{"title":"安全资产的风险","authors":"Yang Liu, L. Schmid, A. Yaron","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3699618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"US government bonds exhibit many characteristics often attributed to safe assets: They are very liquid and lenders readily accept them as collateral. Indeed, a growing literature documents significant convenience yields, perhaps due to liquidity, in scarce US Treasuries, suggesting that rising Treasury supply and government debt comes with a declining liquidity premium and a fall in firms' relative cost of debt financing. In this paper, we empirically document a dual role for government debt. Through a liquidity channel, an increase in government debt improves liquidity and lowers liquidity premia by facilitating debt rollover, thereby reducing credit spreads. Through an uncertainty channel, however, rising government debt creates policy uncertainty, raising credit spreads and default risk premia. We interpret and quantitatively evaluate these two channels through the lens of a general equilibrium asset pricing model with risk-sensitive agents subject to liquidity shocks, in which firms issue defaultable bonds and the government issues tax-financed bonds that endogenously enjoy liquidity benefits. The calibrated model generates quantitatively realistic liquidity spreads and default risk premia, in line with historical US debt policies and low corporate default rates. Quantitatively, our model suggests that while rising government debt reduces liquidity spreads, it not only crowds out corporate debt financing, and therefore, investment, but also creates uncertainty reflected in endogenous tax volatility, credit spreads, and risk premia, and ultimately consumption volatility. Therefore, increasing safe asset supply can be risky.","PeriodicalId":80976,"journal":{"name":"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Risks of Safe Assets\",\"authors\":\"Yang Liu, L. Schmid, A. Yaron\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3699618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"US government bonds exhibit many characteristics often attributed to safe assets: They are very liquid and lenders readily accept them as collateral. Indeed, a growing literature documents significant convenience yields, perhaps due to liquidity, in scarce US Treasuries, suggesting that rising Treasury supply and government debt comes with a declining liquidity premium and a fall in firms' relative cost of debt financing. In this paper, we empirically document a dual role for government debt. Through a liquidity channel, an increase in government debt improves liquidity and lowers liquidity premia by facilitating debt rollover, thereby reducing credit spreads. Through an uncertainty channel, however, rising government debt creates policy uncertainty, raising credit spreads and default risk premia. We interpret and quantitatively evaluate these two channels through the lens of a general equilibrium asset pricing model with risk-sensitive agents subject to liquidity shocks, in which firms issue defaultable bonds and the government issues tax-financed bonds that endogenously enjoy liquidity benefits. The calibrated model generates quantitatively realistic liquidity spreads and default risk premia, in line with historical US debt policies and low corporate default rates. Quantitatively, our model suggests that while rising government debt reduces liquidity spreads, it not only crowds out corporate debt financing, and therefore, investment, but also creates uncertainty reflected in endogenous tax volatility, credit spreads, and risk premia, and ultimately consumption volatility. Therefore, increasing safe asset supply can be risky.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

美国政府债券表现出许多通常被认为是安全资产的特征:它们流动性很强,贷款人愿意接受它们作为抵押品。事实上,越来越多的文献表明,稀缺的美国国债的便利收益率很高,这可能是由于流动性,这表明,国债供应和政府债务的增加,伴随着流动性溢价的下降和企业债务融资的相对成本的下降。在本文中,我们实证地证明了政府债务的双重作用。通过流动性渠道,政府债务的增加通过促进债务展期来改善流动性并降低流动性溢价,从而减少信贷息差。然而,通过不确定性渠道,不断上升的政府债务造成了政策不确定性,提高了信贷息差和违约风险溢价。我们通过一个一般均衡资产定价模型来解释和定量评估这两个渠道,其中风险敏感主体受到流动性冲击,其中企业发行违约债券,政府发行内源性享有流动性利益的税收融资债券。经过校准的模型产生的流动性息差和违约风险溢价在数量上符合实际,与美国历史上的债务政策和较低的企业违约率相符。从数量上看,我们的模型表明,虽然政府债务的增加减少了流动性息差,但它不仅挤出了企业债务融资,从而挤占了投资,而且还产生了不确定性,反映在内生的税收波动、信贷息差和风险溢价,以及最终的消费波动上。因此,增加安全资产供应可能存在风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Risks of Safe Assets
US government bonds exhibit many characteristics often attributed to safe assets: They are very liquid and lenders readily accept them as collateral. Indeed, a growing literature documents significant convenience yields, perhaps due to liquidity, in scarce US Treasuries, suggesting that rising Treasury supply and government debt comes with a declining liquidity premium and a fall in firms' relative cost of debt financing. In this paper, we empirically document a dual role for government debt. Through a liquidity channel, an increase in government debt improves liquidity and lowers liquidity premia by facilitating debt rollover, thereby reducing credit spreads. Through an uncertainty channel, however, rising government debt creates policy uncertainty, raising credit spreads and default risk premia. We interpret and quantitatively evaluate these two channels through the lens of a general equilibrium asset pricing model with risk-sensitive agents subject to liquidity shocks, in which firms issue defaultable bonds and the government issues tax-financed bonds that endogenously enjoy liquidity benefits. The calibrated model generates quantitatively realistic liquidity spreads and default risk premia, in line with historical US debt policies and low corporate default rates. Quantitatively, our model suggests that while rising government debt reduces liquidity spreads, it not only crowds out corporate debt financing, and therefore, investment, but also creates uncertainty reflected in endogenous tax volatility, credit spreads, and risk premia, and ultimately consumption volatility. Therefore, increasing safe asset supply can be risky.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Heterogeneous-Agent Asset Pricing The Effects of Transparency on OTC Market-Making Online Appendix for: 'Obfuscation in Mutual Funds' Vertical Control Financial Fragility with SAM?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1