Money Archives

When it Comes to Market Liquidity, what if Private Dealing System is Not “The Only Game in Town” Anymore? (Part 1)

A Tribute to Value Investing

“Investors persist in trading despite their dismal long-run trading record partly because the argument seduces them that because prices are as likely to go up as down (or as likely to go down as up), trading based on purely random selection rules will produce neutral performance… Apparently, this idea is alluring; nonetheless, it is wrong. The key to understanding the fallacy is the market-maker.”

–Jack Treynor (using Walter Bagehot as his Pseudonym) in The Only Game In Town.

By Elham Saeidinezhad | Value investing, or alternatively called “value-based dealing,” is suffering its worst run in at least two centuries. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified a decade of struggles for this popular strategy to buy cheap stocks in often unpopular enterprises and sell them when the stock price reverts to “fundamental value.” Such a statement might be a nuisance for the followers of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). However, for liquidity whisperers, such as “Money Viewers,” such a development flags a structural shift in the financial market. In the capital market, the market structure moves away from being a private dealing system towards becoming a public one. In this future, the Fed- a government agency- would be the market liquidity provider of the first resort, even in the absence of systemic risk. As soon as there is a security sell-off or a hike in the funding rate, it will be the Fed, rather than Berkshire Hathaway, who uses its balance sheet and increases monetary base to purchase cheap securities from the dealers and absorb the trade imbalances. The resulting expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet, and monetary liabilities, would also alter the money market. The excessive reserve floating around could transform the money market, and the payment system, from being a credit system into a money-centric market. In part 1, I lay out the theoretical reasons blinding CAPM disciples from envisioning such a brave new future. In part 2, I will explain why the value investors are singing their farewell song in the market.

Jack Treynor, initially under the pseudo name Walter Bagehot, developed a model to show that security dealers rely on value investing funds to provide continuous market liquidity. Security dealers are willing to supply market liquidity at any time because they expect value-based dealers’ support during a market sell-off or upon hitting their finance limit. A sell-off occurs when a large volume of securities are sold and absorbed in the balance sheet of security dealers in a short period of time. A finance limit is a situation when a security dealer’s access to funding liquidity is curtailed. In these circumstances, security dealers expect value investors to act as market liquidity providers of near last resort by purchasing dealers excess inventories. It is such interdependence that makes a private dealing system the pillar of market-liquidity provision.

In CAPM, however, such interconnectedness is neither required nor recognized. Instead, CAPM asserts that risk-return tradeoff determines asset prices. However, this seemingly pure intuition has generated actual confusion. The “type” of risk that produces return has been the subject of intense debates, even among the model’s founders. Sharpe and Schlaifer argued that the market risk (the covariance) is recognizably the essential insight of CAPM for stock pricing. They reasoned that all investors have the same information and the same risk preferences. As long as portfolios are diversified enough, there is no need to value security-specific risks as the market has already reached equilibrium. The prices are already the reflection of the assets’ fundamental value. For John Lintern, on the other hand, it was more natural to abstract from business cycle fluctuations (or market risk) and focused on firm-specific risk (the variance) instead. His stated rationale for doing so was to abstract from the noise introduced by speculation. The empirical evidence’s inconsistency on the equilibrium and acknowledging the speculators’ role was probably why Sharpe later shifted away from his equilibrium argument. In his latest works, Sharpe derived his asset pricing formula from the relationship between the return on individual security and the return on any efficient portfolio containing that security.

CAPM might be confused about the kind of risk that matters the most for asset pricing. But its punchline is clear- liquidity does not matter. The model’s central assumption is that all investors can borrow and lend at a risk-free rate, regardless of the amount borrowed or lent. In other words, liquidity provision is given, continuous, and free. By assuming free liquidity, CAPM disregards any “finance limit” for security dealers and downplays the importance of value investing, as a matter of logic. In the CAPM, security dealers have constant and free access to funding liquidity. Therefore, there is no need for value investors to backstop asset prices when dealers reach their finance limit, a situation that would never occur in CAPM’s world.

Jack Treynor and Fischer Black partnered to emphasize value-based dealers’ importance in asset pricing. In this area, both men continued to write for the Financial Analysts Journal (FAJ). Treynor, writing under the pseudonym Walter Bagehot, thinks about the economics of the dealer function in his “The Only Game in Town” paper, and Black responds with his visionary “Toward a Fully Automated Stock Exchange.” At the root of this lifelong dialogue lies a desire to clarify a dichotomy inside CAPM.

Fischer, despite his belief in CAPM, argued that the “noise,” a notion that market prices deviate from the fundamental value, is a reality that the CAPM, built on the market efficiency idea, should reconcile with. He offered a now-famous opinion that we should consider stock prices to be informative if they are between “one-half” and “twice” their fundamental values. Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot supported such an observation. He showed that individual asset prices fluctuate more widely than a normal distribution. Mandelbrot used this finding, later known as the problem of “fat tails” or too many outliers, to call for “a radically new approach to the problem of price variation.”

From Money View’s perspective, both the efficient market hypothesis and Manderbrot’s “fat tails” hypothesis capture parts of the data’s empirical characterization. CAPM, rooted in the efficient market hypothesis, captures the arbitrage trading, which is partially responsible for asset price changes. Similarly, fat tails, or fluctuations in asset prices, are just as permanent a feature of the data. In other words, in the world of Money View, arbitrage trading and constant deviations from fundamental value go together as a package and as a matter of theoretical logic. Arbitrageurs connect different markets and transfer market liquidity from one market to another. Simultaneously, despite what CAPM claims, their operation is not “risk-free” and exposes them to certain risks, including liquidity risk. As a result, when arbitrageurs face risks that are too great to ignore, they reduce their activities and generate trade imbalances in different markets.

Security dealers who are making markets in those securities are the entities that should absorb these trade imbalances in their balance sheets. At some point, if this process continues, their long position pushes them to their finance limit-a point at which it becomes too expensive for security dealers to finance their inventories. To compensate for the risk of reaching this point and deter potential sellers, dealers reduce their prices dramatically. This is what Mandelbrot called the “fat tails” hypothesis. At this point, dealers stop making the market unless value investors intervene to support the private dealing system by purchasing a large number of securities or block trades. In doing so, they become market liquidity providers of last resort. For decades, value-based dealers used their balance sheets and capital to purchase these securities at a discounted price. The idea was to hold them for a long time and sell them in the market when prices return to fundamental value. The problem is that the value investing business, which is the private dealing system’s pillar of stability, is collapsing. In recent decades, value-oriented stocks have underperformed growth stocks and the S&P 500.

The approach of favoring bargains — typically judged by comparing a stock price to the value of the firm’s assets — has a long history. But in the financial market, nothing lasts forever. In the equilibrium world, imagined by CAPM, any deviation from fundamental value must offer an opportunity for “risk-free” profit somewhere. It might be hard to exploit, but profit-seeking arbitrageurs will always be “able” and “willing” to do it as a matter of logic. Fisher Black-Jack Treynor dialogue, and their admission of dealers’ function, is a crucial step away from pure CAPM and reveals an important fallacy at the heart of this framework. Like any model based on the efficient market hypothesis, CAPM abstracts from liquidity risk that both dealers and arbitragers face.

Money View pushes this dialogue even further and asserts that at any moment, security prices depend on the dealers’ inventories and their daily access to funding liquidity, rather than security-specific risk or market risk. If Fischer Black was a futurist, Perry Mehrling, the founder of “Money View,” lives in the “present.” For Fischer Black, CAPM will become true in the “future,” and he decided to devote his life to realizing this ideal future. Perry Mehrling, on the other hand, considers the overnight funding liquidity that enables the private dealing system to provide continuous market liquidity as an ideal system already. As value investing is declining, Money View scholars should start reimagining the prospect of the market liquidity and asset pricing outside the sphere of the private dealing system even though, sadly, it is the future that neither Fischer nor Perry was looking forward to.

Elham Saeidinezhad is Term Assistant Professor of Economics at Barnard College, Columbia University. Previously, Elham taught at UCLA, and served as 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

Can Algorithmic Market Makers Safely Replace FX Dealers as Liquidity Providers?

By Jack Krupinski

Financialization and electronification are long term economic trends and are here to stay. It’s essential to study how these trends will alter the world’s largest market—the foreign exchange (FX) market. In the past, electronification expanded access to the FX markets and diversified the demand side. Technological developments have recently started to change the FX market’s supply side, away from the traditional FX dealing banks towards principal trading firms (PTFs). Once the sole providers of liquidity in FX markets, dealers are facing increased competition from PTFs. These firms use algorithmic, high-frequency trading to leverage speed as a substitute for balance sheet capacity, which is traditionally used to determine FX dealers’ comparative advantage. Prime brokerage services were critical in allowing such non-banks to infiltrate the once impenetrable inter-dealer market. Paradoxically, traditional dealers were the very institutions that have offered prime brokerage services to PTFs, allowing them to use the dealers’ names and credit lines while accessing trading platforms. The rise of algorithmic market markers at the expense of small FX dealers is a potential threat to long-term stability in the FX market, as PTFs’ resilience to shocks is mostly untested. The PTFs presence in the market, and the resulting narrow spreads, could create an illusion of free liquidity during normal times. However, during a crisis, such an illusion will evaporate, and the lack of enough dealers in the market could increase the price of liquidity dramatically.

In normal times, PTFs’ presence could create an “illusion of free liquidity” in the FX market. The increasing presence of algorithmic market makers would increase the supply of immediacy services (a feature of market liquidity) in the FX market and compress liquidity premia. Because liquidity providers must directly compete for market share on electronic trading platforms, the liquidity price would be compressed to near zero. This phenomenon manifests in a narrower inside spread when the market is stable. The FX market’s electronification makes it artificially easier for buyers and sellers to search for the most attractive rates. Simultaneously, PFTs’ function makes market-making more competitive and reduces dealer profitability as liquidity providers. The inside spread represents the price that buyers and sellers of liquidity face, and it also serves as the dealers’ profit incentive to make markets. As a narrower inside spread makes every transaction less profitable for market makers, traditional dealers, especially the smaller ones, should either find new revenue sources or exit the market.

During a financial crisis, such as post-COVID-19 turmoil in the financial market, such developments can lead to extremely high and volatile prices. The increased role of PTFs in the FX market could push smaller dealers to exit the market. Reduced profitability forces traditional FX dealers to adopt a new business model, but small dealers are most likely unable to make the necessary changes to remain competitive. Because a narrower inside spread reduces dealers’ compensation for providing liquidity, their willingness to carry exchange rate risk has correspondingly declined. Additionally, the post-GFC regulatory reforms reduced the balance sheet capacity of dealers by requiring more capital buffers. Scarce balance sheet space has increased the opportunity cost of dealing.

Further, narrower inside spreads and the increased cost of dealing have encouraged FX dealers to offer prime brokerage services to leveraged institutional investors. The goal is to generate new revenue streams through fixed fees. PTFs have used prime brokerage to access the inter-dealer market and compete against small and medium dealers as liquidity providers. Order flow internalization is another strategy that large dealers have used to increase profitability. Rather than immediately hedge FX exposures in the inter-dealer market, dealers can wait for offsetting order flow from their client bases to balance their inventories—an efficient method to reduce fixed transaction costs. However, greater internalization reinforces the concentration of dealing with just a few large banks, as smaller dealers do not have the order flow volume to internalize a comparable percentage of trades.

Algorithmic traders could also intensify the riskiness of the market for FX derivatives. Compared to the small FX dealers they are replacing, algorithmic market makers face greater risk from hedging markets and exposure to volatile currencies. According to Mehrling’s FX dealer model, matched book dealers primarily use the forward market to hedge their positions in spot or swap markets and mitigate exchange rate risk. On the other hand, PTFs concentrate more on market-making activity in forward markets and use a diverse array of asset classes to hedge these exposures. Hedging across asset classes introduces more correlation risk—the likelihood of loss from a disparity between the estimated and actual correlation between two assets—than a traditional forward contract hedge. Since the provision of market liquidity relies on dealers’ ability to hedge their currency risk exposures, greater correlation risk in hedging markets is a systemic threat to the FX market’s smooth functioning. Additionally, PTFs supply more liquidity in EME currency markets, which have traditionally been illiquid and volatile compared to the major currencies. In combination with greater risk from hedging across asset classes, exposure to volatile currencies increases the probability of an adverse shock disrupting FX markets.

While correlation risk and exposure to volatile currencies has increased, new FX market makers lack the safety buffers that help traditional FX dealers mitigate shocks. Because the PTF market-making model utilizes high transaction speed to replace balance sheet capacity, there is a little buffer to absorb losses in an adverse exchange rate movement. Hence, algorithmic market makers are even more inclined than traditional dealers to pursue a balanced inventory. Since market liquidity, particularly during times of significant imbalances in supply and demand, hinges on market-makers’ willingness and ability to take inventory risks, a lack of risk tolerance among PTFs harms market robustness. Moreover, the algorithms that govern PTF market-making tend to withdraw from markets altogether after aggressively offloading their positions in the face of uncertainty. This destabilizing feature of algorithmic trading catalyzed the 2010 Flash Crash in the stock market. Although the Flash Crash only lasted for 30 minutes, flighty algorithms’ tendency to prematurely withdraw liquidity has the potential to spur more enduring market dislocations.

The weakening inter-dealer market will compound any dislocations that may occur as a result of liquidity withdrawal by PTFs. When changing fundamentals drive one-sided order flow, dealers will not internalize trades, and they will have to mitigate their exposure in the inter-dealer FX market. Increased dealer concentration may reduce market-making capacity during these periods of stress, as inventory risks become more challenging to redistribute in a sparser inter-dealer market. During crisis times, the absence of small and medium dealers will disrupt the price discovery process. If dealers cannot appropriately price and transfer risks amongst themselves, then impaired market liquidity will persist and affect deficit agents’ ability to meet their FX liabilities.

For many years, the FX market’s foundation has been built upon a competitive and deep inter-dealer market. The current phase of electronification and financialization is pressuring this long-standing system. The inter-dealer market is declining in volume due to dealer consolidation and competition from non-bank liquidity providers. Because the new market makers lack the balance sheet capacity and regulatory constraints of traditional FX dealers, their behavior in crisis times is less predictable. Moreover, the rise of non-bank market makers like PTFs has come at the expense of small and medium-sized FX dealers. Such a development undermines the economics of dealers’ function and reduces dealers’ ability to normalize the market should algorithmic traders withdraw liquidity. As the FX market is further financialized and trading shifts to more volatile EME currencies, risks must be appropriately priced and transferred. The new market makers must be up to the task.

Jack Krupinski is currently a fourth-year student at UCLA, majoring in Mathematics/Economics with a minor in statistics. He pursues an actuarial associateship and has passed the first two actuarial exams (Probability and Financial Mathematics). Jack is working to develop a statistical understanding of risk, which can be applied in an actuarial and research role. Jack’s economic research interests involve using “Money View” and empirical methods to analyze international finance and monetary policy.

Jack is currently working as a research assistant for Professor Roger Farmer in the economics department at UCLA and serves as a TA for the rerun of Prof. Mehrling’s Money and Banking Course on the IVY2.0 platform. In the past, he has co-authored blog posts about central bank digital currency and FX derivatives markets with Professor Saeidinezhad. Jack hopes to attend graduate school after receiving his UCLA degree in Spring 2021. Jack is a member of the club tennis team at UCLA, and he worked as a tennis instructor for four years before assuming his current role as a research assistant. His other hobbies include hiking, kayaking, basketball, reading, and baking.

Are the Banks Taking Off their Market-Making Hat to Become Brokers?

“A broker is foolish if he offers a price when there is nothing on the offer side good to the guy on the phone who wants to buy. We may have an offering, but we say none.” –Marcy Stigum

Before the slow but eventual repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, U.S. commercial banks were institutions whose mission was to accept deposits, make loans, and choose trade-exempt securities. In other words, banks were Cecchetti’s “Financial intermediaries.” The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to enter the arena so long as they become financial holding companies. More precisely, the Act permitted banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to affiliate with investment bankers.Investment banks, also called non-bank dealers, were allowed to use their balance sheets to trade and underwrite both exempt and non-exempt securities and make the market in both the capital market and the money market instruments. Becoming a dealer brought significant changes to the industry. Unlike traditional banks, investment banks, or merchant banks, as the British call it, can cover activities that require considerably less capital. Second, the profit comes from quoting different bid-ask prices and underwriting new securities, rather than earning fees.

However, the post-COVID-19 crisis has accelerated an existing trend in the banking industry. Recent transactions highlight a shift in power balance away from the investment banking arm and market-making operations. In the primary markets, banks are expanding their brokerage role to earn fees. In the secondary market, banks have started to transform their businesses and diversify away from market-making activities into fee-based brokerages such as cash management, credit cards, and retail savings accounts. Two of the underlying reasons behind this shift are “balance sheet constraints” and declining credit costs that reduced banks’ profit as dealers and improved their fee-based businesses. From the “Money View” perspective, this shift in the bank’s activities away from market-making towards brokerage has repercussions. First, it adversely affects the state of “liquidity.” Second, it creates a less democratic financial market as it excludes smaller agents from benefiting from the financial market. Finally, it disrupts payment flows, given the credit character of the payments system.

When a banker acts as a broker, its income depends on fee-based businesses such as monthly account fees and fees for late credit card payments, unauthorized overdrafts, mergers, and issuing IPOs. These fees are independent of the level of the interest rate. A broker puts together potential buyers and sellers from his sheet, much in the way that real estate brokers do with their listing sheets and client listings. Brokers keep lists of the prices bid by potential buyers and offered by potential sellers, and they look for matches. Goldman, Merrill, and Lehman, all big dealers in commercial paper, wear their agent hat almost all the time when they sell commercial paper. Dealers, by contrast, take positions themselves by expanding their balance sheets. They earn the spread between bid-ask prices (or interest rates). When a bank puts on its hat as a dealer (principal), that means the dealer is buying for and selling from its position. Put another way, in a trade, the dealer is the customer’s counterparty, not its agent.

Moving towards brokerage activity has adverse effects on liquidity. Banks are maintaining their dealer role in the primary market while abandoning the secondary market. In the primary market, part of the banks’ role as market makers involves underwriting new issues. In this market, dealers act as a one-sided dealer. As the bank only sells the newly issued securities, she does not provide liquidity. In the secondary market, however, banks act as two-sided dealers and supply liquidity. Dealer banks supply funding liquidity in the short-term money market and the market liquidity in the long-term capital market. The mission is to earn spreads by constantly quoting bids and offers at which they are willing to buy and sell. Some of these quotes are to other dealers. In many sectors of the money market, there is an inside market among dealers.

The money market, as opposed to the bond market, is a wholesale market for high-quality, short-term debt instruments, or IOUs. In the money market, dealing banks make markets in many money market instruments. Money market instruments are credit elements that lend elasticity to the payment system. Deficit agents, who do not have adequate cash at the moment, have to borrow from the money market to make the payment. Money market dealers expand the elasticity daily and enable the deficit agents to make payments to surplus agents. Given the credit element in the payment, it is not stretching the truth to say that these short-term credit instruments, not the reserves, are the actual ultimate means of payment. Money market dealers resolve the problem of managing payments by enabling deficit agents to make payments before they receive payments.

Further, when dealers trade, they usually do not even know who their counterparty is. However, if banks become brokers, they need to “fine-tune” quotes because it matters who is selling and buying. Brokers prefer to trade with big investors and reduce their ties with smaller businesses. This is what Stigum called “line problems.” She explains that if, for example, Citi London offered to sell 6-month money at the bid rate quoted by a broker and the bidding bank then told the broker she was off and had forgotten to call, the broker would be committed to completing her bid by finding Citi a buyer at that price or by selling Citi’s money at a lower rate and paying a difference equal to the dollar amount Citi would lose by selling at that rate. Since brokers operate on thin margins, a broker wouldn’t be around long if she often got “stuffed.” Good brokers take care to avoid errors by choosing their counterparties carefully.

After the COVID-19 pandemic, falling interest rates, the lower overall demand for credit, and regulatory requirements that limit the use of balance sheets have reduced banks’ profits as dealers. In the meantime, the banks’ fee-based businesses that include credit cards late-fees, public offerings, and mergers have become more attractive. The point to emphasize here is that the brokerage business does not include providing liquidity and making the market. On the other hand, dealer banks generate revenues by supplying funding and market liquidities in the money and capital markets. Further, brokers tend to only trade with large corporations, while dealers’ decisions to supply liquidity usually do not depend on who their counterparty is. Finally, the payment system is much closer to an ideal credit payment system than an ideal money payment system. In this system, the liquidity of money market instruments is the key to a well-functioning payment system. Modern banks may wear one of two hats, agent (broker) or principal (dealers), in dealing with financial market instruments. The problem is that only one of these hats allows banks to make the market, facilitate the payment system, and democratize access to the credit market.

The Paradox of Yield Curve: Why is the Fed Willing to Flatten the Curve but Not Control It?

“From long experience, Fed technicians knew that the Fed could not control money supply with the precision envisioned in textbooks.” Marcy Stigum

By Elham Saeidinezhad – In the last decade, monetary policy wrestled with the problem of low inflation and has become a tale of three cities: interest rate, asset purchasing, and the yield curve. The fight to reach the Fed’s inflation target started by lowering the overnight federal funds rate to a historically low level. The so-called “zero-lower bound restriction” pushed the Fed to alternative policy tools, including large-scale purchases of financial assets (“quantitative and qualitative easing”). This policy had several elements: first, a commitment to massive asset purchases that would increase the monetary base; second, a promise to lengthen the maturity of the central banks’ holdings and flatten the yield curve. However, in combination with low inflation (actual and expected), such actions have translated into persistently low real interest rates at both the yield curve’s long and short ends, and at times, the inversion of the yield curve. The “whatever it takes” large-scale asset purchasing programs of central banks were pushing the long-term yields into clear negative territory. Outside the U.S., and especially in Japan, central banks stepped up their fight against deflation by adopting a new policy called Yield Curve Control, which explicitly puts a cap on long-term rates. Even though the Fed so far resisted following the Bank of Japan’s footsteps, the yield curve control is the first move towards building a world that “Money View” re-imagines for central banking. Yield curve control enables the Fed to assume its “dealer of last resort role” role to increase its leverage over the yield curve, a private dealer territory, without creating repeated dislocations in the private credit market.

To understand this point, let’s start by translating monetary policy’s evolution into the language of Money View. In the traditional monetary policy, the Fed uses its control of reserve (at the top of the hierarchy of money) to affect credit expansion (at the bottom of the hierarchy). It also controls the fed funds rate (at the short end of the term structure) in an attempt to influence the bond rate of interest (at the long end). When credit is growing too rapidly, the Fed raises the federal fund’s target to impose discipline in the financial market. In standard times, this would immediately lower the money market dealers’ profit. This kind of dealer borrows at an overnight funding market to lend in the lend in term (i.e., three-month) market. The goal is to earn the liquidity spread.

After the Fed’s implementation of contractionary monetary policy, to compensate for the higher financing cost, money market dealers raise the term interest rate by the full amount (and perhaps a bit more to compensate for anticipated future tightening as well). This term-rate is the funding cost for another kind of dealer, called security dealers. Security dealers borrow from the term-market (repo market) to lend to the long-term capital market. Such operations involve the purchase of securities that requires financing. Higher funding cost implies that security dealers are willing to hold existing security inventories only at a lower price, and increasing long-term yield. This chain of events sketches a monetary policy transmission that happens through the yield curve. The point to emphasize here is that in determining the yield curve, the private credit market, not the Fed, sets rates and prices. The Fed has only some leverage over the system.

After the GFC, as the rates hit zero-lower bound, the Fed started to lose its leverage. In a very low-interest-rate condition, preferences shift in favor of money and against securities. One way to put it is that the surplus agents become reluctant to” delay settlement” and lower their credit market investment. They don’t want promises to pay (i.e., holding securities), and want money instead. In this environment, to keep making the market and providing liquidity, money market, and security dealers, who borrow to finance their short and long-term inventories, respectively, should be able to buy time. During this extended-time period, prices are pushed away from equilibrium. Often, the market makers face this kind of trouble and turn to the banks for refinancing. After GFC, however, the very low-interest rates mean that banks themselves run into trouble.

In a normal crisis, as the dealer system absorbs the imbalances due to the shift in preferences into its balance sheet, the Fed tried to do the same thing and take the problem off the balance sheet of the banking system. The Fed usually does so by expanding its balance sheet. The Fed’s willingness to lend to the banks at a rate lower than they would lend to each other makes it possible for the banks to lend to the dealers at a rate lower than they would otherwise charge. Putting a ceiling on the money rate of interest thus indirectly puts a floor on asset prices. In a severe crisis, however, this transmission usually breaks down. That is why after the GFC, the Fed used its leverage to put a floor on asset prices directly by buying them, rather than indirectly by helping the banks to finance dealers’ purchases.

The fundamental question to be answered is whether the Fed has any leverage over the private dealing system when interest rates are historically low. The Fed’s advantage is that it creates reserves, so there can be no short squeeze on the Fed. When the Fed helps the banks, it expands reserves. Hence the money supply grows. We have seen that the market makers are long securities and short cash. What the Fed does is to backstop those short positions by shorting cash itself. However, the Fed’s leverage over the private dealer system is asymmetric. The Fed’s magic mostly works when the Fed decides to increase elasticity in the credit market. The Fed has lost its alchemy to create discipline in the market when needed. When the rates are already very low, credit contraction happens neither quickly nor easily if the Fed increases the rates by a few basis points. Indeed, only if the Fed raises the rates high enough, it can get some leverage over this system, causing credit contraction. Short of an aggressive rate hike, the dealer system increases the spread slightly but not enough to not change the quantity of supplied credit. In other words, the Fed’s actions do not translate automatically into a chain of credit contraction, and the Fed does not have control over the yield curve. The Fed knows that, and that is why it has entered large-scale asset purchasing programs. But it is the tactful yet minimal purchases of long-term assets, rather than massive ones, that can restore the Fed’s control over the yield curve. Otherwise, the Fed’s actions could push the long-term rates into negative territory and lead to a constant inversion of the yield curve.

The yield curve control aims at controlling interest rates along some portion of the yield curve. This policy’s design has some elements of the interest rate policy and asset purchasing program. Similar to interest rate policy, it targets short-term interest rates. Comparable with the asset purchasing program, yield curve control aim at controlling the long-term interest rate. However, it mainly incorporates essential elements of a “channel” or “corridor” system. This policy targets longer-term rates directly by imposing interest rate caps on particular maturities. Like a “corridor system,” the long-term yield’s target would typically be set within a bound created by a target price that establishes a floor for the long-term assets. Because bond prices and yields are inversely related, this also implies a ceiling for targeted maturities. If bond prices (yields) of targeted maturities remain above (below) the floor, the central bank does nothing. However, if prices fall (rise) below (above) the floor, the central bank buys targeted-maturity bonds, increasing the demand and the bonds’ price. This approach requires the central bank to use this powerful tool tactfully rather than massively. The central bank only intervenes to purchase certain assets when the interest rates on different maturities are higher than target rates. Such a strategy reduces central banks’ footprint in the capital market and prevents yield curve inversion- that has become a typical episode after the GFC.

The “paradox of the yield curve” argues that the Fed’s hesitation to adopt the yield curve control to regulate the longer-term rates contradicts its own reasoning behind the introduction of a corridor framework to control the overnight rate. Once the FOMC determines a target interest rate, the Fed already sets the discount rate above the target interest rate and the interest-on-reserve rate below. These two rates form a “corridor” that will contain the market interest rate; the target rate is often (but not always) set in the middle of this corridor. Open market operations are then used as needed to change the supply of reserve balances so that the market interest rate is as close as possible to the target. A corridor operating framework can help a central bank achieve a target policy rate in an environment in which reserves are anything but scarce, and the central bank has used its balance sheet as a policy instrument independent of the policy interest rate.

In the world of Money View, the corridor system has the advantage of enabling the Fed to act as a value-based dealer, or as Mehrling put it, “dealer of last resort,” without massively purchasing assets and constantly distorting asset prices. The value-based dealer’s primary role is to put a ceiling and floor on the price of assets when the dealer system has already reached their finance limits. Such a system can effectively stabilize the rate near its target. Stigum made clear that standard economic theory has no perfect answer to how the Fed gets leverage over the real economy. The question is why the Fed is willing to embrace the frameworks that flatten the yield curve but is hesitant to adopt the “yield curve control,” which explicitly puts a cap on long-term rates.

Is the New Chapter for the Monetary Policy Framework Too Old to Succeed?

Bagehot, “Money does not manage itself.”

By Elham Saeidinezhad – In this year’s Jackson Hole meeting, the Fed announced a formal shift away from previously articulated longer-run inflation objective of 2 percent towards achieving inflation that averages 2 percent over time. The new accord aims at addressing the shortfalls of the low “natural rate” and persistently low inflation. More or less, all academic debates in that meeting were organized as arguments about the appropriate quantitative settings for a Taylor rule. The rule’s underlying idea is that the market tends to set the nominal interest rate equal to the natural rate plus expected inflation. The Fed’s role is to stabilize the long-run inflation by changing the short-term federal funds rate whenever the inflation deviates from the target. The Fed believes that the recent secular decline in natural rates relative to the historical average has constrained the federal funds rate. The expectation is that the Fed’s decision to tolerate a temporary overshooting of the longer-run inflation to keep inflation and inflation expectations centered on 2 percent following periods when inflation has been persistently below 2 percent will address the framework’s constant failure and restore the magic of central banking. However, the enduring problem with the Taylor rule-based monetary policy frameworks, including the recent one, is that they want the Fed to overlook the lasting trends in the credit market, and only focus on the developments in the real economy, such as inflation or past inflation deviations, when setting the short-term interest rates. Rectifying such blind spots is what money view scholars were hoping for when the Fed announced its intention to review the monetary policy framework.

The logic behind the new framework, known as average inflation targeting strategy, is that inflation undershooting makes achieving the target unlikely in the future as it pushes the inflation expectations below the target. This being the case, when there is a long period of inflation undershooting the target, the Fed should act to undo the undershooting by overshooting the target for some time. The Fed sold forecast (or average) targeting to the public as a better way of accomplishing its mandate compared to the alternative strategies as the new framework makes the Fed more “history-dependent.” Translated into the money view language, however, the new inflation-targeting approach only delays the process of imposing excessive discipline in the money market when the consumer price index rises faster than the inflation target and providing excessive elasticity when prices are growing slower than the inflation target.

From the money view perspective, the idea that the interest rate should not consider private credit market trends will undermine central banking’s power in the future, as it has done in the past. The problem we face is not that the Fed failed to follow an appropriate version of Taylor rule. Rather, and most critically, these policies tend to abstract from the plumbing behind the wall, namely the payment system, by disregarding the credit market. Such a bias may have not been significant in the old days when the payment system was mostly a reserve-based system. In the old world, even though it was mostly involuntarily, the Fed used to manage the payment system through its daily interventions in the market for reserves. In the modern financial system, however, the payment system is a credit system, and its quality depends on the level of elasticity and discipline in the private credit market.

The long dominance of economics and finance views imply that modern policymakers have lost sight of the Fed’s historical mission to manage the balance between discipline and elasticity in the payment system. Instead of monitoring the balance between discipline and elasticity in the credit market, the modern Fed attempts to keep the bank rate of interest in line with an ideal “natural rate” of interest, introduced by Knut Wicksell. In Wicksellians’ world, in contrast to the money view, securing the continuous flow of credit in the economy through the payment system is not part of the Fed’s mandate. Instead, the Fed’s primary function is to ensure it does not choose a “money rate” of interest different from the “natural rate” of interest (profit rate capital). If lower, then the differential creates an incentive for new capital investment, and the new spending tends to cause inflation. If prices are rising, then the money rate is too low and should be increased; if prices are falling, then the money rate is too high and should be decreased. To sum up, Wicksellians do not consider private credit to be intrinsically unstable. Inflation, on the other hand, is viewed as the source of inherent instability. Further, they see no systemic relation between the payment system and the credit market as the payment system simply reflects the level of transactions in the real economy.

The clash between the standard economic view and money view is a battle between two different world views. Wicksell’s academic way of looking at the world had clear implications for monetary policy: set the money rate equal to the natural rate and then stand back and let markets work. Unfortunately, the natural rate is not observable, but the missed payments and higher costs of borrowing are. In the money view perspective, the Fed should use its alchemy to strike a balance between elasticity and discipline in the credit market to ensure a continuous payment system. The money view barometer to understand the credit market cycle is asset prices, another observable variable. Since the crash can occur in commodities, financial assets, and even real assets, the money view does not tell us which assets to watch. However, it emphasizes that the assets that are not supported by a dealer system (such as residential housing) are more vulnerable to changes in credit conditions. These assets are most likely to become overvalued on the upside and suffer the most extensive correction on the downside. A central bank that understands its role as setting interest rates to meet inflation targets tends to exacerbate this natural tendency toward instability. These policymakers could create unnaturally excessive discipline when credit condition is already tight or vice versa while looking for a natural rate of interest.

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

If banks are Absent from the Wholesale Money Market, what exactly is their function?

In Search of More Stable Liquidity Providers

By Elham Saeidinezhad | The COVID-19 crisis has revealed the resiliency of the banking system compared to the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At the same time, it also put banks’ absence from typically bank-centric markets on display. Banks have already demonstrated their objection to passing credit to small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs). In doing so, they rejected their traditional role as financial intermediaries for the retail depositors. This phenomenon is not surprising for scholars of “Money View”. The rise of market-based finance coincides with the fading role of banks as financial intermediaries. Money View asserts that banks have switched their business model to become the lenders and dealers in the interbank lending and the repo market, both wholesale markets, respectively. Banks lend to each other via the interbank lending market, and use the proceeds to make market in funding liquidity via the repo market.

Aftermath the COVID-19 crisis, however, an episode in the market for term funding cast a dark shadow over such doctrine. The issue is that it appears that interbank lending no longer serves as the significant marginal source of term funding for banks. Money Market Funds (MMFs) filled the void in other wholesale money markets, such as markets for commercial paper and the repo market. After the pandemic, MMFs curtailed their repo lending, both with dealers and in the cleared repo segment, to accommodate outflows. This decision by MMFs increased the cost of term dollar funding in the wholesale money market. This distortion was contained only when the Fed directly assisted MMFs through Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility or MMLF. Money View emphasizes the unique role of banks in the liquidity hierarchy since their liabilities (bank deposits) are a means of payment. Yet, such developments call into question the exact role of banks, who have unique access to the Fed’s balance sheet, in the financial system. Some scholars warned that instruments, such as the repo, suck out liquidity when it most needed. A deeper look might reveal that it is not money market instruments that are at fault for creating liquidity issues but the inconsistency between the banks’ perceived, and actual significance, as providers of liquidity during a crisis.

There are two kinds of MMFs: prime and government. The former issue shares as their liabilities and hold corporate bonds as their assets while the latter use the shares to finance their holding of safe government debts. By construction, the shares have the same risk structure as the underlying pool of government bonds or corporate bonds. In doing so, the MMFs act as a form of financial intermediaries. However, this kind of intermediation is different from a classic, textbook, one. MMFs mainly use diversification to pool risk and not so much to transform it. Traditional financial intermediaries, on the other hand, use their balance sheet to transform risk- they turn liquid liabilities (overnight checkable deposits) into illiquid assets (long term loans). There is some liquidity benefit for the mutual fund shareholder from diversification. But such a business model implies that MMFs have to keep cash or lines of credit, which reduces their return.

To improve the profit margin, MMFs have also become active providers of liquidity in the market for term funding, using instruments such as commercial paper (CP) and the repo. Commercial paper (CP) is an unsecured promissory note with a fixed maturity, usually three months. The issuer, mostly banks and non-financial institutions, promises to pay the buyer some fixed amount on some future date but pledges no assets, only her liquidity and established earning power, guaranteeing that promise. Investment companies, principally money funds and mutual funds, are the single biggest class of investors in commercial paper. Similarly, MMFs are also active in the repo market. They usually lend cash to the repo market, both through dealers and cleared repo segments. At its early stages, the CP market was a local market that tended, by investment banking standards, to be populated by less sophisticated, less intense, less motivated people. Also, MMFs were just one of several essential players in the repo market. The COVID-19 crisis, however, revealed a structural change in both markets, where MMFs have become the primary providers of dollar funding to banks.

It all started when the pandemic forced the MMFs to readjust their portfolio to meet their cash outflow commitments. In the CP market, MMFs reduced their holding of CP in favor of holding risk-free assets such as government securities. In the repo market, they curtailed their repo lending both to dealers and in the cleared segment of the market. Originally, such developments were not considered a threat to financial stability. In this market, banks were regarded as the primary providers of dollar funding. The models of market-based finance, such as the one provided by Money View framework, tend to highlight banks’ function as dealers in the wholesale money market, and the main providers of funding liquidity. In these models, banks set the price of funding liquidity and earn an inside spread. Banks borrow from the interbank lending market and pay an overnight rate. They then lend the proceeds in the term-funding market (mostly through repo), and earn term rate. Further, more traditional models of bank-based financial systems depict banks as financial intermediaries between depositors and borrowers. Regardless of which model to trust, since the pandemic did not create significant disturbances in the banking system, it was expected that the banks would pick up the slack quickly after MMFs retracted from the market.

The problem is that the coronavirus casts doubt on both models, and highlights the shadowy role of banks in providing funding liquidity. The experience with the PPP loans to SMEs shows that banks are no longer traditional financial intermediaries in the retail money market. At the same time, the developments in the wholesale money market demonstrate that it is MMFs, and no longer banks, who are the primary providers of term funding and determine the price of dollar funding. A possible explanation could be that on the one hand, banks have difficulty raising overnight funding via the interbank lending market. On the other hand, their balance sheet constraints discourage them from performing their function as money market dealers and supply term funding to the rest of the financial system. The bottom line is that the pandemic has revealed that MMFs, rather than large banks, had become vital providers of US dollar funding for other banks and non-bank financial institutions. Such discoveries emphasize the instability of funding liquidity in bank-centric wholesale and retail money markets.

The withdrawals of MMFs from providing term funding to banks in the CP markets, and their decision to decease their reverse repo positions (lending cash against Treasuries as collateral) with dealers (mostly large banks), translated into a persistent increase of US dollar funding costs globally. Even though it was not surprising in the beginning to see a tension in the wholesale money market due to the withdrawal of the MMFs, the Fed was stunned by the extent of the turbulences. This is what caused the Fed to start filling the void that was created by MMFs’ withdrawal directly by creating new facilities such as MMLF. According to the BIS data, by mid-March, the cost of borrowing US funding widened to levels second only to those during the GFC even though, unlike the GFC, the banking system was not the primary source of distress. A key reason is that MMFs have come to play an essential role in determining US dollar funding both in a secured repo market and an unsecured CP market. In other words, interbank lending no longer serves as a significant source of funding for banks. Instead, non-bank institutional investors such as MMFs constitute the most critical wholesale funding providers for banks. The strength of MMFs, not the large, cash-rich, banks, has, therefore, become an essential measure of bank funding conditions.

The wide swings in dollar funding costs, caused by MMFs’ withdrawal from these markets, hampered the transmission of the Fed’s rate cuts and other facilities aimed at providing stimulus to the economy in the face of the shock. With banks’ capacity as dealers were impaired, and MMFs role was diminished, the Fed took over this function of dealer of last resort in the wholesale money market. Interestingly, the Fed acted as a dealer of last resort via its MMLF facility rather than assuming the role of banks in this market. The goal was to put an explicit floor on the CP’s price and then directly purchase three-month CP from issuers via Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). These operations also have broader implications for the future of central bank financial policies that might include MMFs rather than banks. The Fed’s choice of policies aftermath the pandemic was the unofficial acknowledgment that it is MMFs’ role, rather than banks’, that has become a crucial barometer for measuring the health of the market for dollar funding. Such revelation demands us to ask a delicate question of what precisely the banks’ function has become in the modern financial system. In other words, is it justifiable to keep providing the exclusive privilege of having access to the central bank’s balance sheet to the banks?

Can Central Bank Digital Currency Contain COVID-19 Crisis by Saving Small Businesses? (Part 2)

This piece is a follow up to our previous Money View article on the banking system during the COVID-19 crisis.

By Elham Saeidinezhad and Jack Krupinski |The COVID-19 crisis created numerous financial market dislocations in the U.S., including in the market for government support. The federal government’s Paycheck Protection Program offered small businesses hundreds of billions of dollars so they could keep paying employees. The program failed to a great extent. Big companies got small business relief money. The thorny problem for policymakers to solve is that the government support program is rooted in the faith that banks are willing to participate in. Banks were anticipated to act as an intermediary and transfer funds from the government to the small businesses. Yet, in the modern financial system, banks have already shifted gear away from their traditional role as a financial intermediary between surplus and deficit agents. Part l used the “Money View” and a historical lens to explain why banks are reluctant to be financial intermediaries and are more in tune with their modern function as dealers in the wholesale money markets. In Part ll, we are going to propose a possible resolution to this perplexity. In a monetary system where banks are not willing to be financial intermediaries, central banks might have to seriously entertain the idea of using central bank digital currency (CBDC) during a crisis. Such tools enable central banks to circumvent the banking system and inject liquidity directly to those who need it the most, including small and medium enterprises, who have no access to the capital market.

The history of central banking began with a simple task of managing the quantity of money. Yet, central bankers shortly faced a paradox between managing “survival constraint” in the financial market and the real economy. On the one hand, for banks, the survival constraint in the financial market takes the concrete form of a “reserve constraint” because banks settle net payments using their reserve accounts at the central bank. On the other hand, according to the monetarist idea, for money to have a real purchasing power in terms of goods and services, it should be scarce. Developed by the classical economists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the quantity theory of money asserted that the quantity of money should only reflect the level of transactions in the real economy.

The hybridity between the payment system and the central bank money created such a practical dilemma. Monetarist idea disregarded such hybridity and demanded that the central bank abandon its concern about the financial market and focus only on controlling the never-materializing threat of inflation. The monetarist idea was doomed to failure for its conjectures about the financial market, and its illusion of inflation. In the race to dominate the whole economy, an efficiently functioning financial market soon became a pre-condition to economic growth. In such a circumstance, the central bank must inject reserves or else risk a breakdown of the payments system. Any ambiguity about the liquidity problems (the survival constraint) for highly leveraged financial institutions would undermine central banks’ authority to maintain the monetary and financial stability for the whole economy. For highly leveraged institutions, with financial liabilities many times larger than their capital base, it doesn’t take much of a write-down to produce technical insolvency.

This essential hybridity, and the binding reality of reserve constraint, gave birth to two parallel phenomena. In the public sphere, the urge to control the scarce reserves originated monetary policy. The advantage that the central bank had over the financial system arose ultimately from the fact that a bank that does not have sufficient funds to make a payment must borrow from the central bank. Central bankers recognized that they could use this scarcity to affect the price of money, the interest rate, in the banking system. It is the central bank’s control over the price and availability of funds at this moment of necessity that is the source of its control over the financial system. The central bank started to utilize its balance sheet to impose discipline when there was an excess supply of money, and to offer elasticity when the shortage of cash is imposing excessive discipline. But ultimately central bank was small relative to the system it engages. Because the central bank was not all-powerful, it must choose its policy intervention carefully, with a full appreciation of the origins of the instability that it is trying to counter. Such difficult tasks motivated people to call central banking as the “art,” rather than the “science”.

In the private domain, the scarcity of central bank money significantly increased the reliance on the banking system liabilities. By acting as a special kind of intermediary, banks rose to the challenge of providing funding liquidity to the real economy. Their financial intermediation role also enabled them to establish the retail payment system. For a long time, the banking system’s major task was to manage this relationship between the (retail) payment system and the quantity of money. To do so, they transferred the funds from the surplus agents to the deficit agents and absorbed the imbalances into their own balance sheets. To strike a balance between the payment obligations, and the quantity of money, banks started to create their private money, which is called credit. Banks recognized that insufficient liquidity could lead to a cascade of missed payments and the failure of the payment system as a whole.

For a while, banks’ adoption of the intermediary role appeared to provide a partial solution to the puzzle faced by the central bankers. Banks’ traditional role, as a financial intermediary and providers of indirect finance, connected them with the retail depositors. In the process, they offered a retail payment- usually involve transactions between two consumers, between consumers and small businesses, or between two small to medium enterprises. In this brave new world, managing the payment services in the financial system became analogous to the management of the economy as a whole.

Most recently, the COVID-19 crisis has tested this partial equilibrium again. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak, both the Fed and the U.S. Treasury coordinated their fiscal and monetary actions to support small businesses and keep them afloat in this challenging time. So far, a design flaw at the heart of the CARES Act, which is an over-reliance on the banking system to transfer these funds to small businesses, has created a disappointing result. This failure caught central bankers and the governments by surprise and revealed a fatal flaw in their support packages. At the heart of this misunderstanding is the fact that banks have already switched their business models to reflect a payment system that has been divided into two parts: wholesale and retail. Banks have changed the gear towards providing wholesale payment-those made between financial institutions (e.g., banks, pension funds, insurance companies) and/or large (often multinational) corporations- and away from retail payment. They are so taken with their new functions as dealers in the money market and originators of asset-backed securities in the modern market-based finance that their traditional role of being a financial intermediary has become a less important part of their activities. In other words, by design, small businesses could not get the aid money as banks are not willing to use their balance sheets to lend to these small enterprises anymore.

In this context, the broader access to central bank money by small businesses could create new opportunities for retail payments and the way the central bank maintains monetary and financial stability. Currently, households and (non-financial) companies are only able to use central bank money in the form of banknotes. Central bank digital currency (CBDC) would enable them to hold central bank money in electronic form and use it to make payments. This would increase the availability and utility of central bank money, allowing it to be used in a much more extensive range of situations than physical cash. Central bank money (whether cash, central bank reserves or potentially CBDC) plays a fundamental role in supporting monetary and financial stability by acting as a risk-free form of money that provides the ultimate means of settlement for all sterling payments in the economy. This means that the introduction of CBDC could enhance the way the central bank maintains monetary and financial stability by providing a new form of central bank money and new payment infrastructure. This could have a range of benefits, including strengthening the pass-through of monetary policy changes to the broader economy, especially to small businesses and other retail depositors, and increasing the resilience of the payment system.

This increased availability of central bank money is likely to lead to some substitution away from the forms of payment currently used by households and businesses (i.e., cash and bank deposits). If this substitution was extensive, it could reduce the reliance on commercial bank funding, and the level of credit that banks could provide as CBDC would automatically give access to central bank money to non-banks. This would potentially be useful in conducting an unconventional monetary policy. For example, the COVID-19 precipitated increased demand for dollars both domestically and internationally. Small businesses in the U.S. are increasingly looking for liquidity through programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) so that those businesses can keep workers employed. In the global dollar funding market, central banks swap lines with the Fed sent dollars into other countries, but transferring those dollars to end-users would be even easier for central banks if they could bypass the commercial banking system.

Further, CBDC can be used as intraday liquidity by its holders, whereas liquidity-absorbing instruments cannot achieve the same, or can do so only imperfectly. At the moment, there is no other short-term money market instrument featuring the liquidity and creditworthiness of CBDC. The central bank would thus use its comparative advantage as a liquidity provider when issuing CBDC. The introduction of CBDC could also decrease liquidity risk because any agent could immediately settle obligations to pay with the highest form of money.

If individuals can hold current accounts with the central bank, why would anyone hold an account with high st commercial banks? Banks can still offer other services that a CBDC account may not provide (e.g., overdrafts, credit facilities, etc.). Moreover, the rates offered on deposits by banks would likely increase to retain customers. Consumer banking preferences tend to be sticky, so even with the availability of CBDC, people will probably trust the commercial banking system enough to keep deposits in their bank. However, in times of crisis, when people flee for the highest form of money (central bank money), “digital runs” on banks could cause problems. The central bank would likely have to increase lending to commercial banks or expand open market operations to sustain an adequate level of reserves. This would ultimately affect the size and composition of balance sheets for both central banks and commercial banks, and it would force central banks to take a more active role in the economy, for better or worse.

As part 1 pointed out, banks are already reluctant to play the traditional role of financial intermediary. The addition of CBDC would likely cause people to substitute away from bank deposits, further reducing the reliance on commercial banks as intermediaries. CBDC poses some risks (e.g., disintermediation, digital bank runs, cybersecurity), but it would offer some new channels through which to conduct unconventional monetary policy. For example, the interest paid on CBDC could put an effective floor on money market rates. Because CBDC is risk-free (i.e., at the top of the money hierarchy), it would be preferred to other short-term debt instruments unless the yields of these instruments increased. While less reliance on banks by small businesses would contract bank funding, banks would also have more balance sheet freedom to engage in “market-making” operations, improving market liquidity. More importantly, it creates a direct liquidity channel between the central banks, such as the Fed, and non-bank institutions such as small and medium enterprises. Because central banks need not be motivated by profit, they could pay interest on CBDC without imposing fees and minimum balance requirements that profit-seeking banks employ (in general, providing a payment system is unprofitable, so banks extort profit wherever possible). In a sense, CBDC would be the manifestation of money as a public good. Everyone would have ready access to a risk-free store of value, which is especially relevant in the uncertain economic times precipitated by the COVID-19.

Jack Krupinski is a student at UCLA, studying Mathematics and Economics. He is pursuing an actuarial associateship and is working to develop a statistical understanding of risk. Jack’s economic research interests involve using the “Money View” and empirical methods to analyze international finance and monetary policy.