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….

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.

Big Tech, Fintech, and the Future of Credit

Lenders want to know that borrowers will pay them back. That means assessing creditworthiness before making a loan and then monitoring borrowers to ensure timely payment in full. Lenders have three principal tools for raising the likelihood of that firms will repay. First, they look for borrowers with a sufficiently large personal stake in their enterprise. Second, they look for firms with collateral that lenders can seize in the event of a default. Third, they obtain information on the firm’s current balance sheet, its historical revenue and profits, experience with past loans, and the like.

Unfortunately, this conventional approach to overcoming the challenges of asymmetric information is less effective for new firms that have both very short credit histories and very little in the way of physical collateral. As a result, these potential borrowers have trouble obtaining funds through standard channels. This is one reason that governments subsidize small business lending, and why entrepreneurs are forced to pledge their homes as collateral.

Well, new solutions have emerged to overcome this old problem. In this post we discuss how technology is increasing small firms’ access to credit. By using massive amounts of data to improve credit assessments, as well as real-time information and platform advantages to enforce repayment terms, technology companies appear to be doing what traditional lenders have not: making loans to millions of small businesses at attractive rates and experiencing remarkably low default rates.

The biggest advances are in places where financial systems are not meeting social needs….

Where Governments Should Spend More

As a result of the pandemic, U.S. general government debt (federal, state, and local obligations combined) has surged above 130 percent of GDP, more than double what it was in 2007. And, recent U.S. experience is far from unique. Looking at the G20, average public debt rose from 52% of GDP in 2007 to 74% in 2019 and is projected to reach 91% next year.

Unsurprisingly, as government debt increases, the debate over public spending heats up. Are these high debt ratios sustainable? Should we be cutting spending and raising taxes to reduce what will otherwise be a large financial burden on future generations?

In this post, we emphasize that not all government spending is created equal. Investment in physical infrastructure, as well as in education and health—especially for children—can boost future GDP. Moreover, delaying inevitable outlays can boost long-run costs. As a result, a failure to make productive, self-financing investments due to concerns about the debt would be not only tragic, but counterproductive….

What's in store for r*?

It is amazing how things we once thought impossible, or at least extremely improbable, can become commonplace. Ten-year government bond yields in most of Europe and Japan are at or below zero. And, for U.S. Treasurys, the yield has been below 1 percent since March.

A confluence of factors has come together to deliver these incredibly low interest rates. Most importantly, inflation is far lower and much more stable than it was 30 years ago. Second, monetary policy remains extremely accommodative, with policy rates stuck around zero (or below!) for the past decade in Europe and Japan, and only temporarily higher in the United States. Third, the equilibrium (or natural) real interest rate (r*)—the rate consistent in the longer run with stable inflation and full employment—has fallen by roughly 2 percentage points since 2008 and is now only 0.5% or lower.

How long will this go on? What’s in store for r*? Focusing on the United States, in this post we discuss the large post-2007 decline in r* that followed a gradual downward trend in prior decades. After considering various possible explanations, we focus on the change in U.S. saving behavior. Around 2008, there was an abrupt increase in household savings relative to wealth and income. Combined with increased foreign demand for U.S. assets, this appears to be a key culprit behind the recent fall in r*.

We doubt that this will change anytime soon….

The Case of the Treasury Account at the Federal Reserve

Details of central bank balance sheets once were reserved for people who have a taste for policy minutiae. In fact, until 2008, monetary policy was entirely about interest rates, with quantities adjusting to meet the desired target. But, once interest rates neared their effective lower bound, things changed. When central banks introduced large-scale asset purchases, attention shifted to the overall size and composition of the balance sheet.

While it is surely important to consider the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings and lending, its liabilities are important as well. Here, analysts tend to focus on one of two things: some look at the path of commercial bank reserves, while others add currency in circulation to focus on the monetary base.

Rarely, however, does anyone (including us) look at the size of the U.S. Treasury account. In this post, we explain why we believe it is now quite important….

Setting Bank Capital Requirements

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….

An Economic Zombie Survival Guide

Everyone surely hopes that zombies will remain confined to the growing list of horror movies. But unless we shut them down, insolvent firms can become economic zombies that suffocate innovation and growth.

As the COVID pandemic continues, policymakers will face some difficult decisions. Many businesses are coming under increasingly severe financial stress. Some, like dry-cleaning establishments that rely on laundering clothing for office workers, have limited prospects even after the pandemic subsides. But there are others that have a bright post-COVID future if they can hold on long enough. Without a way to distinguish these two groups, we face an unpleasant choice of either creating zombies or allowing viable firms to perish.

In our view, the solution to this problem is to reinforce and modify the bankruptcy process. This means ensuring that there are sufficient resources to restructure the debts of those whose expected future profits exceed their liquidation value, while allowing the remainder to close. In the case of large corporations, we can make use of Chapter 11. For smaller firms, if it is not already too late, we need a low-cost mechanism more tailored to their needs.

In the remainder of this post, we discuss these two related issues: zombie firms and the use of bankruptcy procedures to identify and sustain viable firms.

Patience vs FAIT: Which is key in the new FOMC strategy?

The Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) policy strategy update incorporates two key changes. The first is a shift to flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT), while the second is a move to what we will call a patient shortfall strategy. FAIT represents a shift in the direction of price-level targeting in which the FOMC intends to make up for past inflation misses (see our previous post). As Fed Governor Brainard recently explained, the strategy of increased patience, embedded in language that focuses on employment “shortfalls” rather than “deviations,” reflects reduced willingness to act preemptively against inflation when the unemployment rate (u) declines below estimates of its sustainable level (call it u*).

The Committee will need to explain what these two changes mean for the determinants of policy—what we think of as their reaction function. For example, FAIT implies that the FOMC’s short-term inflation objective will change over time—possibly even from meeting to meeting. For the policy to have its intended impact of shifting inflation expectations, we all need to know the Fed’s inflation target. Similarly, having downgraded the role of the labor market as a predictor of inflation, the central bank will need to explain how it aims to control inflation going forward. While patience is the broad message, pointing to a more backward-looking approach to control, it seems likely that attention will shift to other inflation predictors. But again, if this shift is to have the intended impact on expectations, it is important that the Fed be clear about how it is forecasting inflation.

In this post, we compare the practical importance of these two strategic shifts. Our conclusion is that, while neither appears very large on average, the patient shortfall strategy looks to be the more important of the two….

The Fed's New Strategy: More Discretion, Less Preemption

On August 27, marking the conclusion of the Fed’s first strategic review, the Federal Open Market Committee released an amended version of their fundamental policy guide—the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. The FOMC adopted a form of flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT). Partly because the new strategy largely confirms recent Fed behavior, the response in financial markets was minimal. Indeed, market-based long-run inflation expectations were virtually unchanged this week. Perhaps the only noticeable development was a modest steepening at the very long end of the yield curve.

In this post, we identify three key factors motivating the Fed review and highlight three principal shifts in the FOMC’s strategy. In addition, we identify several critical questions that the FOMC will need to answer as it seeks to implement the new policy framework. Specifically, the shift to FAIT implies a change in the Committee’s reaction function. How does this reformulated objective influence the FOMC’s systematic response to changes in economic growth, unemployment, inflation and financial conditions? Under FAIT, the effective inflation target over the coming years also now depends on past inflation experience. What is that relationship?

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets