WEEK 1 DISCUSSION:

1. How can interest rates be negative?

Negative interest rates are a form of monetary policy that sees interest rates fall below 0%.Central banks and regulators use this unusual policy tool when there are strong signs of deflation.Borrowers are credited interest instead of paying interest to lenders in a negative interest rate environment.Central banks charge commercial banks on reserves to incentivize them to spend rather than hoard cash positions.Although commercial banks are charged interest to keep cash with a nation's central bank, they are generally reluctant to pass negative rates onto their customers(Beers, 2024).

2. How can markets experience an inverted yield curve?

A yield curve illustrates the interest rates on bonds of increasing maturities.An inverted yield curve occurs when short-term debt instruments carry higher yields than long-term instruments of the same credit risk profile.Inverted yield curves are unusual since longer-term debt should carry greater risk and higher interest rates, so when they occur there are implications for consumers and investors alike.An inverted Treasury yield curve is one of the most reliable leading indicators of an impending recession(McWhinney, 2023).

Bond markets are flashing a warning signal about the growth prospects for the US economy, just as central bankers prepare to tackle soaring inflation with higher interest rates. The gap between long-term and short-term government borrowing rates in big developed economies has narrowed drastically. In the US, a so-called "yield-curve inversion" occurred for the first time since 2019 - an event that in the past has been the harbinger of economic downturns.While markets have become nervous about what a yield curve inversion means for economic growth in the future, it is worth recalling that [quantitative easing] has likely distorted the signaling power of the yield curve(Bruce-Lockhart et al., 2022).

3. What is behind low interest rates (flat yield curve), as we now experience, for such an extended period of time?

Money managers and economists often view a shrinking of the gap between yields on shorter-term Treasuries and those maturing out years - known as yield curve flattening - as a sign of worries over economic growth and uncertainty about monetary policy.The Federal Open Market Committee is widely expected to announce at the conclusion of the monetary policy meeting that it will begin tapering its $120 billion-per-month bond-buying program. While that move has been well-telegraphed to investors, some are starting to worry that surging inflation will force the central bank to unwind its bond-buying faster and eventually raise interest rates sooner than investors had expected (Reuters, 2021).

Expectations of sooner-than-expected rate increases have pushed short-term yields higher in recent days. Longer-term ones have fallen in part due to bets that a potentially more hawkish rate policy will successfully tamp down inflation, precluding the need for raising borrowing costs as high as previously projected over the longer term (Reuters, 2021).

WEEK 2 DISCUSSION:

Collateralization is a risk management strategy employed by financial institutions to mitigate credit risk associated with their loan portfolios. The process involves pledging assets, such as loans or mortgages, as collateral to secure financing. This provides lenders with a form of security in case borrowers default on their obligations (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019). However, the collateralization process also disperses risks associated with these assets beyond their origination point. When loans are bundled together and sold as collateralized securities, the risk is spread among investors who purchase these securities. This dispersion of risk can lead to a disconnect between the original lender and the ultimate bearers of the risk, potentially amplifying the impact of defaults or economic downturns (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs) have indeed grown significantly in size, particularly in the leveraged loan market, where loans are extended to highly indebted companies. This expansion raises concerns about the potential for another financial crisis, especially in scenarios where economic conditions deteriorate, asset prices deflate, and default risks rise.Overall, the growth of CLOs and their interconnectedness within the financial system underscores the importance of robust risk management practices, adequate regulatory oversight, and vigilance in monitoring systemic risks to prevent another financial crisis (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

The process of collateralization includes determining the proper loan-to-value ratio, determining the required terms and conditions for the loan, and determining the value of the assets that are being pledged as collateral. It is via this process that a broad dispersion of risks linked with these kinds of assets is created beyond the point at which they were first created (Valladares, 2020).

One of the primary reasons why financial institutions prefer to hedge their loan portfolios with collateral is to reduce the amount of risk they are exposed to. Loans may be secured by collateral, which provides lenders with protection in the event that the borrower defaults on the loan.

The capital of the financial institution is protected, and liquidity is ensured, therefore averting financial losses that might otherwise be incurred as a result of loan defaults. This is of utmost significance for organizations that have a substantial quantity of loans shown on their balance sheets or financial statements. For instance, banks have a significant number of loans that are still due, which opens them up to the possibility of defaulting on their obligations. The use of collateralization may be an effective means of mitigating this risk, which makes it an appealing choice for lenders (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

One further reason why financial organizations want to have their loans collateralized is so that they may achieve a reduced cost of borrowing money. With collateralized loans, the interest rates are often lower than with other types of loans since the lenders are taking on less risk. It is possible to pass on these cost savings to the borrowers, which will result in the financing being more reasonable. Furthermore, collateralized loans may also be used as collateral in order to get further funding from a financial institution. Consequently, this contributes to the enhancement of the financial institution's liquidity and boosts the marketability of the assets (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

When it comes to the issue of whether or not to collateralize loans, regulatory constraints also play a crucial influence. For the purpose of ensuring financial stability and mitigating systemic risk, several regulatory authorities mandate that financial institutions have specified amounts of collateralization in place.In addition, as compared to assets that are not collateralized, investments that are collateralized are often more marketable. Because of this, collateralization is an appealing choice for financial institutions since it improves the marketability of their assets and increases the liquidity of their assets. This is of particular importance for organizations that are required to have a specific level of liquidity in order to fulfill their short-term commitments. It is possible for financial institutions to guarantee that they have sufficient assets that can be promptly turned into cash in the event that they need cash in an emergency by collateralizing their loan portfolios (Valladares, 2020).

However, collateralization is not without its downsides, despite the fact that it does have certain advantages. It is one of the primary worries that the risks that are linked with these assets are spread out beyond the point where they were first created. When many loans are packaged together and marketed as collateralized securities, the risk is distributed among the investors who acquire these securities. As a result of this dispersion of risk, there may be a gap between the initial lender and the eventual carriers of the risk, which may possibly increase the effect of defaults or economic downturns. Due to the fact that investors are now responsible for bearing the risk, this may also result in a scenario known as moral hazard, in which the initial lender may not have as much of an incentive to assure the quality of the loans that are being created. In addition, if the value of the collateral assets decreases, the risks that are linked with the loans will grow, which might ultimately result in defaults and losses for investors (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

There is a high amount of interconnectedness within the financial sector, which may compound risks to the financial system. This is one of the primary issues with collateralized loan obligations (CLOs). The systemic risk that is linked with the interconnection of financial institutions via CLOs and other structured products is a danger that is taken into consideration to be serious. The failure of a single financial institution as a result of a significant amount of exposure to collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) may set off a domino effect that spreads financial instability and raises the chance of defaults. As a result of this interconnection, it may be difficult to manage risks and reduce the effect of a possible catastrophe (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

Another worry is the liquidity of collateralized loan obligations (CLOs). It is possible for the liquidity of these assets to swiftly dry up during times of financial crisis, which may exacerbate market volatility and make it harder for institutions to unwind their holdings. This has the potential to have a huge influence on the international financial system, making it more difficult for institutions to have access to essential resources and finance. In turn, this might lead to a credit crunch, which is a situation in which even healthy enterprises have difficulty gaining access to finance, which further deteriorates the economic environment (Valladares, 2020).

CLOs may also increase risks by providing regulatory problems, which is another method in which they can do so. At the moment, there is insufficient regulatory control of the CLO market, which may result in an underestimation of the risks that are connected with these products. As was evident during the financial crisis that occurred in 2008, the absence of appropriate laws and monitoring may have significant repercussions for the national financial system. For this reason, it is of the utmost importance to establish solid regulatory frameworks in order to keep track of the expansion and operations of CLOs and to detect possible dangers before they become more severe (Liu & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2019).

In conclusion, the expansion of collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) inside the financial system, as well as their interconnection, has the potential to amplify risks and bring about another financial catastrophe. In order to reduce the risks that are associated with these products, it is vital for financial institutions, regulators, and policymakers to keep a careful eye on the CLO market and put in place appropriate risk management mechanisms. Among them are the enhancement of risk evaluations that pertain to collateralized assets and the promotion of transparency. Furthermore, in order to reduce the likelihood of systemic risks and to ensure that the financial system remains stable, it is essential to have appropriate regulatory monitoring and cooperate with other financial institutions.

WEEK 3 DISCUSSION:

What do you readings during this week inform you regarding the reasons for this performance?

The volatile behavior of the stock market in 2020, as illustrated by the significant fluctuations in the S&P 500 Index, can be attributed to several key factors based on your readings about investor behavior, economic conditions, and federal policy:

1. The initial sharp drop in the S&P 500 during early 2020 was largely due to the uncertainty and fear surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Investors reacted to the potential economic fallout from global lockdowns and the disruption of supply chains, leading to a sell-off in stocks.
2. The Federal Reserve played a crucial role in stabilizing and subsequently boosting the market through expansive monetary policy measures. These included setting lower interest rates and quantitative easing. Lower interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing and can lead to increased capital expenditures and investments. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of longer-term securities, injected liquidity into the financial system, easing financial conditions and encouraging lending and investment.
3. Despite the economic downturn, many investors were quick to buy into the market dips, driven by the "fear of missing out" (FOMO) on potential gains. This speculative behavior was particularly evident in the rapid recovery and growth phases of the market, as investors anticipated a strong economic recovery supported by government and Federal Reserve actions.
4. As 2020 progressed, various sectors, especially technology, saw significant growth despite the pandemic's broader economic impact. This growth was reflected in the profit projections of companies within the S&P 500, which attracted further investments. Investors began pricing in the recovery phase, expecting a return to normalcy facilitated by stimulus measures and, eventually, vaccine rollouts.
5. Investors often look beyond short-term economic disruptions, focusing instead on long-term growth prospects. The aggressive fiscal and monetary support provided reassurance that the economic infrastructure would remain intact, thereby sustaining the inflow of investment into the stock market.

These factors combined show how the stock market can sometimes appear decoupled from the broader economy, particularly in scenarios where monetary policy and investor sentiment play dominant roles. The "curious" behavior of the stock market thus reflects a complex interplay of fear, speculation, economic policies, and projections about future growth. These factors illustrate the multifaceted nature of stock market dynamics, especially in response to unprecedented events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The interplay between immediate, fear-driven responses and longer-term, policy-driven confidence shaped the market's "curious" behavior in 2020.

Can we conclude that the market is always forward looking, and if so for what future period?

The market is indeed forward-looking, with asset prices reflecting not only current information but also expectations about the future. This forward-looking perspective is supported by theories such as the efficient market hypothesis and rational expectations theory, as well as by empirical evidence from financial markets. While the time horizon over which the market looks forward may vary depending on the asset class and the nature of the information, the continuous incorporation of future expectations into asset prices is a fundamental characteristic of modern financial markets.

Can this performance be related to Federal Reserve policy on interest rates?

We are raising the cost of borrowing for individuals and firms, which may cause the rate of economic growth to decline. A stronger currency may make it more challenging for American exporters to sell their products abroad. I am decreasing stock values due to investors' growing aversion to risk. Therefore, it is plausible that the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy may impact the performance you refer to if it is associated with any of these elements.For instance, if a business's success is measured by its profits, and those earnings depend on borrowing money to finance investments in new goods or services, then an increase in interest rates may hurt the business's profitability. On the other hand, performance is unlikely to be impacted by Federal Reserve interest rate policy if it is unrelated to these issues.

For instance, the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy likely does not impact the number of home runs hit in a baseball game.Increases in the Federal Reserve's interest rates can slow down business earnings and economic development by making borrowing more expensive. This would not change the outcome of a baseball game, but it may affect performances related to financial issues.

And how does the historical data of the relationship between interest rates and equity prices contribute to this relationship between interest rates and equity prices?

The historical association between interest rates and equity prices is crucial in understanding how fluctuations in the level of interest can have an impact on the stock market.

1.The basic principle of evaluating equities is discounting future cash flows. Similarly, when rates go up then the discount rate used to compute the present value (PV) also goes up. This may reduce PVs of these cash flows leading to potential falling off stock prices.

2.Interest rates determine cost of capital for companies. With low-interest levels, borrowing costs are reduced, which creates less expensive opportunities for businesses to undertake projects, expand operations or engage into share buybacks; all these can cause increase in stock values. Higher interest rates, on the other hand, make borrowing more expensive, which may discourage investment and lower stock values.

3.Changes in interest rates are usually linked to fluctuations in economic conditions and inflation anticipations. Lower rates may be used by central banks as a remedy against less than average inflation, which can also be good for equities stand for the likelihood of an increase in economic activities. Alternatively, higher interest rates may be instituted so as to cool off an overheated economy or fight high inflation, causing stocks to decline since it means slow growth of economy and higher costs of borrowing for business enterprises.

WEEK 4 DISCUSSION:

During 2018-2020, major Bank Holding Companies like JPMorgan Chase and Citibank faced significant legal actions for various violations. JPMorgan Chase was fined over $920 million for market manipulation and $125 million for recordkeeping failures, while Citibank incurred a $400 million penalty for risk management deficiencies. These cases, overseen by the SEC and OCC, underscore the importance of stringent regulations to prevent fraudulent activities and ensure the safe conduct of the industry. However, they also highlight the need for a regulatory balance that safeguards the financial system's integrity without unduly hindering its growth and innovation. The hefty monetary penalties reflect the regulators' commitment to enforcing compliance, yet they also suggest that a more streamlined regulatory approach could benefit the industry (Bennett, 2024).

Bank Holding Companies (BHCs), such as JPMorgan Chase and Citibank, have faced significant legal actions and penalties for various violations during the period 2018-2020. These cases highlight the complex nature of financial regulations and the ongoing challenges in ensuring compliance (Bennett, 2024).

JPMorgan Chaseencountered several legal issues, including:

• Recordkeeping Failures: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged JPMorgan Chase with widespread failures to maintain and preserve written communications, resulting in a$125 million penalty(SEC, 2021).
• Market Manipulation: JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay over$920 millionin connection with schemes to defraud precious metals and U.S. Treasury markets (Office of Public Affairs, 2020).

Citibankalso faced penalties for its shortcomings:

• The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) assessed a$400 million civil money penaltyagainst Citibank for deficiencies in enterprise-wide risk management, compliance risk management, data governance, and internal controls (OCC, 2020).

These violations often relate to the safe conduct of the industry, including fraudulent activities, market manipulations, and failure to adhere to regulatory policies that ensure a clear separation between banking and investment banking within BHCs. The regulatory agencies responsible for these cases include the SEC and the OCC, which oversee and enforce compliance with financial regulations. The extent of monetary penalties reflects the severity of the violations and the regulators' commitment to maintaining the integrity of the financial system. However, these cases also raise questions about the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks and the need for continuous improvement (Bennett, 2024).

In conclusion, while regulations, audits, and controls are essential for preventing financial malpractices and ensuring market integrity, there is also a need to balance these measures with the costs and constraints they impose on growth. The cases of JPMorgan Chase and Citibank demonstrate that even well-established BHCs can struggle to comply with complex regulations, suggesting that a more streamlined and efficient regulatory environment could benefit the industry without compromising safety and soundness.

WEEK 5 DISCUSSION:

1. Distinguish between retail traders versus institutional traders and the trading platforms that serve each.

Institutional traders buy and sell securities for accounts they manage for a group or institution. Retail traders buy or sell securities for personal accounts.Institutional traders usually trade larger sizes and can trade more exotic products.Online brokerages and other factors have narrowed the gap between institutional and retail traders, which once gave institutional traders an advantage (Zucchi, 2023).

Divergent Approaches:

1. Risk Appetite:Because of their vast resources, institutional traders are frequently able to take on greater risks. Due to their smaller trading capital, retail traders are typically more cautious and may use conservative risk management techniques (Consults, 2023).
2. Information Access:Access to unique market insights and research is frequently available to institutions. Since retail traders rely on information that is readily available to the public, their impressions of the state of the market may differ (Consults, 2023).

Navigating the financial markets requires an understanding of the differences between institutional and retail traders. Retail traders add to the market's liquidity and variety, while institutions influence the overall market environment. Every group offers unique advantages and difficulties to the trade floor (Consults, 2023).

2. Explore a few of the popular trading platforms and the services they offer - E*Trade, Charles Schwab, Accorn, TD Ameritrade...

E*Trade:The firm requires a minimum balance of $500 to start investing on its platform. If you're doing your own trading of stocks, options, and other investments, you'll be charged commissions for each trade. The standard commission for stocks, options, and ETFs is $0 per trade. There are also no-load-no-transaction fee mutual funds available. If you make at least 30 trades per quarter, your options contract fee will go down from $0.65 to $0.50 per trade (Huffman, 2023).

TD Ameritrade:TD Ameritrade has $0 online trading fees. This free trading covers equities (stocks),exchange-traded funds (ETFs)and options traded over the firm's website and app.At time of writing, this full-service firm offered many features that Robinhood didn't, leading to a more complicated price structure. For example, broker-assisted trading will typically cost $25 per trade, while placing an order over the telephone involves a $5 trading fee. Somemutual fundswill incur a $50 trading fee. Options can cost $0.65 per contract in some cases, while futures cost $2.25 per contract over this service. The firmcharges a $75 transfer fee to move your portfolio to another service (Huffman, 2023).

Schwab:Schwab collects no commissions for online trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Options trades are commission-free, but there's a fee of $0.65 per options contract. OTC trades are free. Schwab's robo-advisor accounts have a $5,000 minimum with no fees. Investors with a minimum of $25,000will incur a $300 chargeupon opening an account plus a $30 monthly advisory fee. Schwab charges no commissions for bonds, but futures cost $1.50 per contract. Customer service is free (Huffman, 2023).

When it comes to size and reputation, E*TRADE and Charles Schwab both play in the big leagues. In fact, each company holds more than $1 trillion in customer assets. However, these investment titans aren't mirror images of each other. For example, Schwab charges no annual advisory fee for its robo-advisor service, while E*TRADE imposes a 0.30% annual advisory fee. On the other hand, E*TRADE's robo-advisor requires only a $500 minimum investment, compared with $5,000 at Schwab (Egan, 2024).

3. Especially discuss the popularity of the retail trading platform Robinhood and the controversies and risks to customers through the use of "easy trading" services it offers.

Robinhood's ability to offer free trading on the platform is enabled by a practice that continues to draw criticism after the SEC settlement, known as payment for order flow, in which brokers receive payments from dealers for routing trades to them. It is a practice used by many electronic brokers, but it has never been as closely scrutinized as during Robinhood's rise. Internet giants like Facebook and Google have been dogged for years by criticism that their free services rely on users being the product. In Robinhood's case, the free trade is the product, and that has sparked concern of a conflict of interest, with the broker incentivized to drive the highest number of trades possible (Boorstin, 2021).

Robinhood Financial has been ordered to pay nearly $70 million to resolve "systemic supervisory failures" that resulted in "significant harm" to millions of customers after the brokerage misled them, exposed them to risky trading tools and failed to supervise its technology, a failing that led to trading outages, an industry regulator. Robinhood misled consumers and exposed them to excessively risky trading tools, and also failed consumers when its services suffered multiple outages, the regulator said. The firm approved thousands of customers for options trading, but those customers did not satisfy the firm's eligibility criteria (Menton, 2021).

WEEK 6 DISCUSSION:

Q. Compare and contrast the risks stated within each 10K. What are the risks common to both, what are different and why.

Common Risk WAFD & VLY:

1. Credit Risk:Both WAFD and VLY face credit risk, which arises from the potential that borrowers may default on their loan obligations. This risk is inherent in lending activities and is a universal concern for all financial institutions. Effective credit risk management is essential for maintaining the financial health of the banks(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).
2. Market Risk:Market risk, particularly interest rate risk, is significant for both institutions. Fluctuations in interest rates can impact net interest income and the value of the banks' assets and liabilities. Managing this risk involves balancing the interest rate sensitivity of assets and liabilities to protect earnings from adverse rate movements(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).
3. Liquidity Risk:Liquidity risk is the risk that a bank will not be able to meet its financial obligations as they come due. Both WAFD and VLY need to maintain sufficient liquidity to manage depositor withdrawals and loan demands. This involves holding liquid assets and having access to funding sources(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).
4. Operational Risk:Both institutions face operational risk, which includes risks arising from internal processes, people, systems failures, and external events. This also encompasses cybersecurity threats, which have become increasingly significant as financial institutions rely more on digital platforms(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).
5. Compliance Risk:Compliance risk pertains to the risk of legal or regulatory sanctions, financial loss, or reputational damage a bank may suffer as a result of its failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and standards. Both WAFD and VLY must navigate a complex regulatory environment and ensure adherence to a myriad of regulations(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).
6. Strategic Risk:Strategic risk involves the risk of failing to implement business plans and strategies successfully. Both banks must adapt to competitive pressures and market changes to achieve their strategic objectives and ensure long-term growth(WAFD INC, 2023)& (VLY, 2023).

Unique RisksWAFD & VLY:

While these common risks are significant for both WAFD and VLY, each institution also faces unique risks specific to its business model and operational focus.

1. Washington Federal Inc. (WAFD):

a) Geographic Concentration Risk:WAFD has a significant presence in the Pacific Northwest, which exposes it to economic downturns specific to that region. This geographic concentration risk means that regional economic conditions, including employment rates and housing market trends, can significantly impact WAFD's financial performance(WAFD INC, 2023). b) Interest Rate Risk:WAFD relies heavily on mortgage loans, which are particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates. This reliance means that fluctuations in interest rates can have a pronounced impact on the bank's net interest margin and profitability. Managing this risk requires careful monitoring of interest rate trends and adjustments to the bank's asset-liability management strategies(WAFD INC, 2023).

2.Valley National Bank (VLY):

a) Acquisition Integration Risk:VLY has a history of growth through acquisitions, which poses risks related to integrating the operations, systems, and corporate cultures of acquired entities. This acquisition integration risk can lead to operational inefficiencies, increased costs, and challenges in achieving anticipated synergies(VLY, 2023).

b) Regulatory Changes Risk:VLY operates in multiple states, each with its own regulatory environment. This geographic diversity means that VLY must navigate varying regulatory requirements, which can lead to increased compliance costs and operational complexity. Regulatory changes in these regions can impact VLY's business operations and strategic initiatives(VLY, 2023).

In conclusion, Washington Federal Inc. (WAFD) and Valley National Bank (VLY) share several common risks typical of financial institutions, such as credit risk, market risk, and operational risk. However, each institution also faces unique risks shaped by its business model and geographic focus. WAFD's geographic concentration and interest rate sensitivity are particular to its operations in the Pacific Northwest and reliance on mortgage loans. In contrast, VLY's acquisition integration risk and regulatory changes risk are more pronounced due to its growth strategy through acquisitions and operations in multiple regulatory environments. Understanding these differences is crucial for stakeholders to accurately assess the risk profile and resilience of each institution.

We come to the end of this course and it is time to take a synergistic view of the learning, starting from week 1.

The readings in this last week point to the interconnections within our financial systems, and how quickly a stable market can turn volatile and freeze up, as it did recently in March 2020. The Federal Reserve's quick intervention in providing liquidity calmed markets and signified to Fed commitment to maintaining financial stability.

Review your readings and share with us your perspectives on systemic risks and, from a broader perspective, the continued susceptibility of financial markets and institutions to strong headwinds.

Hi i am pasting all week 1 to week 6 discussion post, please kindly summarize the question bold letters the whole week 1 - week 6 discussion posts, and also pasting few more links here for your review.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-stress-tests-be-effective-crisis-fighting-tools-for-banks/Links to an external site.Can Stress Tests Be Effective Crisis Wharton.pdf

Actions

Dodd, R. (.) Back to Basics: Markets: Exchange Or Over The Counter. International Monetary Fund Finance and Development. Retrieved fromhttps://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/markets.htmLinks to an external site.Exchange or Over the Counter.pdf

Actions

Cheng, J., Skidmore, D. and Wessel, D. (May 1, 2020). How did Covid -19 disrupt the market for U.S. Treasury debt? Brookings Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/01/how-did-covid-19-disrupt-the-market-for-u-s-treasury-debt/Links to an external site.How did COVID Disrupt.pdf