DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS - an application on the EMBIG spreads – Student: BERBECARU CLAUDIA-FLORIANA Supervisor: Professor MOISĂ ALTĂR The Academy of Economic Studies DOFIN – Doctoral School of Finance and Banking Bucharest, July 2008
26
Embed
DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS - an application on the EMBIG spreads –
The Academy of Economic Studies DOFIN – Doctoral School of Finance and Banking. DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS - an application on the EMBIG spreads –. Student: BERBECARU CLAUDIA-FLORIANA Supervisor: Professor MOISĂ ALTĂR. Bucharest, July 2008. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS
- an application on the EMBIG spreads –
Student: BERBECARU CLAUDIA-FLORIANA
Supervisor: Professor MOISĂ ALTĂR
The Academy of Economic Studies DOFIN – Doctoral School of Finance and Banking
Bucharest, July 2008
DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS
In last years there was a rapid compression in the spreads of sovereign bonds issued by Emerging Economies
The compression in spreads was driven both by domestic fundamentals but also by the developments in the risk appetite of investors on the international markets
For instance, decrease in the EMBIG spreads for Romania came hand in hand with important progresses in the economy as reflected by the improved sovereign ratings from S&P
EMBIG Composite, EMBIG Romania and Credit Rating Outlook for Romania
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Apr-
02
Oct-
02
Apr-
03
Oct-
03
Apr-
04
Oct-
04
Apr-
05
Oct-
05
Apr-
06
Oct-
06
Apr-
07
Oct-
07
Apr-
08
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
EMBIG spreads for Romania
EMBIG spreads - Composite index
Credit rating outlook index (CROI) - Romania (RHS)
DETERMINANTS OF SPREADS OF ROMANIAN SOVEREIGN BONDS
Developments in the risk appetite of investors on the international markets were also important for the sovereign spreads
EU accession had also an impact on the spreads for CEE countries
The spreads of sovereign bonds for Emerging Economies are thought to reflect the default risk of these countries
They should be modeled as a function of the probability of default and of the loss given the default (or the expected recovery)
Most empirical analises use the following reduced-form equation:
tititiiiti ZXs ,,, )log(
where tis , is the spread for country i at t ,
tiX , is a set of domestic fundamentals for country i at t
tZ is a set of external factors reflecting the degree of risk
appetite of international investors
Many times tiX , is based on the sovereign ratings of rating agencies
DATA USED IN ANALYSIS
Number of countries: 11 Emerging Economies
Period of analysis: May 2002 – April 2008
EMBIG spreads They are computed by JP Morgan on daily basis as the difference between the
yields of sovereign bonds issued by Emerging Economies and the yield for a bond issued by a a developed benchmark economy
The spreads of sovereign bonds for Emerging Economies are thought to reflect the default risk of these countries
EMBIG price indexes are used in the last part of the paper to estimate volatility, co-movements and spillover effects
DATA USED IN ANALYSIS
Credit Rating Outlook Index (CROI)
Converts the sovereign ratings of S&P on a numerical (cardinal) scale
The CROI is used as proxy for the domestic fundamentals
We use the CROI computed by Hartelius and others (2008) which takes into account both the ratings and the oulooks for the ratings
The HP filtered series (ʌ=15) is used the estimations
Stable Positive Negative
Investment grade
AAA 1 0 2.7
AA+ 2 1 3.7
AA 3 2 4.7
AA- 4 3 5.7
A+ 5 4 6.7
A 6 5 7.7
A- 7 6 8.7
BBB+ 8 7 9.7
BBB 9 8 10.7
BBB- 10 9 11.7
Sub-investment grade, categoria I
BB+ 11 10.1 12.7
BB 12 11.1 13.7
BB- 13 12.1 14.7
B+ 14 13.1 15.7
B 15 14.1 16.7
B- 16 15.1 17.7
CCC+ 17 16.1 18.7
Sub-investment grade, categoria II
CCC 18 18 18
CCC- 19 19 19
CC 20 20 20
C 21 21 21
SD 22 22 22
Category S&P sovereign ratings
Outlook
DATA USED IN ANALYSIS
Volatility index of S&P 500 (VIX)
The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (VIX) is a key measure of market expectations of near-term volatility (30 days) conveyed by S&P 500 stock index option prices
Proxy for risk appetite in the global markets
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Apr-02
Oct-02
Apr-03
Oct-03
Apr-04
Oct-04
Apr-05
Oct-05
Apr-06
Oct-06
Apr-07
Oct-07
Apr-08
VIX index
DATA USED IN ANALYSIS
Other series taken into account, but not used in the final model
3-months futures on the FED funds rate - used volatility of the diference between the 3-months futures on the FED funds rate and the FED funds rate
Unit root tests
Unit root test on the individual series showed that the series are I(1) Panel unit root tests showed also that series are I(1)
EMPIRICAL MODEL
Testing for cointegration
No cointegration was found between the data when using only data for Romania Panel cointegration tests (Pedroni and Kao) showed that there is a cointegration relationship between the log of EMBIG spreads,
the log of CROI index, and the log of VIX
Estimation methods
To estimate the lon-run relationship between the variables, we use two models: A panel model with fixed effects The pool mean group (PMG) estimator of Pesaran, Shin and Smith (1997)
PANEL MODEL WITH FIXED EFFECTS – ESTIMATION RESULTS
We estimate the following equation with pooled data:
tiiititi vixcroiembig ,, log_log_log_
where 11,...,2,1i identifies the countries and 72,...,2,1t identifies the
period of time.
is the same across the countries
varies across the countries
we allow for fixed effects
we take into account that there might be autocorrelation in the
residuals across countries
PANEL MODEL WITH FIXED EFFECTS – ESTIMATION RESULTS
Panel with fixed effects - Deviation fromequilibrium
PMG estimator - Deviation from equilibrium
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08
EMBI spreads for Romania
Panel w ith f ixed effects - Equilibrium levelPMG estimator - Equilibrium level
MAIN PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL
The spreads for the Romanian sovereign bonds decreased by 225 bp between May 2002 and April 2008. The estimated model, based on the long-run equilibrium relationship, implies only a decrease of 51 bp.
The higher decrease in the effective spreads is due to the fact that the Romanian bonds were undervaluated in 2002 (the spreads were above their equilibrium level) and they were overvaluated in April 2008 (the spreads were below their equilibrium level).
The 51 bp decreased based on the equilibrium level is due exclusively to the fundamentals (as reflected by the decrease in the S&P sovereign rating), while the external factors had no impact during this interval. This is because following the crisis on the international markets the VIX index returned to the same level as in 2002, which means that the investors started to price appropriately the risk.
In the long run, a country cannot bet on the external factors to reduce its borrowing costs. Rather, it should implement appropriate domestic policies in order to improve domestic fundamentals.
CO-MOVEMENTS AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS IN THE DAILY RETURNS OF SOVEREIGN BONDS
We test for the existence of a co-movement in the prices of sovereign bonds and for the existence of spillover effects between the Emerging Countries from Europe
We use daily returns from May 2002 to May 2008 for 6 countries: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia
To test for co-movements we use the permanent components of the conditional variance obtained from univariate Component GARCH (1,1) models:
,2ttt cr with ),0(~/ 2
1 ttt NI
112
1312
1212
112 )()()( ttttttttt Dqaqaqaq
)()( 21
21211 tttt bqbq
where tr is the daily return, 2
t is the conditional variance and tq is the permanent component of the conditional variance
CO-MOVEMENTS AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS IN THE DAILY RETURNS OF SOVEREIGN BONDS
Estimation results:
Sample period: May 2002 – May 2008
Romania Bulgaria Croatia Poland Hungary
ARCH in Mean c 70.198*** 27.64*** 86.1432*** 36.4175*** 29.3184***
ARCH Term a1 0.1938*** 0.101*** 0.1548** 0.0709** 0.0625***
GARCH Term a2 0.4147*** 0.6193*** -0.0285 0.0671 0.2391*
Asymetric Term a3 -0.076* n.a. -0.1443** -0.1098*** -0.0357
CO-MOVEMENTS AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS IN THE DAILY RETURNS OF SOVEREIGN BONDS
In order to test for spillover effects we reestimate the CGARCH model using in the equation for the permanent component of the volatility for a country the lagged estimated permanent components for the other countries
,,2
,, tROtROtRO cr with ),0(~/ 2;1, tROttRO NI
1,1;2
1,31,2
1,21,2
1,12
, )()()( tROtROtROtROtROtROtROttRO Dqaqaqaq
1,32
1,2
1,21,1, )()( tjtROtROtROtRO qbbqbq
From country i
to Romania
Coefficient 3b Standard error z-statistics Prob.
Bulgaria 0.020721 0.008247 2.512418 0.0120
Croatia 0.018687 0.005076 3.681276 0.0002
Hungary 0.004638 0.001308 3.545817 0.0004
Poland 0.043294 0.00949 4.561988 0.0000
From Romania
to country i
Coefficient 3b Standard error z-statistics Prob.
Bulgaria 0.180597 0.061303 2.945963 0.0032
Croatia 0.107563 0.057154 1.881976 0.0598
Hungary 0.006334 0.003187 1.987443 0.0469
Poland 0.001284 0.00155 0.828561 0.4074
There are spillover-effects especially both to and from Romania
CONCLUSION
The Credit Rating Outlook Index (CROI) and the volatility index VIX explain well the developments in the spreads of sovereign bonds
There is a large similitude between the deviations of spreads from the level implied by the long-run relationship in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, which we explain by the EU accession process of these two countries.
We find also a comovement in the volatility of daily returns of CEE sovereign bonds, with spillover effects especially between Bulgaria and Romania. The co -movement is located at the level of the permanent component of the conditional volatility, which mean s that it is related to fundamental factors.
In the long run, a country cannot bet on the external factors to reduce its borrowing costs. Rather, it should implement appropriate domestic policies in order to improve domestic fundamentals.
Additional research is welcomed. For instance, modeling the impact of EU accession on the spreads of CEE sovereign bonds is challenging from an econometric point of view given that this is an unobservable variable. Also, alternative estimation methods might be used in order to check the robustness of the empirical results.
REFERENCES
Alexander, C. (2001), “Market Models: A Guide to Financial Data Analysis”, John Wiley
& Sons Ltd
Chicago Board Options Exchange (2003), VIX CBOE Volatility Index, www.cboe.com
Edwards, S. (1983), “LCD’s Foreign Borrowing and Default Risk: An Empirical
Investigation 1976 – 1980”, NBER Working Paper Series No. 1172
Ferrucci, G. (2003), “Empirical Determinants of Emerging Market Economies’ Sovereign
Bond Spreads”, Bank of England, Working Paper No. 205
Fiess, N (2003), “Capital Flows, Country Risk and Contagion”, World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 2943
Gonzalez Hermosillo, B. (2008), “Investors’ Risk Appetite and Global Financial Market
Conditions”, IMF Working Paper 08/85
Hartelius, K., K. Kashiwase and L.E. Kodres (2008), “Emerging Market Spread
Compression: Is it Real or is it Liquidity”, IMF Working Paper 08/10
Hauner, D., J. Jonas, and M.S. Kumar (2007), “Policy Credibility and Sovereign Credit:
The Case of New EU Member States”, IMF Working Paper 07/1
REFERENCES
J.P. Morgan (1999), “Introducing the J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Bond Index Global
(EMBI Global), www.morganmarkets.com
Luengnaruemitchai, P. and S. Schadler (2007), “Do Economists’ and Financial Markets’
Perspectives on the New Members of the EU Differ?” , IMF Working Paper 07/65
Maier, Philipp (2008), “Sound Policies or Good Fortune: What Drives the Compression in
Emerging Market Spreads?”, Paper presented at the Canadian Economics Assosiation
42nd Annual Meetings at University of British Columbia, Vancouver
McGuire, P. and M.A. Schrijvers (2003), “Common Factors in Emerging Market
Spreads”, BIS Quarterly Review
Ozatay, F. E. Ozmen and G. Sahinbeyoglu (2007), “Emerging Markets Sovereign
Spreads, Global Financial Conditions and US Macroeconomic News”, Economic
Research Center Working Papers in Economics 07/07
Pesaran, M.H., Y. Shin and R.P. Smith (1997), “Pool estimation of Long Run
Relationship in Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Birkbeck College London
Pramor, M. and N.T. Tamirisa (2006), “Common Volatility Trends in the Central and
Eastern European Currencies and the Euro”, IMF Working Paper 06/206