16/10/2019:Corporate Bond Markets are Primed for a Blowout

My this week's column for The Currency is covering the build up of systemic risks in the global corporate bond markets: https://www.thecurrency.news/articles/1962/constantin-gurdgiev-corporate-bond-markets-are-primed-for-a-blowout.

Synopsis: "Individual firms can be sensitive to the periodic repricing of risk by the investors. But collectively, the entire global corporate bond market is sitting on a powder keg of ultra-low government bond yields, with a risk-off fuse lit by the strengthening worries about global economic growth prospects. Currently, over USD 16 trillion worth of government bonds are traded at negative yields. This implies that in the longer run, market pricing is forcing accumulation of significant losses on balance sheets of all institutional investors holding government securities. Even a small correction in these markets can trigger investors to start offloading higher-risk corporate debt to pre-empt contagion from sovereign bonds markets and liquidate liquidity risk exposures."

10/12/15: Europe's Negative Yields Ship of Fools

Those of you who follow my work would know that I hold little compassion for the 'investors' who are willing to give money away to the governments whilst whingeing about high rates of taxation they endure on their incomes. Well, Europe is full of this sort of investors:

And it is getting more full by the minute at EUR2.7 trillion and counting. So, happy waisting your money...

15/7/2014: Mispriced Investment and Risk: Ireland & Euro Area

Whenever Irish Government and media talk about the fabled hordes of investors wondering around Ireland looking for anything to put their money into, all this talk makes me wonder: why are the actual numbers coming out of capital formation side of the National Accounts showing only weak, leafless 'improvements'? Even with reclassifications of R&D costs as 'investment', and with the FDI (some of which does count as 'domestic') and retained profits (some of which, if reinvested, also count as 'domestic').

Well, I bet the IMF should be wondering too. Because in its latest Euro Area analytical paper, the Fund shows that Irish Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Q1 2014 was the second lowest (relative to 2007 levels) after that of another 'recovering' miracle: Greece.

Meanwhile, Ireland is benefiting from low interest rates (compared to its 'peripheral' counterparts) despite having the largest net debt pile of all euro area economies (although Irish rates are rising):

Run by me again that point where, in theory, higher risks are priced via higher cost of capital?

Or that point where equity valuations should be reflective of debt exposures?

11/5/2012: Ignoring that which almost happened?

In recent years, I am finding myself migrating more firmly toward behavioralist views on finance and economics. Not that this view, in my mind, is contradictory to the classes of models and logic I am accustomed to. It is rather an additional enrichment of them, adding toward completeness.

With this in mind - here's a fascinating new study.

How Near-Miss events Amplify or Attenuate Risky Decision Making, written by Catherine Tinsley, Robin Dillon and Matthew Cronin and published in April 2012 issue of Management Science studied the way people change their risk attitudes "in the aftermath of many natural and man-made disasters".

More specifically, "people often wonder why those affected were underprepared, especially when the disaster was the result of known or regularly occurring hazards (e.g., hurricanes). We study one contributing factor: prior near-miss experiences. Near misses are events that have some nontrivial expectation of ending in disaster but, by chance, do not."

The study shows that "when near misses are interpreted as disasters that did not occur, people illegitimately underestimate the danger of subsequent hazardous situations and make riskier decisions (e.g., choosing not to engage in mitigation activities for the potential hazard). On the other hand, if near misses can be recognized and interpreted as disasters that almost happened, this will counter the basic “near-miss” effect and encourage more mitigation. We illustrate the robustness of this pattern across populations with varying levels of real expertise with hazards and different hazard contexts (household evacuation for a hurricane, Caribbean cruises during hurricane season, and deep-water oil drilling). We conclude with ideas to help people manage and communicate about risk."

An interesting potential corollary to the study is that analytical conclusions formed ex post near misses (or in the wake of significant increases in the risk) matter to the future responses. Not only that, the above suggests that the conjecture that 'glass half-full' type of analysis should be preferred to 'glass half-empty' position might lead to a conclusion that an event 'did not occur' rather than that it 'almost happened'.

Fooling yourself into safety by promoting 'optimism' in interpreting reality might be a costly venture...