Libor-Gate is Getting too Much Press: Here’s Why it Doesn’t Matter

0

When I was a life actuary, following the deferred annuity market, the concept of market-value-adjusted annuities arose.  Annuity values could react like bonds to:

  • An external index rate, or,
  • An internal index, driven off of the new money rate for annuities

Now, the internal index sounds soft, but it is not so.  Yes, you can lower your new money rate but reserves grow on indexed products.  You can raise your rates, but reserves will shrink.  It’s not perfect here, but the internal index will work over the long haul.

So when I look at LIBOR and potential manipulation, I don’t see a lot of reason for concern.

Q2 Hedge Funds Resource Page Now LIVE!!! Lives, Conferences, Slides And More [UPDATED 7/6 22:21 EST]

Q2 Hedge Funds Resource PageSimply click the menu below to perform sorting functions. This page was just created on 7/1/2020 we will be updating it on a very frequent basis over the next three months (usually at LEAST daily), please come back or bookmark the page. As always we REALLY really appreciate legal letters and tips on hedge funds Read More


When bond deals are priced, the relative yield is what is priced; it does not matter what the benchmark is, roughly the same overall yield would have been obtained.  Spreads are a way of expressing the excess yield over equivalent maturity government or AA bank (swap/LIBOR) yields.  They are a result of the process, not a driver of the process.

If 3-month LIBOR were replaced by the on-the-run 3-month Treasury yield, new deals would be priced, and the spreads would be higher by the TED (EuroDollar – Treasury) yield spread.

When I was a bond manager, dealer desks would often try to sell or buy bonds off of unusual benchmarks.  I would always make the necessary adjustments to calculate the option adjusted spread over interpolated swap rates, with further adjustments for the degree of premium or discount to par.  (Note: A premium bond carries extra credit risk because if it defaults, the most you can recover is par.  Opposite for discount bonds.  There is a mathematical method for calculating the amount of yield tradeoff between premium/par/discount bonds, even in the absence of a credit default swap [CDS] market.  You assume that the spread over swap is the CDS premium, and calculate the annual cost of insuring the premium to par.  Deduct that from the current spread, and you have the hypothetical true par spread.  Once you have that, you can make rational swap trades.)

What I am trying to say is that benchmarks/indexes aren’t all powerful.  Bright bond investors look past them, and analyze the economics of the situation.  Same for intelligent borrowers; they know that LIBOR rises during times of financial stress.  If you are a floating rate investor/borrower, you ought to analyze the rate that your investment/loan is tied to.

Many commentators with knowledge of the situation think that lawsuits regarding LIBOR will amount to little (onetwo).  Yes, there may have been some manipulation in a micro-sense for some banks, but in terms of having a big effect on many, I don’t think that is possible.  There might be some degree to which borrowers benefited and savers/lenders lost.  That’s a tough case to press on any side.  Courts favor borrowers, and they benefited from any manipulation.

In closing, I don’t think much will come from the “LIBOR scandal” the same way that nothing will come from the “rating agencies scandal.” Both are examples of summarizing information/opinions that investors can use at their own risk.  They are not fiduciaries; those who use the information do so at their own risk.

By: alephblog

Previous articleDenmark Now Has Negative Interest Rates: The Real Reason
Next articleSamsung Q2 Sales Miss Estimates, But Profits Jump 79 Percent
David J. Merkel, CFA, FSA — 2010-present, I am working on setting up my own equity asset management shop, tentatively called Aleph Investments. It is possible that I might do a joint venture with someone else if we can do more together than separately. From 2008-2010, I was the Chief Economist and Director of Research of Finacorp Securities. I did a many things for Finacorp, mainly research and analysis on a wide variety of fixed income and equity securities, and trading strategies. Until 2007, I was a senior investment analyst at Hovde Capital, responsible for analysis and valuation of investment opportunities for the FIP funds, particularly of companies in the insurance industry. I also managed the internal profit sharing and charitable endowment monies of the firm. From 2003-2007, I was a leading commentator at the investment website RealMoney.com. Back in 2003, after several years of correspondence, James Cramer invited me to write for the site, and I wrote for RealMoney on equity and bond portfolio management, macroeconomics, derivatives, quantitative strategies, insurance issues, corporate governance, etc. My specialty is looking at the interlinkages in the markets in order to understand individual markets better. I no longer contribute to RealMoney; I scaled it back because my work duties have gotten larger, and I began this blog to develop a distinct voice with a wider distribution. After three-plus year of operation, I believe I have achieved that. Prior to joining Hovde in 2003, I managed corporate bonds for Dwight Asset Management. In 1998, I joined the Mount Washington Investment Group as the Mortgage Bond and Asset Liability manager after working with Provident Mutual, AIG and Pacific Standard Life. My background as a life actuary has given me a different perspective on investing. How do you earn money without taking undue risk? How do you convey ideas about investing while showing a proper level of uncertainty on the likelihood of success? How do the various markets fit together, telling us us a broader story than any single piece? These are the themes that I will deal with in this blog. I hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Johns Hopkins University. In my spare time, I take care of our eight children with my wonderful wife Ruth.