Potential Q4 U.S. Regional Banks Liquidity Issue -> ETFs to Safeguard Portfolio

We have seen report of China cutting treasury holdings as there is growing security concerns amidst geopolitical tensions.

Another way I look at is China is trying to strengthen its renminbi (RMB) so this might be one other reason why they are reducing the U.S. Treasury Yield holdings.

From what I see, another country which has significant holdings of U.S. Treasury might start to cut their holdings is Japan.

Japan may have several reasons to consider reducing its holdings of U.S. Treasury yields, although it is important to note that the specific motivations and actions of countries regarding their foreign exchange reserves can vary over time and depend on economic and geopolitical factors.

Here are some potential reasons why Japan might want to reduce its U.S. Treasury holdings:

Diversification of Reserves: Holding a large amount of U.S. Treasuries can make a country's foreign exchange reserves vulnerable to fluctuations in the U.S. bond market. Diversifying holdings by reducing exposure to one type of asset (in this case, U.S. Treasuries) can help mitigate risk.

Interest Rate Risk: If interest rates rise in the U.S., the value of existing U.S. Treasury holdings can decline. Reducing these holdings can help mitigate the impact of potential interest rate hikes.

Currency Risk: Holding a significant amount of U.S. assets, including U.S. Treasuries, exposes Japan to currency risk if the U.S. dollar were to weaken significantly. Reducing these holdings might be a way to manage this risk.

Economic Objectives: Japan may have domestic economic objectives that require liquidating U.S. Treasury holdings. For instance, the government might need to finance domestic projects or respond to economic crises at home.

Geopolitical Considerations: Geopolitical tensions or trade disputes with the U.S. could lead Japan to reduce its U.S. Treasury holdings as a form of economic leverage or as a response to political pressure.

Strengthening Domestic Currency: By selling U.S. Treasuries and converting the proceeds into Japanese yen, Japan can bolster the strength of its own currency, which can have various economic effects, such as making its exports more competitive.

Alternatives Investments: Japan may see better investment opportunities elsewhere, either in other foreign assets or domestically. This could include investing in higher-yielding securities or other forms of assets that align with their investment goals.

Monetary Policy Objectives: Central banks sometimes adjust their foreign exchange reserves to align with their monetary policy objectives. For example, if the Bank of Japan wants to influence its domestic interest rates, it might need to adjust its holdings of foreign assets, including U.S. Treasuries.

What is important to note is Japan's actions in the foreign exchange market can have implications for global financial markets, which makes any changes to its U.S. Treasury holdings a subject of interest and scrutiny in international finance.

A huge sale of U.S. bonds can potentially cause liquidity issues in U.S. regional banks due to the interconnected nature of financial markets and the role that bonds play in a bank's balance sheet.

Here is some explanation of how this can happen:

Regional banks typically hold a variety of assets, including U.S. government bonds, in their portfolios. These bonds are considered safe investments and are often used to generate income and manage risk.

Liquidity is the ability to access cash quickly when needed. Banks must maintain a certain level of liquidity to meet customer demands for withdrawals, cover operational expenses, and respond to unexpected funding needs. This is known as liquidity risk.

When a large number of U.S. bonds are sold in the market, it can lead to several consequences that affect regional banks

Falling Bond Prices: Increased supply of bonds in the market without an equivalent increase in demand can lead to falling bond prices. When bond prices fall, the value of the bonds held by banks decreases.

Mark-to-Market Losses: Banks are required to mark their assets, including bonds, to market value. If bond prices fall due to a massive bond sell-off, banks may incur mark-to-market losses on their bond holdings, reducing their overall capital.

Capital Constraints: As the value of their bond assets declines, banks may find themselves with reduced capital. This can limit their ability to lend money and expand their operations, potentially leading to liquidity constraints.

Reduced Collateral Value: Banks often use bonds as collateral to borrow money in short-term funding markets. If the value of their bond collateral falls significantly, it may trigger margin calls or force banks to provide additional collateral, tying up more of their funds.

Credit Rating Concerns: A decrease in a bank's capital due to bond losses may raise concerns among regulators and credit rating agencies. A lower credit rating can make it more expensive for a bank to raise funds in the capital markets.

The banking system is interconnected, and regional banks often rely on each other for various financial services, including interbank lending. If one regional bank faces liquidity issues, it may reduce its willingness to lend to other banks, leading to a broader liquidity crunch in the banking sector.

To mitigate the potential liquidity issues arising from a large bond sell-off, the central bank (in the case of the U.S., the Federal Reserve) may step in. The central bank can inject liquidity into the banking system through various mechanisms, such as open market operations or lending facilities, to stabilize financial markets and prevent a credit crunch.

GLD performance over 1 year has beaten similar Gold ETF in the same category, and based on its YTD return, this looks like a significant increase in performance among its peer ETFs.

Similar to GLD, the performance of IAU is significant higher than its peer ETFs and also the same segment average.

I would think this is a good way t

Here is an option of a mini version for GLD, and its performance is also significant higher than its peers in the same group of ETFs.

ETFs in the same segment would see positive return after 1 year, hence these are for long term investment for our portfolio.

In summary, a massive sale of U.S. bonds can lead to falling bond prices, mark-to-market losses, capital constraints, and reduced collateral value for regional banks.

These factors can collectively contribute to liquidity issues within the banking system, potentially requiring intervention by the central bank to maintain stability.

As investors in order to safeguard our portfolio, we might want to consider some ETFs which are defensive in nature to safeguard against any uncertainty brought upon by potential U.S. regional banks liquidity issue foresee in Q4 2023.

Appreciate if you could share your thoughts in the comment section whether you think these 3 ETFs are a good way to safeguard our portfolio?

Disclaimer: The analysis and result presented does not recommend or suggest any investing in the said stock. This is purely for Analysis.