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?

Average Inflation Targeting

The Federal Open Committee’s first-ever comprehensive monetary policy review looks to be coming to an end. Since the announcement on November 15, 2018, the Fed has focused on strategies, tools, and communications practices, and engaged the public through numerous Fed Listens events, including a conference at which invited experts proposed new approaches (see our earlier post). At its July meeting, the FOMC discussed potential changes to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy—the “foundation for the Committee’s policy actions”—with the aim of finalizing those changes soon. And, Chairman Powell is scheduled to speak this week about the “Monetary Policy Framework Review” at the annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.

Perhaps the most important issue on the review agenda is the FOMC’s inflation-targeting strategy. Since 2012, the FOMC has explicitly targeted an inflation rate of 2% (measured by the price index of personal consumption expenditures). A key objective of FOMC strategy is to anchor long-term inflation expectations, contributing not only to price stability, but also to “enhancing the Committee’s ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances.” Yet, since the start of 2012, PCE inflation has averaged only 1.3%, prompting many policymakers to worry that persistent shortfalls drive down expected inflation (see, for example, Williams). And, with the Fed’s policy rate now back down near zero, falling inflation expectations raise the expected real interest rate, tightening financial conditions and undermining policymakers’ efforts to drive up growth and inflation.

In this note, we discuss one alternative to the current approach that has gained wide attention: namely, average inflation targeting. The idea behind average inflation targeting is that, when inflation falls short of the target, it creates the expectation of higher inflation. And, should inflation exceed its target, then it would reduce inflation expectations. Even when the policy rate hits zero, the result is a countercyclical movement in real interest rates that enhances the effectiveness of conventional policy….

Making the Treasury Market Resilient

Ensuring financial stability requires resilient institutions. That is why regulators around the world have strengthened capital and liquidity requirements for the largest financial intermediaries since financial crisis of 2007-09.

Making financial markets resilient is equally important. Repeated and sustained bouts of illiquidity and dysfunctionality in a key market can threaten the well-being of even the healthiest institutions.

In a global financial system that runs on dollars, the most important financial market is the one for U.S. Treasury securities. Yet, despite its importance and general reliability, the Treasury market occasionally suffers from serious disruptions. The strains in the Treasury market during the first half of March 2020 became an important motivation for the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented anti-COVID policy actions beginning that month (see here, here and here).

In the remainder of this post, we describe the COVID-induced troubles in the Treasury market and highlight Duffie’s compelling proposal to consider requiring central clearing of U.S. Treasuries. We endorse Duffie’s call to study such a mandate, and view this is as an important element of a broader effort to modernize and reinforce the financial infrastructure….

Has the U.S. Distribution of Wealth Worsened?

Wealth inequality in the United States is obvious to everyone. The Federal Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) documents the glaring and persistent divide between rich and poor, confirming that ownership of financial and real assets in the United States has been highly concentrated for decades (see our earlier post). The most recent 2016 estimates suggest that the top 10% of the wealth distribution own nearly three-quarters of all marketable assets, with the top 1% owning more than half of that. And, Saez and Zucman (SZ) estimate that the U.S. distribution has been getting worse, with the top 1% share of marketable wealth rising by more than 10 full percentage points since 1989.

But, as Catherine, Miller and Sarin (CMS) recently highlight, adding in the present discounted value of Social Security benefits (net of taxes) to construct a more comprehensive measure of wealth alters these patterns. First, according to CMS’s estimates, the share of marketable wealth in total wealth has plunged by more than 18 percentage points since 1989. Second, over the past three decades, the top 1% share of total wealth has risen only modestly, while the share owned by the top 10% has declined somewhat.

In this post, we highlight the CMS results, and decompose their changes in total wealth shares into two parts: the changes in marketable and Social Security wealth shares accruing to each group, and the aggregate decline over time of marketable wealth as a share of total wealth. We show that the latter dominates the overall trend in this more comprehensive measure of inequality….

Cyber Risk, Financial Stability and the Payments System

Cyber risk remains at the top of the list of risks to the financial system, and the financial system is well known as the primary target for hackers (see here, here and here). In response, financial institutions expend huge resources on protecting their information systems—by one estimate, well over $100 billion. Yet, private sector actions to prevent cyber losses fall short due to a glaring externality: since the damage is likely to spill over to other financial firms and to markets, individual firms cannot reap the full benefits of preventing cyber attacks.

To get a sense of the financial stability risks associated with cyber fragility, we need to understand the financial system in some detail. Unfortunately, financial networks are highly complex and vary significantly across markets and functions. They also evolve meaningfully over time. On top of these enormous challenges, assessing network vulnerabilities frequently requires institution- or transactions-level information that is normally not publicly available.

This brings us to the important recent work of Eisenbach, Kovner and Lee (EKL), who study the vulnerability of the U.S. large-value interbank payments system, Fedwire, to a cyber attack on one of the principal nodes of the payments network—namely, one of the top five banks. In this post, we highlight EKL’s analysis as a model for the assessment of cyber-driven network risks. We suggest how central bankers should react to a cyber attack on the payments system, and speculate about what is needed to prevent, as well as mitigate, cyber risks….

Just Vote NO

On Tuesday, July 21, the Senate Banking Committee will vote on whether to support Dr. Judy Shelton’s nomination to join the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Accordingly, we are re-posting our July 2019 commentary in which we outlined our strong opposition to Dr. Shelton’s candidacy.

In our view, over the past year, the case against Dr. Shelton has strengthened. The Federal Reserve’s speedy and decisive response to the COVID pandemic is a key reason that the U.S. financial system has steadied and the economy quickly began to recover from the worst shock since the 1930s. Had the United States been operating on a gold standard, as Dr. Shelton has long advocated, these Fed actions would not have been feasible.

Indeed, under a gold standard, instead of easing forcefully and committing to sustained accommodation, the central bank would have been obliged to tighten policy in an effort to resist the 19-percent rise of the gold price since the end of 2019. Just as it did in the Great Depression, this policy would have led us down a path of financial crisis and economic disaster (see our earlier posts here and here).

We hope that the Senate Banking Committee will vote down Dr. Shelton’s candidacy and send a determined message that unambiguously backs the Federal Reserve’s commitment to use every means at its disposal―zero interest rates, large-scale asset purchases, and broad lending programs―to restore economic prosperity and maintain price stability. Barring outright rejection, the Committee should at least move to hold an additional hearing on this nomination, as the Committee minority has proposed….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets