The Extraordinary Failures Exposed by Silicon Valley Bank's Collapse

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) revealed an extraordinary range of astonishing failures. There was the failure of the bank’s executives to manage the maturity and liquidity risks that are basic to the business of banking: they failed Money and Banking 101. There was the failure of market discipline by investors who either didn’t notice or didn’t care about the fact that the bank was severely undercapitalized for the better part of a year before it collapsed. There was the failure of the supervisors to compel the bank to manage the simplest and most obvious risks. And, there was the failure of the resolution authorities to act in mid-2022 when SVB’s true net worth had sunk far below the minimum threshold for “prompt corrective action.”

Waiting several quarters to act deepened the threat to the financial system, undermining confidence not only in many other banks but also in the competence of the supervisors. The extraordinary rescue actions last week by both the deposit insurer (FDIC) and the lender of last resort (Federal Reserve) are just a sign of the high costs associated with restoring financial stability when confidence plunges.

In this post we discuss each of these four failures, as well as the actions that authorities took to stabilize the financial system following the SVB failure. To anticipate our conclusions, we see an urgent need for officials to do at least five things:

First, to regain credibility, supervisors need to do an immediate review of the unrealized losses on the balance sheets of all 45 banks with assets in excess of $50 billion.
Second, they should perform a speedy and focused stress test on each of these banks to assess the impact on their true net worth of a sizable further increase in interest rates. Any bank with a capital shortfall should be compelled either to issue new equity or shut down. (To ensure the availability of the necessary resources, authorities will need to have a pool of public funds available to recapitalize banks that cannot attract private investors.)
Third, to restore resilience, Congress must reverse the 2018-19 weakening of regulation that allowed medium-size banks to escape rigorous capital and liquidity requirements.
Fourth, the authorities must change accounting rules to ensure that reported capital more accurately reflects each bank’s true financial condition.
Finally, policymakers should assess the impact on the financial system and on the federal debt arising from the now-implicit promise to insure all deposits in a crisis. To limit risk taking, correspondingly greater fees and higher capital and liquidity requirements should accompany any explicit increase in the cap on deposit insurance.

Financial System Resilience: The Climate Change Edition

Supervisors around the world wish to ensure that the financial system is resilient to climate change. To that end, current best practice is to formulate detailed long-run climate scenarios and then ask whether financial institutions, especially banks, can withstand the losses associated with them. These scenarios typically map the path of surface temperature, sea level, and the resulting economic damage over the next 30 or 40 or 50 years.

However, financial-system stress arises from sudden, widespread changes in the value and perceived quality of leveraged intermediaries’ assets, while climate change is likely to remain gradual over decades. As a result, skeptics reasonably doubt that climate change poses systemic financial risk sufficient to merit the use of scarce supervisory resources and a costly testing apparatus. To quote John Cochrane: “[B]anks did not fail in 2008 because they bet on radios not TV in the 1920s. Banks failed over mortgage investments they made in 2006.”

Fortunately, we now have low-cost, high frequency, forward-looking tools for monitoring climate-related sources of financial instability. In this post, we use one such tool to identify episodes in which the potential influence of climate change on systemic resilience may be worthy of attention. We also look at how an aggregate measure of financial system vulnerability evolves over time….

The Urgent Agenda for Financial Reform

Thanks to unprecedented interventions by central banks and fiscal authorities, the pandemic-induced financial strains of March-April 2020 are now well behind us. Unfortunately, as a consequence of the official actions necessary to stabilize the financial system, market participants now count on government backstops to insure them against the fallout from future disturbances.

Naturally, central banks should be prepared to combat extreme shocks that threaten financial stability. However, to limit excessive reliance on central banks, we need to ensure that financial institutions can continue to operate smoothly on their own even in bad times. This means redesigning parts of the financial architecture. While market participants have a major role to play, it is authorities who need to address externalities—spillover effects—and to improve incentives for the private sector to maintain the liquidity of markets and access to short-term funding in times of moderate stress.

With the pandemic-induced disruptions still fresh in memory, this is the perfect time to identify deficiencies and implement reforms aimed at improving the resilience of the financial system. Fortunately, the June 2021 Report of the Hutchins Center-Chicago Booth Ta sk Force on Financial Stability (H-B) addresses all the key challenges, laying out a broad agenda for U.S. financial reform. In addition, we have the July 2021 G-3 0 R e port that provides detailed proposals for reforming the U.S. Treasury market.

In this post, we discuss these reform proposals, highlighting areas where we strongly agree and believe that implementation is urgent. In particular, we emphasize the benefits that would come from changes in the Treasury market (cash and repo), in the central counterparties (CCPs) that have become the most critical links in the global financial system, and in open-end mutual funds holding illiquid assets. We also highlight the governance proposals in the H-B Report. In our view, full implementation of the agendas set out in the these reports would make the U.S. financial system far safer than it is today….

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….

Some Unpleasant Gold Bug Arithmetic

Most people care far more about the prices of things they purchase—food, housing, health care, and the like—than the price of gold. Not coincidentally, professional economists display a remarkably explicit consensus against forcing the central bank to adopt a policy that fixes the price of gold.

Yet, there are still powerful people who think that the United States would benefit if the central bank’s sole purpose were to restore a gold standard. With the nomination of gold standard advocate Judy Shelton to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve, we feel compelled to take these views seriously. So, here goes.

Several years ago, we emphasized that a gold standard is incredibly unstable. In this post, we address the mechanics of how the U.S. central bank would run the system. In our view, it is incumbent on any gold standard advocate to answer a series of practical questions: What gold price are they proposing? How much gold would the Federal Reserve have to acquire and hold to make the scheme credible? Will the Fed be able to lend to banks and operate as a lender of last resort?

Our answers highlight the operational challenges. Since the Fed initially would commit to holding a particular dollar value (that is, the product of price and quantity) of gold, we need to consider price and quantity together. With the smallest balance sheet we can imagine, our best guess is that the Fed initially would have to triple its gold holdings, driving the price of gold up by two thirds (to about $2,600 per ounce). Then, to maintain the gold standard, the Fed would still need to purchase one-third of world gold production each year. Without gold holdings over and above this minimum, the Fed would not be able to lend at all, much less without limit as it can under a pure fiat money standard….

Libra's dramatic call to regulatory action

Facebook’s June 18 announcement that it has created a Geneva-based entity with plans to issue a currency called Libra is sending shock waves through the financial world. The stated objectives of creating Libra are to improve the efficiency of payments and to ease financial access. While these are laudable goals, it is essential that we achieve them without facilitating criminal exploitation of the payments system or reducing the ability of authorities to monitor and mitigate systemic risk. In addition, any broad-based financial innovation should ease the stabilization of consumption.

On all of these criteria, we see Libra as doing more harm than good. And, for the countries whose currencies are excluded from the Libra portfolio, it will diminish seignorage, while enabling capital outflows and, in periods of stress, accelerating capital flight.

Like Bank of England Governor Carney, we have an open mind, and believe that increased competition, coupled with the introduction of new technologies, will eventually lower stubbornly high transactions costs, improving the quality of financial services globally. But in this case, we urge a closed door….

Protecting the Federal Reserve

Last week, President Trump tweeted his intention to nominate Dr. Judy Shelton to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In our view, Dr. Shelton fails to meet the criteria that we previously articulated for membership on the Board. We hope that the Senate will block her nomination.

Our opposition arises from four observations. First, Dr. Shelton’s approach to monetary policy appears to be partisan and opportunistic, posing a threat to Fed independence. Second, for many years, Dr. Shelton argued for replacing the Federal Reserve’s inflation-targeting regime with a gold standard, along with a global fixed-exchange rate regime. In our view, this too would seriously undermine the welfare of nearly all Americans. Third, should Dr. Shelton become a member of the Board, there is a chance that she could become its Chair following Chairman Powell’s term: making her Chair would seriously undermine Fed independence. Finally, Dr. Shelton has proposed eliminating the Fed’s key tool (in a world of abundant reserves) for controlling interest rates—the payment of interest on reserves….

House Prices at Risk

Following the boom and bust of the 2000s, there is widespread agreement that residential real estate is a key source of vulnerability in advanced and emerging economies alike. Housing accounts for a significant fraction of wealth, especially for people in the middle of the income distribution, who are much less likely to own risky financial assets (see our earlier post). Furthermore, housing is highly leveraged, creating risks to both homeowners and their lenders.

In the United States, real housing prices have rebounded by nearly 40 percent from their 2012 trough. Today, they are only about 10 percent shy of their 2006 peak. As such, it is natural to ask whether we are once again facing a heightened risk of a crash. Enter “House Prices at Risk” (HaR)—a new worst-case metric created by the IMF to assess the likely scale of a housing price bust conditional on a bad state of the world. Consistent with the IMF’s previous work on “GDP at Risk” (see our earlier post), we view HaR as a valuable addition to the arsenal of risk indicators that allow market professionals and policymakers to monitor financial vulnerability….

U.S. Monetary Policy Spillovers

Do changes in U.S. dollar interest rates have a material impact on financial conditions elsewhere in the world? The answer is a resounding yes (see the paper one of us presented at this month’s IMF Annual Research Conference). When the Federal Reserve eases, the result is a dramatic increase in financial system leverage in other countries. Not only that, but the impact is larger than that of domestic policy changes.

The outsized cross-border impact of U.S. monetary policy creates obvious challenges for policymakers abroad aiming to maintain financial stability. Governments in the countries most affected have few options to limit the risks created by cyclical changes in dollar interest rates. The available mix of prudential measures includes more stringent capital requirements, limits on foreign currency liabilities, and restrictions on cross-border capital flows. The alternative of trying to counter U.S. monetary stimulus through higher policy interest rates abroad may backfire….

Financial Crisis: The Endgame

Ten years ago this month, the run on Lehman Brothers kicked off the third and final phase of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. In two earlier posts (here and here), we describe the prior phases of the crisis. The first began on August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas suspended redemptions from three mutual funds invested in U.S. subprime debt, kicking off a global scramble for safe, liquid assets. And the second started seven months later when, in response to the March 2008 run on Bear Stearns, the Fed provided liquidity directly to nonbanks for the first time since the Great Depression, completing its crisis-driven evolution into an effective lender of last resort to solvent, but illiquid intermediaries.

The most intense period of the crisis began with the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Credit dried up; not just uncollateralized lending, but short-term lending backed by investment-grade collateral as well. In mid-September, measures of financial stress spiked far above levels seen before or since (see here and here). And, the spillover to the real economy was rapid and dramatic, with the U.S. economy plunging that autumn at the fastest pace since quarterly reporting began in 1947.

In our view, three, interrelated policy responses proved critical in arresting the crisis and promoting recovery. First was the Fed’s aggressive monetary stimulus: after Lehman, within its mandate, the Fed did “whatever it took” to end the crisis. Second was the use of taxpayer resources—authorized by Congress—to recapitalize the U.S. financial system. And third, was the exceptional disclosure mechanism introduced by the Federal Reserve in early 2009—the first round of macroprudential stress tests known as the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP)—that neutralized the worst fears about U.S. banks.

In this post, we begin with a bit of background, highlighting the aggregate capital shortfall of the U.S. financial system as the source of the crisis. We then turn to the policy response. Because we have discussed unconventional monetary policy in some detail in previous posts (here and here), our focus here is on the stress tests (combined with recapitalization) as a central means for restoring confidence in the financial system….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets