Page 13 - ISLA_SLReport_Feb2020_spreads
P. 13

Another factor that may skew outputs into the year   The reasons behind this trend are now well understood,
 end, is the additional capital and balance sheet hurdles   with banks often preferring to keep HQLA regulatory   Fig 2: Global Securities Lending Market
 that are placed upon the global systemically important   driven non-cash trades open over the reporting date, and
 banks (G-SIBs), who have to reduce funding to lower   scaling back equity loans with lenders who are also pre-  €22T  €2.3 T
 levels than their non-G-SIB peers. Due to the pre-  ferring to return cash collateral to avoid having to engage
 ponderance of G-SIBs in the securities lending mar-  in reinvestment markets at a point when liquidity and
 kets, some of the reductions in liquidity may be dis-  investment opportunities could be limited.
 proportionate, especially over key reporting dates.
 Similar factors apply elsewhere. In the UK for exam-  Typically, borrowers want to maintain regulatory driven
 ple, the end of year bank levy will drive specific bal-  HQLA trades over the year end as part of an active bal-  Total Lendable Assets   On-Loan Balance
 ance sheet contraction amongst UK-based prudentially    ance sheet management strategy, where the Liquidity
 regulated banks.   Coverage Ratio (LCR) is the primary binding constraint.
 These trades are often collateralised with other securities
 On-loan balances rose steadily by some 8% between   which are themselves balance sheet efficient if pledged as
 August and September, only to fall dramatically during   collateral as part of a term HQLA trade structure.   €19T  €2.0 T
 October. As will be discussed in subsequent sections,   Jul 2019  Aug 2019  Sep 2019  Oct 2019  Nov 2019  Dec 2019
 most of these movements related primarily to the equity   In the second six months of 2019, we saw a marginal   Source: IHS MArkit
 securities lending markets. Amongst other things, a   increase in both the absolute level and overall percent-
 strong IPO market in North America especially around   age of government bond lending, which increased from   In our recently published manifesto, ‘Securities Lending to   shortfall has been assumed by Sovereign Wealth Funds
 cannabis offerings will have been a factor. The natural   44% to 47% of all loans outstanding as at 31 December.   Support More Autonomous EU Capital Markets: Priorities   (SWFs) who today represent some 6% of available secu-
 unwinding of these positions, together with deleveraging   for the Next 5 Years’, we argued for the need for regu-  rities and 15% of all loans globally. There was a marginal
 by hedge funds in response to outflows, may have con-  As we will consider in more detail in the subsequent sec-  lators and policy makers to look more closely at the link   increase in the profile of SWFs during the period, with
 tributed to the to the sudden decrease.   tion, government bond lending was influenced by a num-  between the provision of market liquidity, and the long   their proportion of global on-loan balances increasing
 ber of factors in the latter part of 2019, including the   term success of the EU’s CMU project.   from 14% six months earlier. Their participation in the
 Another component could have been the widening of the   liquidity shocks seen in the repo markets as well as the   global securities lending markets in now a well under-
 US Dollar/Japanese Yen basis spread in October, which   re-emergence of buyback programmes by central banks,   As we have discussed in previous reports, much of that   stood feature, where their balances (especially in fixed
 led to traders allowing loans of US Treasuries against   as they sought to stimulate economic growth via mon-
 JGB collateral to roll off as they became uneconomic for   etary policy.   Fig 3: Global Securities On-Loan - Cash Versus Non-Cash
 borrowers. As we look more closely at the global trad-
 ing book in the second half of the year, notably collat-  The mobilisation and movement of collateral is one of
 eral, we do see something of a more familiar pattern (see   the most strategically important parts that our market   €800B  €1.5T
 Fig 3). Institutions clearly prioritised non-cash trades   can play in the context of waves five and six of the UMR
 over cash collateralised ones, as they managed their    later this year.
 books down.
 With some 32% of all government bonds held in lend-
 The final contributory element that may have influ-  ing programmes actually on-loan, this additional source   On-Loan Balance vs Cash  On-Loan Balance vs Non-Cash
 enced the non-cash collateral data was the impact of   of liquidity could be significant for the buy side as they
 Japanese record date, which forced borrowers to switch   seek to source high quality collateral to meet these reg-
 from onshore cash borrows into offshore non-cash bor-  ulatory obligations.
 rows ahead of the September record date. This was quite
 quickly reversed post 1 October. In addition, the previ-  ISLA has highlighted for some time the disparity between   €600B  €1.3T
 ously mentioned G-SIB balance sheet management exer-  the scale of investments held by mutual funds (including   Jul 2019  Aug 2019  Sep 2019  Oct 2019  Nov 2019  Dec 2019
 cise will target non-cash borrows first to optimise both   UCITS), and their actual participation in the lending mar-  Source: IHS MArkit
 short and long (collateral) legs.  kets (see Figs 4 & 5).


 12                                                                                   13
   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18