Author: Michael McCann

Posted on

The ‘Basel Endgame’: how much capital is enough capital?

Recently, US regulators have decided not to impose further increases in capital requirements on US large and mid-sized banks. The increased requirements, proposed in late 2023, would have been stricter than required under the Bank for International Settlements’ Basel framework1 and provoked a fierce backlash, involving public statements by senior bank executives, aggressive lobbying and extensive media campaigns, including an ad-spot during the Superbowl.

Following bank insolvencies in the USA during 2023, such as Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and First Republic, which required bailouts from US banking authorities, many commentators argued that the failures were caused by the institutions having insufficient capital to cover losses on their portfolios of US Treasuries. The implication was that banks, particularly mid-sized ones (which were exempt from the Basel framework), needed to have more capital.

US regulators duly responded by proposing what was officially known as ‘the finalisation of Basel III’, but was commonly referred to as ‘the Basel Endgame’. The proposed system-wide reforms involved more conservative calculations of the risk-weighted value of assets such as mortgages, corporate loans and loans to other financial institutions. Further, the proposals also sought to subject banks with $100bn to $250bn of assets to Basel capital adequacy requirements for the first time. Previously they applied only to banks with $250 of assets.

The issue focused attention on the capital banks hold to protect against insolvency and provoked discussion about how much of a capital buffer these institutions should have.

Critics argued the changes would lead to significant increases in the capital required to be held by all US banks compared to international rivals and have an adverse effect on their profitability and international competitiveness. Further, critics pointed out that problems at SVB and First Republic were down to confidence issues and it was argued that more capital would not have saved those institutions from insolvency.

This blog examines these issues. It analyses the role of capital in banks and discusses the trade-off that banks face between profitability and security in their activities which underpinned their resistance to the proposed increases. I will also discuss the other trade-off that banks face – between liquidity and profitability – and how liquidity is just as important an influence on bank’s survival in times of crisis.

The role of capital in banks

As with any limited company, a bank’s capital is the difference between total assets and its liabilities. It is the funding provided by long-term investors. These are primarily shareholders, but also long-term debtholders. Bank capital acts as a buffer to prevent insolvency. Capital represents the amount that the value of assets have to fall before the bank is insolvent (value of assets is below liabilities). Higher capital provides a greater buffer. Lower capital provides a smaller buffer.

Capital is uniquely important for commercial banks compared to non-financial companies because of the nature of the assets banks hold – financial securities and loans. Banks are susceptible to losses from financial securities and ‘bad debts’, which are directly reflected in the value of their capital. Further, unlike non-financial companies, the failure of a bank has a significantly negative impact on wider economic activity.

The trade-off between profitability and security

As limited companies, banks face a trade-off between profitability and security in lending. The more profitable a loan, the more risky (less secure) it is likely to be. This creates the potential for the interests of deposit holders and regulators on the one hand and bank executives and shareholders on the other to diverge.

Depositors place their funds with banks and will want the bank to be secure, holding lots of capital to prevent insolvency. However, bank executives and shareholders have a strong incentive to lower the capital buffer, particularly equity, because it produces a higher return for shareholders.

Let’s analyse the implications of different capital buffers on profitability and return, particularly the return to shareholders. A performance measure used to analyse the return to shareholders is Return on Equity (RoE) – the amount of profit each pound of equity capital generates, expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit by equity capital and multiplying by 100.


If a bank has a net profit of £1m and holds £10m of equity capital, the RoE is:


If it has a net profit of £1m and holds £5m of equity capital, the RoE is:


In the first case, the capital buffer generates a 10 per cent RoE. In the second case, the lower capital buffer generates a higher RoE of 20 per cent. This provides a simple illustration of the trade-off banks face. The lower the amount of capital they hold, the higher the return to shareholders but the lower capital buffer, which increases the risk of insolvency.

In different time periods, banks have held varying percentages of capital. For much of the 20th century, banks had capital ratios of around 20 per cent, generating a return on equity of between 5 and 10 per cent. Bank lending was restricted, with shareholders accepting a lower return on equity, while holding a higher amount of capital to cover potential losses from financial assets. Indeed, in the 19th century, banks typically held even more capital, amounting to about 50 per cent of their assets, making bank lending even more restricted.

However, starting from the 1960s, but accelerating during the 1980s, banks began to change their view of the trade-off between profitability and security. This coincided with the liberalisation of credit markets and a greater emphasis on ‘shareholder value’ in business. Average capital ratios fell from over 20 per cent in the 1960s to below 10 per cent in the early 2000s. The return on equity went in the opposite direction. In the 1960s, it was typically between 5 and 10 per cent; by the decade before the 2008 financial crisis it had risen to above 20 per cent. The trade-off had shifted in favour of profitability.

However, the dangers of this shift were exposed during the 2008 financial crisis. The capital held by banks was very thin and not designed to cope with extremely stressful economic circumstances. Banks found they had insufficient capital to cover losses from big decreases in the value of their securitised debt instruments like CDOs (collateralised debt obligations) and struggled to raise additional capital from worried investors.

After the crisis, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) determined that banks needed to hold sufficient capital, not just to cope with the ebbs and flows of the business cycle but also as a buffer in the rare, yet extremely stressful, economic circumstances that might arise. Therefore, international bank regulations were redrafted under the auspices of the BIS’s Basel Committee. The third version of these regulations is known as ‘Basel III’. It was agreed in 2017, with the measures being phased in from 2022. Basel III significantly raised the capital buffers for large global banks, known as ‘globally systemically-important banks’ (G-SIBs) and the use of stress-tests to model the robustness of banks’ balance sheets to cope with severe economic pressures.

Figure 1 shows the changes to the average return on equity (RoE) and average tier 1 capital ratios for a sample of 10 G-SIBs as a result of Basel III. By 2022, all the banks had capital buffers which were well above the minimum required under Basel III for tier 1 capital – 8.5 per cent. The trade-off was that banks’ average return on equity was much lower – around 8 per cent in 2022, compared to 16 per cent in 2007.

How much capital is enough capital?

Ever since the Basel III agreement, there had been discussions around tightening capital requirements further but no agreement had been reached. One aspect of Basel III was that increased capital was only required of the largest banks. Mid-sized and smaller banks, which are a significant part of the US market, were exempt. The failures of the mid-sized US Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and First Republic Bank provoked unilateral proposals by the US authorities through the ‘Basel Endgame’. This would raise capital requirements for large banks and extend capital requirements to mid-sized institutions.

But large US banks resisted these proposals, arguing that the authorities were pushing the trade-off too far in favour of security, attempting to make banks very safe but offering a poor return for investors and decreasing the amount of lending banks would conduct.

The furore raises the question as to what is an adequate amount of capital. One reference point is non-financial institutions. These typically hold much more capital relative to the value of total assets – in the range from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. If banks had capital ratios at that level, or even higher, they would be perceived as extremely safe, but might not offer much return to shareholders, impinging on the ability of banks to raise additional capital when they needed it.

Further, other critics argue that there is too much emphasis placed on capital adequacy. Focusing on capital ignores the other significant trade-off banks face in their activities – between liquidity and profitability. Indeed, recent bank failures were not due to insufficient capital but other problems relating to the management of the institution, which led to a loss of confidence by not only by investors, but primarily, deposit-holders.

The other trade-off: liquidity and profitability

While banks have to be solvent, they have to manage their trade-off between liquidity and profitability carefully too. A commercial bank’s basic business model involves maturity transformation – transforming liquid deposits into illiquid assets, such as government bonds and loans, to generate profit. This requires balancing the desire for profitability with the liquidity needs of depositors. If banks get it wrong, then it can lead to a loss of confidence and a ‘run’ on deposits. This is what happened to both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Credit Suisse. The failures of both institutions were not due to insufficient capital but poor liquidity management, which eventually caused a loss of confidence.

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) demonstrated poor liquidity management, involving a narrow depositor base which was very responsive to changes in interest rates, and an illiquid asset portfolio. During the coronavirus pandemic, tech start-ups received substantial venture capital funding and deposited it with SVB. SVB did not have the capacity or inclination to lend all of the extensive deposits which they were receiving. Instead, the management decided to invest in long-term fixed rate government debt securities. Such securities represented 56 per cent of SVB’s assets in 2020.

Since SVB’s depositors were businesses, unlike retail depositors they were more sensitive to changing interest rates. As rates rose, businesses moved their funds out in search of higher rates, creating a liquidity problem for SVB. The bank was forced to sell $21bn of its long-dated bonds to provide liquidity. However, it endured losses when it sold the bonds as bond prices had fallen, reflecting higher interest rates. Therefore, it needed to raise capital to replace the losses from those sales.

Investors baulked at this, however, particularly when they observed the accelerating deposit outflows. It was the ‘run’ on deposits that was the problem ($42 billion on 8 March 2023 alone), not the unrealised losses on government bonds relative to capital. It was only when the losses were realised that the problem arose. Indeed, Bank of America was in a similar situation with a substantial portfolio of long-term government debt. However, it did not have to realise its ‘paper losses’ since its deposits were more ‘sticky’.

Once confidence is lost and there is a run on deposits, even a bank which has a capital buffer deemed to be more than sufficient is doomed to fail. Take Credit Suisse. It was subject to the Basel framework and had capital ratios similar to its ultimate acquirer UBS. However, it had a risky business culture that pushed the trade-off too much towards profitability. This led to repeated scandals, fines and losses, which caused investors to lose confidence in the institution.

But, once again, it was not the financial losses that was the problem. It was the loss of confidence by depositors. The institution suffered deposit withdrawals of CHF 67 billion in the first three months of 2023. Attempts to stem the outflow with a ‘liquidity backstop’ provided by the Swiss National Bank on 15 March 2023 failed to reassure investors and depositors. Instead, the bank run intensified, with daily withdrawals of demand deposits topping CHF 10bn in the week afterwards. Credit Suisse failed and the Swiss banking regulators quickly forced its acquisition by UBS.

Conclusion

Bank capital is important. After the financial crisis, banks needed to redress the trade-off between profitability and security in lending. However, while the US authorities desire to improve the security of their banking system is laudable, the focus on capital is misplaced. Ever-increasing capital is not the solution to every banking crisis.

Ultimately, banks depend on confidence. Once that confidence is lost, there is little an institution can do to prevent failure. More emphasis needs to be placed on better management of assets and liabilities to maintain sufficient profitability, while at the same time being both liquid and secure. This will maintain confidence, not only by investors, but particularly by deposit-holders.

1 See Economics 11e, section 18.2; Economics for Business 9e, section 28.2; Essentials of Economics 9e, section 11.2.

Articles

Video

Blog

Information

Questions

  1. Explain the role of capital for a commercial bank.
  2. Research the ‘Basel Endgame’ proposals. Why would US regulators want banks to hold more capital?
  3. Explain the trade-off between profitability and security that banks face.
  4. Explain the trade-off between profitability and liquidity that banks face.
  5. Research Silicon Valley Bank’s failure and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in the bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
  6. Research Credit Suisse’s demise and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in that bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
Posted on

Risk aversion in late-cycle slowing economies: the US experience

In recent months there has been growing uncertainty across the global economy as to whether the US economy was going to experience a ‘hard’ or ‘soft landing’ in the current business cycle – the repeated sequences of expansion and contraction in economic activity over time. Announcements of macroeconomic indicators have been keenly anticipated for signals about how quickly the US economy is slowing.

Such heightened uncertainty is a common feature of late-cycle slowing economies, but uncertainty now has been exacerbated because it has been a while since developed economies have experienced a business cycle like the current one. The 21st century has been characterised by low inflation, low interest rates and recessions caused by various types of crises – a stock market crisis (2001), a banking crisis (2008) and a global pandemic (2020). In contrast, the current cycle is a throwback to the 20th century. The high inflation and the ensuing increases in interest rates have produced a business cycle which echoes the 1970s. Therefore, few investors have experience of such economic conditions.

The focus for investors during this stage of the cycle is when the slowing economy will reach the minimum. They will also be concerned with the depth of the slowdown: will there still be some growth in income, albeit low; or will the trough be severe enough to produce a recession, and, if so, how deep? Given uncertainty around the length and magnitude of business cycles, this leads to greater risk aversion among investors. This affects reactions to announcements of leading and lagging macroeconomic indicators.

This blog examines what sort of economic conditions we should expect in a late-cycle economy. It analyses the impact this has had on investor behaviour and the ensuing dynamics observed in financial markets in the USA.

The Business Cycle


The business cycle refers to repeated sequences of expansion and contraction (or slowdown) in economic activity over time. Figure 1 illustrates a typical cycle. Typically, these sequences include four main stages. In each one there are different effects on consumer and business confidence:

  • Expansion: During this stage, the economy experiences growth in GDP, with incomes and consumption spending rising. Business and consumer confidence are high. Unemployment is falling.
  • Peak: This is the point at which the economy reaches its maximum output, but growth has ceased (or slowed). At this stage, inflationary pressures peak as the economy presses against potential output. This tends to result in tighter monetary policy (higher interest rates).
  • Slowdown: The higher interest rates raise the cost of borrowing and reduce consumption and investment spending. Consumption and incomes both slow or fall. (Figure 1 illustrates the severe case of falling GDP (negative growth) in this stage.) Unemployment starts rising.
  • Trough: This is the lowest point of the cycle, where economic activity bottoms out and the economy begins to recover. This can be associated with slow but still rising national income (a soft landing) or national income that has fallen (a hard landing, as shown in Figure 1).

While business cycles are common enough to enable such characterisation of their temporal pattern, their length and magnitude are variable and this produces great uncertainty, particularly when cycles approach peaks and troughs.

As an economy’s cycle approaches a trough, such as US economy’s over the past few months, uncertainty is exacerbated. The high interest rates used to tackle inflation will have increased borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. Access to credit may have become more restricted. Profit margins are reduced, especially for industrial sectors sensitive to the business cycle, reducing expected cash flows.

The combination of these factors can increase the risk of a recession, producing greater volatility in financial markets. This manifests itself in increased risk aversion among investors.

Utility theory suggests that, in general, investors will exhibit loss aversion. This means that they do not like bearing risk, fearing that the return from an investment may be less than expected. In such circumstances, investors need to be compensated for bearing risk. This is normally expressed in terms of expected financial return. To bear more risk, investors require higher levels of return as compensation.

As perceptions of risk change through the business cycle, so this will change the return investors will require from the financial instruments they hold. Perceived higher risk raises the return investors will require as compensation. Conversely, lower perceived risk decreases the return investors expect as compensation.

Investors’ expected rate of return is manifested in the discount rate that they use to value the anticipated cash flows from financial instruments in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. Equation 1 is the algebraic expression of the present-value discounted series of cash flows for financial instruments:

 
 
Where:
V = present value
C = anticipated cash flows in each of time periods 1, 2, 3, etc.
r = expected rate of return

For fixed-income debt securities, the cash flow is constant, while for equity securities (shares), expectations regarding cash flows can change.

Slowing economies and risk aversion

In a slowing economy, with great uncertainty about the scale and timing of the bottom of the cycle, investors become more risk averse about the prospects of firms. This this leads to higher risk premia for financial instruments sensitive to a slowdown in economic activity.

This translates into a higher expected return and higher discount rate used in the valuation of these instruments (r in equation 1). This produces decreases in perceived value, decreased demand and decreased prices for these financial instruments. This can be observed in the market dynamics for these instruments.

First, there may be a ‘flight to safety’. Investors attach a higher risk premium to risker financial instruments, such as equities, and seek a ‘safe-haven’ for their wealth. Therefore, we should observe a reorientation from more risky to less risky assets. Demand for equities falls, while demand for safer assets, such as government bonds and gold, rises.

There is some evidence for this behaviour as uncertainty about the US economic outlook has increased. Gold, long seen as a hedge against market decline, is at record highs. US Government bond prices have risen too.

To analyse whether this may be a flight to safety, I analysed the correlation between the daily US government bond price (5-year Treasury Bill) and share prices represented by the two more significant stock market indices in the USA: the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite. I did this for two different time periods. Table 1 shows the results. Panel (a) shows the correlation coefficients for the period between 1 May 2024 and 31 July 2024; Panel (b) shows the correlation coefficients for the period between 1 August 2024 and 9 September 2024.

In the period between May and July 2024, the 5-year Treasury Bill and share price indices had significantly positive correlations. When share prices rose, the Treasury Bill’s price rose; when share prices fell, the bill’s price fell. During that period, expectations about falling interest rates dominated valuations and that effected the valuations of all financial instruments in the same way – lower expected interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding instruments and reduces the expected rates of return. Hence, the discount rate applied to cash flows is reduced, and present value rises. The opposite happens when macroeconomic indicators suggest that interest rates will stay high (ceteris paribus).

As the summer proceeded, worries about a ‘hard landing’ began to concern investors. A weak jobs report in early August particularly exercised markets, producing a ‘flight to safety’. Greater risk aversion among investors meant that they expect a higher return from equities. This reduced perceived value, reducing demand and price (ceteris paribus). To insulate themselves from higher risk, investors bought safer assets, like government bonds, thereby pushing up their prices. This behaviour was consistent with the significant negative correlation observed between US government debt prices and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indices in Panel (b).

Another signal of increased risk aversion among investors is ‘sector rotation’ in their equity portfolios. Increased risk aversion among investors will lead them to divest from ‘cyclical’ companies. Such companies are in industrial sectors which are more sensitive to the changing economic conditions across the business cycle – consumer discretionary and communication services sectors, for example. To reduce their exposure to risk, investors will switch to ‘defensive’ sectors – those less sensitive to the business cycle. Examples include consumer staples and utility sectors.

Cyclical sectors will suffer a greater adverse impact on their cash flows and risk in a slowing economy. Consequently, investors expect higher return as compensation. This reduces the value of those shares. Demand for them falls, depressing their price. In contrast, defensive sectors will be valued more. They will see an increase in demand and price. This sector rotation seems to have happened in August (2024). Figure 2 shows the percentage change between 1 August and 9 September 2024 in the S&P 500 index and four sector indices, comprising companies from the communication services, consumer discretionary, consumer staples and utilities sectors.


Overall, the S&P 500 index was slightly higher, as shown by the first bar in the chart. However, while the cyclical sectors experienced decreases in their share prices, particularly communication services, the defensive companies experienced large price increases – nearly 3% for utilities and over 6% for consumer staples.

Conclusion

Economies experience repeated sequences of expansion and contraction in economic activity over time. At the moment, the US economy is approaching the end of its current slowing phase. Increased uncertainty is a common feature of late-cycle economies and this manifests itself in heightened risk aversion among investors. This produces certain dynamics which have been observable in US debt and equity markets. This includes a ‘flight to safety’, with investors divesting risky financial instruments in favour of safer ones, such as US government debt securities and gold. Also, investors have been reorientating their equity portfolios away from cyclicals and towards defensive securities.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. What is risk aversion? Sketch an indifference curve for a risk-averse investor, treating expected return and risk as two-characteristics of a financial instrument.
  2. Show what happens to the slope of the indifference curve if the investor becomes more risk averse.
  3. Using demand and supply analysis, illustrate and explain the impact of a flight to safety on the market for (i) company shares and (ii) US government Treasury Bills.
  4. Use economic theory to explain why the consumer discretionary sector may be more sensitive than the consumer staples sector to varying incomes across the economic cycle.
  5. Research the point of the economic cycle that the US economy has reached as you read this blog. What is the relationship between bond and equity prices? Which sectors have performed best in the stock market?
Posted on

The economics of ‘greeniums’ in sustainable finance: doing good has a price

Sustainability has become one of the most pressing issues facing society. Patterns of human production and consumption have become unsustainable. On the environmental front, climate change, land-use change, biodiversity loss and depletion of natural resource are destabilising the Earth’s eco-system.

Furthermore, data on poverty, hunger and lack of healthcare show that many people live below minimum social standards. This has led to greater emphasis being placed on sustainable development: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (The Brundtland Report, 1987: Ch.2, para. 1).

The financial system has an important role to play in channelling capital in a more sustainable way. Since current models of finance do not consider the welfare of future generations in investment decisions, sustainable finance has been developed to analyse how investment and lending decisions can manage the trade-off inherent in sustainable development: sacrificing return today to enhance the welfare of future generations.

However, some commentators argue that such trade-offs are not required. They suggest that investors can ‘do well by doing good’. In this blog, I will use ‘green’ bonds (debt instruments which finance projects or activities with positive environmental and social impacts) to explain the economics underpinning sustainable finance and show that doing good has a price that sustainable investors need to be prepared to pay.

I will analyse why investors might not be doing so and point to changes which may be required to ensure financial markets channel capital in a way consistent with sustainable development.

The growth of sustainable finance

Sustainable finance has grown rapidly over the past decade as concerns about climate change have intensified. A significant element of this growth has been in global debt markets.

Figure 1 illustrates the rapid growth in the issuance of sustainability-linked debt instruments since 2012. While issuance fell in 2022 due to concerns about rising inflation and interest rates reducing the real return of fixed-income debt securities, it rebounded in 2023 and is on course for record levels in 2024. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

Green bonds are an asset class within sustainability-linked debt. Such bonds focus on financing projects or activities with positive environmental and social impacts. They are typically classified as ‘use-of-proceeds’ or asset-linked bonds, meaning that the proceeds raised from their issuance are earmarked for green projects, such as renewable energy, clean transportation, and sustainable agriculture. Such bonds should be attractive to investors who want a financial return but also want to finance investments with a positive environmental and/or social impact.

One common complaint from commentators and investors is the ‘greenium’ – the price premium investors pay for green bonds over conventional ones. This premium reduces the borrowing costs of the issuers (the ‘counterparties’) compared to those of conventional counterparties. This produces a yield advantage for issuers of green bonds (price and yield have a negative relationship), reducing their borrowing costs compared to issuers of conventional bonds.

An analysis by Amundi in 2023 using data from Bloomberg estimated that the average difference in yield in developed markets was –2.2 basis points (–0.022 percentage points) and the average in emerging markets was –5.6 basis points (–0.056 percentage points). Commentators and investors suggest that the premium is a scarcity issue and once there are sufficient green bonds, the premium over non-sustainable bonds should disappear.

However, from an economics perspective, such interpretations of the greenium ignore some fundamentals of economic valuation and the incentives and penalties through which financial markets will help facilitate more sustainable development. Without the price premium, investors could buy sustainable debt at the same price as unsustainable debt, earn the same financial return (yield) but also achieve environmental and social benefits for future generations too. Re-read that sentence and if it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is too good to be true.

‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’

In theory, markets are institutional arrangements where demand and supply decisions produce price signals which show where resources are used most productively. Financial markets involve the allocation of financial capital. Traditional economic models of finance ignore sustainability when appraising investment decisions around the allocation of capital. Consequently, such allocations do not tend to be consistent with sustainable development.

In contrast, economic models of sustainable finance do incorporate such impacts of investment decisions and they will be reflected in the valuation, and hence pricing, of financial instruments. Investors, responding to the pricing signals will reallocate capital in a more sustainable manner.

Let’s trace the process. In models of sustainable finance, financial instruments such as green bonds funding investments with positive environmental impacts (such as renewable energy) should be valued more, while instruments funding investments with negative environmental impacts (such as fossil fuels) should be valued less. The prices of the green bonds financing renewable energy projects should rise while the prices of conventional bonds financing fossil-fuel companies should fall.

As this happens, the yield on the green bonds falls, lowering the cost of capital for renewable-energy projects, while yields on the bonds financing fossil-fuel projects rise, ceteris paribus. As with any market, these differential prices act as signals as to where resources should be allocated. In this case, the signals should result in an allocation consistent with sustainable development.

The fundamental point in this economic valuation is that sustainable investors should accept a trade-off. They should pay a premium and receive a lower rate of financial return (yield) for green bonds compared to conventional ones. The difference in price (the greenium), and hence yield, represents the return investors are prepared to sacrifice to improve future generations’ welfare. Investors cannot expect to have the additional welfare benefit for future generations reflected in the return they receive today. That would be double counting. The benefit will accrue to future generations.

A neat way to trace the sacrifice sustainable investors are prepared to make in order to enhance the welfare of future generations is to plot the differences in yields between green bonds and their comparable conventional counterparts. The German government has issued a series of ‘twin’ bonds in recent years. These twins are identical in every respect (coupon, face value, credit risk) except that the proceeds from one will be used for ‘green’ projects only.

Figure 2 shows the difference in yields on a ‘green bond’ and its conventional counterpart, both maturing on 15/8/2050, between June 2021 and July 2024. The yield on the green bond is lower – on average about 2.2 basis points (0.022 percentage points) over the period. This represents the sacrifice in financial return that investors are prepared to trade off for higher environmental and social welfare in the future. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

The yield spread fluctuates through time, reflecting changing perceptions of environmental concerns and hence the changing value that sustainable investors attach to future generations. The spread tends to widen when there are heightened environmental concerns and to narrow when such concerns are not in the news. For example, the spread on the twin German bonds reached a maximum of 0.045 percentage points in November 2021. This coincided with the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. The spread has narrowed significantly since early 2022 as rising interest rates and falling real rates of return on bonds in the near-term seem to have dominated investors’ concerns.

These data suggest that, rather than being too large, the greeniums are too small. The spreads suggest that markets in debt instruments do not seem to attach much value to future generations. The valuation, price and yield of green bonds are not significantly different from their conventional counterparts. This narrow gap indicates insufficient reward for better sustainability impact and little penalty for worse sustainability impact.

This pattern is repeated across financial markets and does not seem to be stimulating the necessary investment to achieve sustainable development. An estimate of the scale of the deficit in green financing is provided by Bloomberg NEF (2024). While global spending on the green energy transition reached $1.8 trillion in 2023, Bloomberg estimates that $4.8 trillion needs to be invested every year for the remainder of this decade if the world is to remain on track under the ‘net zero’ scenario. Investors do not seem to be prepared to accept the trade-off needed to provide the necessary funds.

Can financial markets deliver sustainable development?

Ultimately, the hope is that all financial instruments will be sustainable. In order to achieve that, access to finance would require all investors to incorporate the welfare of future generations in their investment decisions and accept sacrificing sufficient short-term financial return to ensure long-term sustainable development. Unfortunately, the pricing of green bonds suggests that investors are not prepared to accept the trade-off. This restricts the ability of financial markets to deliver an allocation of resources consistent with sustainable development.

There are several reasons why financial markets may not be valuing the welfare of future generations fully.

  • Bounded rationality means that it is difficult for sustainable investors to assign precise values to future and distant benefits.
  • There are no standardised sustainability metrics available. This produces great uncertainty in the valuation of future welfare.
  • Investors also exhibit cognitive biases, which means they may not value the welfare of future generations properly. These include present bias (favouring immediate rewards) and hyperbolic discounting (valuing the near future more than the distant future).
  • Economic models of financial valuation use discount rates to assess the value of future benefits. Higher discount rates reduce the perceived value of benefits occurring in the distant future. As a result, long-term impacts (such as environmental conservation) may be undervalued.
  • There may be large numbers of investors who are only interested in financial returns and so do not consider the welfare of future generations in their investment decisions.

Consequently, investors need to be educated about the extent of trade-offs required to achieve the necessary investments in sustainable development. Furthermore, practical models which better reflect the welfare of future generations in investment decisions need to be employed. However, challenges persist in fully accounting for future generations and it may need regulatory frameworks to provide appropriate incentives for effective sustainable investment.

Articles

Report

Data

Questions

  1. Using demand and supply analysis, illustrate and explain the impact of sustainable investing on the markets for (i) green bonds and (ii) conventional bonds. Highlight how this should produce an allocation of finance capital consistent with sustainable development.
  2. Research the yields on the twin bonds issued by Germany since this blog was published. Can you identify any association between heightened environmental concerns and the spread between the ‘green’ and conventional bond?
  3. Analyse the issues which prevent financial markets from producing the pricing signals which produce an allocation of resources consistent with sustainable development.
  4. Research some potential regulatory policies which may provide appropriate incentives for sustainable investment.
Posted on

The perplexing rally in gold prices

Gold has always held an allure and with the price of gold on international markets trending upwards since October 2022 (see Figure 1: click here for a PowerPoint), people seem to be attracted to it once again. The price reached successively higher peaks throughout 2023 before surging to above $2300 per oz in 2024 and peaking at $2425.31 per oz on 20 May 2024.

While gold tends to become attractive during wartime, economic uncertainty and bouts of inflation, all of which have characterised the last few years, the sustained price rise has perplexed market analysts and economists. The rally had been expected to peter out over the past 20 months. But, as the price of gold rose to sustained higher levels, with no significant reversals, some analysts have speculated that it is not the typical short-term factors which are driving the increased demand for and price of gold but more fundamental changes in the global economic system.

This blog will first discuss the typical short-term factors which influence gold prices before discussing the potential longer-term forces that may be at work.

Short-term factors

So, what are the typical short-term economic forces which drive the demand for gold?

The most significant are the real rates of interest on financial assets. These rates represent the opportunity cost of holding an asset such as gold which offers no income stream. When the real return from financial assets like debt and equity instruments is low, the demand for and price of gold tends to be high. In contrast, when the real return from such assets is high, the price of gold tends to be lower. An explanation for this is that real rates of return are strongly related to inflation rates and investors perceive gold as a hedge against inflation since its price is positively correlated with a general rise in prices. Higher unexpected inflation reduces the real rate of return of securities like debt and equity whose value is derived from cash flows anticipated in the future. In such circumstances, gold become an attractive alternative investment. As inflationary expectations decline, real returns from financial assets should rise, and the demand for gold should fall.

The relationship between real returns, proxied by the yield on US 10-year TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities), and gold prices can be used to examine this explanation. Real returns rose steadily in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the price of gold, which rose during the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, has not fallen. Instead, it has remained at elevated levels for much of that time (see Figure 2: click here for a PowerPoint).

There have been short periods when changes in real returns seemed to have a high correlation with changes in gold prices. In late 2022, for example, falling real rates coincided with rising gold prices. The same pattern was repeated between October and December 2023. However, when real returns rose again in the New Year of 2024, in response to stubbornly higher expected inflation and the expectation of ‘higher-for-longer’ interest rates, particularly in the USA, gold prices continued to rise. Indeed, across the 5-year period the correlation coefficient between the two series is actually positive at 0.268, showing little evidence supporting this explanation for the pattern for the gold price.

Real returns in the USA, however, may not be the correct ones to consider when seeking explanations for the pattern of gold’s price. Much of the recent demand is from China. Analysts suggest that Chinese investors are looking for a safe asset to hold as their economy stagnates and real returns from alternatives, like domestic property and equity, have decreased. Further, there are some concerns that the Chinese currency, the renminbi, may be undervalued in response to the sluggish growth. Holding gold is a good hedge against inflation (currency depreciation produces inflationary pressure). Consequently, the Chinese market may be exerting pricing power in relation to real returns in a way not seen before (see the Dempsey and Leng FT article linked below).

However, some analysts suggest that the rise in price is disproportionate to these short-term factors and point to potential long-term structural changes in the global financial order which may produce significant changes in the market for gold.

Long-term factors

Since 2018, there have been bouts of gold purchasing by central banks around the world. In contrast to the 1990s and 2000s, central banks have been net purchasers since 2010. The purchasing fell back during the coronavirus pandemic but has surged again, with over 1000 metric tonnes purchased in both 2022 and 2023 (see Figure 3: click here for a PowerPoint).

Analysts have pointed to similarities between the recent pattern and central bank purchases of gold during the late 1960s and early 1970s (see The Conversation article linked below). Then, central banks sought to diversify themselves from dollar-denominated assets due to concerns about higher inflation in the USA and its impact on the value of the US dollar. Under the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, central banks could redeem dollars for gold from the US Federal Reserve at a fixed rate. The pressure on the USA to redeem the gold led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system.

While the current period of central bank purchases does not appear to be related to expected inflation, some commentators suggest it could signal a regime change in the global financial system as significant as the collapse of Bretton Woods. The rise of Chinese political power and the resurgence of US isolationist tendencies portend an increasingly multipolar geopolitical scene. Such concerns may cause central bankers to diversify away from dollar denominated assets to avoid being caught out by geopolitical tensions. Gold may be perceived as an asset through which investors can hedge that risk better.

Indeed, the rise in demand among Chinese investors may indicate a reluctance to hold US assets due to their risk of seizure during heightened geopolitical tensions between China and the USA. Chinese holdings of US financial assets as a percentage of GDP are back to the level they were  when the country joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001 (see the Rana Foroohar FT article linked below). Allied to this is an increasing tendency to repatriate gold bullion from centres such as London and New York.

Added to these worries about geopolitical risk are concerns about traditional safe-haven assets – government debt securities. US government budget deficits and debt levels continue to rise. Similar patterns are observed across many developed market economies (DMEs). Analysts are concerned such debts are reaching unsustainable levels (economist.com). The view is that at some point, perhaps soon, a tipping point will be reached where investors recognise this. They will demand higher rates of return on these government debt securities, pushing yields up and prices down (bond yields and prices have a negative relationship).

In expectation of this, investors may be wary of holding such government debt securities and move to hold gold as an alternative safe-haven asset to avoid potential capital losses. However, there has been no sign of this behaviour in bond prices and yields yet.

Finally, there are economists who argue that the increased demand for gold is caused by a different regime-change in the global economy. This is not one driven by geopolitics, but by changing inflationary expectations – from a low-inflation, low-interest-rate environment to a higher-inflation, higher-interest-rate environment.

Some of the anticipation relating to inflation is derived from the persistent fiscal stimulus, evidenced by the higher government debt levels described above, coupled with the long period of monetary stimulus (quantitative easing) in developed market economies during the 2010s.

Further, some economists highlight the substantial capital investment needed for the green transition and reindustrialisation. While the financing for this capital investment may absorb some of the excess money flowing around financial markets, the scale involved will create a great demand for resources, fuelling inflation and raising the cost of capital as borrowers compete for resources.

Finally, the demographic forces from an aging population will also cause inflationary pressures. Rising dependency ratios across many developed market economics will create shortages, particularly of labour. This persistent scarcity of labour will continually drive up wages and prices, fuelling inflation and the demand for gold.

Conclusion

The recent surge in the price of gold has led to great interest by investors, financial market analysts and economists. At first, there was a perception that the price increase was similar to recent history and driven by short-term decreases in the real rate of return from financial assets, which reduced the opportunity cost of holding gold.

However, as the upward trend in the price of gold has persisted and does not seem to be explained by changes in real interest rates, economists have considered other reasons that might signal longer-term significant changes in the global financial system. These relate to changing geopolitical risk derived from an increasingly multipolar environment, concerns about the sustainability of government debt levels and expectations of persistently higher inflation in the world economy.

Only time will tell whether these explanations prove correct. If inflationary pressures subside, particularly in the USA, and if real returns from financial assets rebound, a decrease in the demand for and price of gold will suggest that the previous rise was driven by short-term forces.

If prices don’t fall back, it will only fuel the debate that it is a sign of significant changes in the global financial order.

Articles

Speech

Data

  • Gold

    • Trading Economics

Questions

  1. Explain the relationship between real returns and inflation for financial securities like debt and equity.
  2. Why is gold perceived to be an effective hedge against inflation?
  3. Contrast the factors which influenced the demand for gold in the period which preceded the end of Bretton Woods with those influencing demand now?
  4. What has happened to the price of gold since this blog was published? Is there any evidence for the profound changes in the global economic order suggested or was it the short-term forces driving demand after all?