Benoît Coeuré: Collateral scarcity - a gone or a going concern?
Speech by Mr Benoît Coeuré, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank,
at the European Central Bank-De Nederlandsche Bank joint central bank seminar on
"Collateral and liquidity", Amsterdam, 1 October 2012.
* * *
I would like to thank Pontus Aberg for his contribution to the speech. I remain solely responsible for the opinions
expressed herein.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure for me to speak here today at this conference, kindly hosted by
De Nederlandsche Bank.
1. The use of collateral is as old as economic transactions, and is mentioned in the
Bible:
2. "If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by
that the sun goeth down: For that [is] his covering only, it [is] his raiment for his skin:
wherein shall he sleep?"1
3. The importance of collateral in the economy may have been neglected in earlier
academic work, but has been well recognised lately. In his seminal work2 on the
topic John Geanakoplos says that:
"...the main business of Wall Street is to help people make and keep promises.
Over time, as more people have been included in the process, punishment and
reputation have been replaced by collateral. This enabled a proliferation of
promises, but has led to a scarcity of collateral. The ensuing efforts of Wall
Street, in conjunction, of course, with the government and in particular the courts
and the tax code, to stretch the available collateral has significant and surprising
effects on the working of the economy, including the cyclical or volatile behavior
of prices..."
Today, in my opening remarks I would like to consider one issue regarding collateral that was
mentioned in that quote, namely the scarcity of eligible collateral.
One reason that makes collateral scarce is that the supply of "sound" collateral is in principle
limited. Collateral is sound if it guarantees a quasi-certain stream of revenues. Indeed if
investors' trust in the creditworthiness of assets decreases, then the amount of collateral
gauged sound reduces. During the crisis there has been a widespread flight to quality, out of
certain asset classes, which used to be considered sound.
Collateral scarcity is a somewhat more topical issue in the euro area than elsewhere. It can
affect the functioning and stability of the financial system in several ways, possibly resulting
in: i) persistent changes in the relative cost of different forms of bank funding, a phenomenon
that we have observed for some time; ii) changes in bank balance sheets with implications
on lending behaviour; and iii) a greater sensitivity of financing conditions to changes in the
value of collateral assets.3 That said, let me emphasise upfront that there is a difference
between scarcity and shortage. Scarcity is a fact and not a problem Allocating scarce
per se.
resources through prices is the way our economies work. The problem would be a shortage
of collateral and/or an impaired price mechanism. I will argue that is not the case in the euro
area, where there is no aggregate shortage of collateral; local tensions may arise but they
are being addressed in various ways. In this context, the Eurosystem has taken a number of
measures to make the supply of collateral assets more elastic, which ultimately should help a
smooth transmission of monetary policy impulses, and support financial stability.
But first, allow me to say a few words on the collateral framework of the Eurosystem, and
how it is developing, as this is relevant when discussing collateral scarcity.
The collateral framework of the Eurosystem: general principles and reaction to the
crisis
As you know, the Eurosystem has always implemented a "broad" collateral framework, i.e. it
has chosen to accept a broad range of asset types as collateral in its credit operations
reflecting: i) the large number of, and differences among, its eligible counterparties, ii) the
heterogeneity of financial markets in Europe, in particular in the early times of EMU, and
iii) the differences in business models of European banks. Despite this broad pool of
collateral accepted even in normal times, the collateral framework is by no means static in
nature. In fact, the Eurosystem has made a considerable number of amendments to its
framework for conducting monetary policy, including an extension of collateral eligibility by
accepting more asset types and reducing rating thresholds both in the aftermath of the
Lehman default and, more recently, in response to the sovereign crisis.
What are the guiding principles of our collateral framework and what factors drive
amendments to it? First, in accordance with the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, the
collateral accepted by the Eurosystem in all credit operations must be "adequate". In
determining this "adequacy", the Eurosystem has to achieve two goals. The first goal is to
provide the necessary funding to the banking sector which, in turn, requires that sufficient
quantities of eligible collateral be available on the balance sheet of counterparties. The
second goal is the integrity of the Eurosystem's balance sheet, which requires that risks in
lending to banks be kept under control. To achieve this goal the Eurosystem applies a set of
eligibility criteria for collateral and implements appropriate risk mitigating measures. The
principle underlying these measures is the effort to equalise the "post-mitigation risk" of any
eligible asset, i.e. the remaining risk after the implementation of risk control measures, while
being aware that we can never perfectly achieve this result. This would mean, for example,
that by applying a haircut of 0.5% to a Treasury bill, we achieve the same protection as when
we apply a haircut of 60% or more to a 10-year bank loan, when both these assets are
accepted as collateral in central bank operations.
The second guiding principle is that the Eurosystem should closely follow and respond to
market developments, financial innovation and counterparties' behaviour. To do so, the
Eurosystem must remain ready to adapt its framework to such developments at any time.
This may require changes in the eligibility criteria, including the acceptance of additional
asset classes or rejection of existing asset classes, or adjustments in the risk control and
valuation framework.
There are several reasons why central banks may need to adopt a broad collateral
framework, particularly in a crisis, and to have it broader relative to the interbank repo
collateral set. First, the role of a central bank as a backstop facility avoids a worsening crisis
of confidence, i.e. it avoids a negative feedback loop-of-liquidity crisis. Second, a central
bank is the only player that never has liquidity constraints. Therefore, in case of counterparty
default, the central bank has ample time to liquidate collateral and await mean reversion of
values. Third, central banks can impose haircuts that protect them from adverse scenarios in
the collateral liquidation process, as they are considered risk-free.
For these reasons, it makes economic sense that, in a liquidity crisis, central banks continue
to accept what is no longer accepted in the interbank market. They nevertheless should still
act with prudence. This means adequate risk protection, careful monitoring of submitted
collateral and adjusted eligibility criteria if necessary.
Collateral scarcity
Collateral scarcity may be driven by regulatory changes but also by increased risk aversion
and counterparty risk. We see the move from unsecured to secured transactions on several
layers, for example in money markets, the longer-term wholesale funding markets, in an
increased use of CCPs as mandated by the G-20, and a larger recourse to central bank
liquidity. This move, together with asset purchase programmes by central banks, is likely to
increase the demand for high-quality assets. However, while collateral scarcity has become a
concern for many euro area banks, this does not seem to be the case in other regions.
The average amount of eligible collateral for Eurosystem liquidity operations was
€14.3 trillion during the second quarter of this year. However, only €2.5 trillion was put
forward as collateral4 by counterparties to be used in our liquidity operations that came to an
average outstanding amount of around €1.3 trillion (see Chart 1). This shows that, despite
the fears of collateral scarcity in the euro area, there is some leeway in collateral availability.
Naturally, this aggregate view masks country differences. Indeed, the concerns about
collateral scarcity is characterised by heterogeneity in the euro area since some credit
institutions have a sufficient collateral pool, while others have less leeway. Not surprisingly,
the latter are usually located in those Member States that are hit particularly hard by the
sovereign debt and banking crisis.
To some degree, the composition of assets used as collateral in Eurosystem liquidity
operations mirrors the state of the financial markets (see Chart 2). First, as a result of the
dried-up market activity in the securitisation market starting in late 2007, the share of ABSs
as collateral quickly increased, from around 16% in 2007 to 28% the following year,
indicating that such securitisation transactions were increasingly being held on the balance
sheet of the originator bank and pledged as collateral with the central bank. Second,
non-marketable assets and above all, credit claims (i.e. normal bank loans) have become the
largest single asset class in our collateral portfolio. Third, uncovered bank bonds constituted
the largest marketable asset type in 2009, mostly in non-guaranteed forms. However, the
absolute amounts and the share started to decline sharply thereafter, due to subdued
issuance volumes, increased risk aversion and concerns about the counterparty risk. In
addition to the decrease in issuance, downgrades of banks have rendered a large part of this
collateral non-eligible for Eurosystem operations. As a result, guaranteed unsecured bank
bonds now dominate non-guaranteed bank bonds. Finally, due to the implementation of the
two 36- month refinancing operations conducted in December 2011 and February 2012,
posted collateral in general increased, and in particular the use of covered bank bonds,
which has lately become the largest marketable asset type in our collateral framework.
It is equally important to analyse whether the observed scarcity of collateral in some regions
follows a cyclical or a structural pattern.
If it is cyclical it is mainly the result of the prevailing uncertainties in the markets and the
perceived heightened counterparty risk that leads market participants to move from
unsecured to secured funding, thus increasing their needs for collateral. Such moves could in
principle be reversible, once confidence in banks' resilience improves again. It has been
argued however that a continued decline in, or even disappearance of, unsecured funding
could have permanent effects on the balance sheet structure of banks. So, although central
banks may have taken a number of measures to address the current stress on banks'
balance sheets (enlarging the collateral framework, purchasing assets, extending longer term
liquidity, implementing non-recourse repos or swapping them with more liquid assets), these
measures can be rolled back or discontinued as soon as the crisis subsides.
A structural change in the demand for collateral, on the other hand, would be more the result
of a series of regulatory changes (such as the liquidity coverage ratio under Basel III,
regulatory changes on derivatives trading, the proposed capital charges in Solvency II for
insurers, making it more attractive to hold covered bonds, and the Dodd-Frank Act) as well
as a structural move away from unsecured towards secured funding arrangements. It would
be of a permanent nature. This may warrant changes to central banks' eligibility criteria for
collateral to prevent central bank operations adding to the overall demand and competition
for high-quality and liquid collateral for banks. Thus, central banks would need to consider
extending collateral eligibility beyond these demanded assets. In fact, central banks are not
subject to liquidity risk in their national currency, implying that they could choose to accept
high-quality assets, but not necessarily liquid assets. In any case, the optimal choice of
eligible assets for a central bank would be the one minimising cost for the whole financial
system, taking into account the need to protect its own balance sheet to ensure its
independence and maintain confidence in the currency.
Potential policy measures - concluding remarks
In general, to increase access to available collateral, for use in central banks operations and
in private repo markets, the three typical medium to long-term wholesale funding sources
need to function properly, adding value to both issuers and investors. During the crisis, the
importance of being able to have recourse to the three sources of funds (secured, unsecured
and securitisation) was confirmed. Indeed, the force of diversification works fully on the
liability side. This is due to the fact that each type of security slices risk in a different way.
This factor makes these three markets for long-term instruments act as complements rather
than substitutes. This may be of particular relevance to the ABSs, since unlike covered
bonds, they are based on an extremely versatile underlying pool of assets, and therefore the
underlying economic sector that it is funding. This makes it somewhat different to other
secured assets, for example, covered bonds. Maintenance work is ongoing especially in
respect of the covered bond and the ABS market segments, which is indeed a welcome
move.
But let me finally offer you some potential policy responses to mitigate or to address the
negative effects of collateral scarcity, and some forward-looking thoughts.
Addressing collateral scarcity
As regards the supply of collateral assets by financial institutions, the Eurosystem has taken
several steps to make it more elastic by encouraging the creation of new assets or making it
easier to mobilise existing ones. These steps have also contributed to restore the impaired
monetary policy transmission mechanism. Let me list five of them here.
i) its interventions in support of the covered bond markets through the two Covered
Bond Purchase Programmes (CBPPs), aiming at reactivating the primary market.
Both programmes had the objective of easing funding conditions and encouraging
institutions to maintain or expand lending to their clients, thereby contributing to the
Eurosystem's role in supporting the functioning of financial markets. By performing
this catalytic function, the first purchase programme was very successful in
restarting activity in primary covered bond markets, and thus creating private
collateral of good quality;
ii) lowering the minimum rating requirements at issuance for specific ABSs and
allowing the use of additional credit claims, and
iii) leading or acting as a catalyst in efforts to improve financial market conditions and to
increase transparency and standardisation in some market segments such as the
Prime Collateralised Securities (PCS) initiative in the ABS market, our own
loan-level data requirements for ABSs, and the covered bond label initiative, initiated
by the European Covered Bond Council. A common objective for these market-led
initiatives is to restore confidence among investors in these market segments, and
to re-introduce them as sustainable funding tools for banks. We would be happy to
engage in further initiatives to foster market functioning and the creation of good and
fairly safe assets that could be used in various collateral systems. In this regard I
take the opportunity to refer to a fourth initiative which is currently being worked on
by the Eurosystem.
iv) A fourth initiative is the implementation of cross-border triparty collateral
management services within the Eurosystem's collateral framework. Today, these
services are only available to a limited number of Eurosystem counterparties in a
small number of countries (Germany, Luxembourg, France and very recently, Italy).
In 2014 however, the Eurosystem will go-live with the support of cross-border use of
triparty collateral management services via the Correspondent Central Banking
Model (CCBM), thereby making them equally available to all euro area
counterparties. While triparty services do not increase the availability of collateral as
such, they allow for a considerably more efficient delivery of collateral to the
Eurosystem, in turn allowing counterparties to optimise the use of their collateral
assets with central banks and in the market. To enhance this process even further,
the Eurosystem is also cooperating with the market to achieve interoperability
between the different triparty offerings.
v) In addition, the Governing Council of the ECB decided on 6 September to widen its
collateral framework to accept marketable assets denominated in foreign currencies.
In fact, looking beyond this non-standard and temporary measure, it is a moot point
whether these types of collateral denominated in internationally accepted currencies
and stemming from efficient financial systems should be allowed on a longer-term
basis, in particular if collateral becomes scarce across several regions. More
generally, some studies have highlighted the relative scarcity of high-quality financial
assets. In particular, while advanced economies are able to generate relatively safe
assets which appeal to international investors, emerging market economies are less
able to do so.5 In this context, fostering the international role of the currencies of
some emerging economies could help the creation of safe, liquid and internationally
accepted transaction instruments. While the positive aspects of accepting
foreign-denominated collateral are fairly clear in terms of collateral availability for
counterparties and for monetary policy, payment systems and financial stability,
several challenges nevertheless emerge, such as legal complications, exchange
rate risks and operational risks, as pointed out in a study by our host.6
Last but not least, in order for banks to attract investors to the unsecured bank funding
market as well, confidence in the euro area must be restored. Through the restoration of
fiscal discipline and implementation of structural reforms, euro area sovereign debt will be
viewed once again as risk-free and thus contribute to a collateral supply of good quality. In
addition, in the last couple of years we have also made significant progress regarding the
institutional framework, with the establishment of the EFSF, the launching of the ESM, the
approval of the "six-pack" legislation and of the fiscal compact, and the steps towards a
banking union including the single supervisory mechanism. But let me emphasise that the
only fundamental way to overcome collateral scarcity is to ensure private and public
de-leveraging as well as sustainable growth. It is growth that generates sound assets, i.e.
securities which guarantee a high likelihood stream of revenues.
Thank you for your attention.
BIS central bankers' speeches
BIS central bankers' speeches