Fire sale

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 Task 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-30 Report 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….

Read More

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….

Read More

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.

Read More

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….

Read More

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….

Read More

Ten Years After Bear

Ten years ago this week, the run on Bear Stearns kicked off the second of three phases of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. In an earlier post, we argued that the crisis began in earnest on August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas suspended redemptions from three mutual funds invested in U.S. subprime mortgage debt. In that first phase of the crisis, the financial strains reflected a scramble for liquidity combined with doubts about the capital adequacy of a widening circle of intermediaries.

In responding to the run on Bear, the Federal Reserve transformed itself into a modern version of Bagehot’s lender of last resort (LOLR) directed at managing a pure liquidity crisis (see, for example, Madigan). Consequently, in the second phase of the GFC—in the period between Bear’s March 14 rescue and the September 15 failure of Lehman—the persistence of financial strains was, in our view, primarily an emerging solvency crisis. In the third phase, following Lehman’s collapse, the focus necessarily turned to recapitalization of the financial system—far beyond the role (or authority) of any LOLR.

In this post, we trace the evolution of the Federal Reserve during the period between Paribas and Bear, as it became a Bagehot LOLR. This sets the stage for a future analysis of the solvency issues that threatened to convert the GFC into another Great Depression.

Read More

A Primer on Securities Lending

Securities lending (SL) is one of the less-well-publicized shadow banking activities. Like repurchase agreements (repo) and asset-backed commercial paper, SL can be a source of very short-term wholesale funding, allowing a shadow bank to engage in the kind of liquidity, maturity and credit transformation that banks do. And, like other short-term funding sources, it can suddenly dry up, making it a source of systemic risk. When funding evaporates, fire sales and a credit crunch follow.

Indeed, SL played a supporting role in the 2007-09 financial crisis, being partly responsible for the collapse of the large insurance company AIG when the market seized in September 2008 (see chart). While SL has not garnered the attention of capital and liquidity regulation or central clearing, or even repo markets, it is still worth understanding what securities lending is and the risks it poses. That is the purpose of this post...

Read More

Brexit and Systemic Risk

“Is this a Lehman moment?”

In the days after the U.K. Brexit referendum, that was the leading question many people were asking. It is the right question. Unfortunately, despite years of regulatory reform in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the answer is: we don’t know. That is why policymakers are especially worried about heightened financial volatility in the aftermath of U.K. voters’ decision to leave the European Union....

Read More

Can Margin Requirements Improve Financial Resilience?

Eight years after the financial crisis began, the regulatory reforms it spawned continue apace. Over the past year, regulators introduced total loss absorbing capacity (TLAC) and the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) to make banks more resilient. And, with an eye toward strengthening market function, authorities continue to push for central clearing of derivatives (CCPs).

Overlapping with these goals—and extending to nonbanks—is the recent move to establish standards for margin requirements in securities transactions: that is, the maximum amount that someone can borrow when using a given security as collateral...

Read More

Narrow Banks Won't Stop Bank Runs 

Every financial crisis leads to a new call to restrict the activities of banks. One frequent response is to call for “narrow banks.” That is, change the legal and regulatory framework in a way that severely limits the assets that traditional deposit-taking banks can hold. One approach would require that all liabilities that are demandable at par be held in the form of deposits at the central bank. That is, accounts that can be withdrawn without notice and have fixed net asset value would face a 100% reserve requirement. The Depression-era “Chicago Plan” had this approach in mind.
Read More