How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve? -Liberty Street Economics
Liberty Street Economics

« Explaining the Puzzling Behavior of Short-Term Money Market Rates | Main | Tracking the Spread of COVID-19 in the Region »

August 26, 2020

How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?



How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?

In a recent Liberty Street Economics post, we showed that the newly reintroduced 20-year bond trades less than other on-the-run Treasury securities and has similar liquidity to that of the more interest‑rate‑sensitive 30-year bond. Is it common for newly introduced securities to trade less and with higher transaction costs, and how does security trading behavior change over time? In this post, we look back at how liquidity evolved for earlier reintroductions of Treasury securities so as to gain insight into how liquidity might evolve for the new 20-year bond.

New 20-Year Bond Trades Less than Other Securities
In May 2020, the Treasury Department reintroduced the 20-year bond, which it had last sold in 1986. The new 20-year bond trades less than other on-the-run Treasury securities, with daily trading volume on the BrokerTec platform in late May averaging $2.4 billion, versus $30.8 billion for the 10-year note and $10.1 billion for the 30-year bond. Liquidity of the 20-year bond is comparable to that of the 30-year bond, but might be expected to be somewhat better because of its shorter tenor and hence lower price sensitivity to interest rate changes.

Is the 20-Year Bond Atypical?
Is the 20-year bond atypical or is it common for new securities to trade less and with higher transaction costs when they’re introduced (or reintroduced), only to become more liquid later? Why might such a pattern exist? Some market participants may be waiting to see how trading and liquidity conditions evolve, and for more data on such conditions to become available, before starting to trade the security. Moreover, as time passes, and additional issues are sold in the new security’s sector, opportunities for relative-value trading increase, which should promote liquidity. Scheduled reopenings also result in larger issue sizes over time, and larger issues are more liquid.

To assess this issue, we look at the performance of other securities that have been reintroduced, namely the 7-year note in February 2009, the 3-year note in November 2008, and the 30-year bond in February 2006. We examine these securities’ behavior not only at reintroduction, but also in the subsequent months and years. We measure performance relative to the 2-, 5-, and 10-year notes so as to control for variation in the market’s overall behavior and isolate, to the extent possible, how the passage of time affects the evolution of activity and liquidity.

As in earlier posts, our analysis is based on data from BrokerTec, an electronic trading platform used by dealers and principal trading firms. BrokerTec intermediates trading in the on-the-run, or most recently auctioned, notes and bonds, in particular. The on-the-run securities are the primary instruments of price discovery and interest rate risk management in the market, and account for about two-thirds of overall trading volume. Our analysis tracks activity and liquidity over time in such securities.

Trading Activity of New Securities Increases over Time
We first examine trading volume in the reintroduced securities. We do this for select intervals from the first week through the tenth year following the auction of each new security. To control for variation in the overall level of trading, we calculate the ratio of trading volume in the reintroduced on-the-run security to the average contemporaneous trading volume of on-the-run 2-, 5-, and 10-year notes.

The upward sloping lines in the chart below indicate that trading activity in reintroduced securities tends to increase over time relative to other securities. For example, in its first week, the 7-year note’s trading volume was only 12 percent of the average trading volume of the 2‑, 5‑, and 10‑year, but this ratio had climbed to 41 percent by the note’s tenth year. The analogous ratio for the 30-year bond’s first week was 11 percent, but a much higher 30 percent for the bond’s tenth year. The ratio for the 20‑year bond was also 8 percent in its first week, but rose to 15 percent in month 3 (which is based on only eight trading days in late July for the 20‑year bond).


How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?


New Securities Become More Liquid over Time
A similar analysis reveals improving liquidity over time. Bid-ask spreads thus tend to narrow, pointing to lower trading costs, as shown in the next chart. The 7-year spread was more than twice as wide as the average of the 2-, 5-, and 10-year spreads in its first week, but just over 1½ times as wide in its tenth year. The 20-year spread was four times as wide as the average of the 2-, 5-, and 10-year notes in its first week, but this quickly narrowed to roughly three times as wide by its fourth week. Because longer tenor securities are more price sensitive to rate changes and hence generally less liquid, this ratio could be expected to remain above one, even in the long run.


How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?


Order book depth similarly points to improved liquidity over time, as shown by the upward trending lines in the chart below. Improved liquidity is notable for the 3-year note for which depth was 26 percent of the average of 2-, 5-, and 10-year depth in its first week after reintroduction, but just over 100 percent in its tenth year. Depth for the 20-year bond has improved notably as well, doubling from 3 percent of average 2-, 5-, and 10-year depth in its first week, to nearly 6 percent by its fourth week.


How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?


Lastly, price impact coefficients, which measure how much prices tend to rise (decline) for a given quantity bought (sold), tend to decline over time, suggesting improved liquidity, as shown in the next chart. The 7-year note thus had a price impact coefficient nearly four times the average of the 2-, 5-, and 10-year notes in its first week, but only about 2 ½ times by its sixth month. The analogous first week ratio for the 20-year bond was 24; the ratio rose to 30 in the bond’s fourth week, before falling to 21 in the bond’s third month.


How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?


Liquidity of 20-Year Bond Improving over Time
The preceding analysis suggests that the 20-year bond’s liquidity improved over its first few months. Measures of absolute liquidity, reported in the table below, are consistent with this. In particular, the bid‑ask spread and depth improved notably in June and July (price impact worsened in June, but then improved in July). The Treasury Department’s scheduled reopenings of the bond, in which it auctioned off an additional $34 billion (half on June 17, half on July 22) of the issue first sold in May, may help explain the improved liquidity.


How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?


What’s in Store for the 20-Year Bond?
Past performance of other reintroduced securities may not be indicative of future results for the 20-year bond. One reason is that 20-year issuance was suspended for over twenty-four years, versus just under sixteen years for the 7-year note, four and a half years for the 30-year bond, and only one and a half years for the 3-year note. Market participants’ may initially be less comfortable trading reintroduced securities for which the length of the issuance suspension has been long. Algorithmic traders, in particular, need data to develop their trading strategies, and account for a greater share of trading volume than in the past. As participants gain experience with the bond, and trading data become increasingly available, the bond’s liquidity may improve more than the preceding analysis suggests.

There are still other reasons the 20-year bond may follow its own path. Market participants expected the 20-year bond to be popular with liability driven investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies, which tend to trade less frequently than other investors. Moreover, to the extent investors buy securities directly at auction, less secondary trading is needed. The 20-year sector is also one with little floating supply, which may cause the bonds to be snapped up by buy-and-hold investors and thereby trade less. How the 20-year bond’s liquidity evolves will be a continued area of interest.


Michael Fleming Michael Fleming is a vice president in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.


How to cite this post:
Michael Fleming, “How Does the Liquidity of New Treasury Securities Evolve?,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, August 26, 2020, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/08/how-does-the-liquidity-of-new-treasury-securities-evolve.html.



Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author 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 author.
Posted by Blog Author at 07:00:00 AM in Financial Markets
Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thank you for your comment. Please see the following paper, which provides such an analysis for both the cash and futures markets:
“The Liquidity Hierarchy in the US Treasury Cash and Futures Market,” Lee Baker, Lihong McPhail, and Bruce Tuckman. The Journal of Fixed Income Summer 2020, 30 (1) 90-99; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jfi.2020.1.091
https://jfi.pm-research.com/content/30/1/90
https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Liquidity%20Hierarchy%20in%20Tsy%20Mkt%20v4_ada.pdf

Do you have a straight analysis of the average risk transfer per day (or week) over time in each of the currents? So a graph with time as x axis, DV01 of risk transfer as y axis, and a line for current, 2,3,5,etc.

My priors would be that the 5s and 10s would be continuously at the top of the chart, old 30s would be next, and the rest would be spread out well below.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

Liberty Street Economics is now available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.


Most Viewed

Last 12 Months
Useful Links
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 1500 characters.
Please be quick: Comments submitted after COB on Friday will not be published until Monday morning.
Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.
Please be on-topic and patient: 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. 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.‎
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.
Archives