Liberty Street Economics

« | Main | »

August 9, 2017

Investor Diversity and Liquidity in the Secondary Loan Market

LSE_Investor Diversity and Liquidity in the Secondary Loan Market

Over the last two decades, the U.S. secondary loan market has evolved from a relatively sleepy market dominated by banks and insurance companies that trade only occasionally to a more active market comprising a diversified set of institutional investors, including collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), loan mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, brokers, and private equity firms. This shift resulted from the growing presence of these investors in the syndicates of corporate loans, as shown in the chart below. In 1991 the average term loan had just two different types of investors; by 2013 that number had grown to five.


The arrival of these new investors likely boosted secondary loan market activity because increased investor diversity indicates differences in business models and thus a higher likelihood that an investor will need to trade in order to meet some goals. And while banks and insurance companies tend to follow a buy-and-hold investment strategy, the new investors trade more actively, for a variety of reasons: to manage credit risk, meet liquidity needs, pursue minimum return targets, or boost equity return through leverage. Greater investor diversity also likely gives rise to divergent opinions about the value of a loan and to “trigger trading.” According to the Loan Syndications and Trading Association (LSTA), trading volume in the secondary loan market surged from $8 billion in 1991 to $517 billion in 2013, a compound annual growth rate of about 20 percent. In this post, we discuss how the growing presence of a more diversified set of institutional nonbank investors has affected the liquidity of loans in the secondary market.

Measuring Liquidity and Diversity

We measure loan liquidity by the mean quoted bid-ask spread over the year—that is, the difference between a loan dealer’s ask and bid price quotes at a given time. Theories posit that the bid-ask spread reflects three costs faced by dealers (order processing costs, inventory costs, and information costs), all of which should decline as the liquidity of the loan or security increases. There is supporting evidence for these assertions. We measure the bid-ask spread over the year because our information on loan investors is as of year-end.

We measure investor diversity by either the number of investors holding the loan or the number of institutional types of investors—banks, CLOs, or hedge funds, for example—in the syndicate. We expect both measures to be associated with increased trading and higher liquidity, particularly the latter since liquidity measures actual diversity of types whereas increased trading could just reflect a larger number of investors of the same type.

We merge data on loan bid-ask spreads from the mark-to-market loan pricing services of the LSTA/Thomson Reuters Loan Pricing Corporation over the 1998-2012 time period with information on the investors for each of these loans from the Shared National Credit Program. This process left us with a sample of 2,415 term loans from 400 corporations, for a total of 4,964 term-loan-year observations.

Consistent with our expectation, bid-ask spreads fall, suggesting increased liquidity, as the number of loan investors increases and the average number of investor types increases (see the two charts below). This insight builds on univariate comparisons, but the loan’s bid-ask spread will likely be affected by a wider variety of factors. While these findings ignore other potential determinants of liquidity, our recent working paper shows that they hold even after we control for loan- and borrower-specific factors and time and loan arranger fixed effects, among other things. Further, and importantly, reverse causality does not seem to explain our findings because loan liquidity does not explain our (future) measures of investor diversity.



Not All Diversity Equals Liquidity

While our evidence points to a strong relationship between investor diversity and loan liquidity, not all investors increase liquidity. On close inspection, we find that investor types that are believed to follow a buy-and-hold strategy—such as banks and insurance companies—have an adverse effect on loan liquidity. In contrast, investor types that are believed to be active traders—namely, private equity firms and funds—have a positive effect on loan liquidity.

Our findings confirm the thesis that it takes a difference of opinions to have a horse race. The arrival of other investors, besides banks and insurance companies, in the syndicate loan market has increased loan trading and improved market liquidity and efficiency. These findings also suggest that the need to cater to active trading investors will likely incentivize loan originators to standardize loans [subscription required], moving a step away from one of the cornerstones of bank lending—offering customized funding to borrowers.


The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Joao Santos
Jo&atildeo A.C. Santos is a vice president in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group

Pei Shao is an associate professor at the University of Lethbridge.

How to cite this blog post:

Jo&atildeo A.C. Santos and Pei Shao, “Investor Diversity and Liquidity in the Secondary Loan Market,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics (blog), August 9, 2017,

About the Blog

Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Image of NYFED Economic Research Tracker Icon Liberty Street Economics is available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Economic Inequality

image of inequality icons for the Economic Inequality: A Research Series

This ongoing Liberty Street Economics series analyzes disparities in economic and policy outcomes by race, gender, age, region, income, and other factors.

Most Read this Year

Comment Guidelines


We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:

Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1,500 characters.

Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.

Please be relevant: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post.

Please be respectful: We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will
not be posted.‎

Comments with links: Please do not include any links in your comment, even if you feel the links will contribute to the discussion. Comments with links will not be posted.

Send Us Feedback

Disclosure Policy

The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.