Skip to content
Author
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

(CORRECTS total liquidity amount in graf 4)

By Helen Bartholomew

LONDON, May 24 (IFR) – Extreme volatility in the Japanese

government bond market could trigger a sell-off on a par with

what happened throughout the third quarter of 2003, when local

banks and foreign investors were forced to dump their JGB

holdings after heightened volatility caused the assets to exceed

internal value-at-risk (VaR) limits.

According to analysts at JP Morgan, the threat of a

so-called “VaR shock” highlights one of the unintended

consequences of quantitative easing, and the situation could be

exacerbated this time around.

“The proliferation of risk parity investors and funds, which

are strict value-at-risk investors and are heavily invested in

bonds currently, is likely raising the sensitivity of bond

markets to self-reinforced volatility-induced selling,” said

Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, head of flows and liquidity for Europe

at JP Morgan, in a report.

Last month, Japan’s central bank confirmed plans for a

liquidity injection of at least 120 trillion yen (US$1.19trn)

that is intended to boost inflation to 2% over the next two

years. The result has been a surge in JGB volatility and rising

yields on anticipation of widespread shift from fixed-income to

equities.

“It’s an example of the pro-cyclicality of markets. Those

with mechanical VaR-based limits will increase positions as vol

reduces, and cut positions as vol increases, just like in 2003,”

said Guillaume Amblard, global head of fixed-income trading at

BNP Paribas.

“It creates a snowball effect and it’s exacerbated by the

fact that there are some big leveraged positions in JGBs.”

JP Morgan analysts note that 60-day standard deviation of

the daily changes in 10-year JGB yields has doubled to 4bp since

the BoJ confirmed its monetary easing strategy on April 4 – the

highest level since 2008.

Those levels remain some way from where the 2003 sell-off

was triggered. At that time, 60-day standard deviation jumped

from 2bp to more than 7bp between June and September as 10-year

yields tripled from 0.56% to 1.58%.

However, the strength of the current equity bull market and

corresponding pressure on JGBs could drive large shifts

relatively quickly. Since the liquidity injection was confirmed

in early April, 10-year yields jumped from 0.5% to hit a

one-year high of 0.895% last Wednesday.

“We think that hitting 1% on the 10-year JGB will prove to

be an important psychological level. There’s still some way to

go, but we wouldn’t be surprised to [see a] test very soon. It’s

a very strong bear market that we’re seeing,” said Mathieu

Gaveau, global head of IR options, solution and inflation

trading at BNP Paribas.

SAFETY NET

Whether the situation now is directly comparable to 2003 is

a matter of debate, especially bearing in mind the safety net

provided by central bank intervention.

“It’s difficult to see a rout in JGBs when you’ve got the

biggest buyer in the world supporting the market,” said a rates

trader at one European house.

The potential for a 2003-style catastrophe is also reduced

because bank investors have had some time to prepare.

“It’s less likely to happen purely because everyone is

talking about it. We’ve already seen the equivalent in JGBs of

Treasuries selling off by circa 100bp and no one is calling it a

full blow-up,” said Richard Jackson, head of flow rates trading

for Europe at Deutsche Bank.

“Everyone has had some time to adjust to the new volatile

environment, and many have addressed their VaR issues and

already stopped out where they needed to.”

JP Morgan’s Panigirtzoglou believes that regional and

co-operative (or shinkin) banks are the most vulnerable to rate

increases as the maturity mismatch between assets and

liabilities is currently running at all-time highs for such

entities. Analysis shows that a 100bp yield curve shift results

in a loss of seven trillion yen for regionals and co-operatives

combined, which equates to 35% of Tier 1 capital.

(Reporting by Helen Bartholomew; Editing by Matthew Davies)