如何看待最近银行用杠杆交易来追逐收入

Due to the long period of low rates, I notice that many banks are seeking incomes by using leverage trades. Meanwhile, some securities firms hard sell the leverage concept to the banks. I have to admit that some leverage trades make good sense; however, occasionally, leverage trade calls are done to sell product and one has got to be careful to their analyses. Whether a bank should "leverage" depends on its risk tolerance and the risk profile of its balanced sheet. Most leverage trades are those that show a borrowing position and a reinvestment of those borrowed funds into an investment. These trades are generally done in an attempt to enhance income. On the other hand, banks sometime borrow to reduce risk. Although enhanced income should be the outcome of embracing "higher" risk, the isolated act of borrowing to reduce this risk will actually result in decreased income. Generally speaking, if you are leveraging into agency bonds, spreads can be made given only small changes in interest rates; therefore, analyses that show no risk are usually flawed. Reason being, that the fixed-income markets are very efficient. Think of it this way, no bank is willing to lend you money at levels lower than what it can invest. Therefore, in order to make a "spread" on these trades, you will need to accept some form of risk, whether it is credit or interest rate risk. As for a leverage trade as ongoing, cash flows from the assets / liabilities are continually reinvested into similar asset / liabilities. If the rates fall,cash flow reinvestments are made into lower yielding assets to cover the borrowing position, sometimes with positive spreads. If rates rise from there, the trade would result in great losses that are not disclosed. Let's take the most commonly shown leverage trade, one that shows a callable borrowing leveraged into some form of mortgage-backed security for instance. The reason why this is most popular is the asset is yielding higher than most other investments and the liability is yielding lower producing the greatest base spread. Income losses are generally shown with rate movements greater than 150 basis points, either way, up or down. This trade intuitively does not make sense. When rates go up, the asset extends and the borrowing position is "called" away from you, leaving you exposed to borrow with higher funds. On the other hand, rates move down and the asset goes away, and the borrowing position extends, leaving you to have to reinvest at lower rates. You are exposed if rates move either way – up or down! Another major flaw in some analyses is the failure to show the market values of both the assets and liabilities at a given horizon period. In other words, a 10-year bullet investment leveraged with a three-year borrowing position. When a five-year income analysis is viewed, the trade looks good no matter what happens to rates, for the yield to borrow for three years is less than a 10-year investment. However, at the end of three years, the investor will have a seven-year investment leveraged with nothing. If rates have moved up, the world will be againest you. In conclusion, it is difficult to leverage into an investment without some form of risk.