sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi shows how current conditions are allowing more central banks than ever to deploy unconventional tools

Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi shows how current conditions are allowing more central banks than ever to deploy unconventional tools

Central banking in emerging markets has undergone a quiet revolution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike in past crises, they have been able to mimic what central banks in advanced economies have been implementing: counter-cyclical policies with quantitative easing (QE), local-currency asset purchases, interest-rate cuts, and monetization of government deficits.

In the past, such policies would have fueled inflation and downward exchange-rate pressure. Not so this time. With the exception of a few central banks that were already in trouble before the pandemic, emerging-market central banks have been able to use QE to create more room to maneuver in responding to the crisis.

Monetary policies in the advanced economies enabled this change. Their own QE programs have had positive spillover effects, and they have expanded their currency swaps and foreign exchange repurchase (repo) operations in response to the crisis. Among the measures taken by the globally systemic central banks (GSCBs), the US Federal Reserve’s response has been the most important, but swaps and repos by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the People’s Bank of China’s (PBOC) have also had a significant impact at the regional level.

The effects of interest-rate cuts and huge liquidity injections in advanced economies have reached emerging markets as a result of the global search for yield. After an initial market stumble in March, capital flows returned to emerging markets, which have seen high debt issuance in subsequent months. Emerging markets have also been able to reduce their interest rates, and their central banks have started issuing domestic-currency-denominated assets in cases where the market is sufficiently large.

Meanwhile, the massive expansion of currency swaps by GSCBs has eased exchange-rate pressures. These swap lines act as safety nets to forestall foreign-currency shortages in domestic markets. Early in the pandemic, the Fed reactivated its standing swap arrangements with the ECB, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank, while also extending their maturities. It then followed up by providing swap lines to the central banks of Australia, Brazil, Denmark, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and Sweden.

While the Fed deployed similar measures during the global financial crisis a decade ago, it has now gone much further. At the end of March, it started offering a new additional temporary repo facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMAs). This arrangement allows central banks and public monetary institutions around the world to use their existing stock of US Treasury bills as a channel for accessing US dollar liquidity.

Although repos are not genuine currency swaps (because the FIMAs must already have dollar-denominated assets on hand as collateral), they have nonetheless proven to be a powerful source of market confidence. And because the mere availability of repos can be enough to reassure markets, they do not need to be used in many cases.

Moreover, repos can serve as a precursor to true currency-swap arrangements, following the model of the ECB’s repo operations with Poland and Hungary in 2009. In the current crisis, the ECB and the PBOC have both expanded swap lines and repos within their monetary spheres of influence, allowing for a sharp reduction in exchange-rate risks in emerging markets.

Emerging-market central banks’ additional room to maneuver will last for as long as advanced economies’ monetary policies remain sufficiently expansionary. The chances for that are high in the near and medium term, because advanced-economy central banks have been unable (for various reasons) fully to exit from the QE that they launched a decade ago, even after growth and employment recovered.

Now, given the pandemic and the deep economic recession that it has caused, there is effectively no end in sight for QE. Several central banks, moreover, are formally committed to keeping interest rates low or even negative, and new central-bank digital currencies could make such policies relatively easy to implement.

The upshot for emerging-market central banks, then, is that they will most likely continue to enjoy monetary-policy spillovers from the GSBCs for the foreseeable future. But there are limits to the benefits of this policy freedom. Many emerging-market central banks may soon experience unintended consequences in terms of financial stability and governance.

After all, QE and a prolonged recession will inevitably hit the balance sheets of companies, households, and eventually banks. When that happens, bankruptcies and non-performing loans will soar, and governments in emerging markets will find that they still have much less fiscal space than their advanced-economy counterparts do for addressing such problems.

Governance issues also are likely to surface. Central-bank asset purchases that go beyond government bonds will raise concerns about transparency and accountability. In fact, this may well become an issue in advanced economies, too (though they will still have the advantage of more fiscal space and robust institutional arrangements).

One way or another, emerging-market vulnerabilities are likely to become apparent soon in various domains of domestic financial stability and governance. Policymakers in these countries would do well to keep their guard up.


Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi is Program Director and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Global Affairs, London School of Economics. This content is © Project Syndicate, 2020, and is here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

4 Comments

“This decline in leverage and re-use of collateral may be viewed positively from a financial stability perspective. From a monetary policy perspective, however, the lubrication in the global financial markets is now lower as the velocity of money-type instruments has declined.” Link

Up
0

Meanwhile, the massive expansion of currency swaps by GSCBs has eased exchange-rate pressures. These swap lines act as safety nets to forestall foreign-currency shortages in domestic markets. Early in the pandemic, the Fed reactivated its standing swap arrangements with the ECB, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank, while also extending their maturities. It then followed up by providing swap lines to the central banks of Australia, Brazil, Denmark, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and Sweden.

The dollar has barely budged against the monetary systems who are most vulnerable to the lack of “money printing”; including the dollar destruction associated with global dollar shortages the Fed’s puppet show activities are powerless to get at – as we’ll see.

To that end, dollar swaps. The US central bank at the height of GFC2, after much of the system was already wrecked, changed the terms by which it would offer presumably US dollars (in the form of bank reserves) to overseas financial system participants clearly starving for them (after all, global fire sale liquidations). We’re left with the impression this was direct aid to the majority of that global dollar system.

It wasn’t.

What did happen was what usually happens – puppet show theatrics.

US banks, as I showed a few months ago using TIC, through their foreign subsidiaries bid up nearly all of the outstanding swaps and then those foreign subs transferred the “dollars” from foreign locations back onshore to their American parents (or, foreign parents bidding for dollar swaps at their local central bank, and then transferred the proceeds to their American subs operating here in the US; for accounting purposes in data like TIC, there’s no distinction since both forms are treated the same way).Link

While the Fed deployed similar measures during the global financial crisis a decade ago, it has now gone much further. At the end of March, it started offering a new additional temporary repo facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMAs). This arrangement allows central banks and public monetary institutions around the world to use their existing stock of US Treasury bills as a channel for accessing US dollar liquidity.

Where TIC comes into all this is how it further confirms that explanation as well as the global nature of this money marketplace. Collateral and repo are not simply domestic operations. It was dollar destruction collateral-style; the bottleneck forcing the dollar to shoot destructively higher as the usable pool, therefore the working repo market, grew tighter and tighter and tighter. It was one key element to the squeeze behind the currency’s exchange value. Everyone needs dollars, the whole world, and suddenly there’s no way to get them unless you’ve got a load of spare T-bills.

The hidden thing, repo and collateral, driving the visible thing, the dollar’s exchange rate against the rest of the world.

What does TIC show us? As I’ve been chronicling throughout this now-realized bottleneck, more and more junk appears in the figures (especially via the Cayman Islands) in the form of the worst kind of junk – CLO’s. During March and April 2020, it was an explosion of them.As if previously hidden junk perhaps backing transformation chains was being less politely demanded that it began showing up more and more quickly in the visible spectrum of the system’s books. A collateral call, in other words. Maybe even some outright seizures?

Unsurprisingly given the bottleneck, the other side of that is going to be what TIC calls ST Treasury Securities; ST meaning Short-term. T-bills, in other words. A lot of T-bills, a truly enormous dose (just like GFC1):Now think about exactly what the TIC data is showing you here; especially given the above is what I call the red series referring to US banks who are borrowing from foreign counterparties. All of a sudden, beginning with March 2020 (for obvious GFC-like reasons) US banks began to hurriedly borrow a boatload of T-bills from unknown foreign counterparties classified as “other” kinds of financial institutions in just the same way they had eleven and a half years before.

They also borrowed substantially from Foreign Official Institutions (FOI’s), meaning central banks.

More importantly, for our purposes in August 2020 trying to explain why the dollar outside of the euro won’t go down, they have continued borrowing T-bills from these foreign sources all the way through to the end of June (the latest month of data)! Link

Up
0

Unless an alternative reserve currency is developed, like the Chinese E-Yuan or somethinng similar, not much is going to change in these macro/micro theories/practices. A new Bretton Woods is necessary, with Russia, India, China and Saudi Arabia attending and voting.

Up
0

Why would we use the Chinese E-Yuan? it will not be any better fundamentally (created out of thin air and controlled by humans), and actually be significantly worse from a privacy stand point. The Bretton Woods agreement required countries to trust the USA not to print more money than was backed by gold, and surprise surprise the betrayed that trust. If anything we should transition to a trustless system that is math based and not manipulatable by people. And the only one of those available...Bitcoin.

Up
0