Chase Cambria
  • Log in
  • Not a member yet?
go
  • Contact
  • Webmail
  • Archive
 
  • Home
  • Overview
  • Journal Issues
  • Subscriptions
  • Editorial Board
  • Author Guidelines

International Corporate Rescue

Journal Issues

  • Vol 1 (2004)
  • Vol 2 (2005)
  • Vol 3 (2006)
  • Vol 4 (2007)
  • Vol 5 (2008)
  • Vol 6 (2009)
  • Vol 7 (2010)
  • Vol 8 (2011)
  • Vol 9 (2012)
  • Vol 10 (2013)
  • Vol 11 (2014)
  •         Issue 1
  •         Issue 2
  •         Issue 3
  •         Issue 4
  •         Issue 5
  •         Issue 6
  • Vol 12 (2015)
  • Vol 13 (2016)
  • Vol 14 (2017)
  • Vol 15 (2018)
  • Vol 16 (2019)
  • Vol 17 (2020)
  • Vol 18 (2021)
  • Vol 19 (2022)
  • Vol 20 (2023)
  • Vol 21 (2024)
  • Vol 22 (2025)

Vol 11 (2014) - Issue 4

Article preview

Volatility: The Great Moderation, for Now

Kathleen Stephansen, Chief Economist, AIG, New York, USA

Has volatility increased since global central banks adopted a zero (or close to zero) interest rate policy? The answer is an emphatic 'No'.
The importance of monetary policy in shaping market expectations

The drop in volatility across a range of assets has been impressive (Exhibits 1-3). The confluence of accommodative monetary policy, modest growth and low inflation plays a role. A change in one of these three drivers will be disruptive and make markets vulnerable to a re-pricing.
Of the three factors mentioned above, central bank action dominates. Volatility has been low for some time excluding the crisis. The clear monetary policy reaction function has played an important role, such as the Taylor rule. Post Great Recession crisis, the Fed's reaction function is Quantitative Easing (QE).
A relatively recent example was the rise in volatility when the Fed stopped its purchases of mortgage-backed securities in 2010. Buying structured products was buying risky assets, or volatility. The timing of ending their purchases in 2010 was premature as the private sector was not ready to 'step in' and provide necessary liquidity for the well-functioning of markets. With no support from the Fed, markets became vulnerable to shocks, e.g., the European sovereign crisis in 2012.
Such market vulnerability forced central banks to rethink their exit strategies and, as we have seen, to adopt additional rounds of QE. The private sector demand for cash remained high, forcing central banks to continue providing liquidity. Swapping cash for riskier assets, or for consumption and investment spending, required central bank assist, i.e., QE.

Preparing for the Exit: Will adjusting to firmer growth bring volatility?
Financial markets tend to be vulnerable to bouts of volatility when (perceived) shifts occur in the policy regime (as per the episode last summer) and/or in the growth trajectory. That is why the Fed and other central banks will probably continue to act in 'measured' steps when exiting QE. As for the pick-up in growth, it will be moderate for at least two reasons, thereby containing volatility:
– The absence of an exogenous demand trigger from the major trading partners.

Buy this article
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Buy this issue
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Buy annual subscription
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
If you are already a subscriber
log In here

International Corporate Rescue

"International Corporate Rescue is a brilliant resource. The articles are always informative and interesting. It helps to keep me up to date with developments in insolvency and restructuring, both in England and many other jurisdictions."

Charlotte Cooke, Barrister, South Square

 

 

Copyright 2006 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Limited. All rights reserved.