The Risky Business of Liquidity

Investor risk perceptions can heavily influence international stock liquidity, a study has found.

The more risk investors perceive in equity markets, the more illiquid global markets tend to become, according to new research.

While uncertainty has long been considered a factor in illiquidity in US equities, Massey University PhD candidate Rui Ma and finance professors Hamish Anderson and Ben Marshall took the theory one step further. They argued that investors’ risk perceptions are an important determinant of overall international stock market liquidity.

“The influence of investor risk perception on liquidity is both statistically significant and economically meaningful in global markets after controlling for other well-documented market-level determinants of liquidity,” the authors wrote.

Using the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX)—also known as the ‘fear gauge’—as a proxy for investor risk perception, Ma, Anderson, and Marshall examined how investor uncertainty affected the liquidity of 45,564 individual stocks from 57 countries between 1990 and 2015.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

In a given month, a 1% VIX increase boosted illiquidity ratios by 0.7%. The impact was even higher in countries that were more open or economically developed—despite developed market equities being “generally more liquid” and providing better investor protections.

“Countries which are more open to world markets and countries with low information asymmetry attract more global investors, and therefore are more affected by investor risk perception in global markets,” the researchers wrote.

Market liquidity was also more sensitive to risk perceptions in countries with no short-selling constraints, better governance environments, larger market capitalizations, greater trading volumes, and lower market return volatility.

Though Ma, Anderson, and Marshall admitted that it was possible that heightened illiquidity could be the cause of higher investor uncertainty, their study found no reverse causality.

“A shock in VIX has a significantly positive and long-lived impact on world illiquidity,” they concluded.

Related: Liquidity Crisis? We Can Cope, Say Managers

LDI’s De-Risking Dominance

Most North American plan sponsors have already adopted liability-driven investing—but some are beginning to consider pension-risk transfers.

Liability-driven investing (LDI) remains the favored de-risking approach of North American corporate pensions, according to a survey.

Nearly two-thirds of plan sponsors said they are likely to use or already using LDI strategies in a joint study by Clear Path Analysis and Prudential. Pension-risk transfer (PRT) was less popular, with 48% of the plans surveyed answering that they were not at all likely to transfer risk to a third-party insurer.

However, the level of interest in PRT improved significantly since last year, when just 23% reported that they were considering a transaction.

Most (68%) said they believed transferring risk was too expensive—a belief Prudential argued was a “misconception.” The annuity provider suggested PRT was cheap compared with the economic costs of retaining risk, especially as liabilities increase with longevity.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

“In 2014, the Society of Actuaries released new [mortality] tables, which confirms that people are living longer,” said Alexandra Hyten, vice president of pension-risk transfer at Prudential. “Plans saw a 6% to 7% increase in their liabilities as a result.”

Of the respondents already using LDI, 52% said the strategy has proven somewhat or very successful. Just 10% said LDI was even somewhat unsuccessful.

Interest rates played a large role in de-risking decisions, with 77% of plan sponsors saying that rates at least slightly influenced them when considering LDI. Slightly more (80%) said interest rates impacted their PRT decisions. Current low rates, combined with increasing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation premiums, could make PRT seem more attractive going forward, said Hyten.

“Many plans are at least considering borrowing,” she said. “They feel they need to fund-up their plan to eliminate that portion, so many corporations are at that trigger point right now.” 

Related: PRT Losing to LDI, Survey Finds & Pension-Risk Transfer Inevitable, Says Russell

«