Friday, April 18, 2008

Ted Spread remains at a high level; maybe being kept artificially low

The Wall Street Journal had an article on the LIBOR and how the rates could be artificially low. Here are some excerpts from the article:



Libor plays a crucial role in the global financial system. Calculated every morning in London from information supplied by banks all over the world, it's a measure of the average interest rate at which banks make short-term loans to one another. Libor provides a key indicator of their health, rising when banks are in trouble.
...
The concern: Some banks don't want to report the high rates they're paying for short-term loans because they don't want to tip off the market that they're desperate for cash. The Libor system depends on banks to tell the truth about their borrowing rates. Fibbing by banks could mean that millions of borrowers around the world are paying artificially low rates on their loans.
...
In a recent research report on potential problems with Libor, Scott Peng, an interest-rate strategist at Citigroup Inc. in New York, wrote that "the long-term psychological and economic impacts this could have on the financial market are incalculable." Mr. Peng estimates that if banks provided accurate data about their borrowing costs, three-month Libor would be higher by as much as 0.3 percentage points.
...
The Libor system was developed in the 1980s. Banks were looking for a benchmark that would allow them to set rates on syndicated debt -- corporate loans that typically carry interest rates that adjust according to prevailing short-term rates. By pegging lending rates to Libor, which is supposed to represent the rate banks charge each other for loans, banks sought to guarantee that the interest rates their clients pay never fall too far below their own cost of borrowing.
...
When banks want to borrow money, they contact banks directly or phone a loan broker, such as ICAP PLC in London. Much of the interbank lending takes place between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. London time. In broker speak, a bank might ask for a "yard" -- one billion in a designated currency. Brokers communicate with bank clients by phone or through desktop voice boxes, which are faster. At ICAP, brokers track bids and offers by looking up at a big whiteboard above the trading floor, where a "board boy" posts information. The actual rates at which banks borrow from each other are known only to the lenders and borrowers, and possibly to their brokers.

Every morning by 11:10 London time, "panels" of banks send data to Reuters Group PLC, a London-based business-data and news company, on what it would cost them to borrow a "reasonable amount" in a designated currency. The dollar Libor panel, for example, consists of 16 banks, including U.S. banks Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and U.K. banks HBOS PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC. Reuters uses the reported borrowing rates to calculate Libor "fixings." To reduce the possibility that any bank could manipulate an average by reporting a false number, Reuters throws out the highest and lowest groups of quotes before calculating averages.



Justin Abel, global head of data operations for Reuters, said in a statement that his company's role is solely to calculate fixings based on the information provided by banks. "It is their data alone we distribute. Reuters is purely the facilitator," he said.
...
Citigroup's Mr. Peng believes banks could be understating even those abnormally high Libor rates. He notes that the Federal Reserve recently auctioned off $50 billion in one-month loans to banks for an average annualized interest rate of 2.82% -- 0.1 percentage point higher than the comparable Libor rate. Because banks put up securities as collateral for the Fed loans, they should get them for a lower rate than Libor, which is riskier because it involves no collateral. By comparing Libor with that indicator and others -- such as the rate on three-month bank deposits known as the Eurodollar rate -- Mr. Peng estimates Libor may be understated by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points.



I periodically post updates on the TED Spread - the difference between the 3 month treasury and the 3 month Eurodollar rate. This measures the amount of perceived risk to lend to a banking counterparty. From 2002 to 2006 the spread averaged .288. Currently it is at 1.42. You have to go back to the stock market crash of 1987 to see the spreads that high.



The spreads sometimes reached very high levels in the 70s and early 80s when inflation was running rampant. The spread reached a high of 5.97 in July of 1974, and the Eurodollar rate was 13.52%. This next chart shows the spread as a percentage of the Eurodollar. This allows for a more equal comparision. Using this matrix, the current spreads are at historic highs. The chart also shows the year over year change in the S&P 500.




Digg my article

Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Think this may be interesting to you.
At Calculated Risk’s article on this subject:
LIBOR Unreliable?
at
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/04/libor-unreliable.html
I commented as follows.

Ed writes:
CR,
Your phrasing “... a manipulated rate ...” reminded me of this post:
Stock market price manipulation would be 'dirty' -- but, of what we can already see, what do we know that is 'dirty'?
at
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/msg/191b7a4136be77e2
Ed | 04.16.08 - 1:23 pm | #

Hiroshi Hishida said...

I like your analogy of deception by omission. Reading your post made me think of the games played by the ratings agencies and the Duoline companies. It seems to me that the rating agencies can't cut the ratings because of the chaos it would cause for all the brokerages. Mish had a good post on the topic comparing MBIA and Pfizer.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/mbia-maintains-highest-rating-pfizer.html