--- abstract: | This article is part of a comprehensive research project on liquidity risk in asset management, which can be divided into three dimensions. The first dimension covers the modeling of the liability liquidity risk (or funding liquidity), the second dimension is dedicated to the modeling of the asset liquidity risk (or market liquidity), whereas the third dimension considers the management of the asset-liability liquidity risk (or asset-liability matching). The purpose of this research is to propose a methodological and practical framework in order to perform liquidity stress testing programs, which comply with regulatory guidelines [@ESMA-2019a; @ESMA-2020a] and are useful for fund managers. The review of the academic literature and professional research studies shows that there is a lack of standardized and analytical models. The aim of this research project is then to fill the gap with the goal of developing mathematical and statistical approaches, and providing appropriate answers. In this third and last research paper focused on managing the asset-liability liquidity risk, we explore the ALM tools that can be put in place to control the liquidity gap. These ALM tools can be split into three categories: measurement tools, management tools and monitoring tools. In terms of measurement tools, we focus on the computation of the redemption coverage ratio (RCR), which is the central instrument of liquidity stress testing programs. We also study the redemption liquidation policy and the different implementation methodologies, and we show how reverse stress testing can be developed. In terms of liquidity management tools, we study the calibration of liquidity buffers, the pros and cons of special arrangements (redemption suspensions, gates, side pockets and in-kind redemptions) and the effectiveness of swing pricing. In terms of liquidity monitoring tools, we compare the macro- and micro-approaches to liquidity monitoring in order to identify the transmission channels of liquidity risk. author: - | <span> Thierry Roncalli</span>\ Quantitative Research\ Amundi Asset Management, Paris\ `danielle78@example.com` date: September 2021 title: | **Liquidity Stress Testing in Asset Management\ Part 3. Managing the Asset-Liability\ Liquidity Risk**[^1] --- **Keywords:** asset-liability management, liquidity risk, liquidity management tool (LMT), stress testing, redemption coverage ratio, liquidity buffer, swing pricing. **JEL classification:** C02, G32. Introduction ============ The guidelines on liquidity stress testing in UCITS and AIFs produced by @ESMA-2020a are rooted in the banking regulation defined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision [@BCBS-2010; @BCBS-2013]. For instance, the redemption coverage ratio, which is the key instrument of LST programs, is a copy-paste of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) in the Basel III Accord. According to @BCBS-2008, liquidity risk management in the banking industry must be structured around three pillars: measurement, management and monitoring. Beyond the redemption coverage ratio, which is typically a measurement tool, @ESMA-2020a adopt a similar approach by mixing the three Ms. Liquidity risk is an important topic for the banking sector because it concerns systemic risk. We face similar issues for the asset management industry because it can generate big market risks. Since liquidity risk is an ALM risk [@Roncalli-2020 Chapter 7], it concerns both liabilities and assets. As mentioned by @Brunnermeier-2009, the interconnectedness between funding liquidity and market liquidity amplifies the liquidity risk. This is obvious in stress periods, but this is even the case in normal periods when we consider the asset management industry. The reason is that redeeming investors impose negative externalities on the remaining investors: > *Strategic interaction is a key determinant of investors' behavior in financial markets and institutions. When choosing their investment strategy, investors have to consider, not only the expected fundamentals of the investment, but also the expected behavior of other investors, which could have a first-order effect on investment returns. Particularly interesting are situations with payoff complementarities, where investors' incentives to take a certain action increase if they expect that more investors will take such an action. Payoff complementarities are expected to generate a multiplier effect, by which they amplify the impact that shocks to fundamentals have on investors' behavior. Such amplification is often referred to as *financial fragility** [@Chen-2010 page 239]. This *financial fragility* has been documented in several asset classes [@Bouveret-2021; @Chernenko-2020; @Fricke-2021; @Fricke-2020; @Rohleder-2017; @Goldstein-2017b]. The negative externalities and their major impact when considering stress periods explain that financial regulators have recently paid more attention to liquidity management in the asset management industry [@AMF-2017; @BaFin-2017; @EFAMA-2020; @ESRB-2017], while the regulation of asset managers in terms of liquidity management was light in the 2000s. Nevertheless, introducing more stringent regulations in the asset management industry is not a new concept and dates back to the roadmap of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) when it was created in April 2009 after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis to monitor the stability of the financial system and manage systemic risk [@Roncalli-2020 page 453]. However, the lack of maturity and benchmarking is an obstacle for the development of liquidity stress testing in the asset management industry. One of the big challenges for regulators is standardizing models and practices. In the case of the banking industry, the Basel Committee has been successful in proposing statistical frameworks for market and credit risks. This is not the case in the asset management industry, where academic research is relatively invisible on the liability side. As such, most solutions are in-house and not published, implying limited distribution of best practices and, generally simplistic and naive methods being developed. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that mathematical and statistical models are completely absent from regulatory publications, especially in the case of the ESMA guidelines on liquidity stress testing in asset management. This paper completes a research project that began in April 2020 and was organized into three streams. The first stream covered the liability side and funding liquidity modeling. In @Roncalli-lst1, we introduced two statistical approaches that can be used to define a redemption shock scenario. The first one is the historical approach and considers non-parametric risk measures such as the historical or conditional value-at-risk. The second approach deals with frequency-severity models, which produces parametric risk measures and stress scenarios. Three of these probabilistic models are particularly interesting: the zero-inflated (or population-based) statistical model, the behavioral (or individual-based) model and the factor-based model. The second stream focused on the asset side and transaction cost modeling. In @Roncalli-lst2, we proposed a two-regime model to estimate ex-ante transaction costs and market impacts. This model is an extension of the square-root model and considers trading limits in order to comply with the practices of asset managers. Based on proprietary and industry data, we were able to perform the calibration for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, sovereign bonds and corporate bonds. Moreover, we have detailed the analytics of liquidation rate, time to liquidation and liquidation shortfall to assess the liquidity risk profile of investment funds. The third stream corresponds to this research paper. The aim is to combine liability and asset risks in order to define the ALM tools. Therefore, this paper extensively mixes the previous models. For instance, a stress scenario may originate from the liabilities or the assets or both. Synthetic measures such as the funding gap or funding ratio are essential for asset-liability management. These measures are particularly exploited for the purpose of defining appropriate liquidation policies and the management tools that can be put in place. Besides traditional management methods, asset managers are paying more and more attention to liquidity buffers. The widespread use of cash buffers for the purpose of liquidity stress testing may have some significant impacts in terms of reducing or increasing systemic risk. The recent debate on cash buffering versus cash hoarding and the *dash for cash* episode during the Covid-19 crisis in March 2020 demonstrate that the liquidity issue in asset management remains as before. This implies that asset managers must continue to develop the required tools and adopt more responsive tools. This is especially true for monitoring tools that must use higher frequency data. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the liquidity measurement tools. We introduce the redemption coverage ratio (RCR) and the two computational approaches (time to liquidation and high-quality liquid assets). We also focus on the redemption liquidation policy and the differences between vertical and horizontal slicing. Compared to banks, reverse stress testing (RST) is more complex because two dimensions can be chosen, implying that we can define a liability or an asset RST scenario. Section 3 is dedicated to liquidity managements tools (LMTs). Besides swing pricing and special arrangements (redemption suspensions, gates, side pockets and in-kind redemptions), we extensively study the set-up of a liquidity buffer. We propose an optimization model that considers the costs and benefits of implementing a cash buffer and derive the optimal solution that depends on the risk premium of assets, the tracking error risk and the liquidation gain. Using the square-root transaction cost model, we obtain analytical formulas and test the impact of the different parameters. The liquidity monitoring tools are discussed in Section 4. We distinguish the macro-economic and micro-economic approaches. The macro-economic approach helps to define overall liquidity and is related to central bank liquidity and the economic outlook. This approach is extensively used by financial regulators and international bodies. In a liquidity stress testing framework, it must be complemented by a micro-economic approach that considers the daily liquidity at the asset class, security and issuer levels. Data collection from order books, market infrastructure and the trading desk of the asset manager is the key to successfully building a suitable monitoring system. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper. Liquidity measurement tools =========================== Among the three Ms, measurement is certainly the most important and difficult step of liquidity stress testing programs. Indeed, it encompasses two sources of uncertainty: liability risk and asset risk. As shown by @Roncalli-lst1, there are two main approaches for measuring the liability risk. We can use an historical approach or a frequency-severity framework. For this latter, we also have the choice between three models: the zero-inflated statistical model, the behavioral model or the factor-based model. On the asset risk side, things are simpler since we generally consider the power-law model as a standard approach. However, calibrating the parameters remains a fragile exercise that is highly dependent on the historical data of the asset manager [@Roncalli-lst2]. As explained in the introduction, benchmarking will be a key factor for improving these measures. Nevertheless, there is certainly another issue that is even more detrimental. Indeed, the definition of the concepts is not always precise, and the regulators of the asset management industry are less prolific than the regulators of the banking industry. However, the devil is in the details. This is why we define the different measurement concepts more precisely in this section. First, we present the redemption coverage ratio and the two approaches for computing it. Then, we focus on the redemption liquidation policy, which must specify the appropriate decision in the case of a liquidity crisis. Finally, the regulation requires that the asset manager defines reverse stress testing scenarios and explores circumstances that might cause them to occur. Redemption coverage ratio ------------------------- According to @ESMA-2020a, the redemption coverage ratio (RCR) is *a measurement of the ability of a fund's assets to meet funding obligations arising from the liabilities side of the balance sheet, such as a redemption shock*. Except for this definition[^2], there are no other references to this concept in the ESMA guidelines. Therefore, we must explore other resources to clarify it, but they are few in number [@Bouveret-2017; @IMF-2017; @ESMA-2020b]. The redemption coverage ratio was introduced by @Bouveret-2017, who defines it as follows: $$\limfunc{RCR}=\frac{\text{Liquid assets}}{\text{Net outflows}} \label{eq:RCR1}$$where net outflows and liquid assets correspond respectively to redemption shocks and the amount of the portfolio that can be liquidated over a given time horizon. There are two possible cases: - if the RCR is above 1, then the fund's portfolio is sufficiently liquid to cope with the redemption scenario; - if the RCR is below 1, then the liquidity profile of the fund may be worsened when the redemption scenario occurs. In this second case, the outcome will depend largely on the market liquidity conditions. Indeed, there is a pricing risk on the NAV because the fund will have to sell illiquid assets in an illiquid market. The amount of additional assets to be sold is called the liquidity shortfall (LS): $$\limfunc{LS}=\max \left( 0,\text{Net outflows}-\text{Liquid assets}\right) \label{eq:LS1}$$In order to compare the liquidity profile of several funds, the measure $\limfunc{LS}$ is expressed as a percentage of the fund's total net assets (TNA). The RCR and LS measures refer to banking ALM concepts. Indeed, asset-liability management is based on two risk measures: the funding ratio and the funding gap [@Roncalli-2020 Chapter 7, page 376]. When the ALM is applied to liquidity risk, we refer to liquidity ratio and liquidity gap. It is obvious that the redemption coverage ratio is related to the liquidity (coverage) ratio, while the liquidity shortfall is equivalent to the liquidity gap. The International Monetary Fund has used the redemption coverage ratio in the case of its financial sector assessment program (FSAP) for two countries: Luxembourg in 2017 and the United States in 2020. These two FSAP exercises showed that a significant proportion of the funds would have enough liquid assets to meet redemption shocks. However, the IMF found that the most vulnerable categories are HY and EM bond funds in Luxembourg [@IMF-2017] and HY and loan mutual funds in the US [@IMF-2020]. In the case of Luxembourg funds, Figure \[fig:fsap\_lux\] shows that about 30 bond funds have an RCR below 1, and 50% of them have a liquidity shortfall greater than 10%, which is the borrowing limit for UCITS funds. <span>*Source*: @IMF-2017 [Figure 19, page 59].</span> ### Time to liquidation approach #### Mathematical framework We consider a fund, whose asset structure is given by the vector $\omega =\left( \omega _{1},\ldots ,\omega _{n}\right) $ where $\omega _{i}$ is the number of shares of security $i$ and $n$ is the number of securities that make up the asset portfolio. By construction, the fund's total net assets are equal to: $$\limfunc{TNA}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}\cdot P_{i} \label{eq:TNA}$$where $P_{i}$ is the current price of security $i$. The mathematical expressions of Equations (\[eq:RCR1\]) and (\[eq:LS1\]) are: $$\limfunc{RCR}=\frac{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}}{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}} \label{eq:RCR2}$$and:$$\limfunc{LS}=\max \left( 0,{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}-{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}\right) \label{eq:LS2}$$where ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}$ is the ratio of liquid assets in the fund and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$ is the redemption shock expressed in %. Following @Roncalli-lst2, the redemption shock expressed in dollars is equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \limfunc{TNA}$. Let $q=\left( q_{1},\ldots ,q_{n}\right) $ be a redemption portfolio and $q_{i}\left( h\right) $ be the number of shares liquidated after $h$ trading days[^3]. The amount of liquid assets is equal to the amount of assets that can be sold: $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) =\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{h}q_{i}\left( k\right) \cdot P_{i} \label{eq:asset1}$$By definition, we have ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) ={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}\left( h\right) \cdot \limfunc{TNA}$. We notice that asset liquidation requires a parameter $h$ to be defined, which is the time horizon. Therefore, it is better to define RCR and LS measures as follows: $$\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}=\frac{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}\left( h\right) }{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}} \label{eq:RCR3}$$and:$$\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) =\frac{\max \left( 0,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) \right) }{\limfunc{TNA}}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \max \left( 0,1-\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) \right) \label{eq:LS3}$$Since $h$ is a liquidation time horizon, the previous computation method is called the time to liquidation (TTL) approach [@Bouveret-2017]. #### Relationship with the liquidation ratio As its name suggests, the time to liquidation approach is related to the liquidation ratio. Following @Roncalli-lst2, the liquidation ratio $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ is the proportion of the redemption scenario $q$ that is liquidated after $h$ trading days: $$\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) =\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{h}q_{i}\left( k\right) \cdot P_{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}q_{i}\cdot P_{i}} \label{eq:LR1}$$By definition, $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ is between $0$ and $1$ whereas $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) \geq 0$. Using Equation (\[eq:asset1\]), we deduce that: $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) =\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \cdot \mathbb{V}\left( q\right) \label{eq:asset3}$$where $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) =\sum_{i=1}^{n}q_{i}\cdot P_{i}$ is the value function of the portfolio $q$. It follows that:$$\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cdot \mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \label{eq:RCR4}$$The redemption coverage ratio can be seen as an extension of the concept of the liquidation ratio when the liquidation portfolio $q$ corresponds to the pool of liquid assets and the redemption shock is defined without any reference to $q$. @Roncalli-lst2 define the liquidation period $h^{+}=\left\{ \inf h:\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) =1\right\} $ as the number of trading days we need to liquidate the portfolio $q$. We can then have three cases: 1. The redemption coverage ratio is equal to the liquidation ratio if and only if the redemption scenario is equal to the value of the liquidation portfolio:$$\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \Leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}=\mathbb{V}\left( q\right)$$Since $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ is an increasing function of $h$ and $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h^{+}\right) =1$, we have:$$\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) <1 & \text{if }h<h^{+} \\ \limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =1 & \text{if }h\geq h^{+}\end{array}\right.$$ 2. If $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) >{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) >\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ and:$$\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}>1\qquad \forall \,h\geq h^{+}$$ 3. If $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) <{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) <\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ and:$$\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) <1\qquad \forall \,h\geq 0$$ Equation (\[eq:RCR4\]) shows that the redemption coverage ratio is an increasing function of $h$. From a risk management perspective, the RCR is below one if the value $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) $ of liquid assets is lower than the redemption shock ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ or if the time to liquidation is not acceptable. Let $h^{\star }=\left\{ \inf h:\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) >1\right\} $ be the number of trading days we need to absorb the redemption shock. The shorter the period $h^{\star }$ is, the better the liquidity profile. Indeed, if the period $h^{\star }$ is too long and even if $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h^{\star }\right) >1$, we cannot consider that the criterion is satisfied. This is why the risk management department must define an acceptable time to liquidation $\tau _{h}$. In this case, the liquidity profile of the fund is appropriate if and only if $\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) >1$. By definition, $\tau _{h}$ depends on the asset class. In the case of public equities, $\tau _{h}$ is equal to a few days, whereas $\tau _{h}$ may range from a few weeks to several months for private equities, depending on the liquidity objective of the investment fund. Similarly, the liquidity shortfall $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ can be seen as an extension of the liquidation shortfall, which is defined as *the remaining redemption that cannot be fulfilled after one trading day* [@Roncalli-lst2 Section 3.2.3, page 18]: $$\mathcal{LS}\left( q\right) =1-\mathcal{LR}\left( q;1\right)$$Indeed, we have:$$\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) ={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \max \left( 0,1-\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cdot \mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \right)$$In the case where $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) ={\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) &=&{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \max \left( 0,1-\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \right) \notag \\ &=&{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \left( 1-\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \right) \notag \\ &=&{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \mathcal{LS}\left( q;h\right)\end{aligned}$$where $\mathcal{LS}\left( q;h\right) =1-\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ is the *generalized* liquidation shortfall, that is the remaining redemption that cannot be fulfilled after $h$ trading days. While the liquidation shortfall is calculated with one trading day, the liquidity shortfall can be calculated with $h\leq \tau _{h}$. In the other cases, the liquidity shortfall is not equal to the product of the redemption rate ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$ and the generalized liquidation shortfall because we have: $$\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) ={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \max \left( 0,1-\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cdot \left( 1-\mathcal{LS}\left( q;h\right) \right) \right)$$Nevertheless, we always verify that: $$0\leq \limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) \leq {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$$By construction, the liquidity shortfall cannot exceed the redemption rate. #### Portfolio distortion Since the asset structure of the fund is given by the portfolio $\omega =\left( \omega _{1},\ldots ,\omega _{n}\right) $, the portfolio weights are equal to $w\left( \omega \right) =\left( w_{1}\left( \omega \right) ,\ldots ,w_{n}\left( \omega \right) \right) $ where: $$w_{i}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\omega _{i}\cdot P_{i}}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\omega _{j}\cdot P_{j}} \label{eq:w-omega}$$Let $q=\left( q_{1},\ldots ,q_{n}\right) $ be the redemption scenario. It follows that the redemption weights are given by: $$w_{i}\left( q\right) =\frac{q_{i}\cdot P_{i}}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}q_{j}\cdot P_{j}} \label{eq:w-q}$$After the liquidation of $q$, the new asset structure is equal to $\omega -q$, and the new weights of the portfolio become: $$w_{i}\left( \omega -q\right) =\frac{\left( \omega _{i}-q_{i}\right) \cdot P_{i}}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left( \omega _{j}-q_{j}\right) \cdot P_{j}} \label{eq:w-omega_q}$$Except in the case of the proportional rule $q_{i}\propto \omega _{i}$, there is no reason that $w_{i}\left( \omega -q\right) =w_{i}\left( \omega \right) $. In fact, we have[^4]:$$\begin{aligned} w_{i}\left( \omega -q\right) &=&w_{i}\left( \omega \right) +\Delta w_{i}\left( \omega \mid q\right) \notag \\ &=&w_{i}\left( \omega \right) +\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{\left( \mathbb{V}\left( \omega \right) -\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) \right) }\left( w_{i}\left( \omega \right) -w_{i}\left( q\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ The previous analysis can be extended to the case $h<h^{+}$. Indeed, it assumes that the liquidation is fully executed. Again, we can have $h^{+}\gg \tau _{h}$, meaning the redemption shock cannot be perfectly absorbed. In this case, we can compute $w_{i}\left( q;h\right) $ and $w_{i}\left( \omega -q;h\right) $ by replacing $q_{i}$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{h}q_{i}\left( k\right)$. #### Examples We consider a fund, whose asset structure $\omega $ is given in Table \[ex:rcr0\]. The investment universe is made up of $7$ assets. We also indicate the current price $P_{i}$ and the trading limit $q_{i}^{+}$ of each asset. The fund's total net assets are equal to $\$141.734$ mn. We assume that the redemption shock is equal to $20\%$ or $\$28.347$ mn. Asset -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ---------- $\omega_i$ $435\,100$ $300\,100$ $50\,400$ $200\,500$ $75\,500$ $17\,500$ $1\,800$ $w_i\left(\omega\right)$ $27.32\%$ $26.04\%$ $17.35\%$ $14.43\%$ $8.90\%$ $3.94\%$ $2.02\%$ $P_i$ $89$ $123$ $488$ $102$ $167$ $319$ $1\,589$ $q_i^{+}$ $20\,000$ $20\,000$ $10\,000$ $20\,000$ $20\,000$ $2\,000$ $1\,000$ : Fund's asset structure and liquidation policy<span data-label="ex:rcr0"></span> \[naive pro-rata liquidation\] \[ex:rcr1\] We first consider the pro-rata liquidation (also called the proportional rule or the vertical slicing approach). In this case, the liquidation portfolio is equal to $q={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega = 0.20\cdot \omega $. We first determine the number of liquidated shares $q_{i}\left( h\right) $ for $h=1,2,\ldots $ (see Table \[tab:rcr1-2\] on page ) in order to compute the value of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) $ and the associated redemption coverage ratio $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $. Results are given below in Table \[tab:rcr1-1\]. We notice that $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 1\right) =52.53\%$ and $\limfunc{LS}\left( 1\right) =9.49\%$. If the time horizon $\tau _{h}$ to absorb the redemption shock is equal to one day, then there are not enough liquid assets since the redemption coverage ratio is less than $1$. Indeed, we need a week (or five trading days) to perfectly absorb the redemption shock. In this case, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 5\right) =100\%$ and $\limfunc{LS}\left( 5\right) =0\%$. In Table \[tab:rcr1-1\], we also verify that $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right)$. Moreover, we notice the convergence of the portfolio weights after the liquidation to the current portfolio weights (see Table \[tab:rcr1-4\] on page ). Nevertheless, the matching of the two portfolios $\omega -q$ and $\omega $ is only valid when $h\geq h^{+}=5$. ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ (in %) (in \$ mn) (in %) (in %) $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}52.53$ $14.892$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}52.53$ $9.49$ $2$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}76.51$ $21.689$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}76.51$ $4.70$ $3$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}91.51$ $25.939$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}91.51$ $1.70$ $4$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}97.80$ $27.722$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}97.80$ $0.44$ $5$ $100.00$ $28.347$ $100.00$ $0.00$ $6$ $100.00$ $28.347$ $100.00$ $0.00$ ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- : Computation of the RCR (Example \[ex:rcr1\], naive pro-rata liquidation)<span data-label="tab:rcr1-1"></span> In this example, we assume that $q={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega $, implying that $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) ={\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. This scheme is not optimal because we have demonstrated that $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h^{+}\right) =1$ and $\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \leq 1$. The best case is then obtained if $\tau _{h}=h^{+}$, implying the following constraints: $$\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =1\Leftrightarrow \left\{ \forall \,i=1,\ldots ,n:q_{i}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega _{i}\leq \tau _{h}\cdot q_{i}^{+}\right\}$$If we set $\tau _{h}<h^{+}$, we necessarily have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) <1$, meaning that there are not enough liquid assets to fulfill the redemption scenario. Moreover, we are not sure that $q={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega $ is the optimal solution to maximize the redemption coverage ratio $\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $. Indeed, the previous analysis suggests that $\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) >{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a better choice when it is possible. However, this constraint is not always satisfied and is highly dependent on the value $\tau _{h}$ of the time horizon. In fact, the optimal solution necessarily depends on $\tau _{h}$ and is given by the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned} q^{\star }\left( \tau _{h}\right) &=&\arg \max \limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \notag \\ &\text{s.t.}&\left\{ \begin{array}{l} q\propto \omega \\ q\geq \mathbf{0}_{n}\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$By construction, the solution is independent from the value ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ of the redemption shock since we have: $$\arg \max \limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) :=\arg \max {\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right)$$We obtain a trivial combinatorial problem. Indeed, the solution must satisfy the following set of constraints: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} q\propto \omega \\ q_{i}\leq \min \left( \tau _{h}\cdot q_{i}^{+},\omega _{i}\right) \end{array}\right.$$We deduce that:$$q^{\star }\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) \cdot \omega$$where:$$\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) =\inf_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\min \left( \tau _{h}\cdot \dfrac{q_{i}^{+}}{\omega _{i}},1\right) \label{eq:RCR-optimal1}$$Moreover, we have:$$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{h}q_{i}\left( k\right) \right) P_{i} \notag \\ &=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}q_{i}^{\star }\left( \tau _{h}\right) \cdot P_{i} \notag \\ &=&\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}\cdot P_{i} \right) \notag \\ &=&\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) \cdot \limfunc{TNA}\end{aligned}$$We conclude that the redemption coverage rate is equal to the ratio between $\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) $ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$: $$\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\frac{\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) }{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}} \label{eq:RCR-optimal2}$$ \[optimal pro-rata liquidation\] \[ex:rcr2\] We consider the optimal pro-rata liquidation when the redemption shock ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$ is equal to $20\%$ and the time horizon $\tau_h$ varies from one trading day to one trading week. In Table \[tab:rcr2-1\], we indicate the optimal value $\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) $ for each time horizon $\tau _{h}$. We also report[^5] $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $, ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) $, $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $ and $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ for $h\leq \tau _{h}$. When $\tau _{h}=1$, the optimal liquidation portfolio is equal to $\left( 20\,000,13\,795,2\,317,9\,216,3\,470,804\right) $. The redemption coverage ratio is equal to $22.98\%$, implying a high liquidity shortfall representing $15.40\%$ of the total net assets. When $\tau _{h}=2$, the optimal portfolio $q^{\star}$ becomes $\left(40\,000,27\,589,4\,633,18\,433,6\,941, 1\,609\right) $. The redemption coverage ratio is then equal to $45.97\%$ whereas the liquidity shortfall represents $10.81\%$ of the total net assets. In Exercise \[ex:rcr1\], the liquidation period $h^{+}$ was equal to five trading days, and we obtained $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 5\right) =100\%$. We notice that we achieve a better redemption coverage ratio with the optimal pro-rata liquidation rule. Indeed, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 5\right) =114.92\%$. ----- ----------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- $\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right)$ $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ (in %) (in %) (in \$ mn) (in %) (in %) $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}4.60$ $1$ $100.00$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}6.515$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}22.98$ $15.40$ $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}79.18$ $10.317$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}36.39$ $12.72$ $2$ $100.00$ $13.030$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}45.97$ $10.81$ $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}63.66$ $12.443$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}43.89$ $11.22$ $2$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}90.02$ $17.595$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}62.07$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}7.59$ $3$ $100.00$ $19.545$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}68.95$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}6.21$ $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}54.81$ $14.284$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}50.39$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}9.92$ $2$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}79.18$ $20.633$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}72.79$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}5.44$ $3$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}93.17$ $24.280$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}85.65$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}2.87$ $4$ $100.00$ $26.060$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}91.93$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}1.61$ $1$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}47.13$ $15.353$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}54.16$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}9.17$ $2$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}70.74$ $23.044$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}81.29$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}3.74$ $3$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}85.68$ $27.911$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}98.46$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0.31$ $4$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}94.54$ $30.795$ $108.64$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0.00$ $5$ $100.00$ $32.575$ $114.92$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0.00$ ----- ----------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- : Computation of the RCR (Example \[ex:rcr2\], optimal pro-rata liquidation)<span data-label="tab:rcr2-1"></span> Since the optimal portfolio $q^{\star }\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ does not depend on the redemption shock ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ indicates the maximum redemption shock that can be absorbed, implying that: $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\leq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \Rightarrow \limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \geq 1$$By definition, the maximum admissible redemption shock is equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) ={\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ or ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\varphi \left( \tau _{h}\right) $. For instance, the maximum admissible redemption shock is equal to $\$6.515$ mn (or $4.60\%$ of the TNA) when the time horizon is set to one trading day. Figure \[fig:rcr2b\] shows the evolution of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\left( \tau_{h}\right)$ with respect to $\tau _{h}$. \[waterfall liquidation\] \[ex:rcr3\] We now consider the waterfall liquidation. In this case, the fund manager liquidates assets in order of their liquidity starting from the most liquid ones. The redemption shock is still equal to $20\%$. ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) $ ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $ $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ (in %) (in \$ mn) (in %) (in %) $1$ $11.80$ $16.727$ $ 59.01$ $8.20$ $2$ $23.38$ $33.136$ $116.90$ $0.00$ $3$ $34.06$ $48.274$ $170.30$ $0.00$ $4$ $44.21$ $62.661$ $221.05$ $0.00$ $5$ $52.53$ $74.459$ $262.67$ $0.00$ $6$ $57.55$ $81.572$ $287.76$ $0.00$ ----- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- : Computation of the RCR (Example \[ex:rcr3\], waterfall liquidation)<span data-label="tab:rcr3-1"></span> In the waterfall approach, there are no constraints on the liquidation portfolio $q$, which is equal to the fund's portfolio $\omega $. In this case, the redemption coverage ratio is entirely determined by the trading limits $q^{+}$ and the current portfolio $\omega $. Every day, we sell $q_{i}^{+}$ shares of security $i$ until there is nothing left – $q_{i}\left( h\right) =0$. Results are given in Table \[tab:rcr3-1\]. Since there are no constraints on the asset structure of the portfolio $\omega -q$, we obtain higher values of the redemption coverage ratio compared to the naive or optimal pro-rata liquidation approach. Indeed, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 1\right) =59.01\%$, but $\limfunc{RCR}\left( 2\right) =116.90\%$. In this example, we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( \tau _{h}\right) >1$ when $\tau _{h}\geq 2$. By construction, the waterfall approach will always give higher redemption coverage ratios than the pro-rata approach. To illustrate this property, we compare the maximum admissible redemption shock in Figure \[fig:rcr3b\] for the two approaches. ### High-quality liquid assets approach #### Mathematical framework In the high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) method, the amount of liquid assets is estimated by splitting securities by HQLA classes and applying liquidity weights. We assume that we have $m$ HQLA classes. Let $\func{ccf}_{k}$ denote the liquidity weight or the cash conversion factor (CCF) of the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ HQLA class. The ratio of liquid assets in the fund is defined by: $${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}\left( \omega \right) \cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{\ell \left( i\right) }$$where $\ell \left( i\right) $ indicates the HQLA class $k$ of security $i$. We have: $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{A}}}}&=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}\left( \omega \right) \cdot \left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}\mathds{1}\left\{ i\in k\right\} \cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}\right) \notag \\ &=&\sum_{k=1}^{m}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathds{1}\left\{ i\in k\right\} \cdot w_{i}\left( \omega \right) \right) \cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k} \notag \\ &=&\sum_{k=1}^{m}w_{k}\cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}\end{aligned}$$where $w_{k}$ is the weight of the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ HQLA class[^6]. We deduce that:$$\func{RCR}=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m}w_{k}\cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}}{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}}$$and:$$\func{LS}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \max \left( 0,1-\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m}w_{k}\cdot \limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}}{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}}\right)$$ #### Definition of HQLA classes The term HQLA refers to the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) introduced in the Basel III framework [@BCBS-2010; @BCBS-2013]. An asset is considered to be a high-quality liquid asset if it can be easily converted into cash. Therefore, the concept of HQLA is related to asset quality and asset liquidity. The first property indicates if the asset can be sold without discount, while the second property indicates if the asset can be easily and quickly sold [@Roncalli-2020]. Thus, the LCR ratio measures whether or not the bank has the necessary assets to face a one-month stressed period of outflows. The stock of HQLA is computed by defining eligible assets and applying haircut values. For instance, corporate debt securities rated above are eligible, implying that high yield bonds are not. Then, a haircut of $15\%$ (resp. $50\%$) is applied to corporate bonds rated or higher (resp. between and ). Since the time horizon of the LCR is one month, the underlying idea is that (1) high yield bonds can be illiquid for one month, (2) investment grade corporate bonds can be sold during the month but with a discount, (3) corporate bonds rated or higher can lose $15\%$ of their value in the month and (4) corporate bonds rated between and can lose $50\%$ of their value in the month. In Table \[tab:hqla1\], we report the HQLA matrix given by @Bouveret-2017 and @IMF-2017, which corresponds to the HQLA matrix of the Basel III Accord using the following rule: $$\limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}=1-H_{k}$$where $H_{k}$ is the haircut value. By construction, the CCF value is equal to $100\%$ for cash. For equities, it is equal to $50\%$. Although common equity shares are highly liquid, we can face a price drop before the liquidation. Therefore, this value of $50\%$ mainly reflects a discount risk. Sovereign bonds are assumed to be a perfect substitute for the cash if the credit rating of the issuer is or higher. Otherwise, the CCF is equal to $85\%$ and $50\%$ for other IG sovereign bonds and $0\%$ for HY sovereign bonds. In the case of corporate bonds, securities rated below receive a CCF of $0\%$, while the CCF is respectively equal to $50\%$ and $85\%$ for to and to . For securitization, the CCFs are the same as for corporate bonds, except the category to for which the CCF is set to zero. -------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- Credit Sovereign Corporate Rating bonds bonds to <span>$100\%$</span> $100\%$ $85\%$ $85\%$ <span>$50\%$</span> to ${{\hspace{5pt}}}85\%$ $50\%$ $50\%$ to ${{\hspace{5pt}}}50\%$ $50\%$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0\%$ Below ${{\hspace{10pt}}}0\%$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0\%$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}0\%$ -------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- : Cash conversion factors<span data-label="tab:hqla1"></span> <span>*Source*: @Bouveret-2017 [Table 6, page 14] and @IMF-2017 [Box 2, page 56].</span> @ESMA-2019b [Exhibit 38, page 26] uses the same HQLA matrix, except for securitization products. In this case, the CCFs are between $65\%$ and $93\%$ if the credit rating of the structure is between and , and $0\%$ otherwise. As noticed by @ESMA-2019b, *the HQLA approach is very attractive from an operational point of view since it is easy to compute and interpret*. However, this approach has three drawbacks. First, the HQLA matrix proposed by the IMF and ESMA is a copy/paste of the HQLA matrix proposed by the Basel Committee, suggesting that the implicit time horizon $\tau _{h}$ is one month or 21 trading days. However, the time horizon is never mentioned, implying that there is a doubt about the IMF and ESMA's true intentions. Second, the granularity of the HQLA matrix is quite coarse. For instance, there is no distinction between large cap and small cap stocks. In the case of sovereign bonds, the CCR only depends on the credit rating. However, we know that some bonds are more liquid than others even if they belong to the same category of credit rating. For example, sovereign bonds issued by France, Germany, the UK and the US are more liquid than sovereign bonds issued by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands and Sweden[^7]. We observe the same issue with peripheral debt securities (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) and EM bonds. In the case of corporate bonds, this problem is even more serious, because liquidity is not only an issuer-related question. For instance, the maturity impacts the liquidity of the bonds issued by the same company. The last drawback concerns the absence of the portfolio structure in the computation of the RCR. Indeed, the RCR depends neither on the portfolio holdings nor on the portfolio concentration. Therefore, the HQLA method is a specific top-down approach, which only focuses on asset classes. Two equity funds will have the same redemption coverage ratio for the same redemption shock (top left-hand panel in Figure \[fig:hqla1\]). For example, we have $\func{RCR}=2.5$ if ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}=20\%$. The RCR is below one if the redemption shock is greater than $50\%$. For a high yield fund, the RCR is equal to zero whatever the value of the redemption shock (bottom right-hand panel in Figure \[fig:hqla1\]). For a balanced fund, comprised of $50\%$ IG bonds and $50\%$ public equities, we obtain the following bounds: $$\frac{50\%}{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}}\leq \func{RCR}\leq \frac{75\%}{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}}$$Therefore, it is obvious that the HQLA method is a macro-economic approach, that can make sense for regulators to monitor the liquidity risk at the industry level, but it is not adapted for comparing the liquidity risk of two funds. #### Implementation of the HQLA approach Because of the previous comments, asset managers that would like to implement the HQLA approach must take into account the following considerations: - The HQLA matrix must be more granular. - The asset manager must use different time horizons. - The calibration of the cash conversion factor mixes two factors[^8]: $$\limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\limfunc{LF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \cdot \left( 1-\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \frac{\tau _{h}}{2}\right) \right) \label{eq:hqla2}$$where $\limfunc{LF}_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ is the (pure) liquidity factor and $\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ is the discount (or drawdown) factor. - The liquidity factor $\limfunc{LF}_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ is an increasing function of $\tau _{h}$. It indicates the proportion of the HQLA bucket that can be sold in $\tau _{h}$ trading days. By definition, we have $\limfunc{LF}\nolimits_{k}\left( 0\right) =0$ and $\limfunc{LF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \infty \right) =1$. - The drawdown factor $\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right)$ is an increasing function of $\tau _{h}$. It indicates the loss value of the HQLA bucket in a worst-case scenario of a price drop after $\tau _{h}$ trading days. By definition, we have $\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( 0\right) =0$ and $\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \infty \right) \leq 1$. Concerning the HQLA classes, we can consider more granularity concerning the asset class. For example, we can distinguish DM vs. EM equities, LC vs. SC equities, etc. Moreover, we can introduce the specific risk factor of the fund, which encompasses two main dimensions: the fund's size and its portfolio structure. For instance, liquidating a fund of $\$100$ mn is different to liquidating a fund of $\$10$ bn. Similarly, the liquidation of two funds with the same size can differ because of the weight concentration difference. Indeed, liquidating a S&P 500 index fund of $\$1$ bn is different to liquidating an active fund of $\$1$ bn that is concentrated on $10$ American stocks. Therefore, the cash conversion factor becomes: $$\limfunc{CCF}\nolimits_{k,j}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\limfunc{LF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) \cdot \left( 1-\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \frac{\tau _{h}}{2}\right) \right) \cdot \left( 1-\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA}\nolimits_{j},\mathcal{H}_{j}\right) \right) \label{eq:hqla3}$$where $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\in \left[ 0,1\right] $ is the specific risk factor associated to the fund $j$. This is a decreasing function of the fund size $\limfunc{TNA}\nolimits_{j}$ and the Herfindahl index $\mathcal{H}_{j}$ of the portfolio. Concerning the time horizon, $\tau _{h}$ can be one day, two days, one week, two weeks or one month. Finally, the three functions $\limfunc{LF}_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $, $\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) $ and $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA}\nolimits_{j},\mathcal{H}_{j}\right)$ can be calibrated using standard econometric procedures. A basic specification of the liquidity factor is: $$\limfunc{LF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\min \left( 1.0,\lambda _{k}\cdot \tau _{h}\right)$$where $\lambda _{k}$ is the selling intensity. For the drawdown factor, it is better to use a square root function[^9]: $$\limfunc{DF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \tau _{h}\right) =\min \left( \limfunc{MDD}\nolimits_{k},\eta _{k}\cdot \sqrt{\tau _{h}}\right)$$where $\limfunc{MDD}\nolimits_{k}$ is the maximum drawdown and $\eta _{k}$ is the loss intensity of the HQLA class. Let us consider the example of a large cap equity fund, whose total net assets are equal to $\$1$ bn. The redemption shock is set to $\$400$ mn. We assume that $\lambda _{k}=5\%$ per day, $\eta _{k}=6.25\%$ and $\limfunc{MDD}\nolimits_{k}=50\%$. Results are reported in Figure \[fig:hqla2\]. We notice that the RCR depends on the value of $\tau _{h}$. For small values of $\tau _{h}$ (less than 10 days), the RCR is below 1. For large values of $\tau _{h}$ (greater than 10 days), the RCR is above 1 because the liquidation factor overtakes the drawdown factor. Finally, we observe that the CCF and RCR functions are increasing and then decreasing with respect to the time horizon[^10]. We now consider a second fund with the same assets under management, which is invested in small cap stocks. In this case, we assume that $\lambda _{k}$ is reduced by a factor of two and $\eta _{k}$ is increased by 20%. Results are given in Figure \[fig:hqla2\]. We verify that the small cap fund has a lower RCR than the large cap fund. As explained previously, we should consider the specific risk of the fund. We propose the following formula: $$\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA},\mathcal{H}\right) =\min \left( \xi _{k}^{\mathrm{size}}\left( \frac{\limfunc{TNA}}{\limfunc{TNA}\nolimits^{\star }}-1\right) ^{+}+\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\mathcal{H}}{\mathcal{H}^{\star }}}-1\right) ^{+},\limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}\right)$$where $\limfunc{TNA}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ are the total net assets and the Herfindahl index of the fund, which is computed as $\mathcal{H}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}^{2}\left( \omega \right) $. By definition, we have $n^{-1}\leq \mathcal{H}\leq 1$. $\limfunc{TNA}\nolimits^{\star }$ and $\mathcal{H}^{\star }$ are two thresholds. Below these two limits, $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA},\mathcal{H}\right) $ is equal to zero. $\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{size}}$ and $\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}$ are two coefficients that control the importance of the size and concentration risks. Moreover, $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}$ indicates the maximum value that can be taken by the specific risk since we have the following inequalities: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0\leq \limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}\leq 1 \\ 0\leq \limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA},\mathcal{H}\right) \leq \limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}\end{array}\right.$$Figure \[fig:hqla4\] illustrates the specific risk of the fund when $\limfunc{TNA}\nolimits^{\star }=\$1$ bn, $\mathcal{H}^{\star }=1/100$, $\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{size}}=10\%$, $\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}=25\%$ and $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}=0.80$. We have also reported the two components $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}^{\mathrm{size}}\left( \limfunc{TNA}\right) $ and $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $: $$\limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}\left( \limfunc{TNA},\mathcal{H}\right) =\min \left( \limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}^{\mathrm{size}}\left( \limfunc{TNA}\right) + \limfunc{SF}\nolimits_{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) , \limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}\right)$$It is better to use additive components than multiplicative components, because the specific risk tends quickly to the cap value $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}$ in this last case. \[ex:hqla5\] We assume that $\lambda _{k}=5\%$ per day, $\eta _{k}=6.25\%$, $\limfunc{MDD}\nolimits_{k}=50\%$, $\limfunc{TNA}\nolimits^{\star }=\$1$ bn, $\mathcal{H}^{\star }=1/100$, $\xi_{k}^{\mathrm{size}}=10\%$, $\xi _{k}^{\mathrm{concentration}}=25\%$ and $\limfunc{SF}\nolimits^{+}=0.80$. We consider four mutual funds, whose TNA are respectively equal to $\$1$, $\$5$, $\$7$ and $\$10$ bn. The redemption shock is equal to 40% of the total net assets. Results are given in Table \[tab:hqla5\] with respect to the horizon time $\tau_h$ and the fund size. We consider two concentration indices: $\mathcal{H} = 0.01$ and $\mathcal{H} = 0.04$. We notice the impact of the fund size on the RCR. For instance, when $\tau_h$ is set to $10$ days and the concentration index is equal to $1\%$, $\func{RCR}$ is respectively equal to $1.08$, $0.65$, $0.43$ and $0.22$ for a fund size of $\$1$ bn, $\$5$ bn, $\$7$ bn, and $\$10$ bn. Therefore, the RCR is above one only when the fund size is $\$1$ bn. If we increase the concentration index, the RCR can be below one even if the fund size is small. For instance, when $\tau_h$ is set to $10$ days and $\mathcal{H}$ is equal to $4\%$, $\func{RCR}$ is equal to $0.81$ for a fund size of $\$1$ bn. To summarize, the redemption coverage ratio is an increasing function of the time to liquidation $\tau_h$, but a decreasing function of the concentration index $\mathcal{H}$ and the fund size $\limfunc{TNA}$. --------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- $\tau_h$ $\$1$ bn $\$5$ bn $\$7$ bn $\$10$ bn $\$1$ bn $\$5$ bn $\$7$ bn $\$10$ bn ${{\hspace{5pt}}}1$ $0.12$ $0.07$ $0.05$ $0.02$ $0.09$ $0.04$ $0.02$ $0.02$ ${{\hspace{5pt}}}5$ $0.56$ $0.34$ $0.23$ $0.11$ $0.42$ $0.20$ $0.11$ $0.11$ $10$ $1.08$ $0.65$ $0.43$ $0.22$ $0.81$ $0.38$ $0.22$ $0.22$ $20$ $2.01$ $1.20$ $0.80$ $0.40$ $1.50$ $0.70$ $0.40$ $0.40$ $60$ $1.64$ $0.99$ $0.66$ $0.33$ $1.23$ $0.58$ $0.33$ $0.33$ --------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- : Computation of the RCR in the HQLA approach<span data-label="tab:hqla5"></span> Redemption liquidation policy ----------------------------- The previous analysis demonstrates that the redemption coverage ratio is highly dependent on the redemption portfolio $q=\left( q_{1},\ldots ,q_{n}\right) $. Generally, the redemption shock is expressed as a percentage. ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$ represents the proportion of the fund size that can be redeemed. Then, we can convert the redemption shock is nominal value by using the identity formula: $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \func{TNA}$$For instance, if the redemption rate ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}$ is set to $10\%$ and the fund size $\func{TNA}$ is equal to $\$1$ bn, the redemption shock ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is $\$100$ mn. However, the computation of $\func{RCR}$ requires defining the liquidation policy or the portfolio $q$. Two main approaches are generally considered: the pro-rata liquidation and the waterfall liquidation. The first one ensures that the asset structure of the fund is the same before and after the liquidation. The second one minimizes the time to liquidation. In practice, fund managers can mix the two schemes. In this case, it is important to define the objective function in order to understand the trade-off between portfolio distortion and liquidation time. ### The standard approaches #### Vertical slicing The pro-rata liquidation uses the proportional rule, implying that each asset is liquidated such that the structure of the asset portfolio is the same before and after the liquidation. This rule is also called the vertical slicing approach. From a mathematical point of view, we have: $$q={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega$$where $\omega $ is the fund's asset portfolio (before the liquidation). In practice, $q_{i}$ is not necessarily an integer and must be rounded[^11]. For instance, if $\omega =\left( 1000,514,17\right) $ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}=10\%$, we obtain $q=\left( 100,51.4,1.7\right) $. Since we cannot sell a fraction of an asset, we can choose $q=\left(100,51,2\right) $. We recall that the tracking error due to the liquidation is equal to: $$\begin{aligned} \sigma \left( \omega \mid q\right) &=&\sqrt{\left( w\left( \omega -q\right) -w\left( \omega \right) \right) ^{\top }\Sigma \left( w\left( \omega -q\right) -w\left( \omega \right) \right) } \notag \\ &=&\sqrt{\Delta w\left( \omega \mid q\right) ^{\top }\Sigma\, \Delta w\left( \omega \mid q\right) }\end{aligned}$$where $\Sigma $ is the covariance matrix of asset returns, $w\left( \omega \right) $ is the weight vector of portfolio $\omega $ (before liquidation) and $w\left( \omega -q\right) $ is the weight vector of portfolio $\omega - q$ (after liquidation). The proportional rule ensures that the asset composition does not change because of the redemption. Since the weights are the same — $\Delta w\left( \omega \mid q\right) =\mathbf{0}_{n}$, the tracking error is equal to zero: $$\sigma \left( \omega \mid q\right) =0$$This property is important because there is no portfolio distortion with the pro-rata liquidation rule. We have seen that the redemption coverage ratio is highly dependent on the time to liquidation $\tau _{h}$. In @Roncalli-lst2 [Section 3.2.2, page 18], we have defined the liquidation time as the inverse function of the liquidation ratio:$$\mathcal{LT}\left( q,p\right) =\mathcal{LR}^{-1}\left( q;p\right) =\inf \left\{ h:\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \geq p\right\}$$We now define the liquidity time (or time to liquidity) as follows: $$\limfunc{TTL}\left( p\right) =\limfunc{RCR}\nolimits^{-1}\left( p\right) =\inf \left\{ h:\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) \geq p\right\}$$It measures the required number of days to have a redemption coverage ratio larger than $p$. As we have seen that $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) $ and $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) $ are related to $\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right)$ and $\mathcal{LS}\left( q;h\right) $, $\limfunc{TTL}\left( p\right) $ is also related to $\mathcal{LT}\left( q,p\right) $. In the case where the redemption portfolio satisfies ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}=\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) $, we verify that $\limfunc{TTL}\left( p\right) =\mathcal{LT}\left( q,p\right) $ because we have $\limfunc{RCR}\left( h\right) =\mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right)$ and $\limfunc{LS}\left( h\right) =\mathcal{LS}\left( q;h\right) $. In the general case, we have: $$\begin{aligned} \limfunc{TTL}\left( p\right) &=&\inf \left\{ h:\frac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cdot \mathcal{LR}\left( q;h\right) \geq p\right\} \notag \\ &=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{LT}\left( q,\dfrac{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) } \cdot p\right) & \text{if }p\leq \dfrac{\mathbb{V}\left( q\right) }{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} \\ +\infty & \text{otherwise} \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ While vertical slicing is optimal to minimize the tracking risk, the liquidation of the redemption portfolio can however take a lot of time. Indeed, the maximum we can liquidate each day is bounded by the liquidation policy limit $q_{i}^{+}$. We have: $$\sum_{h=1}^{\tau _{h}}q_{i}\left( h\right) \leq \tau _{h}\cdot q_{i}^{+}$$In the case of the pro-rata liquidation rule, we have $q_{i}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \omega _{i}$. We deduce that the redemption portfolio can be fully liquidated after $\func{TTL}\left( 1\right) =\left\lfloor \tau _{h}^{+}\right\rfloor $ days where: $$\tau _{h}^{+}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathpzc{R}}}}\cdot \sup_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\frac{\omega _{i}}{q_{i}^{+}}$$It may be difficult to sell some assets, because the value of $q_{i}^{+}$ is low. Nevertheless, the remaining redemption value may be very small. This is why fund managers generally consider in practice that the portfolio is liquidated when the proportion $p$ is set to $99\%$. #### Horizontal slicing Horizontal slicing is the technical term to define waterfall liquidation. In this approach, the portfolio is liquidated by selling the most liquid assets first. Contrary to vertical slicing, the fund manager accepts that the portfolio composition will be disturbed and his investment strategy has te be modified, implying a tracking error risk: $$\sigma \left( \omega \mid q\right) >0$$ It is obvious that the waterfall approach minimizes the liquidity risk when it is measured by the liquidity shortfall. Let us illustrate this property with the example described in Table \[ex:rcr0\] on page . If we consider the naive pro-rata liquidation rule, we obtain the liquidity times given in Figure \[fig:ttl1b\] on page . We notice that they are very similar for $p=95\%$, $99\%$ and $100\%$. We now assume that $q_{7}^{+}=20$, meaning that the seventh asset is not very liquid. Therefore, we have a huge position on this asset ($\omega _{7}=1\,800$) compared to the daily liquidation limit. If we would like to liquidate the full exposure on this asset, it will take $90$ trading days versus $2$ trading days previously. The consequence of this illiquid exposure is that the liquidity times are very different for $p=95\%$, $99\%$ and $100\%$ (see Figure \[fig:ttl2b\] on page ). For instance, the maximum liquidity time[^12] is respectively equal to $20$, $46$ and $90$ trading days for $p=95\%$, $99\%$ and $100\%$. Previously, the maximum liquidity time was equal to $18$, $21$ and $22$ trading days when $q_{7}^{+}$ was equal to $1\,000$. Having some illiquid assets in the portfolio may then dramatically increase the liquidity time when we choose the pro-rata liquidation rule. We have also computed the liquidity time when we consider the waterfall liquidation rule. Results are reported in Figures \[fig:ttl3a\] and \[fig:ttl3b\] on page . We observe two phenomena. First, if we compare Figures \[fig:ttl1b\] and \[fig:ttl3a\], we notice the higher convexity of the waterfall approach when we increase the redemption shock. Second, we retrieve the similarity pattern for $p=95\%$, $99\%$ and $100\%$ except for very large redemption shocks when we have illiquid assets. The reason is that the part of illiquid assets is much lower than the remaining value of the portfolio. Figure \[fig:ttl3c\] summarizes the two phenomena by comparing the pro-rata and waterfall approaches when $q_{7}^{+}=20$. In order to determine the proportion of non-liquidated assets in the case of the waterfall approach, we consider an analysis in terms of weights. We recall that the portfolio weight of Asset $i$ is given by: $$w_{i}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\omega _{i}\cdot P_{i}}{\limfunc{TNA}}$$Since the number of required trading days to liquidate the exposure to Asset $i$ is equal to: $$\tau _{i}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\omega _{i}}{q_{i}^{+}}$$the portfolio weight of Asset $i$ that can be liquidated with a trading day is given by the following formula: $$\psi _{i}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{w_{i}\left( \omega \right) }{\tau _{i}\left( \omega \right) }=\frac{q_{i}^{+}\cdot P_{i}}{\limfunc{TNA}}$$Using Equation (\[eq:LS3\]) on page , we deduce that the liquidity shortfall of a full redemption scenario under the waterfall approach is equal to[^13]: $$\func{LS}\left( h\right) =1-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\min \left( h\cdot \psi _{i}\left( \omega \right) ,w_{i}\left( \omega \right) \right)$$The relative weight of the portfolio that can be liquidated at time $h$ is then equal to $W\left( h\right) =\func{LS}\left( h-1\right) -\func{LS}\left( h\right) $. $W\left( h\right)$ is the daily liquidation expressed
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2110'}