Global Money Notes #30: Singularity
Global Money Notes #30: Singularity
Important Information
THIS IS NOT RESEARCH. PLEASE REFER TO THE IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES AND CONTACT YOUR CREDIT SUISSE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR MORE DETAILS. This report represents the views of the Investment Strategy Department of Credit Suisse and
has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. It is not a
product of the Credit Suisse Research Department and the view of the Investment Strategy Department may differ materially from the views
of the Credit Suisse Research Department and other divisions at Credit Suisse, even if it references published research recommendations.
Credit Suisse has a number of policies in place to promote the independence of Credit Suisse’s Research Departments from Credit Suisse’s
Investment Strategy-and other departments and to manage conflicts of interest, including policies relating to dealing ahead of the
dissemination of investment research. These policies do not apply to the views of Investment Strategists contained in this report.
14 May 2020
During phase three, which began mid-April, just when we published our previous issue,
Libor-OIS went into a freefall: during the last two weeks of April Libor-OIS fell 62 bps.
The freefall had two drivers: the dynamics from the second phase gathering momentum
– as expected – and big inflows to prime money market funds – which came unexpected.
Falling FX swap implied costs of dollar funding – a combination of small increases in local
EURIBOR-OIS and Libor-OIS spreads and big declines in FX swap implied yields –
combined with big inflows to prime money market funds quickly changed the dynamics in
U.S. unsecured funding markets. Inflows to prime funds during the last two weeks of April
brought marginal liquidity back to the U.S. dollar CD/CP markets, and foreign banks used
falling FX swap implied costs of dollar funding as leverage to extract low rates from
prime money market funds – foreign banks went from being price takers in late March,
to being price makers by mid-April. Over the course of one month, the CD/CP market
went from trading around 2.5% in late March to trading around 50 bps by the end of April.
Figures 7, 8 and 10 show how the constellation of U.S. dollar funding/lending rates
changed as we transitioned from the first to the second phase, and where we are today.
Figure 7 shows the global dollar funding market in a state of disarray on March 31st –
the day that marks the end of phase one, and the apex of U.S. dollar Libor at 145 bps.
The figure shows the full range of borrowing/investment options involving U.S. dollars:
the blue, brown and orange square-shaped markers show onshore and FX swap-based
OIS, generic government bill and Libor yields; the lone green marker shows where
foreign banks issued short-term unsecured debt in the onshore U.S. dollar CD/CP market;
and, the red dashed lines show the maximum level for each FX swap-based category.
We show these yields at the three-month point for all the major countries/currencies
where the list of U.S. dollar Libor panel banks are headquartered, plus the Australian dollar.
The Fed’s cuts brought onshore OIS and Treasury bill yields to zero, but U.S. dollar Libor
was still in the stratosphere, and foreign banks raised short-term U.S. dollar funding from
U.S. primary dealers at Libor-like levels on average, and some high as 2.5% (see above).
Looking at FX-swap implied yields, lending U.S. dollars and reinvesting foreign currency
in central bank deposits or government bills – depending on one’s place in the hierarchy –
yielded significantly more than leaving cash at the Fed or buying U.S. Treasury bills;
this yield pickup was close to 150 bps for the yen and at least 50 bps for other currencies.
FX swap-implied yields in bank funding markets were also high, and in some countries,
for example in Canada and Japan, they were even higher than U.S. dollar Libor fixings.
For European financial centers – London, Frankfurt, Paris, and Zurich – FX swap-implied
funding costs were lower than U.S. dollar Libor fixings, but this was a risk off environment
and most institutional lenders of U.S. dollars in the FX swap market were only willing to
reinvest local currency collateral in deposits at central banks or generic government bills…
…but not unsecured bank debt. As such, foreign banks could not get around funding at
exorbitant rates with U.S. primary dealers and at U.S. dollar Libor-like levels on average –
foreign banks were still price takers of U.S. dollar funding in unsecured funding markets.
Figure 8 shows the state of dollar funding markets on April 14th – the end of phase two.
Compared to the second half of March, the first half of April was a “risk on” environment
– by mid-April, the S&P500 was up by over 20% from its trough reached in mid-March.
FX swap implied yields in bank funding markets fell considerably and with “risk on”,
foreign banks could now tap unsecured funding markets in euros, sterling and yen locally
and then swap local currency funding for U.S. dollars at rates that were at least 25 bps
and at most 50 bps lower than rates that prevailed in U.S. unsecured funding markets.
Canada was the only exception, where the lack of an o/n RRP-like facility to absorb the
excess liquidity added by the Bank of Canada and the collapse in oil prices drove the
U.S. dollar/Canadian dollar cross-currency basis more negative at the tomorrow-next and
three-month points, respectively, which kept U.S. dollar funding costs high in Toronto. 1
FX swap implied yields involving central bank deposits and generic government bills
also fell considerably for the major currencies, as the flood of U.S. dollars flowing through
the swap lines worked their way through the system. FX swap implied yields for the
Japanese yen remained relatively high, however, as most of the demand for U.S. dollars
through FX swaps in Japan – and the world in fact – comes from Japanese life insurers
that do not have access to the Fed’s U.S. dollar swap lines through the Bank of Japan.
According to the Bank of Japan, life insurers’ U.S. dollar needs in the FX swap market
exceed $1 trillion, which outweighs the need of banks by a factor of four (see Figure 9).
In contrast, in other jurisdictions, banks’ U.S. dollar needs in the FX swap market
are much bigger than those of life insurers, pension funds or asset managers combined,
so bank’s access to the Fed’s U.S. dollar swap lines through local central banks helped
bring down FX swap implied yields for other currencies more than for the Japanese yen.
Figure 10 shows the state of dollar funding markets today – that is, phase three-to-date.
The main theme of phase three is the return of liquidity to the U.S. CD/CP market
and foreign banks using the ongoing fall in FX swap implied costs of U.S. dollar funding
to extract low rates on CD/CP issued to prime money market funds. The top and bottom
green dashed lines show the highest and lowest rates at which foreign banks have issued
CD/CP in recent days (based on our conversation with brokers and foreign banks), and
the middle green dashed line shows where CD/CP has traded on average in recent days.
CD/CP now trades near the FX swap implied cost for U.S. dollar funding from euros and
Swiss francs, and some of the extreme low CD/CP prints have come from foreign banks
– predominantly Scandinavian banks – that typically issue only when they can swap the
U.S. dollars they raised unsecured back to euros or other currencies at a positive spread.
Unsecured spreads are thus low – they’re back to “normal”. Where will they go from here?
Provided that the inflows to prime funds continue, low yields on U.S. Treasury bills will
continue to drag CD/CP rates lower, as at the zero bound the “laws of physics” change…
…anything with a substantially non-zero yield has strong demand for it. Strong demand
from prime funds for CD/CP also coincides with a decline in the structural supply of CD/CP
– think of the fact that foreign banks have raised $450 billion through the swap lines, and
some of that funding naturally reduces the amount of CD/CP foreign banks need to issue.
Strong inflows into prime funds driving demand for U.S. dollar CD/CP, combined with the
decline in the structural supply of U.S. dollar CD/CP as foreign banks use the swap lines
points to a perfect storm where U.S. dollar Libor-OIS spreads can compress further still…
…but to what level? 25 bps as implied by the June FRA-OIS contract or tighter still?
To answer that question, we need to have a view on the upper bound of non-U.S. banks’
Libor submissions, which is a function of their FX swap-implied cost of U.S. dollar funding.
1
Growing demand for U.S. dollars in Canada is understandable in the context of collapsing oil prices. In contrast,
the link between excess Canadian dollar liquidity and strong demand for t/n U.S. dollars is a bit harder to understand:
demand for t/n U.S. dollars was strong not because Canadian pension funds and other non-bank institutional investors
needed U.S. dollar funding per se, but rather, because they didn’t have a place to put excess Canadian dollar liquidity
at home. As a solution, they lent more and more Canadian dollars and borrowed U.S. dollars in the FX swap market,
and reinvested these U.S. dollars in a much deeper U.S. Treasury bill and repo market than what Canada has to offer.
Conclusions
In astrophysics, the concept of singularity refers to infinite density at the center of a
black hole, and the earliest state of the universe – before the Big Bang. In money markets,
we define singularity as an “infinite” density of funding spreads at the zero lower bound.
Singularity is nigh, and its gravitational pull can drive U.S. dollar Libor-OIS spreads tighter,
to 10-20 bps by mid-June. U.S. Treasury bill supply won’t stand in the way, in our view.
$1.25 trillion in bill supply over the next two months sounds like a lot, but it’s actually not
relative to the size of the Fed’s liquidity injections and the availability of liquidity facilities…
QE keeps adding reserves to the system at a pre-scheduled, $35 billion a week pace;
the U.S. Department of Treasury running a lower cash balance will add reserves too; and
foreign central banks “selling” the foreign repo pool and buying bills can add reserves too.
If these additional reserves aren’t sufficient to absorb bill supply, the Fed can add more:
the o/n repo facility is there to fund dealers’ U.S. Treasury inventories on the margin, and
the swap lines are there to lend U.S. dollars to the world at OIS+25 if asset managers
decide to buy U.S. bills and lend less in the FX swap market and hold fewer foreign bills.
It’s war finance…
…and the Fed appears committed to ensure that collateral supply (U.S. Treasury issuance)
does not outpace the supply of reserves by a crushing margin: ongoing QE ensures that;
standing liquidity facilities ensure that; and changes to the edifice of Basel III ensure that.
But there is more…
Governor Quarles’ letter to Senator Crapo on April 22nd, where he encourages Congress to:
“consider modifying [the Collins Amendment] of the Dodd-Frank Act to allow regulators to
ease banks’ Tier 1 leverage requirements as banks respond to increased credit demands”
also suggests that the Fed is laser focused on ensuring that there is enough balance sheet
and reserves to meet the U.S. government’s and everyone else’s growing credit needs.
There is all that to absorb the coming wave of U.S. Treasury bill supply before the
“nuclear” option – outright purchases of bills and capping bill yields – becomes necessary.
But what’s the big deal about bill purchases?
U.S. Treasury bills are the easiest asset for the Fed to buy – it’s the Fed’s natural habitat
(and for money-fundamentalists, it should be the Fed’s only habitat). If bills are in excess,
and this excess were to push global dollar funding rates up and away from the zero bound,
the Fed will simply buy the excess. If the Fed is backstopping the credit market,
why wouldn’t it backstop its natural habitat? So don’t sweat the tsunami of Treasury bills:
U.S. dollar Libor-OIS spreads will continue to tighten through June and will stay low beyond.
Prepare for singularity…
60
60
50
42
40
30
20 18
10
0
Total Institutional Retail
Prime money funds
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
(20)
(29)
(40)
(55) (46)
(60)
(80) (84)
(100) (97)
(120)
(140)
(144)
(160)
Total Institutional Retail
Prime money funds
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
35.0
7
32.5
30.0
5
27.5
25.0 3
22.5
1
20.0
17.5
-1
15.0
12.5 -3
10.0
-5
7.5
5.0
-7
2.5
0.0 -9
15 16 17 18 19 20
PDCF, $ bn (weekly average) PDCF, $ bn (Wednesday snapshots) Primary dealers CP/CD inventories, $ bn
450
425 7
400
375
5
350
325
3
300
275
1
250
225
-1
200
175
-3
150
125
-5
100
75
50 -7
25
0 -9
15 16 17 18 19 20
U.S. dollar swap lines, $ bn BoJ, ECB, BoE, SNB, BoC, $ bn others, $ bn
1.0
1
0.8
1
0.5
0
0.3
0
0.0
(0.3) 0
(0.5)
0
(0.8)
0
(1.0)
-1
(1.3)
-1
(1.5)
(1.8) -1
January 1, 2020 February 1, 2020 March 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 May 1, 2020
BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, $/¥] BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, £/$] BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, $/CHF]
BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, €/$] BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, $/CAD] BOR-BOR XCCY [3M, AUD/$]
1.4 1
1.2 1
1.0 0
0.8 0
0.6 0
0.4 0
0.2 0
0.0 -1
(0.2) -1
(0.4) -1
January 1, 2020 February 1, 2020 March 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 May 1, 2020
1.40 1.45
1.28
1.30 1.36
1.19
1.20
1.10 1.04
1.02
1.00 0.96
0.89 0.98
0.90
0.92
0.80 0.76
0.70
0.70
0.59 0.58
0.60 0.67
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.23
0.10 0.06
0.00 0.07
- FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS
(USD) (JPY) (EUR) (GBP) (CHF) (CAD) (AUD)
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
1.18
1.20
1.10
1.03
1.00 0.94
0.91
1.00
0.90
0.82
0.80
0.71
0.70 0.67
0.72
0.60
0.50
0.48
0.50 0.55
0.43 0.42
0.49
0.40
0.32
0.30 0.35 0.27
0.20 0.25
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.00
- FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS
(USD) (JPY) (EUR) (GBP) (CHF) (CAD) (AUD)
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Figure 9: The Non-Bank vs. Bank Bid for U.S. Dollars in Japan
$ trillions
0.65
0.60
0.54 0.54
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.45 0.43
0.41 0.41
0.40
0.35 0.38
0.32
0.25 0.23
0.27 0.28
0.25 0.26
0.20 0.23
0.16
0.15 0.18
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
- FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS FXS
(USD) (JPY) (EUR) (GBP) (CHF) (CAD) (AUD)
Friday, May 08, 2020
0.60
7
0.55
0.50
5
0.45
0.40 3
0.35
1
0.30 0.31
0.25
-1
0.20
0.15 -3
0.10
-5
0.05
0.00
-7
(0.05)
(0.10) -9
15 16 17 18 19 20
0.30
7
0.28
0.26
5
0.24
0.23
0.22
3
0.20
0.18 1
0.16
0.14 -1
0.12
-3
0.10
0.08
-5
0.06
0.04
-7
0.02
0.00 -9
15 16 17 18 19 20
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
T/N 1W 1M 3M 6M 12M
Friday, May 08, 2020
OIS [USD] Swap lines FXS [EUR, OIS] FXS [CHF, OIS] FXS [GBP, OIS] FXS [CAD, OIS]
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
T/N 1W 1M 3M 6M 12M
Friday, May 08, 2020
OIS [USD] Swap lines FXS [JPY, OIS] FXS [EUR, OIS] FXS [CHF, OIS] FXS [GBP, OIS]
1.1 1.07
1.0
0.91
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.16
0.1
0.0
Total Institutional Retail
Government money funds
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
1.05
1.00
5
0.95
0.90
0.85
3
0.80
0.75
0.70 1
0.65
0.60
0.55 -1
0.50
0.45
-3
0.40
0.35
0.30
-5
0.25
0.20
0.15 -7
0.10
0.05
0.00 -9
15 16 17 18 19 20
TGA, $ trillion
Figure 17: U.S. Treasury Bill Yields and “Synthetic” U.S. Treasury Bill Yields
percent, three-month, synthetic U.S. Treasury bills refers to U.S. dollars lent via FX swaps and local currency collateral reinvested in local government bills
3.5 1
3.3
1
3.0
2.8
1
2.5
0
2.3
2.0
0
1.8
1.5 0
1.3
0
1.0
0.8
0
0.5
-1
0.3
0.0
-1
(0.3)
(0.5) -1
January 1, 2020 February 1, 2020 March 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 May 1, 2020
U.S. Treasury bills [3M] FXS [3M, ¥, GGB] FXS [3M, £, GGB] FXS [3M, CHF, GGB]
FXS [3M, AUD, GGB] FXS [3M, €, GGB] FXS [3M, CAD, GGB] FXS [3M, AUD, GGB]