Liquidity in the Foreign Exchange Market: Measurement, Commonality, and Risk Premiums

A daily return reversal measure of liquidity is developed and estimated using a new comprehensive ultra-high frequency data set of foreign exchange rates during the financial crisis period of 2007--2008. The measure captures market participants' perception of periods with high and low liquidity in the expected manner. Tests for commonality in foreign exchange (FX) liquidity show that liquidity co-moves strongly across currencies. Systematic FX liquidity decreases dramatically during the subprime crisis, especially after the default of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. To investigate whether there exists a return premium for illiquidity, a factor model similar to Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2009) is augmented by a liquidity risk factor constructed from shocks to systematic liquidity. Empirical results indicate that liquidity risk is a heavily priced state variable important for the determination of FX returns. Previously identified risk factors such as the carry trade and market risk factors are no longer significant once common liquidity risk is incorporated in the asset pricing model. This finding helps to explain deviations from uncovered interest rate parity as classical tests do not include liquidity risk.

Loriano Mancini, Angelo Ranaldo

We provide the first systematic study of liquidity in the foreign exchange market. We find significant variation in liquidity across exchange rates, substantial illiquidity costs, and strong commonality in liquidity across currencies and with equity and bond markets. Analyzing the impact of liquidity risk on carry trades, we show that funding (investment) currencies offer insurance against (exposure to) liquidity risk. A liquidity risk factor has a strong impact on carry trade returns from 2007 to 2009, suggesting that liquidity risk is priced. We present evidence that liquidity spirals may trigger these findings.

Wiley-Blackwell2013

Essays in Dynamic Corporate Finance

Francesca Maria Zucchi

This thesis examines the effects of financing frictions on corporate decisions using dynamic models. Accounting for financing frictions helps reconcile a number of regularities that are hard to explain within the Modigliani-Miller framework. For instance, financing frictions provide incentives for firms to keep liquidity on their balance sheets as a precautionary hedge---a pattern that has been heavily debated in light of the secular increase of cash-to-asset ratios of U.S. firms. The first chapter develops a model that investigates the relation between corporate policies and secondary stock market liquidity. I show that secondary market illiquidity limits a firm's ability to hold precautionary liquidity, exacerbates financial constraints, reduces investment, and decreases firm value. The model reproduces the positive relation between market liquidity and corporate cash holdings observed in the data. This relation might be surprising since firms with illiquid stocks, which have been documented to be more financially constrained than more liquid peers, should be willing to keep more precautionary cash. I also show that the illiquidity-driven drop in firm value can feed back into the secondary market by deterring the participation of liquidity providers, thereby making the market more illiquid. The self-reinforcing nature of this relation gives rise to an internal-external liquidity loop, which singles out a propagation mechanism between financial markets and the corporate sector. From a banking perspective, liquidity hoarding has been a hotly debated topic among academics and policy-makers in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The second chapter, which is a joint work with Prof. Erwan Morellec and Marco Della Seta, develops a dynamic model of the effects of liability structure and liquid reserves on banks' insolvency risk. When a bank relies on short-term debt financing, negative operating shocks get amplified as the bank weaker fundamentals also translate into losses when rolling over short-term debt. This amplification mechanism leads to an increase in default risk that gets more pronounced as debt maturity decreases and rollover losses increase. Because of this amplification mechanism, banks with identical debt ratios and liquid reserves but different debt structures have different default risk. Heavy exposure to rollover risk can also lead banks to implement gambling strategies when close to default. The third chapter, which is a joint work with Prof. Semyon Malamud, analyzes firms' optimal policies in a general equilibrium setting. It characterizes optimal liquidity management, innovation, and production decisions for a continuum of firms facing financing frictions and the threat of creative destruction. We show that liquidity constraints lead firms to cut production and increase markups, which are then countercyclical with respect to firm-specific shocks. We also illustrate that liquidity constraints may spur firms' investment in innovation and give rise to a non-monotonic cash-investment relation. We embed our single-firm dynamics in a Schumpeterian model of endogenous growth and demonstrate that financing frictions have a non-monotonic effect on economic growth and may increase aggregate consumption. When the corporate sector is constrained, liquidity injections by the government have real effects and can stimulate growth.

EPFL2015

Financial Stability and the Macroeconomy

Corinne Dubois

The financial crisis of 2007-2009 drew attention to the essential role of banks for the macroeconomy and to the importance of having a resilient financial sector. A vulnerability in the financial sector spills over to the real economy and can drive it into a deep recession. Following the financial crisis, policy makers have issued rules and regulations aimed at strengthening the banks. My dissertation considers some of those measures, namely bank liquidity regulation and deposit insurance, and tries to assess their effectiveness in stabilizing the financial sector and the economy in general. The first chapter (joint with Prof. Luisa Lambertini) develops a model with regulated banks and a hedge fund to analyze the behavior of wholesale funding and the macroeconomic consequences of liquidity regulation. Banks raise deposits and subordinated wholesale funding from the hedge fund. Wholesale funding amplifies shocks: it is curtailed in economic downturns to avoid leveraging up and risk-taking by banks, further depressing credit and economic activity. By making banks safer, liquidity regulation increases wholesale funding and bank loans at the steady state. However, flat liquidity regulation requiring banks to hold a constant fraction of liquid assets can have unintended consequences and increase macroeconomic volatility. Our model further shows that cyclically adjusted regulation stabilizes the response of the economy to shocks. We also provide empirical evidence suggesting that liquidity helps contain the contraction in wholesale funding and loans during times of funding stress. The second chapter explores the macroeconomic and welfare implications of harmonizing or joining deposit insurance in the Eurozone. I develop a two-country model to represent the core and periphery countries in the Eurozone. The model features fragile banks that can be subject to endogenous and costly runs. The two countries are financially integrated through an international interbank market. I introduce deposit insurance and compare different insurance regimes in steady state and along the business cycle. The model emphasizes that financial integration implies co-movement in asset prices and the transmission of shocks across the border. I find that when deposit insurance has lower coverage in the periphery than in the core, financial stability is undermined in both regions due to higher asset price volatility and a higher probability of deposit runs. Hence, either harmonizing or joining deposit insurance leads to substantial welfare benefits for both countries. In the third chapter, I develop a macroeconomic model with multiple equilibria and bank runs to analyze deposit insurance. A bank run is a sunspot equilibrium, and it is caused by a self-fulfilling panic of all depositors. The model features a unique no-run equilibrium when macroeconomic conditions are good, but an unexpected negative shock may open up the possibility of a run equilibrium. A bank run is a rare but costly event that drives the economy in a long and severe recession. I analyze the introduction and build-up of a deposit insurance fund and show that it reduces the cost and probability of bank runs. The dynamic simulation of the model reveals that deposit insurance diminishes macroeconomic and financial instability following a technological shock.