liquidity Archives

If banks are Absent from the Wholesale Money Market, what exactly is their function?

In Search of More Stable Liquidity Providers

By Elham Saeidinezhad | The COVID-19 crisis has revealed the resiliency of the banking system compared to the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At the same time, it also put banks’ absence from typically bank-centric markets on display. Banks have already demonstrated their objection to passing credit to small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs). In doing so, they rejected their traditional role as financial intermediaries for the retail depositors. This phenomenon is not surprising for scholars of “Money View”. The rise of market-based finance coincides with the fading role of banks as financial intermediaries. Money View asserts that banks have switched their business model to become the lenders and dealers in the interbank lending and the repo market, both wholesale markets, respectively. Banks lend to each other via the interbank lending market, and use the proceeds to make market in funding liquidity via the repo market.

Aftermath the COVID-19 crisis, however, an episode in the market for term funding cast a dark shadow over such doctrine. The issue is that it appears that interbank lending no longer serves as the significant marginal source of term funding for banks. Money Market Funds (MMFs) filled the void in other wholesale money markets, such as markets for commercial paper and the repo market. After the pandemic, MMFs curtailed their repo lending, both with dealers and in the cleared repo segment, to accommodate outflows. This decision by MMFs increased the cost of term dollar funding in the wholesale money market. This distortion was contained only when the Fed directly assisted MMFs through Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility or MMLF. Money View emphasizes the unique role of banks in the liquidity hierarchy since their liabilities (bank deposits) are a means of payment. Yet, such developments call into question the exact role of banks, who have unique access to the Fed’s balance sheet, in the financial system. Some scholars warned that instruments, such as the repo, suck out liquidity when it most needed. A deeper look might reveal that it is not money market instruments that are at fault for creating liquidity issues but the inconsistency between the banks’ perceived, and actual significance, as providers of liquidity during a crisis.

There are two kinds of MMFs: prime and government. The former issue shares as their liabilities and hold corporate bonds as their assets while the latter use the shares to finance their holding of safe government debts. By construction, the shares have the same risk structure as the underlying pool of government bonds or corporate bonds. In doing so, the MMFs act as a form of financial intermediaries. However, this kind of intermediation is different from a classic, textbook, one. MMFs mainly use diversification to pool risk and not so much to transform it. Traditional financial intermediaries, on the other hand, use their balance sheet to transform risk- they turn liquid liabilities (overnight checkable deposits) into illiquid assets (long term loans). There is some liquidity benefit for the mutual fund shareholder from diversification. But such a business model implies that MMFs have to keep cash or lines of credit, which reduces their return.

To improve the profit margin, MMFs have also become active providers of liquidity in the market for term funding, using instruments such as commercial paper (CP) and the repo. Commercial paper (CP) is an unsecured promissory note with a fixed maturity, usually three months. The issuer, mostly banks and non-financial institutions, promises to pay the buyer some fixed amount on some future date but pledges no assets, only her liquidity and established earning power, guaranteeing that promise. Investment companies, principally money funds and mutual funds, are the single biggest class of investors in commercial paper. Similarly, MMFs are also active in the repo market. They usually lend cash to the repo market, both through dealers and cleared repo segments. At its early stages, the CP market was a local market that tended, by investment banking standards, to be populated by less sophisticated, less intense, less motivated people. Also, MMFs were just one of several essential players in the repo market. The COVID-19 crisis, however, revealed a structural change in both markets, where MMFs have become the primary providers of dollar funding to banks.

It all started when the pandemic forced the MMFs to readjust their portfolio to meet their cash outflow commitments. In the CP market, MMFs reduced their holding of CP in favor of holding risk-free assets such as government securities. In the repo market, they curtailed their repo lending both to dealers and in the cleared segment of the market. Originally, such developments were not considered a threat to financial stability. In this market, banks were regarded as the primary providers of dollar funding. The models of market-based finance, such as the one provided by Money View framework, tend to highlight banks’ function as dealers in the wholesale money market, and the main providers of funding liquidity. In these models, banks set the price of funding liquidity and earn an inside spread. Banks borrow from the interbank lending market and pay an overnight rate. They then lend the proceeds in the term-funding market (mostly through repo), and earn term rate. Further, more traditional models of bank-based financial systems depict banks as financial intermediaries between depositors and borrowers. Regardless of which model to trust, since the pandemic did not create significant disturbances in the banking system, it was expected that the banks would pick up the slack quickly after MMFs retracted from the market.

The problem is that the coronavirus casts doubt on both models, and highlights the shadowy role of banks in providing funding liquidity. The experience with the PPP loans to SMEs shows that banks are no longer traditional financial intermediaries in the retail money market. At the same time, the developments in the wholesale money market demonstrate that it is MMFs, and no longer banks, who are the primary providers of term funding and determine the price of dollar funding. A possible explanation could be that on the one hand, banks have difficulty raising overnight funding via the interbank lending market. On the other hand, their balance sheet constraints discourage them from performing their function as money market dealers and supply term funding to the rest of the financial system. The bottom line is that the pandemic has revealed that MMFs, rather than large banks, had become vital providers of US dollar funding for other banks and non-bank financial institutions. Such discoveries emphasize the instability of funding liquidity in bank-centric wholesale and retail money markets.

The withdrawals of MMFs from providing term funding to banks in the CP markets, and their decision to decease their reverse repo positions (lending cash against Treasuries as collateral) with dealers (mostly large banks), translated into a persistent increase of US dollar funding costs globally. Even though it was not surprising in the beginning to see a tension in the wholesale money market due to the withdrawal of the MMFs, the Fed was stunned by the extent of the turbulences. This is what caused the Fed to start filling the void that was created by MMFs’ withdrawal directly by creating new facilities such as MMLF. According to the BIS data, by mid-March, the cost of borrowing US funding widened to levels second only to those during the GFC even though, unlike the GFC, the banking system was not the primary source of distress. A key reason is that MMFs have come to play an essential role in determining US dollar funding both in a secured repo market and an unsecured CP market. In other words, interbank lending no longer serves as a significant source of funding for banks. Instead, non-bank institutional investors such as MMFs constitute the most critical wholesale funding providers for banks. The strength of MMFs, not the large, cash-rich, banks, has, therefore, become an essential measure of bank funding conditions.

The wide swings in dollar funding costs, caused by MMFs’ withdrawal from these markets, hampered the transmission of the Fed’s rate cuts and other facilities aimed at providing stimulus to the economy in the face of the shock. With banks’ capacity as dealers were impaired, and MMFs role was diminished, the Fed took over this function of dealer of last resort in the wholesale money market. Interestingly, the Fed acted as a dealer of last resort via its MMLF facility rather than assuming the role of banks in this market. The goal was to put an explicit floor on the CP’s price and then directly purchase three-month CP from issuers via Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). These operations also have broader implications for the future of central bank financial policies that might include MMFs rather than banks. The Fed’s choice of policies aftermath the pandemic was the unofficial acknowledgment that it is MMFs’ role, rather than banks’, that has become a crucial barometer for measuring the health of the market for dollar funding. Such revelation demands us to ask a delicate question of what precisely the banks’ function has become in the modern financial system. In other words, is it justifiable to keep providing the exclusive privilege of having access to the central bank’s balance sheet to the banks?

Elham Saeidinezhad is lecturer in Economics at UCLA. Before joining the Economics Department at UCLA, she was a research economist in International Finance and Macroeconomics research group at Milken Institute, Santa Monica, where she investigated the post-crisis structural changes in the capital market as a result of macroprudential regulations. Before that, she was a postdoctoral fellow at INET, working closely with Prof. Perry Mehrling and studying his “Money View”. Elham obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Sheffield, UK, in empirical Macroeconomics in 2013. You may contact Elham via the Young Scholars Directory

Forget about the “Corona Bond.” Should the ECB Purchase Eurozone Government Bond ETFs?

By Elham Saeidinezhad | In recent history, one of a few constants about the European Union (EU) is that it follows the U.S. footstep after any disaster. After the COVID-19 crisis, the Fed expanded the scope and duration of the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) to ease the fiscal conditions of the states and the cities. The facility enables lending to states and municipalities to help manage cash flow stresses caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In a similar move, the ECB expanded its support for the virus-hit EU economies in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Initiatives such as Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) allow the ECB to open the door to buy Greek sovereign bonds for the first time since the country’s sovereign debt crisis by announcing a waiver for its debt.

There the similarity ends. While the market sentiment about the Fed’s support program for municipals is very positive, a few caveats in the ECB’s program have made the Union vulnerable to a market run. Fitch has just cut Italy’s credit rating to just above junk. The problem is that unlike the U.S., the European Union is only a monetary union, and it does not have a fiscal union. The investors’ prevailing view is that the ECB is not doing enough to support governments of southern Europe, such as Spain, Italy, and Greece, who are hardest hit by the virus. Anxieties about the Union’s fiscal stability are behind repeated calls for the European Union to issue common eurozone bonds or “corona bond.” Yet, the political case, especially from Northern European countries, is firmly against such plans. Further, despite the extreme financial needs of the Southern countries, the ECB is reluctant to lift its self-imposed limits not to buy more than a third of the eligible sovereign bonds of any single country and to purchase sovereign bonds in proportion to the weight of each country’s investment in its capital. This unwillingness is also a political choice rather than an economic necessity.

It is in that context that this piece proposes the ECB to include the Eurozone government bond ETF to its asset purchasing program. Purchasing government debts via the medium of the ETFs can provide the key to the thorny dilemma that is shaking the foundation of the European Union. It can also be the right step towards creating a borrowing system that would allow poorer EU nations to take out cheap loans with the more affluent members guaranteeing the funds would be returned. The unity of EU members faces a new, painful test with the coronavirus crisis. This is why the Italian Prime Minister Guiseppe Conte warned that if the bloc fails to stand up to it, the entire project might “lose its foundations.” The ECB’s decision to purchase Eurozone sovereign debt ETFs would provide an equal opportunity for all the EU countries to meet the COVID-19 excessive financial requirements at an acceptable price. Further, compared to the corona bond, it is less politically incorrect and more common amongst the central bankers, including those at the Fed and the Bank of Japan.

In the index fund ecosystem, the ETFs are more liquid and easier to trade than the basket of underlying bonds. What lies behind this “liquidity transformation” is the different equilibrium structure and the efficiency properties in markets for these two asset classes. In other words, the dealers make markets for these assets under various market conditions. In the market for sovereign bonds, the debt that is issued by governments, especially countries with lower credit ratings, do not trade very much. So, the dealers expect to establish long positions in these bonds. Such positions expose them to the counterparty risk and the high cost of holding inventories. Higher price risk and funding costs are correlated with an increase in spreads for dealers. Higher bid-ask spreads, in turn, makes trading of sovereign debt securities, especially those issued by countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, more expensive and less attractive.

On the contrary, the ETFs, including the Eurozone government bond ETFs, are considerably more tradable than the underlying bonds for at least two reasons. First, the ETF functions as the “price discovery” vehicle because this is where investors choose to transact. The economists call the ETF a price discovery vehicle since it reveals the prices that best match the buyers with the sellers. At these prices, the buying and selling quantities are just in balance, and the dealers’ profitability is maximized. According to Treynor Model, these “market prices” are the closest thing to the “fundamental value” as they balance the supply and demand. Such an equilibrium structure has implications for the dealers. The make markers in the ETFs are more likely to have a “matched book,” which means that their liabilities are the same as their assets and are hedged against the price risk. The instruments that are traded under such efficiency properties, including the ETFs, enjoy a high level of market liquidity.

Second, traders, such as asset managers, who want to sell the ETF, would not need to be worried about the underlying illiquid bonds. Long before investors require to acquire these bonds, the sponsor of the ETF, known as “authorized participants” will be buying the securities that the ETF wants to hold. Traditionally, authorized participants are large banks. They earn bid-ask spreads by providing market liquidity for these underlying securities in the secondary market or service fees collected from clients yearning to execute primary trades. Providing this service is not risk-free. Mehrling makes clear that the problem is that supporting markets in this way requires the ability to expand banks’ balance sheets on both sides, buying the unwanted assets and funding that purchase with borrowed money. The strength of banks to do that on their account is now severely limited. Despite such balance sheet constraints, by acting as “dealers of near last resort,” banks provide an additional line of defense in the risk management system of the asset managers. Banks make it less likely for the investors to end up purchasing the illiquid underlying assets.

That the alchemists have created another accident in waiting has been a fear of bond market mavens and regulators for several years. Yet, in the era of COVID-19, the alchemy of the ETF liquidity could dampen the crisis in making by boosting virus-hit countries’ financial capacity. Rising debt across Europe due to the COVID-19 crisis could imperil the sustainability of public finances. This makes Treasury bonds issued by countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy less tradable. Such uncertainty would increase the funding costs of external bond issuance by sovereigns. The ECB’s attempt to purchase Eurozone government bonds ETFs could partially resolve such funding problems during the crisis. Further, such operations are less risky than buying the underlying assets.

Some might argue the ETFs create an illusion of liquidity and expose the affluent members of the ECB to an unacceptably high level of defaults by the weakest members. Yet, at least two “real” elements, namely the price discovery process and the existence of authorized participants who act as the dealers of the near last resort, allows the ETFs to conduct liquidity transformation and become less risky than the underlying bonds. Passive investing sometimes is called as “worse than Marxism.” The argument is that at least communists tried to allocate resources efficiently, while index funds just blindly invest according to an arbitrary benchmark’s formula. Yet, devouring capitalism might be the most efficient way for the ECB to circumvent political obstacles and save European capitalism from itself.

Is Money View Ready to Be on Trial for its Assumptions about the Payment System?

A Review of Perry Mehrling’s Paper on the Law of Reflux

By Elham Saeidinezhad | Perry Mehrling’s new paper, “Payment vs. Funding: The Law of Reflux for Today,” is a seminal contribution to the “Money View” literature. This approach, which is put forward by Mehrling himself, highlights the importance of today’s cash flow for the survival of financial participants. Using Money View, this paper examines the implications of Fullarton’s 1844 “Law of Reflux” for today’s monetary system. Mehrling uses balance sheets to show that at the heart of the discrepancy between John Maynard Keynes’ and James Tobin’s view of money creation is their attention to two separate equilibrium conditions. The former focuses on the economy when the initial payment takes place while the latter is concerned about the adjustments in the interest rates and asset prices when the funding is finalized. To provide such insights into several controversies about the limits of money finance, Mehrling’s analysis relies deeply on one of the structural premises of the Money View; the notion that the payment system that enables the cash flow to transfer from a deficit agent to the surplus agent is essentially a credit system. However, when we investigate the future that the Money View faces, this sentiment is likely to be threatened by a few factors that are revolutionizing financial markets. These elements include but are not limited to the Fed’s Tapering and post-crisis financial regulations and constrain banks’ ability to expand credit. These restrictions force the payment system to rely less on credit and more on reserves. Hence, the future of Money View will hinge on its ability to function under new circumstances where the payment system is no longer a credit system. This puzzle should be investigated by those of us who consider ourselves as students of this View.

Mehrling, in his influential paper, puts on his historical and monetary hats to clarify a long-standing debate amongst Keynesian economists on the money creation process. In understanding the effect of money on the economy, “old” Keynesians’ primary focus has been on the market interest rate and asset prices when the initial payment is taking place. In other words, their chief concern is how asset prices change to make the new payment position an equilibrium. To answer this question, they use the “liquidity preference framework” and argue that asset prices are set as a markup over the money rate of interest. The idea is that once the new purchasing power is created, the final funding can happen without changing asset prices or interest rates. The reason is that the initial increase in the money supply remains entirely in circulation by creating a new demand for liquid balances for various reasons. Put it differently, although the new money will not disappear on the final settlement date, the excess supply of money will be eliminated by the growing demand for money. In this situation, there is no reflux of the new purchasing power.

In contrast, the new Keynesian orthodoxy, established by James Tobin, examines the effects of money creation on the economy by focusing on the final position rather than the initial payment. At this equilibrium, the interest rate and asset prices will be adjusted to ensure the final settlement, otherwise known as funding. In the process, they create discipline in the monetary system. Using “Liquidity Preference Framework”, these economists argue that the new purchasing power will be used to purchase long-term securities such as bonds. In other words, the newly created money will be absorbed by portfolio rebalancing which leads to a new portfolio equilibrium. In this new equilibrium, the interbank credit will be replaced by a long-term asset and the initial payment is funded by new long-term lending, all outside the traditional banking system. Tobin’s version of Keynesianism extracted from both the flux of bank credit expansion and the reflux of subsequent contraction by only focusing on the final funding equilibrium. It also shifts between one funding equilibrium and another since he is only interested in final positions. In the new view, bank checkable deposits are just one funding liability, among others, and their survival in the monetary system entirely depends on the portfolio preferences of asset managers.

The problem is that both views abstract from the cash flows that enable a continuous payment system. These cash flows are key to a successful transition from one equilibrium to another. Money View labels these cash flows as “liquidity” and puts it at the center of its analysis. Liquidity enables the economy to seamlessly transfer from initial equilibrium, when the payment takes place, to the final equilibrium, when the final funding happens, by ensuring the continuity of the payment system. In the initial equilibrium, payment takes place since banks expand their balance sheets and create new money. In this case, the deficit bank can borrow from the surplus bank in the interbank lending market. To clear the final settlement, the banks can take advantage of their access to the central bank’s balance sheet if they still have short positions in reserve. Mehrling uses these balance sheets operations to show that it is credit, rather than currency or reserves, that creates a continuous payment system. In other words, a credit-based payment system lets the financial transactions go through even when the buyers do not have means of payment today. These transactions, that depend on agents’ access to liquidity, move the economy from the initial equilibrium to the ultimate funding equilibrium.

The notion that the “payment system is a credit system” is a defining characteristic of Money View. However, a few developments in the financial market, generated by post-crisis interventions, are threatening the robustness of this critical assumption. The issue is that the Fed’s Tapering operations have reduced the level of reserves in the banking system. In the meantime, post-crisis financial regulations have produced a balance sheet constrained for the banking system, including surplus banks. These macroprudential requirements demand banks to keep a certain level of High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) such as reserves. At the same time, the Global Financial Crisis has only worsened the stigma attached to using the discount loan. Banks have therefore become reluctant to borrow from the Fed to avoid sending wrong signals to the regulators regarding their liquidity status. These factors constrained banks’ ability to expand their balance sheets to make new loans to the deficit agents by making this activity more expensive. As a result, banks, who are the main providers of the payment system, have been relying less on credit and more on reserves to finance this financial service.

Most recently, Zoltan Pozsar, a prominent scholar of the Money View, has warned us that if these trends continue, the payment system will not be a credit system anymore. Those of us who study Money View realize that the assumption that a payment system is a credit system is the cornerstone of the Money View approach. Yet, the current developments in the financial ecosystem are fundamentally remodeling the very microstructure that has initially given birth to this conjecture. It is our job, therefore, as Money View scholars, to prepare this framework for a future that is going to put its premises on trial.

Where Does Profit Come from in the Payments Industry?

“Don’t be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value.”
Arthur Miller

The recent development in the payments industry, namely the rise of Fintech companies, has created an opportunity to revisit the economics of payment system and the puzzling nature of profit in this industry. Major banks, credit card companies, and financial institutions have long controlled payments, but their dominance looks increasingly shaky. The latest merger amongst Tech companies, for instance, came in the first week of February 2020, when Worldline agreed to buy Ingenico for $7.8bn, forming the largest European payments company in a sector dominated by US-based giants. While these events are shaping the future of money and the payment system, we still do not have a full understanding of a puzzle at the center of the payment system. The issue is that the source of profit is very limited in the payment system as the spread that the providers charge is literally equal to zero. This fixed price, called par, is the price of converting bank deposits to currency. The continuity of the payment system, nevertheless, fully depends on the ability of these firms to keep this parity condition. Demystifying this paradox is key to understanding the future of the payments system that is ruled by non-banks. The issue is that unlike banks, who earn profit by supplying liquidity and the payment system together, non-banks’ profitability from facilitating payments mostly depends on their size and market power. In other words, non-bank institutions can relish higher profits only if they can process lots of payments. The idea is that consolidations increase profitability by reducing high fixed costs- the required technology investments- and freeing-up financial resources. These funds can then be reinvested in better technology to extend their advantage over smaller rivals. This strategy might be unsustainable when the economy is slowing down and there are fewer transactions. In these circumstances, keeping the par fixed becomes an art rather than a technicality. Banks have been successful in providing payment systems during the financial crisis since they offer other profitable financial services that keep them in business. In addition, they explicitly receive central banks’ liquidity backstop.

Traditionally, the banking system provides payment services by being prepared to trade currency for deposits and vice versa, at a fixed price par. However, when we try to understand the economics of banks’ function as providers of payment systems, we quickly face a puzzle. The question is how banks manage to make markets in currency and deposits at a fixed price and a zero spread. In other words, what incentivizes banks to provide this crucial service. Typically, what enables the banks to offer payment systems, despite its negligible earnings, is their complementary and profitable role of being dealers in liquidity. Banks are in additional business, the business of bearing liquidity risk by issuing demand liabilities and investing the funds at term, and this business is highly profitable. They cannot change the price of deposits in terms of currency. Still, they can expand and contract the number of deposits because deposits are their own liability, and they can expand and contract the quantity of currency because of their access to the discount window at the Fed.

This two-tier monetary system, with the central bank serving as the banker to commercial banks, is the essence of the account-based payment system and creates flexibility for the banks. This flexibility enables banks to provide payment systems despite the fact the price is fixed, and their profit from this function is negligible. It also differentiates banks, who are dealers in the money market, from other kinds of dealers such as security dealers. Security dealers’ ability to establish very long positions in securities and cash is limited due to their restricted access to funding liquidity. The profit that these dealers earn comes from setting an asking price that is higher than the bid price. This profit is called inside spread. Banks, on the other hand, make an inside spread that is equal to zero when providing payment since currency and deposits trade at par. However, they are not constrained by the number of deposits or currency they can create. In other words, although they have less flexibility in price, they have more flexibility in quantity. This flexibility comes from banks’ direct access to the central banks’ liquidity facilities. Their exclusive access to the central banks’ liquidity facilities also ensures the finality of payments, where payment is deemed to be final and irrevocable so that individuals and businesses can make payments in full confidence.

The Fintech revolution that is changing the payment ecosystem is making it evident that the next generation payment methods are to bypass banks and credit cards. The most recent trend in the payment system that is generating a change in the market structure is the mergers and acquisitions of the non-bank companies with strengths in different parts of the payments value chain. Despite these developments, we still do not have a clear picture of how these non-banks tech companies who are shaping the future of money can deal with a mystery at the heart of the monetary system; The issue that the source of profit is very limited in the payment system as the spread that the providers charge is literally equal to zero. The continuity of the payment system, on the other hand, fully depends on the ability of these firms to keep this parity condition. This paradox reflects the hybrid nature of the payment system that is masked by a fixed price called par. This hybridity is between account-based money (bank deposits) and currency (central bank reserve).

Is the Recent Buyback Spree Creating Liquidity Problems for the Dealers?

“You are a side effect,” Van Houten continued, “of an evolutionary process that cares little for individual lives. You are a failed experiment in mutation.”
― John Green, The Fault in Our Stars

By Elham Saeidinezhad | The anxieties about large financial corporations’ debt-funded payouts—aka “stock buybacks”—are reemerging a decade after the financial crisis. Companies on the S&P 500 have poured more than $5.3 trillion into repurchasing their own shares since 2010. The root cause of most concerns is that stock buybacks do not contribute to the productive capacities of the firm. Indeed, these distributions to stockholders disrupt the growth dynamic that links the productivity and pay of the labor force. Besides, these payments that come on top of dividends could weaken the firms’ credit quality.

These analyses, however, fail to appreciate the cascade effect that will hurt the dealers’ liquidity positions due to higher stock prices. Understanding this side effect has become even more significant as the share of major financial corporations, including JPMorgan, is trading at records, and are getting very expensive. That high-class problem should concern dealers who are providing market liquidity for these stocks and establishing short positions in the process. Dealers charge a fee to handle trades between the buyers and sellers of securities. Higher stock prices make it more expensive for short selling dealers to settle the positions by repurchasing securities on the open market. If stocks become too high-priced, it might reduce dealers’ ability and willingness to provide market liquidity to the system. This chain of events that threatens the state of market liquidity is missing from the standard analysis of share buybacks.

At the very heart of the discussion about share buybacks lay the question of how companies should use their cash. In a buyback, a company uses its cash to buy its own existing shares and becomes the biggest demander of its own stock. Firms usually repurchase their own stocks when they have surplus cash flow or earnings, which exceed those needed to finance positive net present value investment opportunities. The primary beneficiaries of these operations are shareholders who receive extra cash payments on top of dividends. The critical feature of stock buybacks is that it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the stock price. Since each remaining share gets a more significant piece of the profit and value, the companies bid up the share values and boost their own stock prices. The artificially high stock prices can create liquidity and settlement problems for the dealers who are creating a market for the stocks and have established short positions in the process.

Short selling is used by market makers to provide market liquidity in response to unanticipated demand or to hedge the risk of a long position in the same security or a related security. On the settlement date, when the contract expires, the dealer must closeout—or settle—the position by returning the borrowed security to the stock lender, typically by purchasing securities on the open market. If the prices become too high, they will not have enough capital to secure their short sales. At this point, whoever clears their trade will force them to liquidate. If they continue losing money, dealers face severe liquidity problems, and they may go bankrupt. The result would be an illiquid market. To sum up, in recent years, buybacks by public firms have become an essential technique for distributing earnings to shareholders. Not surprisingly, this trend has started a heated debate amongst the critiques. The problem, however, is that most analyses have failed to capture the effect of these operations on dealers’ market-making capacity, and the state of market liquidity when share prices become too high.