7 ms·
It has been argued that the current environment of low rates is driven by a safe asset shortage [0]. Many investors (e.g. insurance companies, pension funds) ne
by nickles 7y ago
It has been argued that the current environment of low rates is driven by a safe asset shortage [0]. Many investors (e.g. insurance companies, pension funds) need to match liabilities with assets yielding reliable returns. With a constrained supply of safe assets, this demand drives yields down. Austrian economists argue that the resulting level of interest rates may be artificially low, leading to 'malinvestment' [1], a misallocation of investments that ultimately leads to economic contraction.
CDOs attempt to manufacture safe assets from riskier ones. Various debts are pooled, then the pool is divided into 'tranches'. Each tranche has a different rating, indicating riskiness of the tranche, according to the tranche's claim on distributions. A higher rated tranche will get paid before riskier tranches, allowing investors to choose their risk tolerance. Riskier tranches have higher yields commensurate with a greater risk of not being paid.
In theory, this structure is sound, provided that the debt being pooled has known characteristics. During the financial crisis, ratings fraud contributed to the breakdown of CDOs [2]. Lenders made unsound loans and lied about the characteristics of the collateral and the borrowers. Ratings agencies (Fitch, Moody’s and S&P) then rated this debt as being less risky than it actually was, due to having false information and perverse compensation incentives. Additionally, structurers assumed that diversifying geographically would prevent correlated defaults on individual debts (which was not the case). These assumptions led to CDOs having unsound risk pools. More exotic products, like CDO squared (CDOs composed of CDOs), further amplified problems.
Similar products (e.g. CLOs) have been in high demand, as there is a genuine need for safe assets. Ideally CDOs can be produced without succumbing to the issues they faced during the financial crisis. The current interest rate environment exhibits suspicious behaviors, including negative yielding sovereign debt and investment grade/high yield spreads [3][4] roughly as tight as they were prior the financial crisis. Increasing the supply of safe assets may help lead to a rates environment that would previously have been considered normal.
[0] https://voxeu.org/article/safe-asset-shortage-rise-mark-ups-and-decline-labour-share https://voxeu.org/article/safe-asset-shortage-rise-mark-ups-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment
[2] https://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/academic-vs-wall-street-economists.html https://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/academic-vs-...
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A0CM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A0CM
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2/
- morley 7y agoYour comment illustrates what I found so frustrating about The Big Short, and people who cite it whenever CDOs are brought up: the filmmakers made no effort in understanding the theory behind CDOs, nor did they attempt to explain the potential benefits. Now... it's possible that the way human nature works, CDOs will always result in companies engage in collective delusion that results in a similar meltdown. I think The Big Short would have been more interesting if it made that argument, rather than merely "CDOs are evil." EDIT: I was reacting to the movie adaptation; I haven't read Michael Lewis's book.
- vsareto 7y agoCDOs could be more vulnerable to corrupt practices than other systems. The US banking system could be too corrupt to safely employ CDOs in the long-term. This is difficult to put into theory because corruption is difficult to measure, but I think we've all seen one example already. It wouldn't be the first thing that's great in theory but not in practice.
- tialaramex 7y agoWhat potential benefit of CDOs did you feel wasn't explained? The movie is based on a book. Do you feel the book's author (Michael Lewis who has written about mortgage backed securities for years) also doesn't understand the theory behind CDOs? Or that the filmmakers didn't understand the book?
- darawk 7y agoI've read the book. And all his other books. They're fun, but they're not a great source for serious understanding. The book and movie does briefly explain all this, but it paints a picture that the instruments themselves were inherently toxic, which was not the case. What was toxic were the assumptions that went into modeling their risk characteristics. The assets (like all assets) themselves were fine. The problem was that people didn't understand them.
- wpietri 7y ago