Last month, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) called for the introduction of a regulatory framework for “payment stablecoins”—private crypto-assets that (unlike the highly volatile Bitcoin) are pegged 1:1 to a national currency and “have the potential to be used as a widespread means of payment.” Most notably, to limit the risk of runs, the Report calls for legislation restricting stablecoin issuance to insured depositories.

In this post, we first document the rapid growth of stablecoin usage. We then highlight the features which make stablecoins subject to run risk that, in the absence of appropriate governmental controls, could destabilize the financial system. Next, we consider the three regulatory approaches that Gorton and Zhang (GZ) propose for making stablecoins resilient: the first, and the one favored by the PWG, is to limit stablecoin issuance to insured depositories; the second is to require 1:1 backing of stablecoins with sovereign securities (in the case of the United States and the U.S. dollar, these would be U.S. Treasury issues); and the third is to require 1:1 backing with central bank reserves. We conclude with a brief discussion of whether central bank digital currencies are an appropriate means to displace stablecoins.

To foreshadow our conclusions, we view the PWG proposal as the preferred alternative. However, absent near-term prospects for legislative action, we hope that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) will consider—as GZ suggest—using its powers under the Dodd-Frank Act to designate the issuance of payments stablecoins as an activity that is “likely to become” systemically important. FSOC designation would authorize the Federal Reserve to promote uniform standards without waiting years for legislation that authorizes a new regulatory framework.

U.S. Gets a Start on Climate-related Financial Risk

Co-authored with Richard Berner, NYU Stern Clinical Professor of Finance and Co-Director, Volatility and Risk Institute.

Many sources of risk threaten the U.S. financial system. Pandemic risk and cyber risk are at or near the top of our list of nightmares. Yet, with the UN Climate Change conference (COP26) under way in Glasgow, attention is shifting to efforts aimed at limiting the economic and financial damage from climate change, including a timely new “Report on Climate-relat ed Financial Risk” from the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC).

As the Report makes clear, U.S. policymakers need a far better understanding of climate-related financial risk. Indeed, when President Biden issued an exec utiv e order in May instructing financial regulators to conduct a thorough risk assessment, the United States already was behind other advanced economies. As an initial response to the President’s directive, the Report catalogs the range of climate risk threats, describes actions individual U.S. regulators have begun taking to address them, and lists many things that still need to be done. By setting priorities, the FSOC is now putting climate change “squarely at the forefront of the agenda of its member agencies.”

In this post, we highlight three themes in the Report: (1) the ongoing rise of physical climate risk; (2) the conceptual challenges associated with measurement, as well as the data gaps; and (3) the benefits of scenario analysis as a tool for assessing the financial stability risks arising from climate change. The key lesson that we draw from scenario analysis is that a financial system resilient to a range of other shocks is more likely to be resilient against climate risk. Put differently, a less-resilient financial system is vulnerable to all types of shocks, including those arising from climate change.

Improving resilience: banks and non-bank intermediaries

Debt causes fragility. When banks lack equity funding, even a small adverse shock can put the financial system at risk. Fire sales can undermine the supply of credit to healthy firms, precipitating a decline in economic activity. The failure of key institutions can threaten the payments system. Authorities naturally respond by increasing required levels of equity finance, ensuring that intermediaries can weather severe conditions without damaging others.

Readers of this blog know that we are strong supporters of higher capital requirements: if forced to pick a number, we might choose a leverage ratio requirement in the range of 15% of total exposure (see here), roughly twice recent levels for the largest U.S. banks. But as socially desirable as high levels of equity finance might be, the fact is that they are privately costly. As a result, rather than limit threats to the financial system, higher capital requirements for banks have the potential to shift risky activities beyond the regulatory perimeter into non-bank intermediaries (see, for example here).

Has the increase of capital requirements since the financial crisis pushed risk-taking beyond the regulated banking system? So far, the answer is no. However, in some jurisdictions, especially the United States, the framework for containing systemic risk arising from non-bank financial institutions remains inadequate….

Taking the **Sock** out of FSOC

In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-2009, the U.S. Congress created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC – pronounced “F-Sock”)—a panel of the heads of the U.S. regulatory agencies—“to identify risks to the financial stability of the United States”; “to promote market discipline” by eliminating expectations of government bailouts; and “to respond to emerging threats” to financial stability.

Despite these complex and critical objectives, the law limited FSOC’s authority to the designation of: (1) specific nonbanks as systemically important financial intermediaries (SIFIs), and; (2) critical payments, clearance and settlement firms as financial market utilities (FMUs). Nonbank SIFIs are then supervised by the Federal Reserve, which imposes stricter scrutiny on them (as it does for large banks), while FMUs are jointly overseen by the Fed and the relevant market regulators.

At the peak of its activity in 2013-14, the FSOC designated four nonbanks as SIFIs: AIG, GE Capital, MetLife, and Prudential Insurance. Following the Council’s October 16 rescission of the Prudential designation, there are no longer any nonbank SIFIs. Not only that, but by making a future designation highly unlikely, Treasury and FSOC have undermined the deterrence effect of the FSOC’s SIFI authority. In short, by taking the sock out of FSOC, recent actions seriously weaken the post-crisis apparatus for securing U.S. (and global) financial stability. In the remainder of this post we review the Treasury’s revised approach to SIFI designation in the context of the Prudential rescission….

Size is Overrated

This month, in the guise of supporting community banks, the U.S. Senate passed a bill (S.2155) that eases regulation of large banks. We share the critics’ views that this wide-ranging dilution of existing regulation will reduce the resilience of the U.S. financial system.

In its best known and most publicized feature, the Senate bill raises the asset size threshold that Dodd-Frank established for subjecting a bank to strict scrutiny (such as the imposition of stress tests, liquidity requirements, and resolution plans) from $50 billion to $250 billion. In this post, we examine the role of asset size in determining the systemic importance of a financial intermediary. It turns out that (aside from the very largest institutions, where it does in fact dominate) balance sheet size is not a terribly useful indicator of the vulnerability a bank creates. We conclude that Congress should ease the strict oversight burden on institutions that pose little threat to the financial system without raising the Dodd-Frank threshold dramatically.

Judge makes an elegant proposal for accomplishing this. For institutions with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion, Congress should just flip the default. Rather than obliging the Fed to prove a mid-sized bank’s riskiness, give the bank the opportunity to prove it is safe. This approach gives institutions the incentive to limit the systemic risk they create in ways that they can verify. It also sharply reduces the risk of litigation by banks that the Fed deems risky...

FSOC and Systemic Risk: Treasury's Report

In response to the financial crisis of 2007-2009, Congress created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a committee of the chiefs of the U.S. regulatory agencies, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, to monitor and secure the stability of the financial system. Critical to this task is the FSOC’s authority to designate nonbanks as “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFIs).

On November 17, the U.S. Treasury issued a report assessing the FSOC’s designation process. Treasury calls on the FSOC to adopt a strategy that prioritizes the regulation of activities or functions—affecting whole sectors of the financial industry—over regulation based on entity or legal form (such as the designation authority). For the most part, we find this sensible, as this focus reduces the scope for regulatory arbitrage that an entities-only approach may foster (see here).

However, we doubt that activities-based regulation alone will be sufficient to limit systemic risk. Our overall conclusion is that the Treasury’s approach sets the bar for FSOC designation too high, diminishing its deterrence effect on undesignated nonbanks. In the end, a sensible focus on both entities and activities is needed to fulfill one of FSOC’s key objectives—to restore market discipline. Adopting the Treasury’s proposed framework will not meet the goal, set out in the President’s Core Principles for Regulating the U.S. Financial system (see Executive Order 13772), of preventing taxpayer-funded bailouts....

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets