Mar 13

Blaming Financial Innovation for Global Financial Crisis

Posted on by

FINANCIAL INNOVATION has a dreadful image these days. The 2007-09 financial crisis followed by Eurozone catastrophe and the lackluster performance of the global economy since, has led to ‘great criticism’ of innovation in financial domain. After all, dicey financial products and opaque mortgage-backed securities did play a dubious role in the run-up to the global crisis.

In recent decades, three particularly important sources of innovation have been financial deregulation, public policies toward credit markets, and broader technological change. At the outset, it is easy to tell why new financial products come about: they come about because people in the economy find them useful because they fulfill basic economic objectives of people in the economy.

But most of the innovations in the run-up to the crisis were not directed at enhancing the ability of the financial sector to perform its social functions. Some believe that with the complex structures of home loan securitization, financial innovation ran ahead of the capabilities of regulators. Hence – it is claimed – a better world economy requires control on innovation.

Subprime mortgage loans, credit default swaps, structured investment vehicles, and other more-recently developed financial products have become emblematic of financial crisis. Indeed, innovation, once held up as the solution, is now more often than not perceived as the problem.

Most of the critics have market-based innovation in their sights. There is an enormous amount of innovation going on in other areas, such as retail payment that has the potential to change the way people carry and spend money. But the debate focuses mainly on wholesale products and techniques, both because they are less obviously useful than retail innovations and because they were more heavily implicated in the financial crisis: think of those evil credit-defaults swaps (CDSs), collateralised-debt obligations (CDOs) and so on.

Angels or Demons

This debate revolves around a simple question: is financial innovation good or bad? But quantifying the benefits of innovation is almost impossible. And like most things, it depends. Are credit cards bad? Or mortgages? Is finance as a whole? It is true that some instruments—for example, highly leveraged ones—are inherently more dangerous than others. But even innovations that are directed to unimpeachably “good” ends often bear substantial resemblances to those that are now vilified.

It is in the nature of markets that there are some things which are indirectly socially useful but which in the short term will look to the external world like pure speculation.

Many people point to interest-rate swaps, which are used to bet on and hedge against future changes in interest rates, as an example of a huge, well-functioning and useful innovation of the modern financial era. But there are more contentious examples, too.

The credit-default swap is an even simpler risk-transfer instrument: you pay someone else an insurance premium to take on the risk that a borrower will default. These instruments offer insurance against a government default, makes many Europeans choke. There are some specific problems with these instruments, particularly when banks sell protection on their own governments: that means a bank will be hit by losses on its holdings of domestic government bonds at the same time as it has to pay out on its CDS contracts.

The much-criticized CDO, which pools and tranches income from various securities; is really just a capital structure in miniature. Risk-bearing equity tranches take the first hit when things go wrong, and more risk-averse investors are more protected from losses. The real problem with the CDOs that blew up was that they were stuffed full of subprime loans but treated by banks, ratings agencies and investors as though they were gold-plated.

As for securitization and credit-default swaps, it would be blinkered to argue they have no problems. Securitization risks giving banks an incentive to loosen their underwriting standards in the expectation that someone else will pick up the pieces. CDS protection may similarly blunt the incentives for lenders to be careful when they extend credit; and there is a specific problem with the way that the risk in these contracts can suddenly materialize in the event of a default.

But the basic ideas behind these blockbuster innovations are sound. Securitization—which worked well for decades—allows banks to free up capital, enabling them to extend more credit, and helps diversification of portfolios as banks shed concentrations of risks and investors buy exposures that suit them.

Rather than asking whether innovations are born bad, the more useful question is whether there is something that makes them likely to sour over time.

Greed is bad

There is an easy answer: people. When bubbles froth, greedy folk use innovations inappropriately—to take on exposures that they should not, to manufacture risk rather than transfer it, to add complexity in order to plump up margins rather than solve problems. But in those circumstances old-fashioned finance goes mad, too: for every securitization stuffed with subprime loans in America, there was a stinking property loan.

This argument has a lot of power. When greed takes hold, finance in all its forms is undone. Yet blaming the worst outcomes of financial innovation on human frailty is hardly helpful.

In simple terms, finance lacks an “off” button. First, the industry has a habit of experimenting ceaselessly as it seeks to build on existing techniques and products to create new ones. The economist Robert C. Merton has coined an evocative phrase “the spiral of innovation” to describe the dynamic tension of this process. Innovations in finance—unlike, say, a drug that has gone through a rigorous approval process before coming to market—are continually mutating. Second, there is a strong desire to standardize products so that markets can deepen, which often accelerates the rate of adoption beyond the capacity of the back office and the regulators to keep up.

As innovations become more and more successful, they start to become systemically significant. In finance, that is automatically worrying, because the consequences of any failure can ripple so widely and unpredictably. The earliest adopters of an innovation are the most knowledgeable; a widely adopted product is more likely to have lots of users with an inadequate grasp of the product’s risks. And that can be a big problem when things turn out to be less safe than expected.

The road ahead

How should policymakers ensure that consumers are protected without stifling innovation that improves product choice and expands access to sustainable credit? The first line of defense undoubtedly is a well-informed consumer. Consumers who know what questions to ask are considerably better able to find the financial products and services that are right for them.

Financial innovation has improved access to credit, reduced costs, and increased choice. We should not attempt to impose restrictions on credit providers so onerous that they prevent the development of new products and services in the future.

Though the recent experience has shown some ways in which financial innovation can misfire, regulation should not prevent innovation; rather it should ensure that innovations are sufficiently transparent and understandable to allow consumer choice to drive good market outcomes. We should be wary of complexity whose principal effect is to make the product or service more difficult to understand by its intended audience. Other questions about proposed innovations should be raised: For instance, how will the innovative product or practice perform under stressed financial conditions? What effects will the innovation have on the ability and willingness of the lender to make loans that are well underwritten and serve the needs of the borrower? These questions about innovation are relevant for safety-and-soundness supervision as well as for consumer protection.

Innovation, at its best, has been and will continue to be a tool for making financial system more efficient and more inclusive. But, as we have seen only too clearly during the past five years, innovation that is inappropriately implemented can be positively harmful.

In sum, the challenge faced by regulators is to strike the right balance: to strive for the highest standards of consumer protection without eliminating the beneficial effects of responsible innovation on consumer choice and access to credit. Goal should be a financial system in which innovation leads to higher levels of economic welfare for people and communities at all income levels.

Feb 28

Turbulence & Substantiation of Rupee and the Way Out

Posted on by

Global Scenario

Some of the busiest corners of the multitrillion-dollar-a-day foreign-exchange market are quieter these days.

The currency market is experiencing its first slowdown since the 2008 financial crisis. Banks, fearing a global credit crunch brought on by Europe’s sovereign-debt struggles, are lending less, reducing the flow of currency across borders. As currency funds suffered a miserable year, investors decamped to other markets or for the safety of cash.

After surging 55% from April 2009 to April 2011, foreign-exchange volumes flattened out. The main driver behind plateauing volumes was an 8% drop in foreign-exchange swaps, in which banks and other companies lend one currency to borrow another. Trading volume averaged $3.47 trillion a day in October 2011, roughly the same as April 2011,

Trading across many assets, such as stocks and commodities in addition to currencies; evaporated amid concerns that Greece’s debt woes would spread to other countries in Europe.

Some Positive Cues

Though it hasn’t been all downhill, there’s plenty to catch some breath. Some emerging-market currencies, like the Mexican peso and Russian ruble, saw higher trading volumes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to briefly edge above 13,000 for the first time in nearly four years. Greece has secured a series of bailout packages that will sidestep a chaotic default, while the European Central Bank has bolstered Europe’s financial system by providing banks with cheap, unlimited loans. The U.S. economy is picking up steam and fears of a “hard landing” in China have disappeared.

Investors may not believe the world economy is in a better place, but they’ve stopped worrying about it. Currency options-trading suggests money managers have turned unusually calm about future swings in global currency rates despite the economic problems afflicting the U.S., Europe and China–not to mention the threat of an oil-price shock. Analysts say volatility fears are low mostly because central banks in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China are again taking big steps to shore up the global markets.

In Indian context, something happened as we turned the calendar from 2011 to 2012. The fears of imminent collapse two months before Christmas have certainly waned. In Europe the LTRO (long term refinancing operations) performed better even than the ECB (European Central Bank) hoped. Then there is the fiscal compact. There is still concerns about short term funding and still concern about whether the banks will be able to raise the capital. There’s less of a concern about an event shock, but still concern about process shocks as we go along and Greece and other countries have to roll over their debt. That’s certainly had a positive impact on investor sentiment here in India, although Indian exposure to Europe is not dominant. To the extent that Europe seems to be less unstable today, it does help domestic investor sentiment here too and we’ve seen that on all the market indices.

All emerging economy currencies have depreciated in the pre-Christmas months, but Indian rupee depreciated more than other currencies and it was the worst performing currency in the world or whatever. What explains that is that India is a current account deficit economy. Those emerging economies that had a surplus or a small deficit were less hit than countries that have a sizeable deficit like India, and that deficit was growing. So the rupee depreciation was a result of external flows practically thinning out and driven by the dynamics of the current account deficit.

The Ideal Way Out

Eventually India needs to make the balance of payments more robust to inspire confidence. There is need to diversify the export destinations and product mix. As far as imports are concerned, dependence on oil imports should be reduced and one way to do that is to deregulate petroleum product prices in true sense.

Oil prices are a big factor and largely beyond one’s control and are very complex economic and geopolitical factors that drive oil prices. Just looking at the world economic situation, the U.S. growth situation is quite modest and Europe is probably in a recession and Japan is growing but… And then there are the political factors, which is Iran. If Iran is outside the world pool there could be price pressures. If Saudi Arabia because of fiscal concerns, its commitment to extend fiscal supports to other Arab countries, to meet that commitment they might want to keep oil prices at a certain level. There are economic factors, there are political factors and there are market factors, all of them that determine oil prices which are largely out of control. India imports as much as 80% of oil it needs and more than a third of total imports, so oil prices are a big factor for inflation management, for the fiscal deficit and for macroeconomic stability for the country.

Gold imports of course have added to the misery arising from BoP crisis. We need to provide other safe havens and need to attract more stable flows, FDI for example. And finally we must encourage, if not pressurize our corporates to hedge their foreign exchange exposures. They don’t do that adequately. They do cost benefit calculations, if the rupee is not moving rapidly, they calculate the cost of hedging is higher than the risk they take by not taking. But as happened in the pre-Christmas months, it can certainly overshoot, so corporates should hedge more.

Feb 08

Before Investing in Mutual Fund

Posted on by

A mutual fund is just the connecting bridge or a financial intermediary that allows a group of investors to pool their money together with a predetermined investment objective. When you invest in a mutual fund, you are buying units or portions of the mutual fund and thus on investing becomes a shareholder or unit holder of the fund.

Mutual funds are considered one of the best available investments being very cost efficient and also easy to invest in as compare to others. Thus by pooling money together in a mutual fund, investors can purchase stocks or bonds with much lower trading costs than if they tried to do it on their own. But the biggest advantage to mutual funds is diversification, by minimizing risk & maximizing returns.

Mutual funds are set up to buy many stocks as they automatically diversify in a predetermined category of investments, i.e. growth companies, emerging or mid size companies, low-grade corporate bonds, etc. The most basic level of diversification is to buy multiple stocks rather than just one stock.

Regulatory Authorities

To protect the interest of the investors, SEBI formulates policies and regulates the mutual funds. It notified regulations and issues guidelines from time to time. MF either promoted by public or by private sector entities including one promoted by foreign entities is governed by these Regulations.

SEBI approved Asset Management Company (AMC) manages the funds by making investments in various types of securities. Custodian, registered with SEBI, holds the securities of various schemes of the fund in its custody.

The Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) reassures the investors in units of mutual funds that the mutual funds function within the strict regulatory framework. Its objective is to increase public awareness of the mutual fund industry.

Types of returns

There are three ways, where the total returns provided by mutual funds can be enjoyed by investors:

  • Income is earned from dividends on stocks and interest on bonds. A fund pays out nearly all income it receives over the year to fund owners in the form of a distribution.
  • If the fund sells securities that have increased in price, the fund has a capital gain. Most funds also pass on these gains to investors in a distribution.
  • If fund holdings increase in price but are not sold by the fund manager, the fund’s shares increase in price. You can then sell your mutual fund shares for a profit. Funds will also usually give you a choice either to receive a check for distributions or to reinvest the earnings and get more shares.

Advantages of Investing Mutual Funds:

  • Professional Management: The basic advantage of funds is that, they are professionally managed by well qualified professional. Investors purchase funds because they do not have the time or the expertise to manage their own portfolio. A mutual fund is considered to be relatively less expensive way to make and monitor their investments.
  • Diversification: By purchasing units in a mutual fund instead of buying individual stocks or bonds, investors’ risk is spread out and minimized up to certain extent. The idea behind diversification is to invest in a large number of assets so that a loss in any particular investment is minimized by gains in others.
  • Economies of Scale: Mutual fund buy and sell large amounts of securities at a time, thus help to reducing transaction costs, and help to bring down the average cost of the unit for their investors.
  • Liquidity: Just like an individual stock, mutual fund also allows investors to liquidate their holdings as and when they want.
  • Simplicity: Investments in mutual fund is considered to be easy, compare to other available instruments in the market, and the minimum investment is small. Most AMCs have automatic purchase plans popularly known as SIP where investor can reap the benefit of mutual fund by investing as little as Rs. 50 per month basis.

Disadvantages of Investing Mutual Funds:

  • Costs: The biggest source of AMC income is generally from the entry & exit load which they charge from investors, at the time of purchase. The mutual fund industries are thus charging extra cost under layers of jargon.
  • Dilution: Because funds have small holdings across different companies, high returns from a few investments often don’t make much difference on the overall return. Dilution is also the result of a successful fund getting too big. When money pours into funds that have had strong success, the manager often has trouble finding a good investment for all the new money.
  • Taxes: When making decisions about your money, fund managers don’t consider your personal tax situation. For example, when a fund manager sells a security, a capital-gain tax is triggered, which affects how profitable the individual is from the sale. It might have been more advantageous for the individual to defer the capital gains liability.