On Modeling Money, Banks and Markets

Every good model is designed to emphasize certain empirical regularities that characterize the real world and by doing so to explain certain aspects of how the real world functions. Thus, the first question when discussing how to model money and banking is: What are the empirical regularities that a model of money and banking should capture?

Drawing on my knowledge not only of the history of money and banking, but also of the structure of modern money markets, I have strong views on the empirical regularities that a model of money and banking should capture. Depending on the purpose of the model, there can be good reasons for focusing on getting either the asset or the liability side of banking right, so I will set forth the relevant empirical regularities separately for the two sides of the bank balance sheet. (Obviously there are also benefits to putting both into the same model, but frequently with formal modelling it is useful to start with something simple.) In both cases, first I state the key features that model should have and then I follow up with a brief discussion of some of the objections that I expect to hear to the approach I am describing.

Banks as issuers of money

When modelling the liability side of banking, there are two key features:

(1) Bank liabilities circulate as money. This means that bank liabilities are generally accepted, or, in other words, that the bank is trusted by everybody in normal times; and

(2) Any constraints on bank borrowing should be clearly explained, and should not imply that the individual members of the public are imposing borrowing constraints on banks. Thus, Diamond and Dybvig appropriately explains a run as a coordination problem, which is not at heart an individual action. And there can clearly be a constraint imposed by an outside authority like a regulator or central bank. But the idea that the individual members of the public refuse to lend to the bank past a certain amount should be viewed as contradicting the basic fact that bank liabilities circulate as money because banks are trusted by the public.

Discussion

Sometimes the claim is made that non-bank liabilities can also circulate as money. While it is true that there are historical examples of private non-bank liabilities circulating as money, these are almost always very localized affairs and thus don’t actually represent examples of generally acceptable means of exchange. These examples are not only lacking in geographic breadth, they are also typically short-lived, of very limited scope, and rare. In short, historical examples of circulating private non-bank liabilities are essentially measure zero events in the history of money. While certain historical events may be worth modeling in order to understand the event in question, these episodes are of far too little importance to be incorporated into a model that is trying to understand the general principles of money and banking.

The basic implication of the approach that I am advocating is that banks are not just a little more trustworthy than other economic entities. When modelling banks (in normal times), banks sit at the extreme of a spectrum of trustworthiness. Thus, models that purport to treat the trustworthiness of banks as only incrementally distinguished from other agents should not be considered as logically consistent with the statement that banks are issuers of money.

Banks as lenders

When modelling the asset side of banking — and especially when modelling how bank lending compares to market-based lending — the essential empirical regularities are:

(1) Banks, with their easy access to liquidity via the issue of monetary liabilities, are the economy’s short-term lenders.

(2) If there is going to be market-based short-term lending that competes directly with banks, then the banks’ role in “wrapping” (or guaranteeing) the short-term debt to make it saleable should be modeled. The reason for this is that in practice bank lending is frequently indirect and takes the form of a backup promise to pay in case the original borrower defaults; the use of these bank guarantees is so common that money market assets are in practice not marketable without bank support. (For a lengthier discussion of this issue, see here.) Note that for simplicity, both market-based short term lending and the bank guarantees that support it can be omitted from most models. It is, however, a clear error to include market-based short term lending without modelling the bank guarantees that support it.

(3) The market-based lending that takes place without bank support is long-term lending, such as 5-30 year bonds. Banks don’t have a comparative advantage here, because their ability to issue monetary liabilities is as likely to get them into trouble as to help them when the loan is long term. (They can easily like the S&Ls or Diamond-Dybvig run into financing problems.)

Thus, a key issue that a model seeking to address both bank lending and market-based lending is: What is the term of the lending in the model? Many models have both bank lending and market-based lending for the same term of the loan. I would argue that all models with this characteristic are effectively assuming long-term lending. Thus, when they find that markets can in many circumstances lend just as well as banks, they reach this conclusion by looking at the type of lending in which banks do not have a comparative advantage. A better way to model bank lending together with market-based lending is to model banks as lending short-term, e.g. working capital, while market-based lending is long-term (with or without banks competing in long-term lending).

Discussion

Many economic theory papers that purport to study money and banking effectively assume that markets in debt can exist in the absence of banks. One might almost say that these papers take markets as the fundamental economic unit and are trying to place banks within that context.

At least from my perspective, this presumption is precisely what heterodox theory seeks to challenge. My read of the history is that, while markets certainly existed before banks became important, neoclassical markets where there is something akin to a single price for a good could only be imagined in a world where banks were providing liquidity so that the typical trader was not liquidity constrained.

That is, “markets” in the sense of common usage have of course always been around, but this is a completely different concept from what an economist means when speaking of markets where every homogeneous good has a single price. Historically it is true that every community has, for example, weekly markets where people get together to trade. Prices in those markets are, however, typically based on individual bargaining and are very variable depending on who you are. People who have traveled broadly may have visited this kind of market, where a local friend is likely to tell you “Just let me know what you want to buy and then go away. I’ll handle the negotiations.” The neoclassical economic model is not designed to capture this kind of market.

The kind of markets that are made possible by banks are neoclassical-like markets. Based on sources like Adam Smith it appears that this type of market only started to grow up in Britain in the late 18th century. Suddenly people had access to enough liquidity that differential liquidity constraints stopped being the determining factor in prices, as is the case in traditional markets. And as Larry Neal explains in The Rise of Financial Capitalism (1990: 35) it was around the same time that published price lists expanded dramatically and began to take on “an increasingly official character.”

Thus, I would argue that markets as they are typically modeled in economic theory papers exist only because banks provide the liquidity that makes the efficient prices they produce feasible. For this reason, a realistic model of banks and markets will reflect the role played by bank-based liquidity in the formation of market prices. This view, as was discussed in this post, is consistent with the realities of markets today, where short-term lending is heavily dependent on banks – and of course it’s hard to imagine how capital markets could function, in the absence of these bank-dependent money markets.

To summarize, in order to capture both bank lending and market-based lending an economic model needs to have at least a three period horizon with banks offering one period debt and markets offering two period debt. Ideally the model would be able to illustrate why markets are better for long term debt and banks are better for short-term debt.

Many thanks to David Andolfatto as this blog post was generated by email correspondence with him.

Advertisements

Taxonomy of liquidity II: Price stable liquidity

In Taxonomy of liquidity I I found that the distinction between market-based lending and bank lending could be clearly drawn only if the term “market-based lending” was used to refer strictly to traditional capital markets, that is, to the stock and bond markets, because money markets, repo markets, derivatives markets, etc. are all very dependent on explicit and implicit commercial bank guarantees. Here I want to address a different issue: the distinction between price stable liquidity and price disclosing liquidity.

Price disclosing liquidity is fairly intuitive. It is associated with the market liquidity that is available on stock markets or long term bond markets. Even though we consider Treasury bonds or Apple stock to be extremely liquid assets, we also understand that the prices of these assets are not stable, as any intraday chart of their prices will show. Stock and bond markets are designed to give asset holders a reliable venue in which to sell, while at the same time allowing prices to move to reflect what may be very short-term shifts in supply and demand.

Money market liquidity is different from this description of capital market liquidity. Money markets are markets where people who have cash that they will need in the near future try to earn a little interest. For this reason, money market investors are notoriously averse to sustaining capital losses (Stigum and Crescenzi 2007 p. 479). Furthermore, money market instruments are by definition short-term. Thus, unlike capital market issues, every issuer on the money market is more or less continuously raising funds. For this reason, when money market investors are worried that they may incur a loss, they don’t even need to sell their holdings to cause problems for the issuer; all they need to do is to refuse to invest in the new issues and the money market will be disrupted. In addition, because money market investors expect to need the money in the near future and are thus risk-averse, many of them avoid money market instruments that have any aura of credit risk.

An example of how money market investors react to losses is the behavior of prime money market fund investors in September 2008 after one prime money market fund, the Reserve Fund, announced that it would incur a small loss. The panic was so severe that the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and Department of Treasury all established programs to support money market funds and the commercial paper in which they invested.

Thus, it is the nature of money markets that they are expected to provide price stable liquidity (cf. Holmstrom 2015). This form of liquidity is completely different from the liquidity provided by the stock market where losses are expected on a regular basis.

One of the reasons that banks play such an important role in money markets is that bank liabilities are promises to make payment at par. Banks offer price stable liquidity. Not only are banks generally managed so that they can offer price stable liquidity, but the banking system itself – and in particular the structural support provided by the central bank – is designed to protect the system of price stable liquidity. Indeed, it is because price stable liquidity is integral to the business of banking that credit rating agencies generally demand that money market instruments receive liquidity and credit support from a bank in order to qualify for the highest credit rating.

In my previous post I explained that a discount market is an unusual kind of market, because each seller is required to endorse the bill when it is sold and thereby to guarantee payment on the bill in case of default. The importance of price stable liquidity on the money market explains this requirement, and explains the essential difference between the London Discount Market and the London Stock Exchange in the 19th century. When every seller has to guarantee the value of the bill, the incentive structure of the discount market is such that only high quality debt trades, and with every trade the credit quality of the debt increases. This is clearly a means of supporting the price stability of the instruments that trade on the discount market. On the stock exchange, there was no such requirement, because it would have obviated the purpose of the sale.

Why is price stable liquidity so important on the money market? When short term instruments can’t be relied on to hold their value, the public starts to look for better places to put their money, and there are enough reasonable somewhat risky alternatives, including other currencies, that the monetary system will break down if it doesn’t offer enough stability. For a money market to survive over the long term it needs to be in the top of its class in terms of stability.

In short, there’s another aspect of liquidity to add to our taxonomy. Capital markets offer price disclosing liquidity, whereas banks and discount markets offer price stable liquidity. More generally, money markets need to offer price stable liquidity or they will be subject to panics and may be at risk of collapse.

A Taxonomy of Liquidity I

My recent review of Andolfatto (2018) reminds me that underlying the debate between mainstream and heterodox approaches to money is a fundamental dispute over a factual question: Do financial markets and/or non-bank financial institutions provide the same services as banks?

Mainstream approaches typically claim that “clearly” financial markets and non-banks do provide the same services and that the differences are just a matter of degree. In my view, these claims are factually wrong. In this essay I am going to work through a taxonomy of liquidity that is designed to distinguish between the fundamentally different types of liquidity provided by the different types of financial contracts. In my view it is a category error to treat these different types of liquidity as if they were equivalent and interchangeable.

Preliminary question: What do banks do?

I’m going to take it as given that we can agree that banks create money by issuing monetary liabilities. Given this, what I think a lot of modern scholars miss is that those monetary liabilities can be either on balance sheet or off balance sheet. There is a tendency to focus, as Andolfatto (2018) does, on banks’ on balance sheet lending, where the banks issue money in order to fund loans. In fact, however, banks’ contingent, off balance sheet liabilities have for the past few centuries played a crucial role in the monetary system – and they still do today.

When a bank earns fee income by selling the issuer of an asset a credit line that will be used to repay the asset’s owner in the event of a default, the bank is monetizing that asset. Effectively by taking on the tail risk of the asset, the bank turns the asset into the equivalent of a bank liability, even though the bank’s liability is contingent. These contingent bank liabilities are extremely common and may go under the name of acceptance, letter of credit, standby facility, bank credit line, etc.

Because the focus of the mainstream literature on banking is on balance sheet banking, mainstream scholars typically distinguish banks, where debt is held on balance sheet, from markets, where debt is traded. But this framing elides the fact that very often debt is tradable only because of an off balance sheet bank guarantee. As a result, in using this framing mainstream scholars often draw a distinction between banks and markets that is fundamentally misguided.

More recently banks have taken on another role in markets. Morgan Guaranty Trust, which later became JPMorgan Chase, played a crucial role in the development of the modern repo market by market making in repo on the balance sheet of the depository institution so that repo regularly accounted for 10% or more of the depository institution’s assets and of the depository institution’s liabilities from the late 1990s on. Of course, JPMorgan also became a tri-party clearing bank for the repo market. Now that JPMorgan has pulled out of the repo market, the Federal Reserve itself stands ready to lend on the market through its Reverse Repo Program.

Similarly, banks like JPMorgan Chase have been dealers in the derivatives markets since their earliest development, and even today JPMorgan’s depository institution accounts for more than 20% of the US derivatives market (see Table 3 of the OCC’s latest derivatives report). So nowadays we have depository institutions that are not only supporting financial markets via the guarantees they provided to the assets traded on them – as depository institutions have always done – but that also are the key market makers in markets that are viewed as essential to so-called “market-based” lending.

In short, drawing a bright-line distinction between financial markets and banks is a mistake.

Even so, the traditional equity and bond markets continue to operate with relatively minor connections to depository institutions (at least as far as I am aware). These financial markets can properly be viewed as “market-based” lending that is distinct from banks. Thus, while it may be correct to draw a clear distinction between traditional capital markets and banks, it’s also essential to recognize that markets in most other assets, including commercial paper, securitizations, repo, derivatives, etc., rely heavily on the explicit and implicit support of depository institutions for their basic functioning.

This understanding of the nature of financial markets motivates the following taxonomy of liquidity. Taxonomy 1

In addition, to distinguishing between the market, hybrid and bank liquidity that can be provided to an asset, this taxonomy makes another point: different types of liquidity provide very different services to the asset owner.

Market liquidity is the first entry, as it is the archetype that provides the most common mental reference point when one discusses liquidity. Market liquidity refers to the ability to sell an asset without suffering much loss in terms of price. Implicit in the concept is that there is a “true” sale for accounting purposes and that the seller of the asset successfully transfers all of the risk of the asset to the new owner. Thus the balance sheet of the seller of the asset increases by the value of the asset which is received in cash and decreases by the removal from the balance sheet of the risk of the asset (both credit and liquidity).

Nowadays one sometimes hears repos referred to as a kind of market liquidity. This diagram is designed to point out the limitations of repo-based liquidity. As the chart indicates in the row titled “Overnight reverse repo”, repo allows the asset owner to have access to cash without transferring any of the risk of the asset away. This is a very important distinction between market liquidity and repo-based liquidity. Arguably the latter should be called funding and the term liquidity should not be associated with repos at all. Certainly the two concepts are very, very different.

There are two other entries under Hybrid liquidity. The discount market is a historical phenomenon that was very important in 19th century Britain. Bills could trade easily on the discount market as long as they had been “accepted” (i.e. guaranteed) by a bank. A discount market sale was not, however, like a capital market sale: in order to sell a bill the owner had to endorse it, and the endorsement obligated the owner to pay up in the event that the bill went into default. Thus a discount market sale is an effective transfer of the liquidity risk of the bill, without transferring the credit risk of the bill.

A credit default swap is designed to protect the buyer against the credit risk of the asset. Effectively an asset owner can pay the equivalent of an insurance premium in exchange for a promise of payment if the asset goes into default. Note that in this case, the asset owner continues to hold the asset unencumbered on her balance sheet and thus receives no cash upfront from the seller of credit default swap protection. This explains the zero in the “Principal value of asset” column. (Note also that I have depicted credit default swaps here as if they are an effective way to transfer the credit risk of an asset. In fact, these markets are very complicated and there is some concern recently regarding how successful credit default swaps are at transferring the credit risk of an asset.)

There are two entries under “Bank-based liquidity”. The first is a “bank credit/liquidity facility”: this represents the case where for a fee a bank guarantees payment on an asset. As in the case of a credit default swap, this functions effectively as insurance for the holder of the asset, there is no transfer of the asset to the bank, and of course the asset owner receives no payment for the value of the asset from the bank. (On the other hand, the fact that the asset is accompanied by a bank guarantee typically makes it easy for the asset owner to transfer the asset to a third-party in exchange for goods or cash, for example on money markets like commercial paper or discount markets.)

Another important form of bank-based liquidity is the central bank discount window. All loans at the discount window are recourse loans, and as a result in exchange for the central bank’s cash the owner of the asset is able to lay off the liquidity risk, but not the credit risk of the asset.

The point of going through this Taxonomy of Liquidity in somewhat excruciating detail is to make it clear that it is a mistake to talk about “credit” or “liquidity” as if they are simple one-dimensional concepts. Similarly, it is very difficult to draw a bright line distinction between financial markets and banks. Anyone who wants to model money needs to be aware of these issues.

 

A heterodox critique of Andolfatto (2018)

Note: The goal of this post is to stimulate a conversation on how to model banks using economic theory. It may be impenetrable to those who are not already aficionados of economic theory.

In this post I am going to reinterpret a model of banking written by David Andolfatto that is available here. Before I reinterpret the model that Andolfatto presents, let me make some basic observations about the type of environment that is being studied here. First, this is a model of normal times: at present no effort is being made to incorporate crises or even the possibility of crises in the model. Second, there is a sense in which this is a model of short-term lending: all loans are one-period loans and no multi-period loans are considered. Indeed the model is structured so that there is no value to longer term lending.

Andolfatto recognizes that one of the cornerstones of heterodox theory is that banks create the money that they lend. When he introduces banks into his model, however, he ignores this principle and instead models banks according to the standard loanable funds approach as more “trustworthy” than non-banks. That is, he models θb > θ, where θ is a trust parameter. Effectively, he assumes the mainstream view that liquidity is a spectrum phenomenon and that banks just sit incrementally higher on the spectrum than other debt issuers.

I would argue that this framing fails to capture the idea that banks create money. When we say that banks “create money” what we mean is that banks issue liabilities that are generally accepted by the public. If I bring a $20,000 cashiers’ check issued by a bank to purchase a car – aside from confirming that the check is not a fake – just about any car dealership in the country will accept as if it were cash. In short, when we say that banks “create money,” we are saying that the trust parameter is so high that the banks’ liabilities are for practical purposes (in normal times) indistinguishable from fiat money issued by the government. For this reason, the assumption that is consistent with the claim that banks create money is not θb > θ, it is θb = infinity.

On the other hand, at the same time that banks can create money with ease, they are constrained because everybody expects them to give it back on demand. The car dealership accepts the large cashiers’ check, because it represents a promise to deliver the funds to the car dealership within a matter of days, if not faster. Thus, banks can create money and can borrow with extraordinary ease, but the loans are always short-term loans that the bank needs to be prepared to repay promptly.

In fact, Andolfatto presents his results under the assumption that θb = infinity, and he structures the model so that all loans are one-period, or short-term, loans. Thus, we can easily interpret Andolfatto’s model as a model of banks that create money. If we interpret Andolfatto’s model in this way, however, it’s not clear how to relate the model to either financial markets or non-banks.

Market-based lending does not function to finance working capital without bank credit and liquidity support (see, e.g., Stigum and Crescenzi 2007 pp. 976-77 on commercial paper), so if we are going to distinguish financial markets from banks we need to model them as long-term lending markets. Just as the short term assets sold on markets depend on bank guarantees, so do non-banks when they invest in these bank supported assets. Thus, non-bank lending, when it is being distinguished from bank lending, also needs to be modeled as long-term lending. Since there is only one-period, short-term debt in this model, there is no way to discuss market-based or non-bank lending as distinct from bank lending in this model.

This interpretation of the model is completely different from Andolfatto who claims:

“In the model, banks and financial markets are competing mechanisms for allocating credit. Banks are “special” only to the extent they are better than markets at funding investment. This specialness is not (in the model) logically rooted in their ability to create money. In particular, bond-finance in the model is “special” if it is the lower cost way to fund investment. Variations in the parameter that governs the willingness/ability of non-bank creditors to extend credit generates business cycles in the exact same way it would in a banking economy.”

But what Andolfatto has done is to reduce the statement that banks create money to a claim that banks can fund their loans ex nihilo: trust makes it possible for banks to finance working capital in this way. This framework underestimates what it means to say that banks create money, which I argue includes not just (i) the ability to fund loans ex nihilo, but also (ii) the “on demand” nature of the bank’s liability when it funds such loans. In short, there is a fundamental category distinction between bank obligations that are inherently monetary because they are payable at par “on demand” and non-bank obligations which do not have this property.

By modelling in detail only the investment financing side of the bank’s activities and not the monetary or “on demand” aspect of the bank’s liabilities, Andolfatto’s interpretation of his model abstracts from the concept of “money” itself. I would argue that the right way to bring the concept of money back into this model is to recognize that each period over which the bank is lending is fundamentally short, such as a week or a month. There is no evidence that capital markets can finance this type of activity without bank support.

In short, Andolfatto’s whole discussion assumes that “banks and financial markets are competing mechanisms for allocating credit,” and it assumes that it is appropriate to model “credit” as entirely homogeneous. In fact, “credit” is an overarching category that embraces more than one distinct form of lending. Bank credit, because it associated with the expansion of the money supply is categorically different from a bond issue, which does not increase the supply of “on demand” liabilities in the economy. Treating a 10 year bond obligation as substantially the same as a one-month advance of workers’ wages, because they are both “credit” fails to draw enough real-world distinctions about the nature of the financial system to be useful.

Thus, in my view if we are to treat the banking section of the Andolfatto model as a model of banking, then we must also recognize that it cannot at the same time be a model of financial markets. In order to introduce financial markets into the model, it will be necessary to introduce longer term debt.

A brief history of the shadow banking collapse in 2007-08

A large number of “market-based” financing vehicles that developed in the years leading up the the 2007 crisis were designed to exploit the fact that some investors were only worried about AAA-ratings (or for commercial paper A1/P1-ratings) and didn’t bother to understand the products they were investing in. Several of these vehicles were literally designed to blow up — they had liquidation triggers that when breached in an adverse market could result in complete loss of the investment. Others were designed to draw down bank liquidity lines when the economic situation became more difficult. (The latter could only exist because of a reinterpretation of a 2004 final rule promulgated by the Joint Bank Regulators that had the effect of gutting the regulation. See here.) Others would expose investors in AAA rated assets to massive losses if mortgage default rates were significantly higher what was expected and/or exhibited more correlation than was expected.

None of these products was viable once investors and bank regulators had seen how they worked in practice. Thus, these products had a very short life and markets for them collapsed entirely in 2007-08. This post briefly reviews this history.

A. In 2007 the commercial paper segment of the shadow banking system collapsed.

The first commercial paper issuers to go were structured vehicles that didn’t have committed bank lines of liquidity support, but instead supported their commercial paper issues by contractual terms that could force liquidation in order to pay up on the commercial paper. Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) are examples. Shortly thereafter structured vehicles that did have bank lines of liquidity support, such as CDOs and MBS (only a small fraction of which were financed with commercial paper), drew down the bank liquidity lines with dramatic effects on the balance sheets of the banks involved. To protect the banks from catastrophe the Federal Reserve gave them special regulatory exemptions (see the Supervisory Letters to Citibank, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase dated August 20, 2007 and to other banks in subsequent months) and permitted banks to pledge at the discount window ABCP for which they provided back up lines of credit (WSJ Aug 27 2007). These exemptions together with the Term Auction Facility made it possible for the ABCP market to deflate slowly over the course of three years, rather than collapsing quickly and taking a few banks with it.

In short in 2007 the Federal Reserve let a variety of different shadow bank models collapse, while protecting the banks and stabilizing the money supply by keeping the ABCP market from collapsing too quickly. These decisions were classic lender of last resort decisions that had the effect of allowing some entities to fail and other to survive with central bank support. They are also fairly uncontroversial: just about everybody agrees that the Fed acted appropriately at this point in the crisis.

B. From 2007 to 2008 a huge number of structured finance vehicles went Boom

At the same time some of the more esoteric structured vehicles that issued longer term obligations but also relied on liquidation triggers to support their issues blew up. Examples of this category include Leveraged Super Senior CDOs and Constant Proportion Debt Obligations. In a leveraged super senior CDO investors pay, for example, $60 million to earn 1.5% per annum spread over safe assets by selling an insurance policy (that is, CDS protection) on the $750 million most senior tranche of a CDO. Because the investors are putting up so little money the LSS CDO has a liquidation trigger, so that if the insured tranche falls by, for example, 4% in value, the structured liquidates, and an alternate insurance policy is purchased on the market. The investors then get whatever is left after the insured party is protected. These structures all blew up in 2007.

The Constant Proportion Debt Obligation was an even crazier product. Instead of insuring only the senior most tranche of a CDO, it sold insurance on a high grade bond index, including 125 names. Because there were no subordinated tranches to protect it from losses, the insurance premium was higher. The CPDO was structured to take the excess insurance premium (i.e. that which was not paid out as a bond yield to the marks who “invested” in this AAA-rated product) and put it aside. If everything goes well in three years the CPDO can stop insuring debt and pay the promised yield by just investing in safe assets. Of course, if everything goes badly, liquidation triggers are hit and the investor loses. Guess what happened in 2007?

CDO squared and ABS CDO’s are similarly products that pay an investor a bond-like yield to take an equity-like risk. They, however, had tranches that were rated up to AAA by the rating agencies, and in some cases even the brokers selling the products appeared to believe that they were just another kind of bond. Cordell, Huang & Williams (2012) found that the AAA-rated ABS CDO bonds lost more than half their value. More specifically they found that median junior AAA-rated ABS CDO bond lost 100% of its value, and that senior AAA-rated ABS CDO bonds did better, but also lost more than half of their value. And virtually every bond rated below AAA lost all of its value (Table 12). Now that investors understand this product, they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

C. Private Label Mortgage Backed Securitization evaporates

Underlying the losses on ABS CDOs were losses on private label mortgage backed securities. 75% of ABS CDO issuance was in the years 2005-2007 and over these years 68-78% of the collateral in ABS CDOs was private label mortgage collateral
(again from the great paper by Cordell, Huang and Williams Figure 2).

Cordell, Huang and Williams also finds that the lower tranches of subprime MBS were apparently never sold in any significant numbers to investors. Instead they were placed into CDOs (p. 9). This inability to place the lower rated tranches as well as other structural problems with the treatment of investors may explain the complete collapse of the private label MBS market, which is documented in Goodman 2015.

 

In short, SIVs, CDOs, and private label MBS were all effectively shadow banks that provided financing to the real economy during their lifetimes, but were not structured in a way that made them viable long term products. Thus, they disappeared as soon as they were exposed to an adverse environment. When this happened, the funding they had provided to the real economy disappeared (see Mian and Sufi 2018). This showed up as funding stress on the market.

Despite the stress the failures of these vehicles put on markets, the consensus seems to be universal that the Federal Reserve’s job was to protect the regulated banks, not to worry about the disappearance of the “market-based” lending structures. On the other hand, the liquidation and deterioration of these products sent waves through financial markets from August 2007 on that the Federal Reserve and the other central banks had to navigate.

The 2007-09 crisis: not a panic, but the collapse of shadow banking models

This post is a response to Ben Bernanke’s retrospective on the crisis and also addresses some of the comments others have made on his retrospective.

But first let me start the post with a little etymology. The term “lender of last resort” is generally acknowledged to have originated with Francis Baring’s 1797 tract, Observations on the Establishment of the Bank of England. Baring, however, did not use the English phrase; instead he called the Bank of England, the dernier resort. The use of the French is telling, because it is a well-established French phrase referring to the “court of last appeal.” Thus, the etymology of the phrase “lender of last resort” indicates that this is the entity that makes the ultimate decision about rescuing a firm or affirming the market’s death sentence. In short, when we talk about the central bank as lender of last resort, we are talking about the final arbiter of which troubled firms have a right to continue to exist in the economy.

Why would a lender of last resort allow some firms to fail? Because in an economy where bank lending decisions can expand or contract the money supply, banks that engage in fraud or make dangerously stupid lending decisions affect financial stability. So a lender of last resort has to police the line between good bank lending and bad bank lending. This almost always means that some lenders need to be closed down — preferably before they destabilize the financial system.

Framing the lender of last resort as having a duty to determine which of the entities that are at risk of failing for lack of funding will survive and which will not, sheds light on the debate between Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, and Brad Delong. The key to this is to reframe Ben Bernanke’s “panic” which he describes as lasting from August 2007 to Spring 2009 as the process by which the Federal Reserve allowed certain shadow banks — which had no reasonable expectation of Federal Reserve support — to collapse completely.

I. “Financial fragility” was initially driven by the collapse of non-viable funding models

  1. Collapse of shadow banking vehicles (for details see this post)

In 2007 most of the commercial paper segment of the shadow banking system collapsed. These shadow banks included SIVs, and a few CDOs. (The commercial paper collapse was extended over three years, apparently due to Fed approved bank support of the market.) Several categories of commercial paper issuer entirely disappeared.

From 2007 to 2008 several other categories of shadow bank collapsed and disappeared. Some can be classified as existing only due to the excesses of the boom: e.g. Leveraged Super Senior CDO, Constant Proportion Debt Obligations, CDO squared, and ABS CDO. (The  latter two products are best described as combining the return of a bond with the risk of an equity share. Once investors figured this out, they ran for the hills.) Others, such as Private label mortgage backed securities, are less obviously flawed products, and yet 10 years after the crisis are hardly to be found.

All of these shadow banks were “market-based” products with no claim whatsoever to Federal Reserve support, so it was unremarkable that the Fed allowed them to collapse. On the other hand, they had been used to provide funding to the real economy. So their collapse was necessarily accompanied by a decline in real economy lending.

To describe this phenomenon of the collapse of non-viable shadow bank lending models as a “panic” is inaccurate. Lax financial regulation allowed non-viable entities to play a significant role in funding real activity pre-crisis. These entities failed when reality caught up to them. They did not fail because of a panic, they failed because they were non-viable. Because of the significant degree to which banks were exposed to these non-viable shadow banks, short-term funding costs rose more generally, but to a large degree rationally.

2.  End of the 2000’s investment banking model

Over the final decades of the 20th century U.S. investment banks transformed themselves from partnerships into corporations. As corporations they grew to rely much more significantly on borrowed funds than they had when partners’ capital was at risk. By 2007 the investment bank funding model in the U.S. relied extremely heavily on repurchase agreements, derivatives collateral, and commercial paper. Arguably, this was another non-viable shadow bank model.

Bear Stearns failed in March 2008 because of runs on these instruments. Lehman Brothers failed in September for similar reasons. Merrill Lynch was purchased by Bank of America in an 11th hour transaction. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were at the edge of failure, but saved by the Federal Reserve’s extremely fast decision to permit them to become bank holding companies with full access to the Federal Reserve’s lender of last resort facilities.

While some may believe that financial stability would have been better served by the Federal Reserve’s support of the 2000’s investment banking model, at this point the question is an unanswerable hypothetical. Because the Federal Reserve exercised its lender of last resort authority to refuse to support the 2000’s investment banking model, this shadow banking model no longer exists.

Thus, in September 2008, just as was the case in earlier months of short-term funding pressures,  a major cause of these pressures was real (though in this case elements of “panic” were also important): i.e. the collapse of a shadow banking model that was non-viable without central bank support. Once again, the fact that such a collapse had real effects is not at all surprising.

II. “Financial fragility” did culminate in a well-managed, short-lived panic

Unsurprisingly the collapse of the 2000’s investment banking model was such a significant event that it was in fact accompanied by panic. It is in the nature of a financial panic that it is best understood as the market’s expression of uncertainty as to where the central bank will draw the line between entities that are to be saved and those that are allowed to fail. Effectively, funding dries up for all entities that might hypothetically be allowed to fail. As the central bank makes clear where the lines will be drawn, the panic recedes. This view is supported by the programs that Bernanke lists as having had a distinctly beneficial effect on crisis indicators (p. 65): the Capital Purchase Program, the FDIC’s loan guarantee program, and the announcement of stress test results were all designed to make it clear that depository institutions would be supported through the crisis. Similarly, the support of money market funds gave confidence that no more money market funds would be allowed to “break the buck.”

As Bernanke observes “the [post-Lehman] panic was brought under control relatively quickly” (p. 65). Within six weeks funding pressures had already begun to ease up and by the end of 2008 they had almost entirely receded. In short, once it was clear which entities would be saved by the lender of last resort, there was no longer any cause for panic.

Brad DeLong in a review of Gennaioli and Schleifer’s new book argues that there might not have been a panic associated with Lehman’s failure if some form of resolution authority had been in place. With this I agree. As I argued here: it is almost certainly the case that if Treasury had reacted to the March 2008 Bear Stearns failure by carefully drawing up a Resolution Authority instead of the 3-page original TARP document, 2008 would have looked very different indeed. I also agree with DeLong’s positive evaluation of Gennaioli and Schliefer’s theory of investor psychology. In my view, however, their theory is more properly framed as putting modern bells and whistles on financial market dynamics that have been well-understood for centuries. The whole point of having a central bank and a lender of last resort is, after all, to control the dynamics generated by investor psychology (see e.g. Thornton 1802).

III. Additional bubbles explain Bernanke’s “non-mortgage” credit series

Ben Bernanke focuses on the housing bubble, but there were actually three bubbles created by the shadow banking boom of the early naughties: the housing bubble, the commercial real estate (CRE) bubble, and the syndicated loan “bubble”. SIFMA’s Global CDO data shows how MBS was only one form of shadow banking collateral. Lending to corporations was almost equally important.
Global CDO collateral
As Dean Baker points out the CRE bubble peaked in September 2007. Commercial real estate prices dropped by over 30% over the course of the next 18 months.

The syndicated loan “bubble” has behaved differently. While the market was subject pre-crisis to a deterioration in loan terms that was comparable to the mortgage or CRE market, this “bubble” never popped. The length of the loans was such that not many matured in 2008, and many corporations had committed credit lines from banks that they were able to draw down. Thus, it was in 2009 that concerns about likely corporate defaults weighed heavily on the market (see here and here). These concerns were, however, never realized. The combination of ultra low interest rates, retail investors shifting their focus to bond funds and ETFs, and pension funds reaching for yield meant that corporations were typically able to refinance their way out of the loans, and no aggregate collapse was ever realized. (To see how short lived corporate deleveraging was, see here.)

Thus, the fact that 2009 was a year in which massive corporate bankruptcies were expected just over the horizon probably explains a lot of the stress exhibited by Bernanke’s non-mortgage credit series (which is composed of non-financial corporate credit indicators and consumer-oriented securitization indicators). Treating this series as representing “a run on securitized credit, especially non-mortgage credit” (p. 46) as if it can only be explained by “panic,” does not seem to address the deterioration of corporate fundamentals and the implications of those fundamentals for corporate employees.

Bernanke considers the possibility that borrower financial health drives this indicator, but rejects this explanation, because:  “First, aggregate balance sheets evolve relatively
slowly, which seems inconsistent with the sharp deterioration in the non-mortgage credit factor after Lehman, and (given the slow pace of deleveraging and financial recovery) looks especially inconsistent with the sharp improvement in this factor that began just a few months later” (p. 41). Bernanke appears to assume that the deterioration would have been driven by the housing bubble, but that is not my (or Dean Baker’s) claim. I am arguing that the collapse of the CRE bubble and the weight of needing to refinance maturing syndicated loans in an adverse environment caused corporate balance sheet deterioration. The improvement is then explained by the fact that CRE prices bottomed in mid-2009 and in early 2009 the Federal Reserve made clear its commitment to keep interest rates ultra-low for “an extended period” of time. Both of these helped corporates deal with their debt burden.

In short, I find that Ben Bernanke’s data is entirely consistent with the presence of only a short-lived panic in late 2008. The economic deterioration that Bernanke associates with the prolonged short-term funding crisis and the more short-lived non-mortgage credit crunch can be explained respectively by the collapse of a large number of shadow banking vehicles and by the deflation of the other two lending booms associated with the crisis.

IV. Why Ben Bernanke’s characterization of the crisis is problematic

Thus, my most serious objection to Ben Bernanke’s characterization of the crisis is that, having exercised the lender of last resort authority appropriately to its full potential by permitting shadow bank funding models that were deemed destabilizing to collapse, he seems to want to avoid acknowledging the actual nature of the central bank’s lender of last resort role. His description of the 2007-09 crisis as “a classic financial panic” implies that the crisis was fundamentally a coordination problem in which the public was choosing a bad equilibrium and just needed to be redirected by the central bank into a good equilibrium in order to improve economic performance. Brad DeLong also embraces the language of panic in his response to Bernanke on the AEA Discussion Forum: “all that needed to be done was to keep demand for safe assets from exploding.”

(For Paul Krugman the problem is to explain not just the depth of the recession that ended in mid-2009, but the extraordinarily slow recovery from that recession, which he dubs “the Great Shortfall”. I suspect much of the explanation for the Great Shortfall will be found in post-crisis policies that were designed to protect Wall Street balance sheets at the expense of pension funds and the public, but that is a very different post.)

If one reframes Bernanke’s data from August 2007 to Spring 2009 as representing the complete collapse of certain shadow bank funding models, we see the Federal Reserve as the ultimate decision maker over which funding models were allowed to survive. Because some shadow bank funding models were allowed — properly — to collapse short-term funding rates skyrocketed and areas of the real economy that had adapted to rely upon the doomed funding models struggled as they had to adjust to a world with a different set of choices. This adjustment was temporary because the Federal Reserve — properly — acted to promote restabilization of a financial system without the terminated shadow banks.

What drove the data was not the public choosing a bad equilibrium, (that is, a panic), but the Federal Reserve properly exerting its authority by allowing market forces to eliminate certain shadow banks. This authority is properly exercised because in a world with credit-based money such as ours, financial stability is only possible if the lines between bank-like lending that is acceptable and bank-like lending that is not acceptable are strictly drawn and carefully policed. Thus, the Federal Reserve’s most significant error was its failure to exercise this authority stringently enough long before the crisis broke in order to act preventively to forestall the financial instability that was experienced in 2007-09.

That said, Bernanke is rightly proud of the speed with which the post-Lehman panic was brought under control and is right to conclude that “the suite of policies that controlled the panic likely prevented a much deeper recession than (the already very severe) downturn that we suffered” (p. 66). He also draws a lesson from the crisis that is entirely consistent with the view of it presented here: “continued vigilance in ensuring financial stability” is absolutely necessary. Indeed, I suspect that he would agree with me that that the Federal Reserve should have exercised greater vigilance prior to 2007.

How to evaluate “central banking for all” proposals

The first question to ask regarding proposals to expand the role of the central bank in the monetary system is the payroll question: How is the payroll of a new small business that grows, for example, greenhouse crops that have an 8 week life cycle handled in this environment? For this example let’s assume the owner had enough capital to get the all the infrastructure of the business set up, but not enough to make a payroll of say $10,000 to keep the greenhouse in operation before any product can be sold.

Currently the opening of a small business account by a proprietor with a solid credit record will typically generate a solicitation to open an overdraft related to the account. Thus, it will in many cases be an easy matter for the small business to get the $10,000 loan to go into operation. Assuming the business is a success and produces regular revenues, it is also likely to be easy to get bank loans to fund slow expansion. (Note the business owner will most likely have to take personal liability for the loans.)

Thus, the first thing to ask about any of these policy proposals is: when a bank makes this sort of a loan how can it be funded?

In the most extreme proposals, the bank has to have raised funds in the form of equity or long-term debt before it can lend at all. This is such a dramatic change to our system that it’s hard to believe that the same level of credit that is available now to small business will be available in the new system.

Several proposals (including Ricks et al. – full disclosure: I have not read the paper) get around this problem by allowing banks to fund their lending by borrowing from the central bank. This immediately raises two questions:

(i) How is eligibility to borrow at the central bank determined? If it’s the same set of banks that are eligible to earn interest on reserves now, isn’t this just a transfer of the benefits of banking to a different locus. As long as the policy is not one of “central bank loans for all,” the proposal is clearly still one of two-tier access to the central bank.

(ii) What are the criteria for lending by the central bank? Notice that this necessarily involves much more “hands on” lending than we have in the current system, precisely because the central bank funds these loans itself. In the current system (or more precisely in the system pre-2008 when reserves were scarce), the central bank provides an appropriate (and adjustable) supply of reserves and allows the banks to lend to each other on the Federal Funds market. Thus, in this system the central bank outsources the actual lending decisions to the private sector, allowing market forces to play a role in lending decisions.

Overall, proposals in which the central bank will be lending directly to banks to fund their loans create a situation where monetary policy is being implemented by what used to be called “qualitative policy.” After all if the central bank simply offers unlimited, unsecured loans at a given interest rate to eligible borrowers, such a policy seems certain to be abused by somebody. So the central bank is either going to have to define eligible collateral, eligible (and demonstrable) uses of the funds, or some other explicit criteria for what type of loans are funded. This is a much more interventionist central bank policy than we are used to, and it is far from clear that central banks have the skills to do this well. (Indeed, Gabor & Ban (2015) argue that the ECB post-crisis set up a catastrophically bad collateral framework.)

Now if I understand the Ricks et al. proposal properly (which again I have not read), their solution to this criticism is to say, well, we don’t need to go immediately to full-bore central banking for all, we can simply offer central bank accounts as a public option and let the market decide.

This is what I think will happen in the hybrid system. Just as the growth of MMMFs in the 80s led to growth of financial commercial paper and repos to finance bank lending, so this public option will force the central bank to actively operate its lending window to finance bank loans. Now we have two competing systems, one is the old system of retail and wholesale banking funding, the other is the central bank lending policy.

The question then is: Do federal regulators have the skillset to get the rules right, so that destabilizing forces don’t build up in this system? I would analogize to the last time we set up a system of alternative funding for banks (the MMMF system) and expect regulators to set up something that is temporarily stable and capable of operating for a decade or two, before a fundamental regulatory flaw is exposed and it all comes apart in a terrifying crash. The last time we were lucky, as regulatory ingenuity and legal duct tape held the system together. In this new scenario, the central bank, instead of sitting somewhat above the fray will sit at the dead center of the crisis and may have a harder time garnering support to save the system.

And then, of course, all “let the market decide” arguments are a form of the “competition is good” fallacy. In my view, before claiming that “competition is good,” one must make a prior demonstration that the regulatory structure is such that competition will not lead to a race to the bottom. Given our current circumstances where, for example, the regulator created by the Dodd-Frank Act to deal with fraud and near-fraud is currently being hamstrung, there is abundant reason to believe that the regulatory structure of the financial system is inadequate. Thus, appeals to a public option as a form of healthy competition in the financial system as it is currently regulated are not convincing.