Reforming the Federal Home Loan Bank System

We authored this post jointly with our friend and colleague, Lawrence J. White, Robert Kavesh Professor of Economics at the NYU Stern School of Business.

Some government financial institutions strengthen the system; others do not. In the United States, as the lender of last resort (LOLR), the Federal Reserve plays a critical role in stabilizing the financial system. Unfortunately, their LOLR job is made harder by the presence of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system—a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that acts as a lender of next-to-last resort, keeping failing institutions alive and increasing the ultimate costs of their resolution.

We saw this dangerous pattern clearly over the past year when loans (“advances”) from Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) helped postpone the inevitable regulatory reckoning for Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank (see Cecchetti, Schoenholtz and White, Chapter 9 in Acharya et. al. SVB and Beyond: The Banking Stress of 2023).

From a public policy perspective, FHLB advances have extremely undesirable properties. First, in addition to being overcollateralized, these loans are senior to other claims on the borrowing banks—including those of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve: If the borrower defaults, the FHLB lender has a “super-lien.” Second, there is little timely disclosure about the identity of the borrowers or the amount that they borrow. Third, they are willing to provide speedy, low-cost funding to failing institutions—something we assume private lenders would not do.

In this post, we make specific proposals to scale back the FHLB System’s ability to serve as a lender to stressed banks….

The Future of Deposit Insurance

This post is authored jointly with our friend and colleague, Thomas Philippon, Max L. Heine Professor of Finance at the NYU Stern School of Business

Deposit insurance is a key regulatory tool for limiting bank runs and panics. In the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has insured bank deposits since 1934. FDIC-insured deposits are protected by a credible government guarantee, so there is little incentive to run.

However, deposit insurance creates moral hazard. By eliminating the incentive of depositors to monitor their banks, it encourages bank managers to rely on low-cost insured deposits to fund risky activities. In the extreme, with 100% deposit insurance coverage, banks would have virtually no incentive to issue equity or debt.

Against this background, and in light of the events of March-April 2023, we ask what is to be done about deposit insurance. To prevent bank runs, should there be an increase in the legal limit? If so, how can authorities balance the costs of runs and panics against the costs associated with moral hazard, while keeping in mind the potential financial burden on the public? Or, are there alternatives?

We emphasize three promising ways to enhance deposit insurance: a higher insurance cap for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), new resolution rules, and the option to purchase supplementary deposit insurance. In addition, and as regular readers of this blog might expect, we also think that higher capital requirements should be part of the solution: if we require that banks increase the degree to which they finance their assets with capital (rather than deposits), the risk of runs and panics would decline even without raising the cap on deposit insurance….

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.

Bank Runs and Panics: A Primer

A bank promises its clients immediate access to cash. Depositors can redeem their funds on demand at face value—first come, first served. Other short-term creditors can do the same, albeit at varying speeds, by not rolling over their loans. And, households and firms that pay a fee for a credit commitment can take down their loans at will.

For banks that hold illiquid assets, these promises of liquidity on demand are the key source of vulnerability. The same applies to other financial institutions (de facto or shadow banks) that perform bank-like services, using their balance sheets to transform illiquid, longer-maturity, risky assets into liquid, short-maturity, low-risk liabilities.

A bank run occurs when depositors wish to make a large volume of withdrawals all at once. A bank that cannot meet this sudden demand fails. Even solvent banks—those whose assets exceed the value of their liabilities—fail if they cannot convert their assets into cash rapidly enough (and with minimal loss) to satisfy their clients’ demands. A banking panic is the plural of a bank run: when clients run on multiple banks. We call the spread of runs from one bank to others contagion—the same term used to describe the spread of a biological pathogen.

In this primer, we characterize the sources of bank runs and panics, as well as the tools we use to prevent or mitigate them….

Money Funds -- The Empire Strikes Back?

Shortly after Lehman failed in 2008, investors began to flee from money market mutual funds (MMMFs). To halt the run, the U.S. Treasury guaranteed all $3.8 trillion in outstanding MMMF liabilities. That rescue created enduring moral hazard: the expectation that a future crisis will lead to another bailout.

Aside from their legal form as mutual funds, MMMFs functioned much like banks engaged in the transformation of liquidity, credit and (to some extent) maturity. Similar to banks that redeem deposits at face value, they promised investors a fixed share value of $1 (a “buck”) on demand. Unlike depositories, however, MMMFs had no capital, no deposit insurance, and—at least officially—no access to the lender of last resort. So, when the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck” (by failing to redeem at the $1 par value) in September 2008, MMMF investors panicked.

Somewhat surprisingly, it took until 2014 for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to resolve political conflicts and introduce significant rule changes for MMMFs (see our earlier posts here and here). The SEC now requires that institutional prime MMMFs—which (like Reserve Primary) frequently invest in short-term corporate liabilities—operate like other mutual funds with a floating net asset value (NAV). The same rule applies to institutional municipal MMMFs. Retail MMMFs, as well as those investing in federal government (and agency) securities, are exempt.

In light of a recent legislative proposal to water it down, in this post we review the impact of the SEC’s 2014 reform. To highlight our conclusions: (1) it did not go far enough to reduce run risk; (2) aside from temporary dislocations, it has not raised nonfinancial sector funding costs by more than would be accounted for by reducing the implicit taxpayer guarantee for MMMFs; and (3) reversing the floating-NAV requirement would weaken the safety of the U.S. financial system....

China: Deleveraging is Hard to Do

For the first time in nearly three decades, Moody’s recently downgraded the long-term sovereign debt of China, lowering its rating from Aa3 to A1. As is frequently true in such cases, the adjustment was overdue. Since China’s massive fiscal stimulus in 2008, the government has experienced a surge in contingent liabilities, as its (implicit and explicit) guarantees fueled an extraordinary credit boom that continues today.

While the need to foster financial discipline is obvious, the process will be precarious. Ning Zhu, the author of China’s Guaranteed Bubble, has compared the scaling back of state guarantees to defusing a bomb. China’s guarantees have distorted incentives and risk taking for so many years that stepping back and allowing market forces to operate will inevitably impose large, unanticipated losses on many people and businesses. Financial history is replete with failed policy efforts to address credit-fueled asset price booms, such as the current one in China’s real estate. There is no safe mechanism for economy-wide deleveraging.

China’s policymakers are clearly aware of the dangers they face and are making serious efforts to address them. This year, authorities have initiated a new crackdown aimed at reducing the systemic risks that have been stoked by the credit boom. This post focuses on that policy effort, including the background causes and what will be needed (aside from good fortune) to make it work....

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets