings-constrained.
The Feldstein-Horioka, still as high as 0.7 in the 1980s, declined in the 90s and until 2007.
Kristin Forbes, “Financial “deglobalization”?: Capital flows, banks, and the Beatles,” Bank of England, 18 Nov., 2014
Appendices: Country risk
• Appendix 1: Inter-shuffling of credit-worthiness between advanced & developing countries– Recent credit rating rankings– The end of “original sin”?
• Appendix 2: EM Sovereign Spreads – More examples– “Risk on – risk off”
• 1) Since the crisis of the euro periphery began in Greece in 2010, we have become aware that “advanced” countries also have sovereign default risk.
• 2) Since 2000, Emerging Market Countries have increasingly been able to borrow in their own currencies, so their debt carries currency risk (not just default risk).
Appendix 1: The blurring of lines between debt of advanced countries and developing countries
1) Country creditworthiness was inter-shuffled
“Advanced” countries EM & “Developing” countriesAAA Germany, UK Singapore, Hong KongAA+ US, FranceAA Belgium ChileAA- Japan ChinaA+ KoreaA Malaysia, South AfricaA- Brazil, Thailand, BotswanaBBB+ Ireland, Italy, Spain BBB- Iceland Colombia, IndiaBB+ Indonesia, PhilippinesBB Portugal Costa Rica, JordanB Burkina FasoSD Greece
S&P ratings, Feb.2012 updated 8/2012
47
Spreads for Italy, Greece, & other Mediterranean membersof € were near zero, from 2001 until 2008
and then shot up in 2010
Market Nighshift Nov. 16, 2011
2) The end of Original Sin:After 2000, Emerging Markets successfully issued more debt
in their own local currencies (LC), instead of $-denominated (FC).
Fig. 2 from Jesse Schreger & Wenxin Du“Local Currency Sovereign Risk,” HU, March 2013
Turkey is able to borrow in local currency (lira),but has to pay a high currency premium to do so.
{Pure default risk premium on lira debt {
Total premium on Turkey’s lira debt over US treasuries
Fig. 5 from Schreger & Du, “Local Currency Sovereign Risk,” HU, March 2013
Appendix 2: EM sovereign spreads
EMBI, 1994-2001Spreads shot up in 1990s crises
Sovereign spreads
Downtrend in SA country risk premium,to below 100 basis points by 2006,
in tandem with upgrades by rating agencies
Source: SA Treasury
-
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
10
/15
/19
96
2/1
5/1
99
7
6/1
5/1
99
7
10
/15
/19
97
2/1
5/1
99
8
6/1
5/1
99
8
10
/15
/19
98
2/1
5/1
99
9
6/1
5/1
99
9
10
/15
/19
99
2/1
5/2
00
0
6/1
5/2
00
0
10
/15
/20
00
2/1
5/2
00
1
6/1
5/2
00
1
10
/15
/20
01
2/1
5/2
00
2
6/1
5/2
00
2
10
/15
/20
02
2/1
5/2
00
3
6/1
5/2
00
3
10
/15
/20
03
2/1
5/2
00
4
6/1
5/2
00
4
10
/15
/20
04
2/1
5/2
00
5
6/1
5/2
00
5
10
/15
/20
05
2/1
5/2
00
6
6/1
5/2
00
6
Global 06 Global 09 Global 12
Global 14 Global 17
S&P Upgrade (BB+ to BBB-) S&P Upgrade (BBB- to BBB)
S&P Upgrade (BBB to BBB+)Moody's upgrade (Baa3 to Baa2)
Moody's upgrade (Baa2 to Baa1)
Sovereign spreads
1996-2006
Sovereign spreads on South African Dollar Debt
WesternAsset.com
Spreads fell to low levels by 2007.
EM sovereign spreadsSovereign spreads
Spreads rose againin Sept. 2008,
• especially on $-denominated debt
• & in Eastern Europe.
World Bank
Bpblogspot.com
EM sovereign spreads Sovereign spreads
What determines spreads?
Laura Jaramillo & Catalina Michelle Tejada, IMF Working Paper, March 2011
EMBI is correlated with risk perceptions
“risk on”
risk off
Sovereign spreads