Search

This paper investigates the impact of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing policy on UK asset prices. Based on analysis of the reaction of financial market prices and modelbased estimates, we find that asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves - which by February 2010 totalled £200 billion - may have depressed medium to longterm government bond yields by about 100 basis points, with the largest part of the impact coming through a portfolio balance effect. The wider impact on other asset prices is more difficult to disentangle from other influences: the initial impact was muted, but the overall effects were potentially much larger, though subject to considerable uncertainty.

In recent years, mergers, acquisitions and organic growth have meant that some of the largest and most complex financial groups have come to transcend national boundaries and traditionally defined business-lines. As a result, they have become a potential channel for the cross-border and cross-market transmission of financial shocks. This paper analyses the degree of comovement in the equity prices of a selected group of large complex financial institutions (LCFIs), and assesses the extent to which movements are driven by common factors. A relatively high degree of commonality is found for most LCFIs although there are still noticeable divisions between sub-groups of LCFIs, both according to geography and to a lesser extent primary business-line.

PurposeThe paper seeks to investigate conditional correlations and conditional volatility spillovers across international stock markets and industrial sectors from the perspective of the UK investor.Design/methodology/approachUtilizing the DCC model, the paper extracts the time‐varying conditional correlations between the UK, US and European stock markets and industrial sectors. It also uses the multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (MVGARCH) to assess the transmission of volatility from the US and European stock markets to the UK.FindingsThe findings suggest that the UK equity market is more integrated with Europe, in terms of both aggregate stock markets and sectors. Correlations are higher during bear markets and tend to fall during periods of recovery. The sectoral analysis also provides interesting insights into the dynamics of volatility transmission across sectors.Research limitations/implicationsThe results suggest that the search for a better understanding of the dynamics of correlations between markets and sectors must continue.Practical implicationsThe investigation raises interesting questions for investors and regulators, as well as theoretical finance. For example, the finding that correlations increase in bear markets suggests that hedging strategies need to be revisited. The existence of sectoral idiosyncratic volatility offers further evidence that arbitrage may at times become more risky and thus limited.Originality/valueThe findings from analysing both market‐wide and sectoral integration raises the overarching question of whether studies of market integration and portfolio diversification, as well as the authorities overseeing financial stability, should be focusing on sectoral rather than market‐wide analysis.

This paper examines the macroeconomic impact of the first round of quantitative easing (QE) by the Bank of England which started in March 2009. Although Bank Rate, the UK policy rate, was reduced to ½%, effectively its lower bound, the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee felt that additional measures were necessary to meet the inflation target in the medium term. The policy of QE entailed buying private and mainly public assets in large quantities using central bank money, with the aim of injecting money into the economy and boosting nominal spending, in order to help achieve the Bank’s inflation target. Over the period from March 2009 to January 2010, the Bank of England purchased £200 billion of assets, mainly consisting of government securities. We attempt to quantify the effects of these purchases by focusing on the impact of lower long-term interest rates on the wider economy. This is motivated by empirical evidence indicating that QE purchases reduced long-term UK government bond yields by about 100 basis points. Other transmission channels are also possible, but are not considered in this paper. We use three different models to conduct counterfactual simulations to estimate the impact of QE on output and inflation: a large Bayesian VAR; a change-point structural VAR; and a time-varying parameter VAR. Our preferred average estimates from the three models suggest that QE may have had a peak effect on the level of real GDP of around 1½% and a peak effect on annual CPI inflation of about 1¼ percentage points. These estimates are shown to vary considerably across the different model specifications, and with the precise assumptions made to generate the counterfactual simulations, and are therefore subject to considerable uncertainty.

As part of its response to the global banking crisis and a sharp downturn in domestic economic prospects, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) began a programme of large-scale asset purchases (commonly referred to as quantitative easing or QE) in March 2009, with the aim of injecting additional money into the economy and so increasing nominal spending growth to a rate consistent with meeting the CPI inflation target in the medium term. By February 2010, the MPC had made £200 billion of purchases, most of which had been of UK government securities (gilts). Based on analysis of the reaction of financial market prices and econometric estimates, this paper attempts to assess the impact of the Bank’s QE policy on asset prices. Our estimates of the reaction of gilt prices to the programme suggest that QE may have depressed gilt yields by about 100 basis points. On balance the evidence seems to suggest that the largest part of the impact of QE came through a portfolio rebalancing channel. The wider impact on other asset prices is more difficult to disentangle from other influences: the initial impact was muted but the overall effects were potentially much larger, though subject to considerable uncertainty.

The level of UK corporate debt directly affects financial stability in the United Kingdom because a significant amount of the exposure of the UK financial system is to UK corporates. Our paper provides a comparison of the determinants of corporate debt in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The comparison serves to benchmark our findings about the determinants of UK corporate debt. In addition, the UK financial sector is significantly exposed to the corporate sectors in the United States, Germany and France. The model assesses the contribution of investment, acquisitions, cash flows and market-to-book values to the determination of debt, and also the tendency of debt to revert to its optimum level. Debt was found to be positively related to the financing needs of the firm, and the optimum level of debt to be negatively related to the market-to-book ratio. This casts some light on the procyclicality of debt. It suggests the growth of debt in a boom is explained by the increase in financing needs; and this more than offsets the fall in the optimum level of debt associated with the rising market-to-book value. In addition, we found that it may be expected that, in a boom, German and US debt will rise above the optimum level by more than in the United Kingdom and France - responding to the higher levels of investment and acquisitions. And in a slowdown, when adjusting back down to the optimum, German and US debt tends to be paid down more slowly.

In recent years, mergers, acquisitions and organic growth have meant that some of the largest and most complex financial groups have come to transcend national boundaries and traditionally defined business lines. As a result, they have become a potential channel for the cross-border and cross-market transmission of financial shocks. This paper analyses the degree of comovement in the prices of securities issued by a selected group of large complex financial institutions (LCFIs), and assesses the extent to which movements in the prices of these securities are driven by common factors. A relatively high degree of commonality is found for most LCFIs (compared with a control group of non-financials), although there are still noticeable divisions between subgroups of LCFIs, both according to geography and primary business line.