Limits to Arbitrage During the Crisis: Funding Liquidity Constraints and Covered Interest Parity

46 Pages Posted: 13 Mar 2010 Last revised: 9 Mar 2011

See all articles by Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli

Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli

Swiss National Bank; Paris School of Economics (PSE); University of Angers - Centre d'Etudes Prospectives d'Economie Mathematique Appliquees a la Planification (CEPREMAP)

Angelo Ranaldo

University of Basel - Faculty of Business and Economics; Swiss Finance Institute; University of St. Gallen

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: February 4, 2011

Abstract

Arbitrage ensures that covered interest parity holds. The condition is central to price foreign exchange forwards and interbank lending rates, and reflects the efficient functioning of markets. Normally, deviations from arbitrage, if any, last seconds and reach a few basis points. After the Lehman bankruptcy, instead, arbitrage profits were large, persisted for months and involved borrowing in dollars. The first goal of this paper is to measure precisely such deviations from arbitrage. By using high frequency prices from novel datasets , we are able to exactly replicate two major arbitrage strategies: “secured” and “unsecured” arbitrage. Specifically, arbitrage can be undertaken by borrowing and lending funds on secured terms, as would a hedge fund, or on unsecured terms, as would a bank's proprietary trading desk (prop desk). The distinction draws on that made in Brunnermeier and Pedersen (2009). Both arbitrage strategies yield very similar and consistent results. The second goal of the paper is to investigate why arbitrage broke down. Empirical analysis suggests that insufficient funding liquidity in dollars kept traders from arbitraging away excess profits. Risk factors, instead, are mostly insignificant. Liquidity factors involve intermediaries cutting back loans to arbitrageurs in order to shrink their balance sheet, and hoarding liquidity to cover their own funding strains. In addition, it seems that arbitrageurs themselves had insufficient pledge-able capital to fund their arbitrage trades. This paper contributes to the literature on slow moving capital. It shows how capital constraints turn into enduring arbitrage opportunities. For policymakers, it shows that certain unconventional monetary policy measures (in particular central bank swap lines) were effective at providing the necessary funding liquidity in dollars and re-establishing arbitrage across money markets.

Keywords: limits to arbitrage, covered interest parity, funding liquidity, financial crisis, slow moving capital, market freeze, unconventional monetary policy.

JEL Classification: F31, G01, G14

Suggested Citation

Mancini-Griffoli, Tommaso and Ranaldo, Angelo, Limits to Arbitrage During the Crisis: Funding Liquidity Constraints and Covered Interest Parity (February 4, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1569504. or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1569504

Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli

Swiss National Bank ( email )

Research
Fraumuensterstr. 8
Zuerich, 8022
Switzerland

Paris School of Economics (PSE) ( email )

48 Boulevard Jourdan
Paris, 75014 75014
France

University of Angers - Centre d'Etudes Prospectives d'Economie Mathematique Appliquees a la Planification (CEPREMAP) ( email )

Ecole Normale Superieure
48 boulevard Jourdan
75014 Paris
France

Angelo Ranaldo (Contact Author)

University of Basel - Faculty of Business and Economics ( email )

Petersplatz 1
Basel, 4001
Switzerland

Swiss Finance Institute ( email )

c/o University of Geneva
40, Bd du Pont-d'Arve
CH-1211 Geneva 4
Switzerland
+41796637711 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.sfi.ch/de/about-us/news/hsg-faculty-members

University of St. Gallen ( email )

School of Finance
Unterer Graben 21
St. Gallen, 9000
Switzerland
+41712247010 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://fin-sr.unisg.ch