Federal Reserve Archives

What Can Explain the Tale of Two FX Swap Rates in the Offshore Dollar Funding Market?

This Piece is part of the Stable Funding Series, by Elham Saeidinezhad

Mary Stigum once said, “Don’t fight the Fed!” There is perhaps no better advice that someone can give to an investor than to heed these words.

After the COVID-19 crisis, most aspects of the dollar funding market have shown some bizarre developments. In particular, the LIBOR-OIS spread, which used to be the primary measure of the cost of dollar funding globally, is losing its relevance. This spread has been sidelined by the strong bond between the rivals, namely CP/CD ratio and the FX swap basis. The problem is that such a switch, if proved to be premature, could create uncertainty, rather than stability, in the financial market. The COVID-19 crisis has already mystified the relationship between these two key dollar funding rates – CP/CD and FX swap basis- in at least two ways. First, even though they should logically track each other tightly according to the arbitrage conditions, they diverged markedly during the pandemic episode. Second, an unusual anomaly had emerged in the FX swap markets, when the market signaled a US dollar premium and discount simultaneously. For the scholars of Money View, these so-called anomalies are a legitimate child of the modern international monetary system where agents are disciplined, or rewarded, based on their position in the hierarchy. This hierarchy is created by the hand of God, aka the Fed, whose impact on nearly all financial assets and the money market, in particular, is so unmistakable. In this monetary system, a Darwinian inequality, which is determined by how close a country is to the sole issuer of the US dollar, the Fed, is an inherent quality of the system.

Most of these developments ultimately have their roots in dislocations in the banking system. At the heart of the issue is that a decade after the GFC, the private US Banks are still pulling back from supplying offshore dollar funding. Banks’ reluctance to lend has widened the LIBOR-OIS spread and made the Eurodollar market less attractive. Money market funds are filling the void and becoming the leading providers of dollar funding globally. Consequently, the CP/CD ratio, which measures the cost of borrowing from money market funds, has replaced a bank-centric, LIBOR-OIS spread and has become one of the primary indicators of offshore dollar funding costs.

The market for offshore dollar funding is also facing displacements on the demand side. International investors, including non-US banks, appear to utilize the FX swap market as the primary source of raising dollar funding. Traditionally, the bank-centric market for Eurodollar deposits was the one-stop-shop for these investors. Such a switch has made the FX swap basis, or “the basis,” another significant thermometer for calculating the cost of global dollar funding. This piece shows that this shift of reliance from banks to market-based finance to obtain dollar funding has created odd trends in the dollar funding costs.

Further, in the world of market-based finance, channeling dollars to non-banks is not straightforward as unlike banks, non-banks are not allowed to transact directly with the central bank. Even though the Fed started such a direct relationship through Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility or MMLF, the pandemic revealed that there are attendant difficulties, both in principle and in practice. Banks’ defiance to be stable providers of the dollar funding has created such irregularities in this market and difficulties for the central bankers.

The first peculiar trend in the global dollar funding is that the FX swap basis has continuously remained non-zero after the pandemic, defying the arbitrage condition. The FX swap basis is the difference between the dollar interest rate in the money market and the implied dollar interest rate from the FX swap market where someone borrows dollars by pledging another currency collateral. Arbitrage suggests that any differences between these two rates should be short-lived as there is always an arbitrageur, usually a carry trader, inclined to borrow from the market that offers a low rate and lend in the other market, where the rate is high. The carry trader will earn a nearly risk-free rate in the process. A negative (positive) basis means that borrowing dollars through FX swaps is more expensive (cheaper) than borrowing in the dollar money market.

Even so, the most significant irregularity in the FX swap markets had emerged when the market signaled a US dollar premium and a discount simultaneously. The key to deciphering this complexity is to carefully examine the two interest rates that anchor FX swap pricing. The first component of the FX swap basis reflects the cost of raising dollar funding directly from the banks. In the international monetary system, not all banks are created equal. For the US banks who have direct access to the Fed’s liquidity facilities and a few other high-powered non-US banks, whose national central banks have swap lines with the Fed, the borrowing cost is close to a risk-free interest rate (OIS). At the same time, other non-US banks who do not have any access to the central bank’s dollar liquidity facilities should borrow from the unsecured Eurodollar market, and pay a higher rate, called LIBOR.

As a result, for corporations that do not have credit lines with the banks that are at the top of the hierarchy, borrowing from the banking system might be more expensive than the FX swap market. For these countries, the US dollar trades at a discount in the FX swap market. Contrarily, when banks finance their dollar lending activities at a risk-free rate, the OIS rate, borrowing from banks might be less more expensive for the firms. In this case, the US dollar trades at a premium in the FX swap market. To sum up, how connected, or disconnected, a country’s banking system is to the sole issuer of the dollar, i.e., the Fed, partially determines whether the US dollar funding is cheaper in the money market or the FX swap market.

The other crucial interest rate that anchors FX swap pricing and is at the heart of this anomaly in the FX swap market is the “implied US dollar interest rate in the FX swap market.” This implied rate, as the name suggests, reflects the cost of obtaining dollar funding indirectly. In this case, the firms initially issue non-bank domestic money market instruments, such as commercial papers (CP) or certificates of deposits (CDs), to raise national currency and convert the proceeds to the US dollar. Commercial paper (CP) is a form of short-term unsecured debt commonly issued by banks and non-financial corporations and primarily held by prime money market funds (MMFs). Similarly, certificates of deposit (CDs) are unsecured debt instruments issued by banks and largely held by non-bank investors, including prime MMFs. Both instruments are important sources of funding for international firms, including non-US banks. The economic justification of this approach highly depends on the active presence of Money Market Funds (MMFs), and their ability and willingness, to purchase short-term money market instruments, such as CPs or CDs.

To elaborate on this point, let’s use an example. Let us assume that a Japanese firm wants to raise $750 million. The first strategy is to borrow dollars directly from a Japanese bank that has access to the global dollar funding market. Another competing strategy is to raise this money by issuing yen-denominated commercial paper, and then use those yens as collateral, and swap them for fixed-rate dollars of the same term. The latter approach is only economically viable if there are prime MMFs that are able and willing, to purchase that CP, or CD, that are issued by that firm, at a desirable rate. It also depends on FX swap dealers’ ability and willingness to use its balance sheet to find a party wanting to do the flip side of this swap. If for any reason these prime MMFs decide to withdraw from the CP or CD market, which has been the case after the COVID-19 crisis, then the cost of choosing this strategy to raise dollar funding is unequivocally high for this Japanese firm. This implies that the disruptions in the CP/CD markets, caused by the inability of the MMFs to be the major buyer in these markets, echo globally via the FX swap market.

On the other hand, if prime MMFs continue to supply liquidity by purchasing CPs, raising dollar funding indirectly via the FX swap market becomes an economically attractive solution for our Japanese firm. This is especially true when the regional banks cannot finance their offshore dollar lending activities at the OIS rate and ask for higher rates. In this case, rather than directly going to a bank, a borrower might raise national currency by issuing CP and swap the national currency into fixed-rate dollars in the FX swap market. Quite the contrary, if issuing short-term money market instruments in the domestic financial market is expensive, due to the withdrawal of MMFs from this market, for instance, the investors in that particular region might find the banking system the only viable option to obtain dollar funding even when the bank rates are high. For such countries, the high cost of bank-lending, and the shortage of bank-centric dollar funding, is an essential threat to the monetary stability of the firms, and the domestic monetary system as a whole.

After the COVID-19 crisis, it is like a tug of war emerged between OIS rates and the LIBORs as to which type of interest rate that anchor FX swap pricing. Following the pandemic, the LIBOR-OIS spread widened significantly and this war was intensified. Money View declares the winner, even before the war ends, to be the bankers, and non-bankers, who have direct, or at least secure path to the Fed’s balance sheet. Marcy Stigum, in her seminal book, made it clear not to fight the Fed and emphasized the powerful role of the Federal Reserve in the monetary system! Time and time again, investors have learned that it is fruitless to ignore the Fed’s powerful influence. Yet, some authors put little effort into trying to gain a better understanding of this powerful institution. They see the Fed as too complex, secretive, and mysterious to be readily understood. This list of scholars does not include Money View scholars. In the Money View framework, the US banks that have access to the Fed’s balance sheet are at the highest layer of the private banking hierarchy. Following them are a few non-US banks that have indirect access to the Fed’s swap lines through their national central bank. For the rest of the world, having access to the world reserve currency only depends on the mercy of the Gods.

Elham Saeidinezhad is lecturer in Economics at UCLA. Before joining the Economics Department at UCLA, she was a research economist in International Finance and Macroeconomics research group at Milken Institute, Santa Monica, where she investigated the post-crisis structural changes in the capital market as a result of macroprudential regulations. Before that, she was a postdoctoral fellow at INET, working closely with Prof. Perry Mehrling and studying his “Money View”. Elham obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Sheffield, UK, in empirical Macroeconomics in 2013. You may contact Elham via the Young Scholars Directory

Not such a Great Equalizer after all

Because it has no regard for borders, the coronavirus has been referred to as the Great Equalizer. But its impact is not equal by any stretch of the imagination. While China, Europe, and Northern America may recover relatively fast, emerging market economies are less resilient. The combined health, economic, and financial tolls they now endure may cause them to face the greatest recession in decades.

By Jack Gao | When COVID-19 hit, China’s strong state and centralized public administration allowed it to suppress the domestic spread. In Europe, welfare systems and appropriate policy responses made sure workers have less to worry about when economies reopen. The United States (despite Trump’s handling leaving much to be desired) enjoys a unique status of its own. The American economy and “exorbitant privilege” of the US dollar mean that policy responses can be put forth in short order, and with relatively few negative repercussions. For most emerging market economies, however, none of this can be taken for granted. The coronavirus is shaping up to be the “perfect storm” that many feared. It could sink the developing world into a deep economic recession.

No Doctors and No Food

Let’s start with public health. While the increase of new deaths in the epicenters—US, UK, Italy, Spain—appears to be slowing, the virus rages on in major developing nations. Russia, India, Mexico, and Brazil continue to report well above a thousand new daily deaths, and many of them are still on an upward trajectory. In India, a brief relaxation of the lockdown was met with a jump in deaths, underscoring that the fight to contain the virus will be an uphill battle.

Although health systems are being tested everywhere, the ones in developing countries were already under strain before COVID-19 reared its head. For example, the average number of health workers per 1000 people in OCED countries is 12.3. In the African region, this ratio is only 1.4.

As if the health crisis is not crushing enough, the United Nations warns of a “hunger pandemic” as an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year, with the vast majority of them in developing countries. The coronavirus may cross borders easily, but the suffering it causes is not equal across countries.

Locked Down and Out of Work

If the human toll of the pandemic is appalling, the economic damages to countries are unprecedented as well, as countries implement lockdown and “social distancing” to combat the virus. In the latest World Economic Outlook growth projections by the IMF, emerging market economies as a whole are expected to contract 1% this year, for the first time since the Great Depression. Literally all developing countries may be in economic decline as a result of COVID-19, with India and China eking out paltry growth. Still, these headline numbers mask the true extent of economic hardship.

Take working from home, for example. Economists have documented a clear relationship between the share of jobs that can be done at home and the national income level. In a developed country like the United States, some 37 percent of jobs can be performed at home—education, finance and IT being at the top of the scale. In some developing economies, less than 10 percent of jobs can be done remotely.

On top of all this, global remittances are collapsing. The amount of money transferred to migrants’ home countries may fall by 20 percent as workers see dwindling employment. This is terrible news for countries like Lesotho, where remittances are as much as 16% of GDP.

Where’d the money go?

The global financial system exacerbates these struggles with its core and periphery topology. During good times, foreign capital flows into emerging markets, looking for higher yields. But in bad times, when that capital is needed most, it swiftly disappears. This dynamic is now on full display. As investors started to realize the true scale of the pandemic and major central banks initiated new rounds of monetary easing, emerging economies saw capital flight as investors rushed to safer assets. An estimated 100 billion portfolio dollars fled emerging markets in the first quarter alone.

In the face of such severe dollar shortages and liquidity crunch in developing countries, the Federal Reserve had to expand central bank liquidity swaps and launch a new lending facility to come to the rescue. The impact of such international measures is still an open question. But with currency depreciation, higher borrowing costs, declining official reserves, and falling commodity prices, it appears that the financial stress emerging economies are under may be difficult to reverse.

The Triple Whammy

This way, developing countries face a health-blow, and economic-blow, and a financial-blow, all at once. An emerging market economy faced with just one of those would have resulted in a crisis. But amid COVID-19, all emerging economies were are confronted with all three crises at the same time. The damage done by this “triple whammy” could plague the developing world for years to come.

Jack Gao is a Program Economist at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. He is interested in international economics and finance, energy policy, economic development, and the Chinese economy. He previously worked in financial product and data departments in Bloomberg Singapore, and reported on Asian financial markets in Bloomberg News from Shanghai. Jack holds a MPA in International Development from Harvard Kennedy School, and a B.S. in Economics from Singapore Management University. He has published articles on China Policy Review and Harvard Kennedy School Review.

Why Does “Solvency” Rule in Derivatives Trading?

Hint: It Should Not

By Elham Saeidinezhad | The unprecedented increase in the Fed’s involvement since the COVID-19 has affected how financial markets function. The Fed has supported most corners of the financial market in an astonishingly short period. In the meantime, there have been growing anxieties that the Fed has not used its arsenals to help the derivatives market yet. To calm market sentiment, on March 27, 2020, regulatory agencies, led by the Fed, have taken steps to support market liquidity in the derivatives market by easing capital requirements for counterparties- typically banks who act as dealers. The agencies permit these firms to use a more indulgent methodology when measuring credit risk derivatives to account for the post-COVID-19 crisis credit loss. The goal is to encourage the provision of counterparty services to institutional hedgers while preventing dealers that are marginally solvent from becoming insolvent as a result of the increased counterparty credit exposure.

These are the facts, but how shall we understand them? These accommodative rulings reveal that from the Fed’s perspective, the primary function of derivatives contracts is a store of value. As stores of value, financial instruments are a form of long-term investment that is thought to be better than money. Over time, they generate increases in wealth that, on average, exceed those we can obtain from holding cash in most of its forms. If the value of these long-term assets falls, the primary threat to financial stability is an insolvency crisis. The insolvency crisis happens when the balance sheet is not symmetrical: the side that shows what the banks own, the Assets, is less valuable than Liabilities and Equity (i.e. banks’ capital). From the Fed’s point of view, this fearful asymmetry is the principal catastrophe that can happen due to current surge in the counterparty credit risk.

From the Money View perspective, what is most troubling about this entire debate, is the unrelenting emphasis on solvency, not liquidity, and the following implicit assumption of efficient markets. The underlying cause of this bias is dismissing the other two inherent functions of derivatives, which are means of payment and means of transferring risk. This is not an accident but rather a byproduct of dealer-free models that are based on the premises of the efficient market hypothesis. Standard asset pricing models consider derivative contracts as financial assets that in the future, can generate cash flows. Derivatives’ prices are equal to their “fundamental value,” which is the present value of these future cash flows. In this dealer-free world, the present is too short to have any time value and the current deviation of price from the fundamental value only indicates potential market dislocations. On the contrary, from a dealer-centric point of view, such as the Money View, daily price changes can be fatal as they may call into question how smoothly US dollar funding conditions are. In other words, short-term fluctuations in derivative prices are not merely temporary market dislocations. Rather, they show the state of dealers’ balance sheet capacities and their access to liquidity.

To keep us focused on liquidity, we start by Fischer Black and his revolutionary idea of finance and then turn to the Money View. From Fischer Black’s perspective, a financial asset, such as a long-term corporate bond, could be sold as at least three separate instruments. The asset itself can be used as collateral to provide the necessary funding liquidity. The other instrument is interest rate swaps (IRS) that would shift the interest rate risk. The third instrument is a credit default swap (CDS) that would transfer the risk of default from the issuer of the derivative to the derivative holder. Importantly, although most derivatives do not require any initial payment, investors must post margin daily to protect the counterparties from the price risk. For Fischer Black, the key to understanding a credit derivative is that it is the price of insurance on risky assets and is one of the determinants of the asset prices. Therefore, derivatives are instrumental to the success of the Fed’s interventions; to make the financial system work smoothly, there should be a robust mechanism for shifting both assets and the risks. By focusing on transferring risks and intra-day liquidity requirements, Fischer Black’s understanding of the derivatives market already echoes the premises of modern finance more than the Fed’s does.

Money View starts where Fischer Black ended and extends his ideas to complete the big picture. Fischer Black considers derivatives chiefly as instruments for transferring risk. Money View, on the other hand, recognizes that there is hybridity between risk transfer and means of payment capacities of the derivatives. Further, the Money View uses analytical tools, such as balance sheet and Treynor’s Model, to shed new light on asset prices and derivatives. Using the Treynor Model of the economics of dealers’ function, this framework shows that asset prices are determined by the dealers’ inventory positions as well as their access to funding liquidity. Using balance sheets to translate derivatives, and their cash flow patterns, into parallel loans, the Money View demonstrates that the derivatives’ main role is cash flow management. In other words, derivatives’ primary function is to ensure that firms can continuously meet their survival constraint, both now and in the future.

The parallel loan construction treats derivatives, such as a CDS, as a swap of IOUs. The issuer of the derivatives makes periodic payments, as a kind of insurance premium, to the derivative dealers, who have long positions in those derivatives, whenever the debt issuer, makes periodic interest payment. The time pattern of the derivatives holders’ payments is the mirror image and the inverse of the debtors. This creates a counterparty risk for derivatives dealers. If the debtor defaults, the derivatives dealers face a loss as they must pay the liquidation value of the bond. Compared to the small periodic payments, the liquidation value is significant as it is equal to the face value. The recent announcements by the Fed and other regulatory agencies allow derivatives holders, especially banks and investment banks, to use a more relaxed approach when measuring counterparty credit risk and keep less capital against such losses. Regulators’ primary concern is to uphold the value of banks’ assets to cement their solvent status.

Yet, from the point of view of the derivatives dealers who are sellers of these insurances, liquidity is the leading concern. It is possible to create portfolios of such swaps, which pool the idiosyncratic default risk so that the risk of the pool is less than the risk of each asset. This diversification reduces the counterparty “credit” risk even though it does not eliminate it. However, they are severely exposed to liquidity risk. These banks receive a stream of small payments but face the possibility of having to make a single large payment in the event of default. Liquidity risk is a dire threat during the COVID-19 crisis because of two intertwined forces. First, there is a heightened probability that we will see a cascade of defaults by the debtor’s aftermath of the crisis. These defaults imply that banks must be equipped to pay a considerable amount of money to the issuers of these derivatives. The second force that contributes to this liquidity risk is the possibility that the money market funding dries up, and the dealers cannot raise funding.

Derivatives have three functions. They act as stores of value, a means of payment, and a transfer of risk. Thus, they offer two of the three uses of money. Remember that money is a means of payment, a unit of account, and a store of value. But financial instruments have a third function that can make them very different from money: They allow for the transfer of risk. Regulators’ focus is mostly on one of these functions- store of value. The store of value implies that these financial instruments are reported as long-term assets on a company’s balance sheet and their main function is to transfer purchasing power into the future. When it comes to the derivatives market, regulators ‘main concern is credit risks and the resulting long-term solvency problems. On the contrary, Money View uses the balance sheet approach to show the hybridity between means of payment and transferring risk functions of derivatives. This hybridity highlights that the firms use insurance instruments to shift the risk today and manage cash flow in the future.

Is the COVID-19 Crisis a “Mehrling’s Moment”?

Derivatives Market as the Achilles’ Heel of the Fed’s Interventions

By Elham Saeidinezhad | Some describe the global financial crisis as a “Minsky moment” when the inherent instability of credit was exposed for everyone to see. The COVID-19 turmoil, on the other hand, seems to be a “Mehrling moment” since his Money View provided us a unique framework to evaluate the Fed’s responses in action. Over the past couple of months, a new crisis, known as COVID-19, has grown up to become the most widespread shock after the 2008-09 global financial crisis. COVID-19 crisis has sparked historical reactions by the Fed. In essence, the Fed has become the creditor of the “first” resort in the financial market. These interventions evolved swiftly and encompassed several roles and tools of the Fed (Table 1). Thus, it is crucial to measure their effectiveness in stabilizing the financial market.

In most cases, economists assessed these actions by studying the change in size or composition of the Fed’s balance sheet or the extent and the kind of assets that the Fed is supporting. In a historic move, for instance, the Fed is backstopping commercial papers and municipal bonds directly. However, once we use the model of “Market-Based Credit,” proposed by Perry Mehrling, it becomes clear that these supports exclude an essential player in this system, which is derivative dealers. This exclusion might be the Achilles’ heel of the Fed’s responses to the COVID-19 crisis.

What system of central bank intervention would make sense if the COVID-19 crisis significantly crushed the market-based credit? This piece employs Perry Mehrling’s stylized model of the market-based credit system to think about this question. Table 1 classifies the Fed’s interventions based on the main actors in this model and their function. These players are investment banks, asset managers, money dealers, and derivative dealers. In this financial market, investment banks invest in capital market instruments, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other asset-backed securities (ABS). To hedge against the risks, they hold derivatives such as Interest Rate Swaps (IRS), Foreign exchange Swaps (FXS), and Credit Default Swaps (CDS). The basic idea of derivatives is to create an instrument that separates the sources of risk from the underlying assets to price (or even sell) them separately. Asset managers, which are the leading investors in this economy, hold these derivatives. Their goal is to achieve their desired risk exposure and return. From the balance sheet perspective, the investment bank is the mirror image of the asset manager in terms of both funding and risk.

This framework highlights the role of intermediaries to focus on liquidity risk. In this model, there are two different yet equally critical financial intermediaries—money dealers, such as money market mutual funds, and the derivative dealers. Money dealers provide dollar funding and set the price of liquidity in the money market. In other words, these dealers transfer the cash from the investors to finance the securities holdings of investment banks. The second intermediary is the derivative dealers. These market makers, in derivatives such as CDS, FXS, and IRS, transfer risk from the investment bank to the asset manager and set the price of risk in the process. They mobilize the risk capacity of asset managers’ capital to bear the risk in assets such as MBS.

After the COVID-19 crisis, the Fed has backstopped all these actors in the market-based credit system, except the derivative dealers (Table 1). The lack of Fed’s support for the derivatives market might be an immature decision. The modern market-based credit system is a collateralized system. To make this system work, there should be a robust mechanism for shifting both assets and the risks. The Fed has employed extensive measures to support the transfer of assets that is essential for the provision of funding liquidity. Financial participants use assets as collaterals to obtain funding liquidity by borrowing from the money dealers. During a financial crisis, however, this mechanism only works if a stable market for risk transfer accompanies it. It is the job of derivative dealers to use their balance sheets to transfer risk and make a market in derivatives. The problem is that fluctuations in the price of assets that derive the value of the derivatives expose them to the price risk.

During a crisis such as COVID-19 turmoil, the heightened price risks lead to the system-wide contraction of the credit. This occurs even if the Fed injects an unprecedented level of liquidity into the system. If the value of assets falls, the investors should make regular payments to the derivative dealers since most derivatives are mark-to-market. They make these payments using their money market deposit account or money market mutual fund (MMMFs). The derivative dealers then use this cash inflow to transfer money to the investment bank that is the ultimate holder of these instruments. In this process, the size of assets and liabilities of the global money dealer (or MMMFs) shrinks, which leads to a system-wide credit contraction.

As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, derivative dealers’ cash outflow is very likely to remain higher than their cash inflow. To manage their cash flow derivative dealers, derive the prices of the “insurance” up, and further reduce the price of capital or assets in the market. This process further worsens the initial problem of falling asset prices despite the Fed’s massive asset purchasing program. The critical point to emphasize here is that the mechanism through which the transfer of the collateral, and the provision of liquidity, happens only works if fluctuations in the value of assets are absorbed by the balance sheets of both money dealers and derivative dealers. Both dealers need continuous access to liquidity to finance their balance sheet operations.

Traditional lender of last resort is one response to these problems. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, the Fed has indeed backstopped the global money dealer, asset managers and supported continued lending to investment banking. Fed also became the dealer of last resort by supporting the asset prices and preventing the demand for additional collateral by MMMFs. However, the Fed has left derivative dealers and their liquidity needs behind. Importantly, two essential actions are missing from the Fed’s recent market interventions. First, the Fed has not provided any facility that could ease derivative dealers’ funding pressure when financing their liabilities. Second, the Fed has not done enough to prevent derivative dealers from demanding additional collaterals from asset managers and other investors, to protect their positions against the possible future losses.

The critical point is that in the market-based finance where the collateral secures funding, the market value of collateral plays a crucial role in financial stability. This market value has two components: the value of the asset and the price of underlying risks. The Fed has already embraced its dealer of last resort role partially to support the price of diverse assets such as asset-backed securities, commercial papers, and municipal. However, it has not offered any support yet for backstopping the price of derivatives. In other words, while the Fed has provided support for the cash markets, it overlooked the market liquidity in the derivatives market. The point of such intervention is not so much to eliminate the risk from the market. Instead, the goal is to prevent a liquidity spiral from destabilizing the price of assets and so, consequently, undermining their use as collateral in the market-based credit.

To sum up, shadow banking has three crucial foundations: market-based credit, global banking, and modern finance. The stability of these pillars depends on the price of collateral, price of Eurodollar, and price of derivatives, respectively. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, the Fed has backstopped the first two dimensions through tools such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, and Central Bank Swap Lines. However, it has left the last foundation, which is the market for derivatives, unattended. According to Money View, this can be the Achilles’ heel of the Fed’s responses to the COVID-19 crisis.

Victorian despite themselves: central banks in historical perspective

Central banks have not always been independent, inflation targeting bodies, and to treat them as such is to obscure their complex histories and alternative institutional constellations

Central banks have not always been independent, inflation targeting bodies, and to treat them as such is to obscure their complex histories and alternative institutional constellations. By Pierre Ortlieb.

Donald Trump’s most recent feud with the Federal Reserve reached a new peak late last week as the U.S. President lambasted the institution’s policy stance. “I don’t have an accommodating Fed,” he noted. Commentary on Trump’s outburst is perhaps even more alarming than his words themselves. For instance, The Week noted that Trump’s encroachment on Fed independence was “essentially unprecedented”; imperiling the central bank’s status as a guardian of price stability was reckless, foolish. This reading of the history of central banks is misguided, however. Our current paradigm of independent central banks deploying their tools to maintain low inflation is a deeply contingent historical phenomenon and obscures central banks’ frequent role as publicly-controlled institutions and fiscal buttresses throughout their centuries of existence.

The contemporary notion of independent, conservative central banks was enshrined gradually over the 1990s, a decade in which over thirty countries – developed and developing – guaranteed the legal and operational independence of their monetary authorities. This institutionalization of inflation-averse central banks has come hand-in-hand with an aversion to “inflationary” deficit financing and fiscal expansionism, which has been restrained by an exclusive focus on price stability. This has come to be treated as the best practice approach to central banking, a paradigm which, until recently, was rarely questioned among policymakers. Reaction to Donald Trump’s comments has been emblematic of this.

Yet the history of central banks shows them to be far more intertwined with states and treasuries than current commentary or policy would suggest. At their founding, central banks frequently served not as constraints on the state, but rather as fiscal agents of the state. The inception of the Bank of England (BoE) in 1694, for example, was the result of a compromise that granted the state loans to finance its war with France, while the BoE was granted the right to issue and manage banknotes. As a result of this bargain, the market for public debt in the United Kingdom exploded in the 18th century, and government debt peaked at 260 percent of GDP during the Napoleonic wars. This both facilitated the expansion of Britain’s hegemonic financial position and enabled the industrial revolution, as borrowing at low risk made vast industrial development possible.

Direct state financing was, however, not the only means through central banks fostered favorable monetary conditions and growth during this era. The use of various “gold devices” to manage credit conditions from within the straitjacket of the gold standard was commonplace. The Reichsbank, for example, granted interest-free loans to importers of gold and inhibited gold exports to establish de facto exchange controls and some degree of exchange rate flexibility.

Various central banks also pursued sectoral policies, lending government-subsidized credit at lower real interest rates to key developmental industries. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act, for instance, was designed such that it would improve the global competitiveness of New York financial institutions. It is important to note that at the time, these central banks were largely established as private institutions with government-backed monopolies; yet this did not alter the fact that, in practice, they served as crucial instruments for the expansion and development of Western economies. Beyond the US and the UK, central banks across Western Europe, such as the Banque de France (1800), the Bank of Spain (1874), and the Reichsbank (1876), served a similar initial function as developmental agents of their respective states.

Nevertheless, this was not a uniform or constant system. The existence of the gold standard itself constrained the use of monetary instruments to foster growth across developed economies during the late 19th century. Furthermore, Victorian-era British policy came to revolve around sound finance and fiscal discipline, as the use of a central bank to finance the national state was increasingly in tension with Britain’s central position in the international trading system. Inflationary fiscal deficits were seen as inhibiting growth and dampening international investment. This “Victorian model” focus on price stability produced a paradigm shift in the UK away from expansionary deficit financing towards more restrained policy.

Despite interludes, the use of central banks as macroeconomic instruments endured and emerged reinforced in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the Second World War. After 1945, governments across the Western world adopted full employment objectives as part of the consensus of “embedded liberalism,” a practice which often also involved nationalizing central banks, so they could serve as tools of macroeconomic policy. Credit allocation came to serve social goals, and central banks were given additional tasks such as managing capital flows to maintain low interest rates. In France, the Banque de France was brought under the umbrella of the National Credit Council, the institution charged with managing financial aspects of government industrial and modernization policies. While other countries employed different mechanisms in implementing this consensus, the overarching aim of monetary institutions serving social goals was broadly shared across developed countries in the postwar era, as it had been during the 19th century during the infancy of central banks.

This consensus of central banks undergirding fiscal policy fragmented and fell apart from the 1970s onwards. The experience of stagflation, the increasing influence of financial institutions in policymaking, as well as a growing academic consensus on the dangers of central bank collusion with governments, dismantled both the expansionary fiscal state and the subservient central bank. The “Volcker revolution” in the United States was a first step in the gradual, post-Nixon institutionalization of a price stability-focused, independent central bank. The Bank of England was granted operational independence in 1997 by Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown, while the ECB has been independent since its inception in 1998.

The current paradigm of independent, inflation targeting central banks thus obscures the messy history of central banks as public institutions. Since their inception, monetary authorities have performed various different roles; while they served as guardians of price stability in Victorian England, they have originally served as developmental and fiscal agents for expansionary states, and have frequently continued to do so in the centuries since. Treating central bank independence as an ahistorical best practice approach is misleading, and we should recall that there have been alternatives to the current framework. As some have heralded the end of the era of central bank independence, while others have underscored the benefits of re-politicizing monetary policy, it is worth bearing this history in mind.

About the Author: Pierre Ortlieb is a graduate student, writer, and researcher based in London. He is interested in political economy and central banks, and currently works at a public investment think tank (the views expressed herein do not represent those of his employer).