présentation powerpoint - no slide title
TRANSCRIPT
1
15th World Congress of the International Economic Association
Sovereign Debt Crises through the Prism of Primary Bond
Market
Sebastian Nieto ParraSciences Po Paris, Chaire Finances
InternationalesOECD Development Centre
Istanbul, June 2008
2
Motivation• Inefficiency in sovereign bond markets
Asymmetries of information between capital markets’ actors
• Behaviour and interactions between the three
major actors of the Sovereign Bond Market :GovernmentsInvestment banks/lead managersInvestors
• It concerns the advantage of information that investment banks may have over investors.
3
Motivation
Governments Investment Banks
Investors
feePt
)( tTPC )( tt PCP tT
P
Where:
T: Maturity date
t: Issue date
C: Commission paid by investors to Investment banks
P: Price of the sovereign bond (Financial transaction that
it is the counterparty of the transfer of the security).
fee : Underwriting spread paid by governments to investment banks
TP
Structure of the Prices in the Sovereign Bond Market
4
Motivation• Primary and secondary sovereign bond markets
provide important information concerning risk perception of capital markets’ actors
Risk perception of investors can be measured by theSovereign bond spreads on the primary and secondary market
Risk perception of investment banks can be measured by the remuneration that governments pay to investment banks in order to place bonds (i.e., underwriting fee)
5
Review of the literature• Information problems in the emerging sovereign
bond market - Flores (2007), and Flandreau and Flores (2007): Historical point of view.
Role of underwriters as providers of information for investors.- Nieto-Parra and Santiso (2007): Positive recommendations given by
Investment Banks when they are acting as Lead Managers.- Edwards (1997): Information pb between Wall Street analysts and their
clients during the Mexican crisis of 1994- Blustein (2003): Conflict of interest with which Investment banks are
faced during the Argentinean crisis of 2001.
- Calomiris (2003): Cooperation between research and origination departments.
They are not followed by a systematic analysis of the structureof the primary bond market. Information problems for the recent sovereign debt crises.
6
Review of the literature• Vast and relevant research literature on the
primary corporate bond market
1 Literature related to the determinants of the underwriting fee:
- West (1967), Sorensen (1979), Higgins and Moore (1980), Kryzanowski et al. (1996), Lee et al. (1996), Altinkihc and Hansen (2000), How and Yeo (2000), Livingston and Miller (2000), Kollo and Sharpe (2002), Livingston and Zhou (2002) and Hua-Fang, (2005)
Credit risk and profitability indicators are explanatory variables of the underwriting fee.
2 Relationship between the primary market and the recommendations given by underwriters:
- Lin and McNichols (1998), Chen and Ritter (2000), Ljungqvist et al. (2006), Bradley et al. (2003), and Michaely and Womack (1999).
7
Description of the data• Period: 1993-2006• Frequency: Annual• 29 Countries: EMBI Index (JP Morgan) and countries for
whom we have information on underwriting feeArgentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam.
1 Structure of the primary bond market (Underwriting fee and Primary sovereign bond spread):Standard issues: (i) ISIN reference number
(ii) Coupon rate is not float (iii) Currency denomination (EUR, JPY,
USD) (iv) No guarantee for the issue
8
Description of the data427 issues (67% denominated in USD, 28% in EUR and 5% in JPY)
Annual average of the underwriting fee and primary sovereign bond spread of the emerging countries
2 Secondary Sovereign bond spread (EMBI Index,
JPMorgan)
3 Information received by investors from investment banks concerning the primary bond marketwe collect the major investment banks’ publications published by the most important financial actors in emerging countries.
9
Sovereign Debt Crises• Standard definition employed mostly on the “early warning
models”, a country is defined to be in a debt crisis if:1. It is classified as being in default by Standard & Poor’s (S&P’s) ,
OR2. It receives a large non-concessional IMF loan defined in excess of
100 percent of quota.
A variety of crises:1. S&P’s default: two groups depending on the restructuring case (Pre-emptive
and post-default)2. IMF loans: two groups depending on the vulnerability of public sector (i.e.,
risk of default of sovereign bonds).
10
Sovereign Debt Crises
Brazil (August 2001)
Turkey (Dec. 2000)*
Brazil (Dec. 1998)*
Mexico (Feb 1995)*
Thailand (Aug.1997)*
Indonesia (Nov. 1997)*
SOVEREIGN DEBT CRISES
Pre-emptive No PBVPost defaultPublic Bonds
DEFAULT (S&P's definition) IMF large package
Argentina (Nov. 2001)*
Ecuador (Sept. 1999)
Vulnerabilities (PBV)
Ukraine (Sept. 1998)*
Dom. Rep. (Feb. 2005)*
Uruguay (May 2003)*
Pakistan (Jan. 1999)
Russia (August 1998)*
Note: * denotes countries that experienced also a currency crisis during the 12 months prior and following the sovereign debt crisis. See next section for the definition of currency crises.
Sovereign Risk Countries
11
HypothesisEfficiency of the sovereign bond market
Market inefficiencies can arise when information is often asymmetrically held by market participants.
• In order to test market inefficiency in the emerging sovereign bond market, the null hypotheses used are the following:
Hypothesis 1: Prior to sovereign debt crises, investors are not perfectly informed on the quality of the sovereign bonds issued by risk countries. By contrast, investment banks observed this risk before the onset of crises.
Hypothesis 2: This asymmetric information is above all present in sovereign risk countries exposed with high public finances difficulties.
12
HypothesisEfficiency of the sovereign bond market
These hypotheses are validated when :
H1: Prior to sovereign bond crises investment banks demand a high underwriting fee for “bad” countries with respect to the sovereign bond spread priced by investors for these countries.
H2: By differentiating among sovereign debt crises, we note this effect is above all existent on countries that present sovereign risk difficulties.
13
Stylized Facts
Fee vs. Primary Sovereign Bond Spread(T is the crisis entry)
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3
Source: The author based on Dealogic, 2007
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Fee Average (%)
Primary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
Fee vs. Secondary Sovereign Bond Spread(T is the crisis entry)
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3
Source: The author based on Dealogic and Datasteram, 2007
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Fee Average (%)
Secondary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
Fees and Sovereign Bond Spreads during Crises
(Annual Basis)
14
Stylized FactsFees and Sovereign Bond Spreads
during different types of Crises
Fee vs. Sovereign Bond SpreadsPost default and IMF Package Public Bonds Vul. cases(T is the crisis entry)
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3
Source: The author based on Dealogic and Datasteram, 2007
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
Fee Average (%)
Primary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
Secondary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
Fee vs. Sovereign Bond SpreadsPre-emptive and IMF Package No Public Bonds Vul. Cases (T is the crisis entry)
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3
Source: The author based on Dealogic and Datasteram, 2007
-100
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
Fee Average (%)
Primary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
Secondary Sovereign BondSpread Average (bp; rhs)
No Sovereign Risk CountriesSovereign Risk Countries
15
Stylized FactsUnderwriting and Primary Sovereign Bond Spreads
1993-2006 (Annual basis)
Viet. Ven.
Ven.
Ven.
Ven.
Ven.
Ven.
Ven.
Urug.
Urug.
Urug.
Urug.
Urug.Urug.
Urug.
Urug.
Urug.
Urug. Urug.
Uk.
TurkeyTurkey
Turkey
Turkey
TurkeyTurkey
Turkey
Turkey(T-1)
Turkey(T-2)
Turkey(T-3)
Turkey Turkey
Turkey
Thai.
Thai.
S.AfricaS.Africa
S.Africa
S.Africa
S.Africa
S.Africa
S.Africa
S.Africa
Rus.Rus.(T-1)
Rus.(T-2)
P ol.P ol.
P ol.
P ol.P ol.
P ol.
P ol.
P ol.
P hilip.P hilip.
P hilip.P hilip.
P hilip.
P hilip.
P hilip.
P hilip.P hilip.
P hilip.
P eru P eru P eru
P eru
P an.
P an.P an.
P an.
P an.
P an.
P an.
P an.
P an.
P ak.
P ak.
Mor.Mor.
Mex.
Mex.
Mex.Mex.
Mex.
Mex.
Mex.
Mex.
Mex. Mex.
Mex.
Mex.(T-2)
Mal.Mal.
Mal.
Leb.Leb.
Leb.Leb.
Leb.Leb.Leb.
Leb.Leb.Leb.
Ind.Ind.
Ind.
Hung.
Hung.Hung.
Hung.
Hung.
Hung.
El Sal.
El Sal.
El Sal.
El Sal.Egypt
Ecu.
Dom.Rep.
Col.
Col. Col.
Col.
Col.
Col.
Col.
Col.
Col.
Col.Col.
Col.
China
ChinaChinaChina
ChinaChina
China
China
China
China ChileChile
ChileChile
Bul. Bul.
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil(T-1)
Brazil(T-2)
Arg.
Arg.(T-1)
Arg.(T-2)
Arg.(T-3)
Arg.
Arg.
Arg.
Arg.
Arg.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Fee (%)
Primary Bond Spread (bp.)
16
Econometric analysis
where is the underwriting spread received by investment banks from country i in period t, is the sovereign bond spread (i.e., primary or secondary bond spreads) and it is taken in basis points (bp) is a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 for countries placed prior to the onset of a sovereign debt crisis (between T-3 and T-1) and 0 otherwise. is defined as the product of SBS and crisis is a time dummy variable.
itiitititit TSBScrisiscrisisSBSfee 54321
itfee
itSBS
itcrisis
itSBScrisis
iT
OLS and Fixed Time Effect estimation
17
Econometric analysis
Dependent variable: Fee
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Primary Sovereign Bond Spread (SBS ) 0.000342*** 0.000257** 0.000289** 0.000343*** 0.000356*** 0.000219* 0.000274** 0.000264** 0.000280**(2.65) (2.12) (2.30) (2.65) (2.72) (1.84) (2.27) (2.31) (2.40)
Sovereign Debt Crises (crisis ) 0.35750*** 0.52239***(5.25) (2.78)
No Public Bond Difficulties (crisis ) 0.01504 0.23692(0.10) (0.75)
Public Bond Difficulties (crisis ) 0.44217*** 0.94235***(5.92) (3.83)
Public Bond Difficulties and Currency crises (crisis ) 0.57120*** 0.75583***(6.92) (2.86)
Interactive dummy (SBScrisis ) - 0.00043 - 0.00083 - 0.00121** - 0.00048(-0.94) (-0.80) (2.13) (-0.74)
Cons 0.45246*** 0.43965*** 0.42969*** 0.45192*** 0.44771*** 0.45241*** 0.43558*** 0.44014*** 0.43538***(9.64) (10.07) (9.56) (9.54) (9.38) (10.57) (10.11) (10.59) (10.34)
N (Observations) 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170
Adjusted R-squared 0.0345 0.1665 0.1659 0.0288 0.0267 0.1974 0.2141 0.2449 0.2429t-statistics are in parentheses denoting *** 1%, ** 5% and * 10% significance.
(1993 - 2006) Annual Data
Undewriting Fee, Primary Sovereign Bond Spread and Soveregn Debt Crisis
1. An increase of 100 bp of the bond spread only implies an increase of 0,03 per cent of the underwriting fee. 2. H1: On average prior to crisis, countries paid 0,52 per cent of extra fee. This variable is statistically significant at 1 per cent. 3. H2: When we take into account ONLY sovereign risk countries, the fixed cost that these countries have to pay to investment banks is high (0,94 per cent of the proceeds).
18
Econometric analysis
Dependent variable: Fee
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IXPrimary Sovereign Bond Spread (SBS ) 0.000432*** 0.00039*** 0.000409*** 0.000432*** 0.000434*** 0.000363*** 0.000391*** 0.00037** 0.000369**
(4.80) (4.43) (4.52) (4.76) (4.75) (4.12) (4.43) (4.53) (4.47)Sovereign Debt Crises (crisis ) 0.16648*** 0.27861***
(3.41) (2.07)No Public Bond Difficulties (crisis ) -0.00047 0.04411
(-0.00) (0.21)Public Bond Difficulties (crisis ) 0.21430*** 0.55234***
(3.92) (3.09)Public Bond Difficulties and Currency crises (crisis ) 0.35271*** 0.34053*
(6.14) (1.84)Interactive dummy (SBScrisis ) - 0.00029 - 0.000167 - 0.00082** 0.00003
(-0.90) (-0.24) (-1.99) (0.07)Year 1994 (T ) -0.9252 -0.07063 -0.06250 -0.09253 -0.09244 -0.06503 -0.03976 -0.04496 -0.04580
(-0.90) (-0.71) (-0.62) (-0.90) (-0.89) (-0.66) (-0.40) (-0.48) (-0.49)Year 1995 (T ) 0.05713 0.07884 0.08710 0.05713 0.05723 0.08433 0.10972 0.10443 0.10360
(0.51) (0.72) (0.79) (0.51) (0.50) (0.78) (1.02) (1.03) (1.01)Year 1996 (T ) -0.04233 -0.06515 -0.06891 -0.04230 -0.04477 -0.05266 -0.04397 -0.05786 -0.05822
(-0.45) (-0.72) (-0.76) (-0.45) (-0.47) (-0.59) (-0.50) (-0.69) (-0.69)Year 1997 (T ) 0.12083 0.09848 0.10391 0.12082 0.12091 0.09144 0.10221 0.09809 0.09776
(1.37) (1.15) (1.21) (1.37) (1.36) (1.08) (1.22) (1.24) (1.23)Year 1998 (T ) -0.08482 -0.09683 -0.08744 -0.08482 -0.08509 -0.09817 -0.07146 -0.08453 -0.08567
(-0.92) (-1.08) (-0.97) (-0.92) (-0.92) (-1.11) (-0.81) (-1.02) (-1.01)Year 1999 (T ) -0.19399** -0.19972** -0.18354** -0.1940** -0.19417** -0.20** -0.15432** -0.18498** -0.18644**
(-2.19) (-2.33) (-2.10) (-2.19) (-2.18) (-2.36) (-1.78) (-2.33) (-2.26)Year 2000 (T ) -0.18536** -0.19484** -0.18598** -0.18533** -0.18568** -0.18138** -0.14753** -0.15657** -0.15747*
(-2.08) (-2.26) (-2.14) (-2.06) (-2.06) (-2.12) (-1.71) (-1.95) (-1.93)Year 2001 (T ) -0.39163*** -0.37188*** -0.36895*** -0.39160*** -0.39221*** -0.35394*** -0.33286*** -0.33485*** -0.33558***
(-4.61) (-4.51) (-4.47) (-4.58) (-4.57) (-4.32) (-4.07) (-4.35) (-4.31)Year 2002 (T ) -0.39932*** -0.38363*** -0.37610*** -0.39928*** -0.39633*** -0.35917*** -0.33910*** -0.34031*** -0.34102***
(-4.32) (-4.29) (-4.18) (-4.29) (-4.21) (-4.04) (-3.82) (-4.07) (-4.04)Year 2003 (T ) -0.52629*** -0.49944*** -0.49357*** -0.52630*** -0.52643*** -0.49063*** -0.46871*** -0.47134*** -0.47209***
(-5.96) (-5.82) (-5.73) (-5.94) (-5.92) (-5.77) (-5.52) (-5.90) (-5.84)Year 2004 (T ) -0.55142*** -0.52708*** -0.52006*** -0.55142*** -0.55144*** -0.51988*** -0.49627*** -0.50020*** -0.50099***
(-6.26) (-6.16) (-6.05) (-6.24) (-6.22) (-6.14) (-5.86) (-6.28) (-6.21)Year 2005 (T ) -0.55111*** -0.5280*** -0.52042*** -0.55111*** -0.55110*** -0.52160*** -0.49716*** -0.50172*** -0.50253***
(-6.11) (-6.03) (-5.91) (-6.09) (-6.07) (-6.02) (-5.73) (-6.16) (-6.08)Year 2006 (T ) -0.57220*** -0.55153*** -0.54283*** -0.57220*** -0.57206*** -0.54671*** -0.52062*** -0.52645*** -0.52730***
(-5.89) (-5.85) (-5.73) (-5.87) (-5.85) (-5.87) (-5.58) (-6.00) (-5.94)Cons 0.69821*** 0.68617*** 0.67354*** 0.69822*** 0.69767*** 0.68696*** 0.65501*** 0.66533*** 0.66631***
(9.07) (9.21) (8.87) (9.04) (9.00) (9.32) (8.76) (9.59) (9.38)
N (Observations) 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170
Adjusted R-squared 0.5980 0.6238 0.6234 0.5954 0.5929 0.6320 0.6390 0.6750 0.6729t-statistics are in parentheses denoting *** 1%, ** 5% and * 10% significance.
Undewriting Fee, Primary Sovereign Bond Spread and Soveregn Debt Crisis
(1993 - 2006) Annual Data
19
Fee and financial markets’ actors
1. Availability of this information:Bloomberg and Dealogic
However it is not accessible at the day of the issue:According to a member team of Dealogic at the end of 2007 “for about 80
% of large deals (more than US$200m equivalent) we should have the fee within 1 day”.
Impact on secondary market prices…
2. Do investors concern themselves with underwriting fees?
Questionnaire to investors in Wall Street
(Alliance Bernstein, Alliance Capital, Fidelity, GE Asset Management, GMO, Goldman, Invesco and Western Asset)
20
Fee and financial markets’ actors
Seven investors of the eight interviewed argue that underwriting fee is of no concern in investment decisions. Moreover they do not perceive underwriting fee as a good indicator of credit risk.
3. Investment banks’ publications on emerging sovereign bond markets.12 investment banks covering the period 1997-2007 ABN
AMRO, Barclays Capital, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Kleinwort
Wasserstein, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley.
Underwriting fee is not a piece of information given by investment banks to institutional investors.
21
Fee and financial markets’ actors
4. Why, therefore, do investors not pay attention to the evolution of underwriting fees?
This is puzzling in that useful, publicly available information is not tracked by investors to help improve allocation of their emerging market fixed income assets.
22
Conclusions1. investment banks price sovereign default risk well before crises and
even before investors. This result suggests that investment banks hold an information advantage over investors
2. Investment banks’ behaviour differs depending on the type of sovereign debt crisis. Before crises investment banks charged a higher underwriting fee to countries presenting public bond vulnerabilities with respect to other sovereign crises.
3. There is a puzzle in that it appears that investors are not using potentially useful (and public) information in order to allocate efficiently their portfolios.