While some aspects of the subprime mortgage crisis were predictable, the freezing up the most liquid risk-free markets in the world was not. The illiquidity has been especially striking in the interbank market. The following chart was kindly made available by the Institute of International Finance, an association of international banks and other financial institutions, in Washington, D.C. Their Capital Markets Monitor reports in April: “Credit and equity markets have recovered somewhat, after a series of central banks’ moves to provide liquidity and safeguard systemic stability. However, tension in term interbank markets remains.”
I see three interesting lessons from the chart.
· The most important one, of course, is simply that the spreads shot up so abruptly last August, and that they remain very high. The have come down twice, most sharply in response to central bank measures in December-January, but they have also relapsed twice. It is extraordinary that even large banks are still so uncertain of their environment that they are reluctant to lend to each other. Not a good sign.
· The second interesting point one might glean from the chart is that each of the three times that the spreads have risen sharply over the last year, the spread in the UK has gone up somewhat more than the Euroland spread, with the Fed somewhere in between. One might use these differences to pass invidious judgment on how well the three central banks have handled the crisis.
· The third point, which dominates the second, is that the correlation across countries is very high. The three lines overall move closely together. This means that even though the interbank market has broken down in an important way that we did not think could happen, the banking system internationally is as tightly linked as ever. Contagion is everything. Even though the problem originated in the US (the sub-prime mortgage crisis last summer), you couldn’t prove it by this graph !
Wouldn’t the fact that these three charts are the same thing… dominate points one, two and three?
Same banks make up the Libor panels (roughly speaking..
Same banks have access to dollars, sterling and or Euribor…and through the FX market can “transmmute” borrowings from one ‘currency” into another.. recall FX/interest rate parity.
This is one of the best of what Taleb calls the Ludic fallacy..
A nice story always trumps thinkng about what really may have happened….
[...] Frankel points to growing correlation in LIBOR [...]
Phyron — I certainly believe in thinking about what really may have happened.
My impression is that the banks under present circumstances cannot or do not effortlessly translate liquidity from the dollar market into the euro market and back again. The central banks, for example, seem to think it makes a difference which among them pumps liquidity into their own markets. Admittedly the arbitrage does work rather well, even under the bizarre conditions of the last six months. And that was precisely the point of the third lesson that I drew from the graph.
As a postscript to my post (!), I should mention the Wall Street Journal article that appeared the next day, April 16. It explained that LIBOR had recently lost some of its reliability … that the true spreads were even higher than what the panels of banks were reporting to the institution that calculates LIBOR, the British Bankers Association (BBA). But apparently the banks immediately responded to that article by increasing the honesty of their interest rate reports, so that LIBOR is once again relatively reliable.