Asset liability management

Asset-Liability Management (ALM) can be termed as a risk management technique designed to earn an adequate return while maintaining a comfortable surplus of assets beyond liabilities. It takes into consideration interest rates, earning power, and degree of willingness to take on debt and hence is also known as Surplus Management. But in the last decade the meaning of ALM has evolved. It is now used in many different ways under different contexts. ALM, which was actually pioneered by financial institutions and banks, are now widely being used in industries too. The Society of Actuaries Task Force on ALM Principles, Canada, offers the following definition for ALM: "Asset Liability Management is the on-going process of formulating, implementing, monitoring, and revising strategies related to assets and liabilities in an attempt to achieve financial objectives for a given set of risk tolerances and constraints."

Basis of Asset-Liability Management Traditionally, banks and insurance companies used accrual system of accounting for all their assets and liabilities. They would take on liabilities - such as deposits, life insurance policies or annuities. They would then invest the proceeds from these liabilities in assets such as loans, bonds or real estate. All these assets and liabilities were held at book value. Doing so disguised possible risks arising from how the assets and liabilities were structured. Consider a bank that borrows 1 Crore (100 Lakhs) at 6 % for a year and lends the same money at 7 % to a highly rated borrower for 5 years. The net transaction appears profitable-the bank is earning a 100 basis point spread - but it entails considerable risk. At the end of a year, the bank will have to find new financing for the loan, which will have 4 more years before it matures. If interest rates have risen, the bank may have to pay a higher rate of interest on the new financing than the fixed 7 % it is earning on its loan. Suppose, at the end of a year, an applicable 4-year interest rate is 8 %. The bank is in serious trouble. It is going to earn 7 % on its loan but would have to pay 8 % on its financing. Accrual accounting does not recognize this problem. Based upon accrual accounting, the bank would earn Rs 100,000 in the first year although in the preceding years it is going to incur a loss. The problem in this example was caused by a mismatch between assets and liabilities. Prior to the 1970s, such mismatches tended not to be a significant problem. Interest rates in developed countries experienced only modest fluctuations, so losses due to asset-liability mismatches were small or trivial. Many firms intentionally mismatched their balance sheets and as yield curves were generally upward sloping, banks could earn a spread by borrowing short and lending long. Things started to change in the 1970s, which ushered in a period of volatile interest rates that continued till the early 1980s. US regulations which had capped the interest rates so that banks could pay depositors, was abandoned which led to a migration of dollar deposit overseas. Managers of many firms, who were accustomed to thinking in terms of accrual accounting, were slow to recognize this emerging risk. Some firms suffered staggering losses. Because the firms used accrual accounting, it resulted in more of crippled balance sheets than bankruptcies. Firms had no options but to accrue the losses over a subsequent period of 5 to 10 years. One example, which drew attention, was that of US mutual life insurance company "The Equitable." During the early 1980s, as the USD yield curve was inverted with short-term interest rates sky rocketing, the company sold a number of long-term Guaranteed Interest Contracts (GICs) guaranteeing rates of around 16% for periods up to 10 years. Equitable then invested the assets short-term to earn the high interest rates guaranteed on the contracts. But short-term interest rates soon came down. When the Equitable had to reinvest, it couldn't get even close to the interest rates it was paying on the GICs. The firm was crippled. Eventually, it had to demutualize and was acquired by the Axa Group. Increasingly banks and asset management companies started to focus on Asset-Liability Risk. The problem was not that the value of assets might fall or that the value of liabilities might rise. It was that capital might be depleted by narrowing of the difference between assets and liabilities and that the values of assets and liabilities might fail to move in tandem. Asset-liability risk is predominantly a leveraged form of risk. The capital of most financial institutions is small relative to the firm's assets or liabilities, and so small percentage changes in assets or liabilities can translate into large percentage changes in capital. Accrual accounting could disguise the problem by deferring losses into the future, but it could not solve the problem. Firms responded by forming asset-liability management (ALM) departments to assess these asset-liability risk.

Techniques for assessing Asset-Liability Risk Techniques for assessing asset-liability risk came to include Gap Analysis and Duration Analysis. These facilitated techniques of managing gaps and matching duration of assets and liabilities. Both approaches worked well if assets and liabilities comprised fixed cash flows. But cases of callable debts, home loans and mortgages which included options of prepayment and floating rates, posed problems that gap analysis could not address. Duration analysis could address these in theory, but implementing sufficiently sophisticated duration measures was problematic. Accordingly, banks and insurance companies started using Scenario Analysis. Under this technique assumptions were made on various conditions, for example: - • Several interest rate scenarios were specified for the next 5 or 10 years. These specified conditions like declining rates, rising rates, a gradual decrease in rates followed by a sudden rise, etc. Ten or twenty scenarios could be specified in all. • Assumptions were made about the performance of assets and liabilities under each scenario. They included prepayment rates on mortgages or surrender rates on insurance products. • Assumptions were also made about the firm's performance-the rates at which new business would be acquired for various products, demand for the product etc. • Market conditions and economic factors like inflation rates and industrial cycles were also included. The capital of most financial institutions is small relative to the firm's assets or liabilities, and so small percentage changes in assets or liabilities can translate into large percentage changes in capital. Accrual accounting could disguise the problem by deferring losses into the future, but it could not solve the problem. Firms responded by forming asset-liability management (ALM) departments to assess these asset-liability risk. Based upon these assumptions, the performance of the firm's balance sheet could be projected under each scenario. If projected performance was poor under specific scenarios, the ALM committee would adjust assets or liabilities to address the indicated exposure. Let us consider the procedure for sanctioning a commercial loan. The borrower, who approaches the bank, has to appraise the banks credit department on various parameters like industry prospects, operational efficiency, financial efficiency, management qualities and other things, which would influence the working of the company. On the basis of this appraisal, the banks would then prepare a credit-grading sheet after covering all the aspects of the company and the business in which the company is in. Then the borrower would then be charged a certain rate of interest, which would cover the risk of lending. But the main shortcoming of scenario analysis was that, it was highly dependent on the choice of scenarios. It also required that many assumptions were to be made about how specific assets or liabilities will perform under specific scenarios. Gradually the firms recognized a potential for different type of risks, which was overlooked in ALM analyses. Also the deregulation of the interest rates in US in mid 70 s compelled the banks to undertake active planning for the structure of the balance sheet. The uncertainty of interest rate movements gave rise to Interest Rate Risk thereby causing banks to look for processes to manage this risk. In the wake of interest rate risk came Liquidity Risk and Credit Risk, which became inherent components of risk for banks. The recognition of these risks brought Asset Liability Management to the centre-stage of financial intermediation. Today even Equity Risk, which until a few years ago was given only honorary mention in all but a few company ALM reports, is now an indispensable part of ALM for most companies. Some companies have gone even further to include Counterparty Credit Risk, Sovereign Risk, as well as Product Design and Pricing Risk as part of their overall ALM. Now a day's a company has different reasons for doing ALM. While some companies view ALM as a compliance and risk mitigation exercise, others have started using ALM as strategic framework to achieve the company's financial objectives. Some of the business reasons companies now state for implementing an effective ALM framework include gaining competitive advantage and increasing the value of the organization.

Asset-Liability Management Approach ALM in its most apparent sense is based on funds management. Funds management represents the core of sound bank planning and financial management. Although funding practices, techniques, and norms have been revised substantially in recent years, it is not a new concept. Funds management is the process of managing the spread between interest earned and interest paid while ensuring adequate liquidity. Therefore, funds management has following three components, which have been discussed briefly.

A. Liquidity Management Liquidity represents the ability to accommodate decreases in liabilities and to fund increases in assets. An organization has adequate liquidity when it can obtain sufficient funds, either by increasing liabilities or by converting assets, promptly and at a reasonable cost. Liquidity is essential in all organizations to compensate for expected and unexpected balance sheet fluctuations and to provide funds for growth. The price of liquidity is a function of market conditions and market perception of the risks, both interest rate and credit risks, reflected in the balance sheet and off-balance sheet activities in the case of a bank. If liquidity needs are not met through liquid asset holdings, a bank may be forced to restructure or acquire additional liabilities under adverse market conditions. Liquidity exposure can stem from both internally (institution-specific) and externally generated factors. Sound liquidity risk management should address both types of exposure. External liquidity risks can be geographic, systemic or instrument-specific. Internal liquidity risk relates largely to the perception of an institution in its various markets: local, regional, national or international. Determination of the adequacy of a bank's liquidity position depends upon an analysis of its: - • Historical funding requirements • Current liquidity position • Anticipated future funding needs • Sources of funds • Present and anticipated asset quality • Present and future earnings capacity • Present and planned capital position As all banks are affected by changes in the economic climate, the monitoring of economic and money market trends is key to liquidity planning. Sound financial management can minimize the negative effects of these trends while accentuating the positive ones. Management must also have an effective contingency plan that identifies minimum and maximum liquidity needs and weighs alternative courses of action designed to meet those needs. The cost of maintaining liquidity is another important prerogative. An institution that maintains a strong liquidity position may do so at the opportunity cost of generating higher earnings. The amount of liquid assets a bank should hold depends on the stability of its deposit structure and the potential for rapid expansion of its loan portfolio. If deposit accounts are composed primarily of small stable accounts, a relatively low allowance for liquidity is necessary. Additionally, management must consider the current ratings by regulatory and rating agencies when planning liquidity needs. Once liquidity needs have been determined, management must decide how to meet them through asset management, liability management, or a combination of both.

B. Asset Management Many banks (primarily the smaller ones) tend to have little influence over the size of their total assets. Liquid assets enable a bank to provide funds to satisfy increased demand for loans. But banks, which rely solely on asset management, concentrate on adjusting the price and availability of credit and the level of liquid assets. However, assets that are often assumed to be liquid are sometimes difficult to liquidate. For example, investment securities may be pledged against public deposits or repurchase agreements, or may be heavily depreciated because of interest rate changes. Furthermore, the holding of liquid assets for liquidity purposes is less attractive because of thin profit spreads.