Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

LIBOR: Fear meter, or shock generator?

lambert's picture

[I'm stickying this because, dammit, it seems unfoily to me, and everybody's assuming LIBOR is some sort of neutral measure. Takedown, anyone? -- lambert]

Bloomberg has an interesting article whose headline, if taken literally, puts shock doctrine right out into the open:

Libor Holds Central Banks Hostage as Credit Freezes?

(Note the usual lack of agency. LIBOR's just a number. How can a number hold anyone hostage? Only sentient beings can hold each other hostage.)

Anyhow -- with the usual caveat that I'm trying to learn all this stuff as I go along, and anybody who steps in with clarification or a takedown will be doing a public service -- LIBOR is the London Interbank Offered Rate, a "daily reference rate based on the interest rates at which banks offer to lend unsecured funds to other banks in the London wholesale money market (or interbank market). " It's one component of the TED spread, a number Krugman warned us to watch back in February:

The TED spread is the difference between the interest rate banks charge each other on 3-month loans (3-month LIBOR) and the interest rate on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. It’s a measure of financial jitters. If banks believe that their peers are solid, they should be willing to lend each other money on almost the same terms as money lent to Uncle Sam. When they start demanding a big interest rate premium, that’s a sign of fear.

Hold that idea, "measure of fear," in mind. Because LIBOR has an interesting backstory. Let's read on in the article we originally started with:

Rising Libor, set each day in the center of international finance, means higher payments on financial contracts valued at $360 trillion -- or $53,500 for each person worldwide --including mortgages in Britain, student loans in the U.S. and the debt of companies like CIIF in Makati City, the Philippines.

The process of setting Libor is overseen by the British Bankers' Association, putting it outside the domain of central bank policymakers. The overnight dollar rate fell 29 basis points to 5.09 percent. That's still 359 basis points more than the U.S. Federal Reserve's benchmark rate.

In other words, LIBOR is unregulated, and a consequence of deregulation -- thanks to Maggie Thatcher:

The BBA began producing the unified rates known as Libor in 1986, an association spokesman said. That made Libor the natural benchmark when then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher abolished many restrictions on trading in the U.K., leading to an explosion in the range of products on offer, said David Clark, former head of funding at European Investment Bank, the European Union's Luxembourg-based development bank.

The process of setting LIBOR is entirely opaque:

Libor is set through a daily survey by the London-based British Bankers' Association. As many as 16 banks, including UBS AG, Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., report the rates they think they can borrow at in 10 currencies and maturities ranging from overnight to one year.

And in fact, nobody knows for sure why LIBOR is what it is:

While the estimates that go into Libor used to be based [what does that mean?] on actual transactions between banks, they have become little more than guesswork since credit markets froze, according to three people with knowledge of how interbank rates are set. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss rate setting.

`I Don't Know'

``Whatever answer you give is by definition wrong,''* said Meyrick Chapman, a strategist at UBS in London. ``There is no interbank lending, so the only proper answer to where could you fund yourself is `I don't know' or `I can't.'''

What good is a "measure" that doesn't work in a crisis? It's as if the thermostat in your house stopped working as soon as it got cold!

Well, it is no use. Maybe that's because it's not a "measure" at all?

So let's back up. When economists and journalists (among, Krugman) call LIBOR a "measure of the jitters," that's not a statement of fact; it's a hypothesis.

What if LIBOR is not a thermostat for fear, but the needle on a financial shock generator -- wired up to the stones of everyone round the world who needs credit? As I wrote:

I have yet to see anyone confront and refute Newberry’s theory that the crisis is caused by greed, not fear. (After all, if you were in a posse of infestment bankers, and you could get the government to hand you a trillion dollars, no strings attached, just because you “freeze” interbank lending and cause other people a lot of pain, what would you do?*)

LIBOR is set by private parties. It is not regulated. The process is opaque. Sources call it "guesswork" now, but for all we know, it's always been "based on" nothing; there's no way to know for sure, because there's no transparency

And it's certainly a reasonable hypothesis that the private parties** who set LIBOR in London don't take the Tube home to a little bit of a garden in the burbs; they like money, a lot; they have money, a lot; and they'd like to have more money. A lot. In fact, one of the things about greed is that there's no limit it to it, so they'll squeeze the lemon 'til the pips squeak.***

In fact, the only reason to trust LIBOR as a measure opposed to a manipulator -- compare Soros on "reflexivity", a "shock" metaphor if ever I heard one -- is a vague feeling that "No! They would never do that!"

Well...

NOTE * So, LIBOR is like the Rapture Index, then?

NOTE ** Cf. Dante'sInferno, Circle Four (Greed_:

Now canst thou, Son, behold the transient farce
Of goods that are committed unto Fortune,
For which the human race each other buffet;

For all the gold that is beneath the moon,
Or ever has been, of these weary souls
Could never make a single one repose."

NOTE *** Bloomberg was another interesting headline, with an interesting metaphor:

Central Banks Fail to Alleviate `Logjam' in Libor

Well, every log jam has a key log. If it's a reasonable hypothesis that LIBOR is being manipulated, then the guys who are manipulating it are the key log. G7 has its weekend work cut out for it! Hmmm... More weekend work......

0
No votes yet

Comments

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Do I think LIBOR and other institutions aren't capable of engineering some very strong pressure? No. This is entirely possible. But I get the feeling that this controlled burn got out of their hands and is now a raging forest fire. In other words, they pushed the envelope too far and now we are in real trouble.
None of these actions happen in isolation anymore. If you touch one part of the web, the vibrations are felt everywhere at once.
Come together at The Confluence

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

... is silence on what seems to me to be a rather obvious -- and non-foily hypothesis. The dog did not bark, and all that. I don't think it's CT so much as the buildup to a brutal shootout in a rather small circle...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

...the dollar might be in trouble now. My knowledge of this crap is rather recent (like, since the meltdown began) but as I understand it, money market managers "broke the buck", ie, offered a return on the dollar to their customers than was less than the initial investment. So, a dollar invested in a money market fund may now be worth .97 cents. So, money market customers started pulling out of money markets and started to buy treasury bills because that was the safest investment. The return on a treasury bil went to 1 basis point recently and I think down to 0? Is that right? And the reason it went so low is because so many people were switching to them, resulting in the dilution of the return, is this correct?
So, if people were still investing in treasury bills, the ROI would still be expected to be close to zilch. But what Krugman and Jansen report is that treasury bills are not offering a ROI of more than 2.8%. That means, the demand for them is not as hot as it was a coupld ofdays ago. That means that in spite of the volatility of the market, investors have started to give up on treasury bills. That means that they don't see the dollar as a safe investment? That means they are putting their money somewhere else and we all know that the Europeans are acting like, er, Europeans and doing their own thing. So, where is the money going?
Krugman says the Brits seem to have their act together. And that is interesting because the Brits never gave up the pound. So, is the money flowing into pounds? I'm hopelessly confused!!!
And will the Treasury be forced to "break the buck" as well? What does it mean for us? What's the bottom line?
Come together at The Confluence

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

my husband talked to on Monday advised investing in t-bills, but it didn't look like a good idea once he looked into it more. We're out of the stock market and just trying to hold on to what's left of our money.

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

have more weapons than those in Europe. The dollar isn't in trouble. The Euro is. Even the Pound is being rocked, but it won't fail. Euro's have something called a country of origin number in its serial number. There's this possibility that other countries within Europe might not honor a Euro from another country based on the country of origin number.

Joe Scordato's picture
Submitted by Joe Scordato on

Lambert

You're going to want linky goodness, which I appreciate, but I'm too tired (and have had too much wine) after what has been a very long and scary week in the markets to do the research tonight. Working as a lawyer for international banks for the last 30 years (including an over 5 year stint at the late Lehman Brothers in NY and London), I can say that people in banking may have similar sympathies but active collusion between firms is rare. (Active collusion even within large holding companies, where you might expect it, is rare; they fight like siblings who really can't stand each other.) On LIBOR, it is an imperfect measure but it did originate as a neutral measure of what banks charged each other for loans to each other to use excess cash for the lenders and to relieve a temporary cash need for borrowers between banks in the Eurodollar market. It became a measure for other loans and interest rate measures, sort of like the prime rate here in the US. It's also a basic reference for swaps, etc. between all banks. Because of that, banks have as much to lose on the sides where they're short LIBOR as they would to gain being long LIBOR if they were to manipulate it up. It started out as what you would charge your best, most credit-worthy clients, then spread to be used as the reference for other rates. It has had problems lately (see the FT), but it's still relatively valid until the latest crisis. The description above - there are no loans occurring between banks - is accurate and that is the problem right now. Banks don't trust each other, and so they're not lending to each other at LIBOR or any other rate. They're not doing this to extract government money, they're genuinely scared the other bank won't be there tomorrow and need the cash themselves. A government guarantee (with the appropriate penalties to the bank and upside to the taxpayer) will help relieve the concern and get banks lending to each other again. With that they will feel better about lending to others and get money moving through the system again. Paulson should have done this originally but better late than never.

See Brad Delong for some interesting comments:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/no...

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

At last, somebody who understands finance!

When I see a system like this, I see the potential for abuse. There isn't much that hasn't been abused, lately. Surely more transparency is part of the solution, too?

NOTE So, what kind of wine?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

danps's picture
Submitted by danps on

With the economy melting down everyone (including me) is trying to self-administer a crash course in macroeconomics. There's too much noise at the moment though - too many terms, too many voices. I think the best first step would be to exclude those who have been consistently wrong (and where possible *coughPaulsoncough* get rid of them entirely) and start valuing the opinions of those who have a track record of being right. This is like the Iraq war - the same people who fucked up initially are putting themselves forward, and being accepted as, leaders for the cleanup. Appropriate penalties for failure would be wonderfully clarifying. And you don't need to know Libor from Crestor to implement it.