Climate Finance

Climate change is the topic of the day. The World Meteorological Organization tells us that the 2011-20 decade was the warmest on record. Earlier this year, the U.S. government re-joined the Paris Accord, and is proposing a range of new programs to mitigate the long-run impact of climate change. Now that a warming planet has made the Arctic increasingly navigable, national security specialists are concerned about geopolitical risks there. Thousands of economists have endorsed a carbon tax. Even central banks have joined together to form the Network for the Greening of the Financial System—a forum to discuss how to take account of climate change in assessing financial stability.

Against that background, last month, NYU Stern’s Volatility and Risk Institute (VRI) held a conference on finance and climate change. Speakers addressed issues ranging from the modeling and measurement of climate risk in finance to assessing its impact on the resilience of the financial system. In this post, we primarily focus on one of the central challenges facing policymakers and practitioners: what is the appropriate discount rate for evaluating the relative costs and benefits of investments in climate change mitigation that will not pay off for decades? We also comment briefly on several other issues in the rapidly growing field of climate finance research.

Past responses to the discount-rate question vary widely. Some observers call for a discount rate matching the high expected return on long-lived, risky assets—a number as high as 7%. This would imply a very low present value of benefits from investments to mitigate climate change, consistent with only modest current expenditures. Others postulate that climate change could lead to the extinction of humanity. For plausible discount rates, the specter of a nearly infinite loss means that virtually any level of mitigation investment is warranted (see, for example, Holt).

Recent climate finance research that we summarize here comes to the conclusion that over any reasonable horizon, the appropriate discount rate for computing the net present value of investments in climate change mitigation should be relatively low….

Inflation: Don't Worry, Be Prepared

Everyone seems to be worried about inflation (see here and here). People also are concerned that the rising media salience of inflation could raise inflation expectations, leading to a sustained rise in inflation itself.

April price readings certainly boosted these worries: the conventional measure of core inflation—the CPI excluding food and energy—rose by nearly 3% from a year ago, the biggest gain since 1995. Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida summed up the nearly universal reaction when he said: “I was surprised. This number was well above what I and outside forecasters expected.”

The experience of the high-inflation 1970s makes people prone to worrying about such things. Our reaction is different. After all, worry alone is not going to prevent a sustained pickup of inflation. Only credible anti-inflationary monetary policy can do that. To ensure that inflation expectations remain low, it is up to the central bank to make sure everyone understands how policy will respond if the latest elevated inflation readings prove to be more than temporary. As we have written before, the key is effective communications, not premature action….

Optimal Settlement Speed

Over the past year, a series of events has shifted the attention of both experts and laypersons to the arcane processes that support trading and settlement in the U.S. securities markets. The massive volume of U.S. Treasury sales in March 2020 at the start of the COVID crisis boosted liquidity needs at precisely the time when resources were scarce, overwhelming the over-the-counter trading system and compelling unprecedented Fed interventions (see our earlier post). Similarly, the late-January 2021 episode involving extraordinary activity in GameStop, in large part through Robinhood (the broker-dealer), highlighted how a surge in equities trading volume can concentrate counterparty risk and trigger a jump in liquidity needs to settle those trades (see our earlier post). After filling the news for weeks, the equity market turmoil triggered Congressional hearings (see here and here).

In an effort to reduce both counterparty risk and liquidity needs, a number of observers are focusing on shortening the settlement period. Officials at the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) are calling on the industry to halve the equities settlement period from two days (T+2) to one (T+1) by 2023. Others have called for far faster clearing, including nearly instant settlement (see here).

Times like these lead us to ask: how can we improve the efficiency and safety of the financial plumbing? We see plenty of room for progress in speeding settlement, thereby reducing both risk and liquidity needs during periods of stress. However, we also think that things can go too far (or too fast). In particular, we are deeply skeptical of calls for real-time settlement (T+0) for securities or foreign exchange transactions. In this post, we suggest why the optimal settlement period for some financial transactions is not zero….

Steve Cecchetti and Kim SchoenholtzMay 3, 2021

Stopping central banks from being prisoners of financial markets

Central banks are on the front lines in the fight to limit the impact of the pandemic. They are supporting virtually every aspect of the economy and the financial system. Combined with the massive fiscal support, these policies restored market stability, safeguarded financial institutions, and reduced suffering. Count us among those who firmly believe that everyone would be in worse shape had central banks and fiscal authorities not coordinated this aid as they did.

But, by providing such a broad backstop, the reliance of financial markets on that support can itself become a source of instability. This raises a set of very important and pressing questions: Have central banks’ actions over the past year made financial markets their masters? Can policymakers now be counted on to suppress financial volatility wherever it arises?

We surely hope not, but we see this as a legitimate concern. Fortunately, we also see a solution. Central bankers should strive to duplicate the success of their framework for interest rate policy. That is, they should be clear and transparent about their reaction function for all their policy tools. Knowing how policy will react, markets will respond directly to news regarding economic conditions, and less to policymakers’ commentary. Of course, central bankers cannot ignore shocks that threaten economic and price stability. But cushioning the economy against large financial disturbances does not mean minimizing market volatility….

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….

Limiting Central Banking

Since 2007, and especially over the past year, actions of public officials have blurred the lines between monetary and fiscal policy almost beyond recognition. Central banks have expanded both the scope and scale of their interventions in unprecedented fashion. This fiscalization risks central bank independence, thereby weakening policymakers’ ability to deliver on their mandates for price and financial stability. In our view, to find a way to back to the pre-2008 division of responsibilities, officials must establish clearer limits on what central banks can and cannot do.

In that division of official labor, it is fiscal authorities that ought to make the unavoidably political choices that directly influence resource allocation. And governments should not conceal such fiscal actions on the balance sheet of the central bank. In a democracy, doing so lacks legitimacy and would become unsustainable….

Is Inflation Coming?

For more than a generation, the U.S. inflation-targeting framework has delivered impressive results. From 1995 to 2007, U.S. inflation averaged 2.1% (as measured by the Federal Reserve’s preferred index). Since 2008, average inflation dropped to only 1.5%, but expectations have fluctuated in a narrow range: for example, the market-based five-year, five-year forward (CPI) inflation expectation rarely dipped below 1.5% and never exceeded 3%.

However, the pandemic brought with it many dramatic changes. Fiscal and monetary policy mobilized, responding swiftly to the economic plunge with a combination of extraordinary debt-financed expenditure and balance sheet expansion. As a matter of accounting and arithmetic, these actions have had a profound impact on the balance sheets of banks and households, spurring dramatic growth in traditional monetary aggregates. From the end of February to the end of May 2020, broad money (M2) grew from $15.5 trillion to $17.9 trillion—a 16% jump in just three months.

Won’t the record 2020 gain in M2 be highly inflationary? We doubt it, and in this post we explain why. At the same time, we highlight the chronic uncertainty that plagues inflation. In our view, the difficulty in forecasting inflation makes it important that the Fed routinely communicate how it will react to inflation surprises—even when, as now, policymakers wish to promote extremely accommodative financial conditions….

GameStop: Some Preliminary Lessons

Volatility in the stock market is not new. But, even if one takes a broad perspective, the recent experience with GameStop is extraordinary. As we write, the story is far from over, with several U.S. stocks—like GameStop, AMC Entertainment and Express—still on something of a wild ride. The Securities and Exchange Commission seems poised to investigate. And, members of Congress are planning to hold hearings. We don’t have any particular insights into how or when this will end. That is, except to say that history teaches us that episodes like this typically end badly.

Since this is an unusual post, we begin with a very clear disclaimer: nothing in this blog should be construed either as investment advice or legal advice.

In our view, we can already draw three big lessons from the equity market events of the past week. The first is about how narratives and the limits to arbitrage can lead to unsustainable asset price booms. Second, short sellers are important for the efficiency of asset pricing and the allocation of capital. Moreover, with the ongoing rise of passive index investing, their potential role in keeping the U.S. equity market efficient will become more, not less, salient. Third, to keep the financial system safe and resilient, it is essential that clearing firms maintain sufficiently stringent margin and collateral requirements even if, on occasion, it limits a broker’s ability to implement trades for its clients….

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.

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets