Beware the illiquidity delirium when buying-up credit

Bond markets might be offering comparable returns to equities and a higher place in the capital structure, but they should be approached cautiously as they lack what institutions around the world are trying to maintain – liquidity.

Equity markets have been sold off and tapped for liquidity, but unlike corporate bond markets, they remain a place where sellers can meet willing buyers.

Bob Jaeger, senior market strategist with BNY Mellon Asset Management, says investors should not let the concept of an illiquidity premium lure them into the bond market.

“Just because something is less liquid doesn’t mean it will earn a bigger return,” Jaeger says.

“Equities have already absorbed a huge amount of selling. In the bond market, the supply is enormous, and we still don’t know what demand there will be and whether buyers and sellers will meet at a price.”

The nod towards equities was made amid the “worrying” bear market rally from March into April, spurred on by decent economic numbers from the US and a few pieces of good news from the banks.

Sponsored Content

Even though Jaeger viewed credit markets as being healthier than stockmarkets, the “huge liquid market” for equities was a determining factor.

He said positive outcomes from the Troubled Asset Relief Program – or “great US experiment” – would be crucial to achieving stability in financial markets.

But it was uncertain whether buyers, who have been offered very attractive pricing terms, and sellers would be able to agree on valuations, since the banks would hold out for the highest possible price, and sellers push for the lowest.

“We’re just now getting to what will be the most difficult part of the exercise:  when banks make first transactions on these toxic assets – not marking-to-market, but the real deals. It’s crunch time.”

To progress, the program could require further government intervention.

“At some point, Washington might have to say to the banks: “You have to take the short-term pain. “The sooner banks do so, the sooner other people will want to invest in them.

“Markets are looking for real information and positive action, but don’t want that information to be a denial of reality, which was the Japanese nightmare.”

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Academics and industry unite

The gargantuan impact of systemic risk in global financial markets has been corroborated by a consortium of industry and academics collaborating to provide independent quantitative research, insight and leadership on systemic risk. Driven by director of MIT’s Laboratory for Financial Engineering,  Andrew Lo, senior managing director at State Street Global Markets, Jessica Donohue, and managing

Rethink remuneration

Institutional investors around the world have been lobbying for the right to have a say on pay, a right to have an input into the remuneration of the executives in the companies they invest in. In June the UK’s business secretary, Vince Cable, laid out new plans that will give shareholders three-yearly votes on executive

Endowments fall
from grace

US college and university endowments have gone from pioneers in the adoption of socially responsible investing (SRI) to markedly trailing the rest of the investment industry in integrating environmental social and corporate governance (ESG), new research reveals. The Boston-based Tellus Institute, an independent not-for-profit think-tank, looked at 464 endowments and was damning in its findings,

Kay Review recommendations tackle short-termism

Co-head of responsible investment at the £32 billion Universities Superannuation Scheme, David Russell, says asset manager engagement with companies should move away from its “almost myopic focus on remuneration” to other issues that impact value and strategy. His comments come on the back of the final report of the Kay Review of the UK equity

POLL: Which strategy within emerging markets debt do you find the most compelling?

mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS: “opaquely transparent”

A Columbia Business School case study on CalPERS has criticised the fund for being “opaquely transparent”, with a computation of investment expenses revealing the fund pays three-to-four times its peers in fees. Written by Columbia professor of business Andrew Ang and Columbia CaseWorks fellow, Jeremy Abrams, Californian dreamin’: The mess at CalPERS examines the political,

Previous