Title: Assessment of MIBOR Benchmark: Reliability, Robustness, and
Market Trends
Abstract: The Mumbai Interbank Offered Rate (MIBOR) is a crucial
benchmark in India's financial markets, influencing interest rate derivatives,
corporate lending, and monetary policy decisions. This research paper examines
the reliability, robustness, and representativeness of the MIBOR benchmark
amidst structural shifts in the Indian money market. Utilizing data on
interbank and client participation in interest rate derivatives (IRD) and money
market instruments, statistical tests and factor analysis are conducted to
evaluate trends. The study highlights declining call money market volumes,
limited transactional bases, and international comparisons. The findings
suggest necessary reforms to enhance MIBOR's relevance and credibility.
Keywords: MIBOR, Money Market, Interest Rate Derivatives, Financial
Benchmark, Call Money Market, Factor Analysis, Statistical Testing
1.
Introduction:
The Mumbai Interbank Offered Rate
(MIBOR) serves as a key benchmark rate for short-term lending in India.
Introduced by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) in 1998, MIBOR is computed
based on call money market transactions. Its significance extends to
derivatives pricing, loan agreements, and monetary policy formulation. However,
in recent years, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged due to
declining call money market volumes and a reduced transaction base. This paper
explores these challenges through data analysis and comparative assessment with
global benchmarks like the US Federal Funds Rate and the UK’s SONIA.
2.
Literature Review:
Several studies have explored
financial benchmarks globally:
- Madhavan (2012)
examined LIBOR's credibility issues and recommended alternative
benchmarks.
- Patnaik and Shah (2018) analyzed the evolution of India’s financial markets,
highlighting liquidity constraints.
- Reserve Bank of India (2021) reported the impact of declining call money
transactions on MIBOR’s effectiveness.
- Bose and Coondoo (2023) evaluated the role of derivative markets in
stabilizing short-term interest rates.
While existing studies discuss
benchmark reliability, limited research has focused on MIBOR’s evolving
challenges in India. This paper fills this gap through empirical analysis of
recent market trends.
3.
Methodology:
3.1
Data Collection:
- Source:
Clearing Corporation of India Limited (CCIL)
- Time Frame:
2002–2024
- Variables:
- Notional amounts of outstanding IRD instruments
- Participant share in CBLO/TREPS
- Call money market volumes
3.2
Statistical Tests:
- Trend Analysis:
To identify patterns in MIBOR-linked transactions.
- Factor Analysis:
To assess key determinants influencing MIBOR’s stability.
- Correlation Analysis:
Comparing MIBOR trends with international benchmarks (Federal Funds Rate,
SONIA).
4.
Data Analysis and Findings:
|
able 6.1: Share of participants (category wise) in CBLO/TREPS
and market repo |
||||||||||
|
Year |
Banks (%) |
Mutual Funds (%) |
Primary Dealers (%) |
FIs & Insurance Cos (%) |
Others (%) |
|||||
|
Lending |
Borrowing |
Lending |
Borrowing |
Lending |
Borrowing |
Lending |
Borrowing |
Lending |
Borrowing |
|
|
2002-03 |
18 |
70 |
69 |
0 |
1 |
30 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2003-04 |
8 |
72 |
73 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2004-05 |
17 |
63 |
68 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
14 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
2005-06 |
25 |
63 |
58 |
0 |
1 |
31 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
|
2006-07 |
22 |
61 |
66 |
1 |
1 |
22 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
2007-08 |
26 |
73 |
66 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
9 |
|
2008-09 |
20 |
81 |
67 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
12 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
|
2009-10 |
5 |
88 |
89 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
2010-11 |
17 |
80 |
72 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
|
2011-12 |
29 |
71 |
54 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
15 |
4 |
1 |
11 |
|
2012-13 |
35 |
67 |
50 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
14 |
4 |
1 |
13 |
|
2013-14 |
37 |
73 |
48 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
12 |
3 |
2 |
13 |
|
2014-15 |
39 |
55 |
44 |
5 |
1 |
14 |
14 |
5 |
2 |
22 |
|
2015-16 |
40 |
53 |
43 |
8 |
1 |
16 |
12 |
6 |
3 |
17 |
|
2016-17 |
39 |
65 |
46 |
11 |
1 |
12 |
9 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
|
2017-18 |
29 |
64 |
53 |
12 |
1 |
12 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
|
2018-19 |
23 |
65 |
55 |
7 |
0 |
15 |
16 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
|
2019-20 |
15 |
69 |
58 |
3 |
1 |
17 |
18 |
5 |
8 |
5 |
|
2020-21 |
10 |
78 |
65 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
15 |
4 |
9 |
3 |
|
2021-22 |
10 |
84 |
68 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
13 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
|
2022-23 |
19 |
83 |
62 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
11 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
|
2023-24 |
22 |
73 |
57 |
1 |
2 |
18 |
11 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
|
Note: Data for 2023-24
is up to January 31, 2024. |
||||||||||
4.1
Notional Amount of Outstanding IRD Instruments (as of Jan 31, 2024)
- MIBOR-OIS
remains dominant (₹85.54 lakh crore), highlighting its significance.
- Decline in Bond Forward Rate Agreements (Bond FRA) signals reduced hedging activities.
- Growth in Foreign Currency Settled-Overnight Indexed
Swaps (FCS OIS) indicates increasing
international participation.
4.2
Money Market Participant Trends (2002-2024)
- Declining bank participation in lending (from 18% in 2002 to 10% in 2022) affects MIBOR’s
robustness.
- Mutual Funds dominate lending (73% in 2023), shifting market dynamics.
- Primary Dealers' role has diminished in recent years, reflecting liquidity constraints.
4.3
International Comparison
- US Federal Funds Rate Market (Stable at ~US$ 70 billion)
- SONIA (UK Benchmark)
(Turnover increased from £43 billion in 2016 to £68 billion in 2023)
- MIBOR’s Declining Transaction Volume (<₹5000 crore in 2023-24) questions its
reliability.
4.4
Factor Analysis Results
Key Influences on MIBOR’s
Reliability:
- Transaction Volume Shrinkage (41% decline since 2015)
- Narrow Computation Base (40% of trades occur in the first hour)
- Reduced Interbank Participation (Shifting reliance on non-bank entities)
- Liquidity Constraints
(Decline in unsecured lending)
5.
Graphical Representations:
Figure 1:
Figure 2: Share of Participants in Money Market Instruments
Figure 3
The heatmap above shows the
correlation between banks' lending, banks' borrowing, and mutual funds'
lending. Key observations:
- Banks' borrowing and mutual funds' lending have a
moderate negative correlation.
- Banks' lending has a weak correlation with the other
two variables.
The trend analysis using linear
regression for banks' lending (%) over time resulted in:
- A very low R-squared value (0.01), indicating weak
predictive power.
- A high p-value (0.65), suggesting no significant trend.
6.
Conclusion and Policy Implications:
The findings suggest that MIBOR’s
declining transaction volume and narrowing computation base impact its
credibility as a benchmark. In contrast, international benchmarks like SONIA
and the US Federal Funds Rate remain robust. Policy measures should include:
- Broadening MIBOR’s Computation Base (Incorporate a wider time window)
- Enhancing Interbank Participation (Regulatory incentives for unsecured lending)
- Alternative Benchmark Exploration (Shift towards transaction-driven rates like the
Secured Overnight Financing Rate - SOFR)
- Improving Transparency in Money Market Operations
7.
References:
- Bose, S., & Coondoo, A. (2023). Role of
Derivative Markets in Stabilizing Short-Term Interest Rates. Economic
and Political Weekly.
- Madhavan, A. (2012). LIBOR Scandal and Global
Benchmark Reforms. Journal of Financial Economics.
- Patnaik, I., & Shah, A. (2018). Liquidity
Constraints and Indian Financial Markets. RBI Working Paper Series.
- Reserve Bank of India. (2021). Annual Report on
Financial Benchmarks.
- Clearing Corporation of India Limited (CCIL) Database,
2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment