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.
Bank capital requirements are the focus of contentious and heated debates. Since they limit banks’ ability to take on risk and leverage, owners and managers almost always argue for lowering them. To reduce the likelihood of using public funds for further bailouts, both libertarians and progressives argue strenuously that they should be higher. Focusing on the balance between the social benefits of a more resilient financial system and the social costs of curtailing liquidity and loan provision, academicians usually conclude that current levels are too low. So, with well-financed banks and their lobbyists on one side, and a cohort of advocates armed with academic research on the other, regulators are caught in the middle. To whom should they listen?
The answer to this question is an empirical one, so it is important to base any conclusions on a fair and balanced reading of the evidence. Regular readers of this blog will be unsurprised that we continue to maintain that bank capital requirements should be higher than they were even before the Federal Reserve started began its stealth campaign to relax them several years ago. If we were to pick a number, we would start with a leverage ratio—the ratio of common equity to total assets (including off-balance sheet exposures)—that is in the range of 10 to 15 percent, and possibly higher. The risk-weighted equivalent would be about twice as high in the United States (or three times as high in Europe). (The exact numbers depend on the intricacies of accounting standards.) The one thing we would not be arguing for is a further erosion of capital requirements from their current level.
We start with a short reminder about why we need capital requirements in the first place….
