5 large points from regulation and EVs to semiconductors

A technologist inspects a computer chip.

Sefa Ozel | E + | Getty Images

GUANGZHOU, China – China’s tech sector has been on a wild ride over the past year, with regulations tightened, billions of dollars devastating corporate market value, and ongoing pressures on Beijing to become self-sufficient in technology.

These are some of the important topics to consider. be treated CNBC’s annual East Tech West event in the Nansha district of Guangzhou in southern China.

Here’s a look at the top concerns and priorities of the Chinese tech sector right now.

China’s technical crackdown

That put a heavy strain on China’s internet name. For example, Alibaba’s shares are down 41% since the start of the year.

There are several questions:

  • Will China introduce more new regulations and in what areas?
  • Which companies could be targeted next?
  • What does this mean for the growth of the technology sector in China?

CNBC addressed some of this in a recent episode of the Beyond the Valley podcast below. These talks will continue at East Tech West.


The ongoing tech rivalry between the US and China has made Beijing’s efforts to become more self-sufficient in a variety of sectors even more urgent. One of them are semiconductors, which are vital for everything from automobiles to cell phones.

But China is struggling to catch up with the US and other countries, and that’s because of the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain, which is dominated by foreign companies.

A good example is the chip manufacturing sector. SMIC, China’s largest contract chip maker, is several years back Taiwan’s TSMC and South Korea’s Samsung. SMIC is unable to manufacture the latest chips needed for leading smartphones.

Foreign companies master the most advanced tools and equipment required for the production of high-end chips. US sanctions have denied China access to some of these tools. Chinese companies can’t keep up.

How China will boost its domestic chip industry in the face of these hurdles is a big and ongoing debate.

Read more about semiconductors

‘Frontier’ technology

The semiconductor industry is just one of many industries in which China is trying to improve its credentials.

In his Five-year development plan, the 14th of its kindBeijing, which was released earlier this year, said it would “make science and technology self-reliance and self-improvement a strategic pillar for national development.”

The plan identifies areas that Beijing sees as “frontier technology” – artificial intelligence (AI) and space travel.

China did remarkable progress in space, including launching its own space station. It has ambitions sends its first manned mission to Mars in 2033.

When it comes to artificial intelligence, Chinese tech giants from Baidu to Tencent are investing heavily.

Electric vehicles

According to market research company Canalys, around 1.1 million electric vehicles were sold in the first half of the year, almost as many as in all of 2020. China is the world’s largest market for electric vehicles.

This growth has attracted many new tech players. Xiaomi, which is known for smartphones, is expecting it Series production of our own electric vehicles in the first half of 2024while the search giant has Baidu Set up your own electric car business with the Chinese automaker Geely.

Read more about electric vehicles

China’s economic slowdown

Cash markets, central financial institution stability sheets, and regulation

Money markets are an important cornerstone of the financial system. Banks, non-bank financial institutions such as investment funds and money market funds, as well as non-financial corporations rely on money markets for their short-term funding and collateral needs. Money markets are also key for the implementation and transmission of monetary policy. Short-term money market rates often serve as operational targets for central banks and represent the first step in monetary policy transmission. In addition, money market rates are important for credit conditions in the economy, as money market rates serve as a benchmark for the pricing of credit and are therefore an important determinant for the level of lending rates faced by firms and households. To ensure a smooth transmission of the monetary policy stance, it is therefore important that money market rates be well-aligned with central bank policy rates. 

In the euro area, money markets have gone through substantial changes and turbulent periods over the past 15 years. First, they experienced bouts of volatility during the Global Crisis and the euro area sovereign debt crisis, affecting in particular unsecured money market rates and secured rates collateralised by stressed sovereigns’ government bonds. Second, there was a shift from unsecured to secured money markets.1 Third, tensions in money markets during the global and euro area sovereign debt crises led to a large demand by banks for liquidity provided by the central bank. Fourth, new Basel III regulations, in particular the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and the leverage ratio (LR), have been phased in since 2015. These regulations may interact with money market functioning in a variety of ways. The liquidity coverage ratio requires banks to hold high-quality liquid assets (e.g. reserves and government bonds) and such assets are traded in money markets. The leverage ratio is calculated based on the size of banks’ balance sheets and money market borrowing has a bearing on bank balance sheet size.

In a recent paper (Corradin et al. 2020), we discuss these changes and study the interactions between money markets, new Basel III regulations, and central bank policies (liquidity provision, asset purchases, and the Securities Lending Programme). We also assess the macroeconomic impact of money market conditions and discuss the implications of money market developments for monetary policy implementation and transmission. 

Measuring euro area money market activity 

To measure money market activity, we consider several metrics in both secured and unsecured euro area money markets: volumes, rates, and the dispersion index of money market rates. We rely on several data sources to measure money market activity. In order to go back in time to prior to the Global Crisis, we use the daily euro overnight index average (EONIA) rates and volumes starting from 2005 and, for secured (repo) markets, we rely on daily aggregated data on transactions executed on the Brokertec and MTS platforms with French, German, Italian, and Spanish sovereign securities as collateral. We focus on transactions with one-day maturity as this is the most common maturity in euro area money markets.

Dispersion of money market rates – proposed by Duffie and Krishnamurthy (2016) – combines the information content of money market rates and volumes. It is measured as the weighted mean absolute deviation of the cross-sectional distribution of the one-day rates (Figure 1). Intuitively, the dispersion index levels are low in relatively frictionless markets. Increases in the dispersion levels indicate that money market rates do not move in lockstep which can signal impairments in the transmission of monetary policy stance to private market rates.

Figure 1 Cross-sectional dispersion of one-day money market rates, 2005-2020

Note: Dispersion Index (in basis points) constructed using EONIA, DE, FR, IT, ES general collateral and special repo rates, volume-weighted. 
Source: Corradin et al. (2020), following Duffie and Krishnamurthy (2016).

There are two specific channels through which money market rate dispersion may matter for central banks. First, money market rate dispersion can be a sign of market segmentation. A high degree of money market segmentation may lead to an increased demand of banks for central bank liquidity. Second, money market rates determine funding costs of banks. If funding costs increase for some banks, their profitability decreases, which may affect their ability to lend to the real economy and affect the transmission of monetary policy. For example, Altavilla et al. (2019) document that the cross-sectional dispersion in unsecured interbank money market rates significantly raises lending rates banks charge to firms, with a peak effect of around 100 basis points during the Global Crisis and the euro area sovereign debt crisis.

Euro area money markets over the past 15 years 

Looking back over the 2005-2020 period, our analysis documents that euro area money market conditions tend to worsen if financial stress increases, or if central bank asset purchases induce scarcity effects while the Securities Lending Programme is not sufficiently active.2

With regard to financial stress, before 2015, dispersion across money market rates tended to be high during crisis periods and positively related to the VSTOXX, a proxy for financial market volatility (Figure 2). Money market volumes decreased with higher financial stress, pointing to an overall decrease in money market activity. Since 2015, the evolution of the dispersion index has no longer been tightly linked to financial market stress. A recent example is the COVID-19 induced market turbulence in the spring of 2020 whereby the dispersion of one-day money market rates remained low even as the indicators of financial stress increased dramatically. 

Figure 2 Cross-sectional dispersion of one-day money market rates and financial stress, 2005-2020 

Note: Dispersion index (in basis points) and VSTOXX (in percent; index of stock market volatility based on EURO STOXX 50 options). 
Source: Corradin et al. (2020) and DataStream.

With regard to central bank liquidity provision, before 2015, the dispersion of one-day money market rates was negatively related to the Eurosystem liquidity provision, suggesting that central bank liquidity provision was associated with lower money market tensions (Figure 3). This is consistent with evidence presented in Garcia-de-Andoain et al. (2016), who document that liquidity provision by the Eurosystem during the global and sovereign debt crises stimulated the supply of liquidity in the unsecured money markets, especially to banks located in stressed countries during the euro area sovereign debt crisis. 

Consistent with higher central bank liquidity provision supporting money market functioning in crisis times, additional provision of central bank liquidity over the course of 2020 helped keep the dispersion of one-day money market rates at low levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional liquidity was provided to banks through untargeted operations such as additional long-term refinancing operations and the Pandemic Emergency Long-Term Refinancing Operations (PELTROs), as well as through the Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs).

Figure 3 Cross-sectional dispersion of one-day money market rates and excess liquidity, 2005-2020 

Note: Dispersion index (in basis points, left-hand scale) and excess liquidity (in EUR billion, right-hand scale).
Source: Corradin et al. (2020) and SDW.

During 2015-2016, our results indicate an increase in the money market rate dispersion index, without an accompanying increase in financial market stress (Figure 2) and while excess liquidity levels were at all-time highs, primarily driven by the Public Sector Purchase Programme (Figure 3). Asset purchases withdraw government bond collateral from the financial system and government bonds are the main type of collateral used in secured money markets. The evidence is suggestive of central bank asset purchases inducing scarcity effects in some money market segments (Arrata et al. 2020, Brand et al. 2019, Corradin and Maddaloni 2020). 

Interestingly, the dispersion decreased again after the easing of the terms of the Securities Lending Programme in December 2016 (Figure 4). Additional analysis indeed indicates that from December 2016 onwards, securities lending volumes have been negatively related with the dispersion index. Once the cash-collateral option was introduced in December 2016, the Eurosystem Securities Lending Programme helped alleviate the scarcity effects (Jank and Moench 2018).

Figure 4 Cross-sectional dispersion of one-day money market rates and securities lending, 2015-2020 

Note: Dispersion index (in basis points) and securities lending (in EUR billion, right-hand scale).
Source: Corradin et al. (2020) and SDW.

We further study how new Basel III regulations, such as the leverage ratio and the liquidity coverage ratio, affected money market activity. These regulations started being phased in (in the case of the liquidity coverage ratio) or publicly reported (in the case of the leverage ratio) as of 2015. We document that the leverage ratio requirement led to reduced borrowing, higher rates, and increased dispersion in money market rates at quarter-ends, i.e. at the time when leverage ratios are reported to the regulators. We do not find evidence of month-end effects, suggesting that liquidity coverage ratio requirements – which are reported by banks at the end of the month – did not have a significant effect on euro area money markets over 2015-2019.3 This may be due to the large Eurosystem balance sheet size, which ensured an ample supply of central bank liquidity, facilitating the fulfilment of liquidity requirements.  

Figure 5 Cross-sectional dispersion of one-day money market rates and regulation, 2005-2020

Notes: Dispersion index (in basis points) and quarter-ends (regulatory reporting dates). 
Sources: Corradin et al. (2020).

We also analyse the macroeconomic impact of money market conditions, through a lens of a stylised general equilibrium model with secured and unsecured money markets developed in De Fiore et al. (2019a). This analysis shows that tighter money market conditions may force banks to divert resources into ‘unproductive’ but liquid assets (e.g. central bank reserves) or to de-leverage. As a result, lending capacity of banks may be impaired which triggers a decline in output. Well-functioning secured markets cushion the macroeconomic impact. If secured markets do not function smoothly, however, central bank balance sheet expansion is needed to mitigate output declines.


Several take-aways emerge from our analysis. First, looking back over the past 15 years, our analysis documents that euro area money market conditions tend to worsen if financial stress increases, or if central bank asset purchases induce scarcity effects while the Securities Lending Programme is not sufficiently active. 

Second, with regard to the impact of Basel III regulations, we document that the leverage ratio regulation impacts money markets at quarter-ends due to ‘window-dressing’ effects, reducing volumes and rates, and raising money market rate dispersion. Liquidity requirements do not appear to affect money markets significantly over 2015-2019. This may be due to the large Eurosystem balance sheet size, which facilitates the fulfilment of liquidity requirements through the ample supply of central bank liquidity.4

Going forward, money market developments should be monitored, as factors interacting with money market conditions may change. One factor in particular deserves attention: non-banks becoming important participants in money markets. Unlike banks, these participants may not have access to operations with the central bank. This has a bearing on the formation of some money market rates, like the euro short-term rate (€STR). Were the transmission across money market rates to worsen, with potentially widening dispersion driven by non-banks, this could have implications for monetary policy implementation in the future.

Authors’ note: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the ECB or the Eurosystem.


Altavilla, C, G Carboni, M Lenza and H Uhlig (2019), “Interbank rate uncertainty and bank lending”, ECB Working Paper No 2311.

Arrata, W, B Nguyen, I Rahmouni-Rousseau and M Vari (2020), “The scarcity effect of QE on repo rates: Evidence from the euro area”, Journal of Financial Economics 137(3): 837-856.

Bindseil, U and L Laeven (2017), “Confusion about the lender of last resort”, VoxEU.org, 13 January.

Bonner, C and S Eijffinger (2012), “Basel liquidity rules and their impact on the interbank money market”, VoxEU.org, 13 October.

Brand, C, L Ferrante and A Hubert (2019), “From cash- to securities-driven repo markets: The role of financial stress and safe asset scarcity”, ECB Working Paper No. 2232. 

Corradin, S, J Eisenschmidt, M Hoerova, T Linzert, G Schepens and J-D Sigaux (2020), “Money markets, central bank balance sheet and regulation”, ECB Working Paper No. 2483. 

Corradin, S and A Maddaloni (2020), “The importance of being special: Repo markets during the crisis”, Journal of Financial Economics 137(2): 392-429.

Corradin, S, F Heider and M Hoerova (2017), “On collateral: Implications for financial stability and monetary policy”, ECB Discussion Paper No. 2107.

De Fiore, F, M Hoerova and H Uhlig (2019a), “Money markets, collateral and monetary policy”, ECB Working Paper No. 2239.

De Fiore, F, M Hoerova and H Uhlig (2019b), “The macroeconomic consequences of impaired money markets”, VoxEU.org, 25 May. 

Duffie, D and A Krishnamurthy (2016), “Passthrough efficiency in the Fed’s new monetary policy setting”, In Designing Resilient Monetary Policy Frameworks for the Future, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole Symposium, pp. 1815-1847.

Garcia-de-Andoain, C, F Heider, M Hoerova and S Manganelli (2016), ”Lending-of-last-resort is as lending-of-last-resort does: Central bank liquidity provision and interbank market functioning in the euro area”, Journal of Financial Intermediation 28: 32-47.

Jank, S and E Moench (2018), “The Impact of Eurosystem bond purchases on the repo market”, Bundesbank Research Bulletin 21.


1 See De Fiore et al. (2019b) for evidence and analysis of the macroeconomic impact of this development.

2 Large-scale purchases of securities by a central bank are likely to gradually lead to fewer securities being available on the market (the scarcity effect). Lending central bank securities holdings back to the market allows them to continue to be used by others for their transactions. Securities lending can limit unsettled trades and alleviate tensions when securities are scarce, thus helping to reduce the cost of acquiring good quality collateral.

3 Bonner and Eijffinger (2012) provide evidence on the impact of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) on unsecured interbank markets. They show that Dutch banks further away from the required ratio pay and charge relatively higher interest rates, increase borrowing, and decrease lending.

4 Regulatory changes in the aftermath of the Global Crisis have also led to a higher demand for collateral assets. The implications of the increasing role of collateral in financial markets for financial stability and monetary policy are reviewed in Corradin et al. (2017). Bindseil and Laeven (2017) discuss the role of collateral in the lender-of-last-resort function of central banks.

Peer-to-Peer Exchanges Want Regulation to Decrease Cash Laundering Threat


3 ‘Strong Buy’ stocks with an 8% dividend yield

Let’s talk about portfolio defense. After manipulating the Social Flash Mob Market for the past week, this topic should not be ignored. That doesn’t mean the markets will collapse. After falling 2% at the close of last week’s Friday session, this week’s trading started on a positive tone as the S&P 500 rose 1.5% and the Nasdaq rose 2.5%. The underlying bullish factors – a more stable political scene that steadily drives COVID vaccination programs – still play a role, even if not quite as strong as investors had hoped. While heightened volatility might linger with us for a while, it’s time to consider defensive stocks. And that will bring us to dividends. By providing a steady stream of income regardless of market conditions, a reliable dividend stock provides a pad for your investment portfolio when the stock ceases to appreciate. With that in mind, we used the TipRanks database to get three dividend stocks that yield 8%. However, that’s not all they offer. Each of these stocks received enough street praise to earn a consensus rating of “Strong Buy”. New Residential Investment (NRZ) First we examine the REIT sector, Real Estate Investment Trusts. These companies have long been known for dividends that are both high-yielding and reliable. Due to the company’s tax compliance, REITs are required to return a certain percentage of profits directly to shareholders. NRZ, a medium-sized company with a market capitalization of $ 3.9 billion, has a diverse portfolio of residential mortgages, original loans and mortgage loan service rights. The company is based in New York City. NRZ has a $ 20 billion investment portfolio that has generated dividends of $ 3.4 billion since its inception. The portfolio has proven resilient in the face of the corona crisis, and after a difficult first quarter last year, NRZ posted rising gains in the second and third quarters. The most recently reported third quarter showed GAAP earnings of $ 77 million, or 19 cents per share. This EPS was lower than in the previous year, but a strong trend reversal compared to the 21-cent loss reported in the previous quarter. The rising income has enabled NRZ to raise the dividend. The Q3 payment was 15 cents per common share; The dividend for the fourth quarter was increased to 20 cents per common share. At this rate, the dividend annualizes to 80 cents, making an impressive 8.5%. In a further move to return profits to investors, the company announced in November that it had approved $ 100 million in share buybacks. BTIG analyst Eric Hagen is impressed with New Residential – especially the company’s solid balance sheet and liquidity. “[We] like the ability to potentially build capital through retained earnings while maintaining a competitive payout. We believe the dividend increase will underscore the company’s liquidity position. We believe NRZ has been able to release capital because it has raised approximately $ 1 billion in securitized debt for its MSR portfolio through two separate transactions since September, ”said Hagen. In line with his comments, Hagen rates NRZ with a buy and its target price of $ 11 implies an upward movement of 17% for the coming year. (To see Hagen’s track record, click here.) It’s not often that all analysts agree on a stock. When this happens, take note of it. NRZ’s consensus rating for strong buy is based on unanimous 7 purchases. The stock’s average target price of $ 11.25 indicates an upward movement of ~ 20% from the current stock price of $ 9.44. (See NRZ stock analysis on TipRanks) Saratoga Investment Corporation (SAR) With the next stock we switch to the investment management area. Saratoga specializes in mid-market debt, capital appreciation and equity, with over $ 546 million in assets under management. Saratoga’s portfolio is broad, including industry, software, waste disposal and home security. Saratoga has seen a slow but steady recovery from the corona crisis. The company’s sales declined in the first quarter of 20 and have grown slowly since then. The third quarter fiscal year report released in early January contained $ 14.3 million. Adjusted for pre-tax taxes, Saratoga’s net investment income of 50 cents per share exceeded the 47-cents forecast by 6%. They say the race is slowly and steadily winning, and Saratoga has shown investors a generally stable hand over the past year. The stock has rallied 163% from its low after the corona last March. And the dividend, which the company cut in the second quarter, has increased twice since then. The current dividend of 42 cents per common share was declared for payment on February 10 last month. The annualized payment of $ 1.68 gives a return of 8.1%. The analyst Mickey Schleien from Ladenburg Thalmann is optimistic about Saratoga and writes: “We believe that the SAR portfolio is relatively defensive and focuses on software, IT services, education services and the CLO. SAR’s CLO remains up-to-date and the company is seeking refinancing / appreciation that we believe could positively affect our outlook. “The analyst continued,” Our model assumes that SAR will use cash and SBA debt to fund net portfolio growth. We believe the Board of Directors will continue to increase the dividend given the performance of the portfolio, the existence of undistributed taxable income and the economic benefits of the Covid-19 immunization program. “To this end, Schleien rates SAR a Buy along with a price target of USD 25. This number implies an upward trend of 20% from the current level. (To see Schleien’s track record, click here.) Wall Street analysts approve of Schleien on this stock. The other three registered ratings are buys and the analysts’ consensus rating is a strong buy. Saratoga’s shares trade for $ 20.87 with an average price target of $ 25.50, indicating an upward movement of 22% over the next 12 months. (See SAR stock analysis on TipRanks) Hercules Capital (HTGC) Last but not least, Hercules Capital is a venture capital company. Hercules provides early stage funding support to small client businesses with a scientific background. Hercules customers are life sciences, technology, and financial SaaS. Since its inception in 2003, Hercules has invested over $ 11 billion in more than 500 companies. The quality of the Hercules portfolio is evident from the company’s recent performance. The stock has fully rebounded from last winter’s corona crisis, rebounding 140% from its low last April. The result has also recovered. For the first nine months of 2020, HTGC posted net investment income of $ 115 million, or 11% more than the same period in 2019. For dividend investors, the key point is that net investment income covered the distribution – in fact, it was 106% of the Base distribution. The company was confident enough to kickstart sales with an additional 2 cents payment. The combined payout results in an annualized payment of $ 1.28 per common share and a return of 8.7%. In yet another vote of confidence, Hercules completed a $ 100 million investment-grade bond offering in November, raising capital for debt repayments, new investments and corporate purposes. The bonds were offered in two tranches, each valued at $ 50 million. The bonds mature in March 2026. Analyst Crispin Love covers Piper Sandler’s stock and sees plenty to love in HTGC. “We continue to believe that HTGC’s focus on fast-growing technology and life science companies positions the company well in the current environment. In addition, Hercules is not dependent on a COVID recovery as it does not invest in “vulnerable” sectors. Hercules also has a strong liquidity position which should allow the company to act quickly when it finds attractive investment opportunities, “commented Love. All of the above convinced Love to rate HTGC as an outperform (i.e. buy). In addition to the call, he set a price target of $ 16, indicating upside potential of 9%. (To see Love’s track record, click here.) The stock’s recent appreciation has pushed Hercules stock up to its average target price of $ 15.21 and up only ~ 4% above the trading price of $ 14.67 calmly. Wall Street doesn’t seem to mind, however, as the analyst consensus rating is a unanimous strong buy based on 6 recent buy-side ratings. (See HTGC stock analysis on TipRanks.) To find great ideas for trading dividend stocks at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, ‘a newly launched tool that brings together all of TipRanks’ stock insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the presented analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important that you do your own analysis before making any investment.