Showing posts with label Repo Market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Repo Market. Show all posts

Thursday, September 7, 2017

"We've Never Seen Anything Like This": Repo Market Snaps As 10Y Suffers "Epic Fail"

It"s been a while since we saw any major dislocations in the Treasury repo market, i.e., collateral shortages as a result of surging TSY shorts, for the simple reason that after the first quarter when everyone was certain that Trump reflation trade would kick in but didn"t, the record number of built up spec net shorts got trampled by the rising price, rapidly shifting over to record longs.


However, the peace and quiet quiet in the repo market was shattered this week, when almost overnight the 10Y went from "normal" in repo, at a rate of 0.50% on Friday, to a special -2.00% on Monday, and then a Super Special, if not record, "fails rate" of -3.50% this morning.


Commenting on this dramatic move in 10Y repo rates, Stone McCarthy"s Alan Chernoff, in a note titled "Epic Fail", writes that "the 10-year note has been below the fails rate and shows no signs of moving! It opened at -350 basis points, and though pressure has eased off of it slightly, it is STILL below the fails rate at -300 basis points."



As a reminder, the fails rate is the 300 basis points below the lower end of the target fed funds rate, putting it at -200 basis points currently. And, if an issue falls below the fails rate, it becomes cheaper to just pay the fails charge of 200 basis points rather than deliver than issue, which is what is happening. In dollar terms, the agency repo fails nominal was at $131BN on  Sept. 6 vs $153.6 BN on Sept. 5, above the 5-DMA $90.7b, according to DTCC data.


To be sure, some firms that want to maintain good client relationships will likely want to deliver the trade at such a low rate, although it appears that not many are rushing to do so.


As Bloomberg writes, confirming what we have said repeatedly in the past 3 years when we commented on these sudden repo market dislocations, the "specialness is due to lack of supply as shorts roll from triple-issued old 10Y into single issue current 10Y."


No matter the reason, Chernoff observes that he has never seen a move quite like this and that "this is one of the lowest rates that we"ve ever seen the 10-year note repo trade at, and definitely the furthest below the fails rate."


One final observations: while even term 10-year repos are below the fails charge at -215 basis points, the 3-year note is only modestly tight at 65 basis points, while and most other issues are trading near GC.



Some final parting words: keep a close eye on the 10Y - a positioning move of this magnitude does not take place in a vacuum, and either "someone knows something" or another busload of specs is about to be crushed once more.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

About That Debt Ceiling Crisis...

With just one month left until the "X Date", better known as the first day on which Treasury has exhausted its borrowing authority and no longer has sufficient funds to pay all of its bills in full and on time, and also known as the date the US is technically in default on its debt obligations and would be forced to prioritize debt payments according to that infamous 2011 Fed transcript...



... traders were hoping if not for resolution, then at least a modest dose of optimism in the days ahead: after all with Houston reeling, the last thing the US needs is a full government shutdown in addition to the emergency crisis in Texas.


Alas, that"s precisely the opposite of what is taking place in the market, where the September/October Bill Spread has again blown out to record levels...



... making the October T-Bill "hump" the worst it has been yet.



One potential catalyst for the spike in odds of an adverse outcome is that earlier today, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said aid for victims of Hurricane Harvey should not be part of a vehicle to raise the debt ceiling.


Quoted by The Hill, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump ally who leads the conservative caucus, said disaster aid should pass on its own, apart from separate measures the government must pick up in September to raise the nation"s borrowing limit and fund the government.


“The Harvey relief would pass on its own, and to use that as a vehicle to get people to vote for a debt ceiling is not appropriate,” he said an interview with The Washington Post, signaling agreement with Trump on the approach. It would “send the wrong message” to add $15 to $20 billion of spending while increasing the debt ceiling, Meadows added.


Ironically, it was precisely the Harvey disaster that prompted Goldman yesterday to lower its odds of a debt ceiling crisis from 50% to 33%, on the assumption that it would make conseratives more agreeable to a compromise, when in fact precisely the opposite appears to have happened, and the new dynamic is now playing out in the market where the odds of a government shutdown have never been greater.


So what does it mean for the US if the T-Bill market is correct and a debt ceiling deal is not reached in time over the next 30 or so days? For an unpleasant perspective on what may happen next, here is Deutsche Bank"s preview of what a debt ceiling crisis would look like:





Guide to a Debt Ceiling Crisis



If Congress doesn’t act in time and the above fallbacks are deemed untenable, the Treasuries with affected principal or coupon payments would likely be handled in two ways, according to scenarios considered by SIFMA. The first option would extend maturity and coupon payments, where payment decisions are explicitly announced by Treasury one day at a time, and both coupon and principal payments are ultimately made in full once the debt limit is raised. These securities would be able to be transferred normally, and a market for them would develop. While the security is not “defaulted” as its maturity date has been extended in systems, the extension would likely constitute a change in terms that triggers CDS.



The other outcome would a failure pay , where Treasury does not set a date for future payment, and there is no pre-announcement (or it comes last minute). A failure to pay would mean the affected securities drop off the Fed system and cannot be transferred normally. A market would eventually develop, but once there is a failure to pay and the securities are not extended in systems, they cannot be “unmatured” and maturity extended.



Regardless of whether it is a payment extension or a failure to pay, the longer Treasury remains in default, the worse the situation for financial markets. Market reactions and market functioning might be comparatively stable at first, but the concern is of widespread panic and systemic market disruptions.



As for immediate ramifications, noted that CDS would likely triggered either default scenario , as sovereign CDS is triggered by either a failure to pay, repudiation/moratorium, or a restructuring. A failure to pay occurs when a sovereign doesn’t pay principal or interest when due, with a 3 day grace period applying to that due date in the case of the US. In our view, a CDS trigger would apply to all debt obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the US government (including GNMA, FHA securities, etc.). A CDS event is unlikely to have much direct market impact, however, as net CDS exposure is a modest $1bn as of the end of July, down from about $4bn in 2013 and its peak near $6bn in 2011. As long there is no one particular bank that is overly short protection, we do not expect any knock-on CDS event. 5y CDS is currently suggesting no real concern, sitting at the bottom end of its 19-24bp ytd range. While the supply of deliverable securities is more than adequate to satisfy the outstanding contracts, demand deliverable bonds may cause distortions . The 2.25% Aug 2046 bonds are currently the cheapest-to-deliver into the CDS, and would likely trade upward in price towards recovery value.



Among Treasury market investors, money market funds are a key group possible propagation risk . Even after money fund reform, government funds continue to be quoted at a stable $1 NAV, leaving them vulnerable to perceptions around “breaking the buck,” and therefore large scale investor redemptions in an extreme scenario. Treasuries accounted for $678bn of money funds $2.7tn AUM as of the end of July, while Treasury repo makes up another $595bn (with about $150bn of that made up by RRP’s with the Fed). Money funds’ Treasury holdings tend to be concentrated in securities maturing in the first month – more than 40% of their Treasuries held at the end of July matured in August. This suggests that the bias will be for money funds to accumulate more securities maturing around the debt ceiling, though they may be cautious around specific issues. However, it’s worth noting that they then owned over $40bn combined in the October 5 bills, October 12 bills, and October 15 coupon maturities – more than 20% of the amount  outstanding. Of the $1.3tn of Treasuries (bills and coupons) that mature between October and mid-January, money funds own about 19% - potentially an important factor in the event that a default drags out. Also note that maturing notes and bill holdings are concentrated in a relatively few fund families.



Potential outflows from money funds has implications repo market . Possible forced selling of Treasuries, money funds would likely cut back on their provision of financing to banks through repo. While reforms have reduced banks’ reliance on short term funding and put them in a place to better withstand a significant reduction in availability of things like repo funding, a sharp contraction in overall repo financing would likely have ramifications for market functioning and liquidity.



In terms of market plumbing, given the reliance Treasuries managing credit risk derivatives , a default event could spread quickly to derivatives market via a sudden drop in the valuation of UST collateral. This loss in value would trigger calls for additional collateral, and given the widespread use of UST’s, it is possible that a number of market participants fail to post sufficient collateral; this would constitute a default in a centrally cleared trade. The requirement that the surviving counterparty replace the risk of that trade could subsequently result in a major revaluation of all related trades, triggering new collateral calls, and potentially create a vicious cycle.





How might the Fed might react to a major disruption?



The question is complicated by a possible reinvestment decision in the September meeting, but extracting that for the time being, there is nothing immediately apparent in the Federal Reserve Act that would preclude the Fed from purchasing defaulted Treasury securities. This would likely not be a proactive step, as the Fed would not want to be seen “bailing out” the Treasury, but given the extremity of a default situation, the Fed would be governed by its financial stability mandate.



The Fed could intervene by removing defaulted securities from the market and sell or repo non-defaulted issues to provide the market with good collateral. Additional emergency facilities similar to those seen in 2008 are another option wherein the Fed could support money funds by accepting their assets and providing liquidity. To the extent that liquidity concerns became extreme the Fed could obviously move to add further monetary accommodation especially if it perceived knock on effects to the growth and inflation outlook.


Friday, March 31, 2017

China Manufacturing PMI Jumps To Five Year High

China"s reflation story (on the back of a record amount of debt created last year) was put on display on Friday morning when both the Chinese manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMI rose more than expected, with the Manufacturing PMI rising to a level not seen since April 2012. According to the NBS, China"s Mfg PMI rose from 51.6 to 51.8 in March, the highest in almost five years, and above the 51.7 consensus estimate, while the non-manufacturing PMI also jumped, rising from 54.2 to 55.1, the highest in two years.


The National Bureau of Statistics reported that New Orders rose from 53.0 to 53.3 while new export orders rose to 51, the highest since early 2012. Broken by firm size, the state-measured PMI showed largest enterprises were the strongest at 53.3, followed by medium-sized companies, while small firms remained in contraction at 48.6. Perhaps the most notable internal metric was the employment index, which hit the 50 level for the first time since May 2012, marking the first time the manufacturing sector has not lost jobs in nearly 5 years.


As the chart below shows, the catalyst for the move higher has been the recent surge in producer prices, which have soared as much as 7% Y/Y on the back of soaring commodity prices; both have since peaked and it is expected that in the coming months, China"s inflationary pressures will subside especially given the recent efforst by Beijing to reign in out of control credit, especially shadow, issuance.



A subindex for construction activity rose in March for the first time since the start of the year, hitting 60.5. As a reminder, and as Deutsche Bank explained two weeks ago, the only thing that matters for both China, and the rest of the world, is making sure China"s housing bubble, as explained in "Why The Fate Of The World Economy Is In The Hands Of China"s Housing Bubble," does not burst.


"The first quarter is off to a good start," said Wang Qiufeng, an analyst at China Chengxin International Credit Rating in Beijing, quoted by Bloomberg. "The upbeat momentum may last through the first half of this year, as the government is pushing investment."


“The fact that the real strength is with the non-manufacturing PMI suggests that there’s fundamentally a good story going on here,” said James Laurenceson, deputy director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology in Sydney. “Manufacturing is where you’d expect to see the effects of stimulus showing up.”


So is China worried by the potential inflationary signals carried by today"s PMI prints? Oh yes, which is why the PBOC did not conduct a reverse repo liquidity injection for the sixth consecutive day, saying in a statement that the liquidity level if "relatively high" despite traditional month-end liquidity demands; as a result in the past 6 days, the PBOC has now drained some 320 billion yuan from the banking system.


In recent days this has led to a sharp move higher in various repo tenors, most notably the benchmark 7-Day repo, which on Thursday fell w bps to 2.81%, but has jumped sharply in the past week as interbank funding problems have emerged, leading to the biggest drop in months in the Shanghai composite index overnight. Keep an eye on the the repo market in Friday"s session for any acute liquidity shortages, especially since China"s onshore market is closed on Monday and Tuesday.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

German 2Y Yields Hit All-Time Lows As ECB Fails To Fix Record Collateral Shortage

When the ECB announced last week that it would expand the universe of eligible collateral for use by Eurozone institutions to include up to €50 billion in cash cash, it - and the market - hoped that the severe collateral shortage manifesting itself in an unprecedented squeeze in the repo market would be alleviated. As a reminder, last Thursday the ECB Governing Council decided that Eurosystem central banks will have the possibility to also accept cash as collateral in their PSPP securities lending (SL) facilities without having to reinvest it in a cash-neutral manner.


The ECB added that "the introduction of cash as collateral in the context of PSPP securities lending is intended to enhance the effectiveness of the SL framework, thereby supporting the smooth implementation of the PSPP as well as the euro area repo market liquidity and functioning. "


Following the news, 2Year Bunds quickly sold off last Thursday, with the yield rising by 6 bps to start, as suddenly it makes more sense to park cash with the ECB than to be penalized by -0.7% to hold German short-term debt.


However, it was not meant to last, and less than a week later, even with overall Eurogroup liquidity hitting new all time highs earlier this week, German 2Y yields fell as much as 2.9bps to all time low of -0.773% as repo pressures continue to support the front-end, Bloomberg reported citing two traders.



The traders added that the €50 billion in securities lending put forward by the ECB are seen as not enough, with structural issues remaining, exacerbated by year-end window dressing.


Additionally, a second trader added that some dealers prefer not to trade with the Bundesbank, due to higher failure fees.


Curiously, while Schatz futures rise to all time high of 112.275, downside continues to be bought in options, says a third trader based in London with a buyer again emerging in Feb. Schatz 112.00/111.90 put spread, 17k trades at 1 tick.


Should the collateral squeeze continue, the ECB may be forced to unveil further intervention mechanisms, as well as additional jawboning by Mario Draghi, potentially before the next scheduled ECB council meeting, especially if the year-end repo shortage drives 2Y yields meaningfully lower.