>>9974730
==Nibor, Libor and Euribor – all IBORs, but
different==
This memo takes a closer look at what lays behind different benchmark
interest rates. Particular emphasis is put on how the different practices
for quotation can explain why Nibor’s risk premium has on average
been higher than the premiums in USD Libor and Euribor.
Key: Benchmark rates, risk premia, IBOR, FX swaps, money market.
1.Introduction
“IBOR” means Inter Bank Offered Rate. These four letters are common
for the term reference rates in many countries around the world. In
Norway, the term reference rate is Nibor. In the euro area it is Euribor
and in the US it is Libor.
In general, IBORs can be decomposed into two factors: the expected
average level of the short-term (overnight) rate and a risk premium. The
expected average of the overnight rate is closely linked to the central
bank’s key policy rate, and thus reflects expected monetary policy over
the relevant horizon. The risk premium can potentially reflect several
things. One element is the credit risk associated with the panel of banks
quoting the rates. Another is the liquidity premium that expresses the
scarcity or abundance of money market credit in that particular currency
over that particular horizon.
Watch the WATER fall
Since 1998, Libor has been defined by the panel banks’ daily answer to
the following question:
“At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for
and then accepting interbank offers in a reasonable market size just
prior to 11 am?”
This question is posed in a way that defines Libor as an interbank
offered rate. However, recognizing the fact that interbank term
transactions are rare, the administrator of Libor, ICE Benchmark
Administration Limited (IBA), has laid out a roadmap for the transition of
Libor to a new “waterfall methodology”. This methodology entails a new
output statement for Libor:
“A wholesale funding rate anchored in LIBOR panel banks’ unsecured
transactions to the greatest extent possible, with a waterfall to enable a
rate to be published in all market circumstances”.
The term “waterfall” refers to the ordering of inputs for the submissions
into three levels. To the extent available, panel banks should base their
submissions on Level 1 input, which are “eligible wholesale, unsecured
funding transactions”. If no such eligible transactions were made,
submissions should be transaction-derived (Level 2). That means
utilizing time-weighted historical eligible transactions adjusted for
market movements, and linear interpolation. If neither Level 1 nor Level
2 inputs are available, panel banks should base their submissions on
expert judgement (Level 3).
One important feature of the new methodology is that the eligible
transactions are no longer limited to interbank loans. The eligible
transactions are rates paid by banks on unsecured term deposits, as
well as fixed rates paid on primary issuances of commercial paper (CP)
and certificates of deposits (CD). The major part of CP and CD funding
comes from investors outside the banking system, like money market
funds and non-financial corporations.
Full article attached as PDF