Thoughts on Deposit Insurance

Government guarantees have become the norm in the financial system. According to the latest Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (2017) estimate, the U.S. government’s safety net covers 60% of private financial liabilities in the United States. Serious underpricing of government guarantees gives intermediaries the incentive to take risk that can threaten the entire financial system: the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-09 is the most obvious case in point.

Deposit insurance is arguably the oldest and most widespread form of government guarantee in finance. In the United States, Congress established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) at the depth of the Great Depression in 1933 to help prevent bank runs. Today, more than 140 countries have some type of deposit insurance scheme.

In this post, we briefly review the evolution of FDIC deposit insurance pricing. We highlight evidence that, largely because of Congressional mandates, the federal insurance guarantee was underpriced for many years. It is not until 2011, following the crisis of 2007-09, that the FDIC introduced the current framework for risk-based deposit insurance fees, bringing insurance premia closer to what observers would deem to be actuarially fair.

Going forward, as with any insurance regime, keeping up with the evolution of bank (and broader financial system) risks will require a willingness to update the deposit insurance pricing framework from time to time. That means adjusting pricing to reflect both the range of bank risk-taking at a point in time and—to ensure the sustainability of the deposit insurance fund without taxpayer subsidies—the evolution of aggregate risk….

Limiting Central Banking

Since 2007, and especially over the past year, actions of public officials have blurred the lines between monetary and fiscal policy almost beyond recognition. Central banks have expanded both the scope and scale of their interventions in unprecedented fashion. This fiscalization risks central bank independence, thereby weakening policymakers’ ability to deliver on their mandates for price and financial stability. In our view, to find a way to back to the pre-2008 division of responsibilities, officials must establish clearer limits on what central banks can and cannot do.

In that division of official labor, it is fiscal authorities that ought to make the unavoidably political choices that directly influence resource allocation. And governments should not conceal such fiscal actions on the balance sheet of the central bank. In a democracy, doing so lacks legitimacy and would become unsustainable….

Is Inflation Coming?

For more than a generation, the U.S. inflation-targeting framework has delivered impressive results. From 1995 to 2007, U.S. inflation averaged 2.1% (as measured by the Federal Reserve’s preferred index). Since 2008, average inflation dropped to only 1.5%, but expectations have fluctuated in a narrow range: for example, the market-based five-year, five-year forward (CPI) inflation expectation rarely dipped below 1.5% and never exceeded 3%.

However, the pandemic brought with it many dramatic changes. Fiscal and monetary policy mobilized, responding swiftly to the economic plunge with a combination of extraordinary debt-financed expenditure and balance sheet expansion. As a matter of accounting and arithmetic, these actions have had a profound impact on the balance sheets of banks and households, spurring dramatic growth in traditional monetary aggregates. From the end of February to the end of May 2020, broad money (M2) grew from $15.5 trillion to $17.9 trillion—a 16% jump in just three months.

Won’t the record 2020 gain in M2 be highly inflationary? We doubt it, and in this post we explain why. At the same time, we highlight the chronic uncertainty that plagues inflation. In our view, the difficulty in forecasting inflation makes it important that the Fed routinely communicate how it will react to inflation surprises—even when, as now, policymakers wish to promote extremely accommodative financial conditions….

Open-end Funds vs. ETFs: Lessons from the COVID Stress Test

COVID-19 posed the most severe stress test for financial markets and institutions since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-09. By some measures, the COVID shock’s peak impact was larger than that of the GFC—both the VIX rose higher and intermediaries’ estimated capital shortfalls were bigger. As a result, the COVID experience provides a natural laboratory for testing the resilience of many parts of the post-GFC financial system.

For example, the March 2020 dysfunction in the corporate bond market highlights the extraordinary fragility of a market that accounts for nearly 60% of the debt and borrowings of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Yield spreads over equivalent Treasuries widened further than at any time since the GFC, with bond prices plunging even for instruments that have little risk of default. (See Liang for an excellent overview.)

In this post, we focus on how, because of the contractual agreement with their shareholders, an extraordinary wave of redemptions created selling pressure on corporate bond mutual funds that almost surely exacerbated the liquidity crisis in the corporate bond market. To foreshadow our conclusions, we urge policymakers to find ways to reduce the gap between the illiquidity of the assets held by corporate bond (and some other) mutual funds and the redemption-on-demand that these funds provide. To reduce systemic fragility, we also urge them—as we did several years ago—to consider encouraging conversion of mutual funds holding illiquid assets into ETFs, which suffered relatively less in the COVID crisis….

Fix Money Funds Now

On September 19, 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury announced that it would guarantee the liabilities of money market mutual funds (MMMFs). And, the Federal Reserve created an emergency facility (“Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility”) to finance commercial banks’ purchases of illiquid MMMF assets. These policy actions halted the panic.

That episode drove home what we all knew: MMMFs are vulnerable to runs. Everyone also knew that the Treasury and Fed bailout created enormous moral hazard. Yet, the subsequent regulatory efforts to make MMMFs more resilient and less bank-like have proven to be half-hearted and, in some cases, counterproductive. So, to halt another run in March 2020, the Fed revived its 2008 emergency liquidity facilities.

We hope the second time’s the charm, and that U.S. policymakers will now act decisively to prevent yet another panic that would force yet another MMMF bailout.

In this post, we briefly review key regulatory changes affecting MMMFs over the past decade and their impact during the March 2020 crisis. We then discuss the options for MMMF reform that the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets identifies in their recent report. Our conclusion is that only two or three of the report’s 10 options would materially add to MMMF resilience. The fact that everyone has known about these for years highlights the political challenge of enacting credible reforms.

Where Governments Should Spend More

As a result of the pandemic, U.S. general government debt (federal, state, and local obligations combined) has surged above 130 percent of GDP, more than double what it was in 2007. And, recent U.S. experience is far from unique. Looking at the G20, average public debt rose from 52% of GDP in 2007 to 74% in 2019 and is projected to reach 91% next year.

Unsurprisingly, as government debt increases, the debate over public spending heats up. Are these high debt ratios sustainable? Should we be cutting spending and raising taxes to reduce what will otherwise be a large financial burden on future generations?

In this post, we emphasize that not all government spending is created equal. Investment in physical infrastructure, as well as in education and health—especially for children—can boost future GDP. Moreover, delaying inevitable outlays can boost long-run costs. As a result, a failure to make productive, self-financing investments due to concerns about the debt would be not only tragic, but counterproductive….

An Economic Zombie Survival Guide

Everyone surely hopes that zombies will remain confined to the growing list of horror movies. But unless we shut them down, insolvent firms can become economic zombies that suffocate innovation and growth.

As the COVID pandemic continues, policymakers will face some difficult decisions. Many businesses are coming under increasingly severe financial stress. Some, like dry-cleaning establishments that rely on laundering clothing for office workers, have limited prospects even after the pandemic subsides. But there are others that have a bright post-COVID future if they can hold on long enough. Without a way to distinguish these two groups, we face an unpleasant choice of either creating zombies or allowing viable firms to perish.

In our view, the solution to this problem is to reinforce and modify the bankruptcy process. This means ensuring that there are sufficient resources to restructure the debts of those whose expected future profits exceed their liquidation value, while allowing the remainder to close. In the case of large corporations, we can make use of Chapter 11. For smaller firms, if it is not already too late, we need a low-cost mechanism more tailored to their needs.

In the remainder of this post, we discuss these two related issues: zombie firms and the use of bankruptcy procedures to identify and sustain viable firms.

Making the Treasury Market Resilient

Ensuring financial stability requires resilient institutions. That is why regulators around the world have strengthened capital and liquidity requirements for the largest financial intermediaries since financial crisis of 2007-09.

Making financial markets resilient is equally important. Repeated and sustained bouts of illiquidity and dysfunctionality in a key market can threaten the well-being of even the healthiest institutions.

In a global financial system that runs on dollars, the most important financial market is the one for U.S. Treasury securities. Yet, despite its importance and general reliability, the Treasury market occasionally suffers from serious disruptions. The strains in the Treasury market during the first half of March 2020 became an important motivation for the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented anti-COVID policy actions beginning that month (see here, here and here).

In the remainder of this post, we describe the COVID-induced troubles in the Treasury market and highlight Duffie’s compelling proposal to consider requiring central clearing of U.S. Treasuries. We endorse Duffie’s call to study such a mandate, and view this is as an important element of a broader effort to modernize and reinforce the financial infrastructure….

Fed's big stick lets it speak powerfully

The powerful stabilizing impact of the Federal Reserve’s COVID response is visible virtually across U.S. financial markets. What is most remarkable about this is how little the Fed has done to achieve these outcomes. To be sure, the central bank now holds $7 trillion in assets, an increase of $2.8 trillion since early March. Yet, virtually all the increase reflects large-scale purchases of government-guaranteed instruments. What we find astonishing is that the acquisition of risky nonfinancial debt remains tiny.

The point is clear: backed by massive fiscal support, the Fed’s mere announcement of its willingness to purchase corporate and municipal bonds, as well as asset-backed securities, has proven sufficient to stabilize markets despite the worst economic shock since WWII. Put differently, the Fed’s willingness to backstop markets has obviated the need to serve actively as a market maker of last resort.

In this post, we document these developments and then speculate about their implications. For one thing, in a future crisis where the U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities share key goals, people will now anticipate that the central bank will backstop financial markets. Because a central bank is almost certain to intervene when systemic risks rise, these stabilizing powers are welcome.

At the same time, the central bank’s backstop is a source of potentially serious moral hazard. We suspect that investors are now counting on Fed stimulus to support equity and bond prices (and possibly bank loans) even as household and business insolvencies rise. Yet, in a market economy, it is shareholders and creditors who ultimately must bear these losses. Indeed, were the U.S. equity market to plunge by 40 percent in the remainder of 2020, that by itself would pose little threat to the financial system, and ought not trigger large corporate bond (let alone equity) purchases by the central bank….

Stress tests lack COVID-scale stress

In recent months, the Federal Reserve acted aggressively to support nearly all parts of the U.S. economy. Unprecedented monetary policy actions, both in size and scope, served to maintain market function and the flow of credit. And, while we have misgivings about the Fed’s CARES Act-driven moves to support the nonfinancial sector, we applaud Chair Powell and his colleagues for their quick and decisive actions (see our previous posts here, here and here). This, together with fiscal policy support for individual households and small firms, has kept an awful situation from becoming far worse—at least for now.

But, the Fed’s responsibility extends beyond monetary policy to the regulatory and supervisory arenas: it is obliged to maintain the safety and soundness of the banking system (and, to some extent, of the broader financial system). On this score, and in stark contrast to its actions in 2009, the Board of Governors has come up significantly short. Without full disclosure of the latest stress test results, suspicions will linger about the ability of the largest banks to provide credit to healthy borrowers if the COVID recovery falters. (See our earlier post for details.)

In this post, we examine the results from the Fed’s 2020 assessment of bank capital adequacy published on June 25. Based on the COVID-related sensitivity analysis—for which individual results are unavailable—one-quarter of the 33 banks tested fall below the regulatory minimum in the worst of the three cases. The fact that we can only guess which banks those might be creates suspicion regarding many banks….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets