Event video: Thirteenth Transatlantic Law Forum

Hosted by Law & Economics Center at GMU Scalia Law in June 2024.

Finance can flow across jurisdictions in multilevel markets much more easily than goods, most services, or labor. Its structure, costs and distribution of gains are more fully organized by law and regulation than perhaps any other part of the economy. The legal and political idiosyncracies of the U.S. and EU have both produced complex mixes—arguably messes—of erratic financial integration. American markets feature omnipresent “too big to fail” kingpins, community lenders and insurance firms under 50 different regulators, and often-struggling regional banks between them. Europe’s mix is messier: cross-border “passporting” rules and partly-integrated supervision without centralized deposit insurance have unleashed cross-border activity for some financial services, but barely touched areas like retail banking. Are rationalizations on either side imaginable, and how would they relate to each other?

• Kathryn Judge, Harvey J. Goldschmid Professor of Law and Vice Dean for Intellectual Life, Columbia Law School

• Niamh Moloney, Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science

• Paolo Saguato, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

• David Zaring, Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor and Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, University of Pennsylvania Wharton College of Business

• Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute for Austrian Economics

Fixing A Big Mistake in Risk-Based Capital Rules

Published in AIER:

We are observing a great debate between the US banking regulators who wish to impose new, so-called “Basel III Endgame” rules to significantly increase bank capital, on one side, and the banks who argue they already have more than enough capital, joined by various borrowing groups who fear loans to them may be made more expensive or less available, on the other. It has been described as “the biggest fight between banks and regulators in the US in years.”

Said the president of the Financial Services Forum, “Additional significant capital increases, such as those of the Basel III Endgame proposal, are not justified and would harm American households, businesses and the broader economy.”

The Acting Comptroller of the Currency “pushed back at banks’ claims…saying the lenders could always cut dividends and buybacks instead.”

The debate generated similar disagreements among members of the Senate Banking Committee in a December 2023 hearing and is ongoing.

Leaving aside the fact there never can be an end to the endless and heavily political arguments about bank capital, what is most remarkable in this debate is what is not discussed. Not discussed is that the Basel risk-based capital requirements completely leave out interest rate risk. In its most common form that is the risk created by lending long at fixed interest rates while borrowing short at floating rates, which can be dangerous, even fatal, to the bank.

Excessive interest rate risk was a principal cause of the large bank failures of 2023, three of the largest failures in US history — Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank. Widespread vulnerability due to interest rate risk among banks was, at that crisis point, the reason the American financial regulators declared that there was “systemic risk” to financial stability, so they could make exceptions to the normal rules. These involved promising to pay off uninsured depositors in failed banks with money taken from other banks; having the Federal Reserve offer loans to banks without sufficient collateral, so they would not have to sell their underwater investments; and as in every crisis, offering words of assurance from government and central bank officials that really banks were secure — although this does seem inconsistent with declaring a systemic-risk emergency.

Banking expert Paul Kupiec, in an extensive bottom-up analysis of US banks, concludes that the interest rate risk on their fixed rate securities and loans has resulted in an aggregate mark to market, unrealized but economically real, loss of about $1.5 trillion — a staggering number. The tangible capital of the entire banking system is about $1.8 trillion. The market-value losses on interest rate risk would thus have consumed approximately 80 percent of the banking system’s total tangible capital. If that is right, the banks on a mark-to-market basis would have only about 20 percent of the capital they appear to have. A less pessimistic, but still very pessimistic, analysis suggests that the fair value losses on securities and loans of banks with $1 to $100 billion in assets have in effect reduced regulatory capital ratios by about 45 percent. Applying this to the whole system would suggest a mark-to-market loss from interest rate risk of about $1 trillion. The banking system thus displays a dramatically diminished margin for error, just as it faces the looming losses from the imploding sectors of commercial real estate, a common villain in financial busts.

That interest-rate risk is fundamental is obvious, basic Banking 101. But it is a risk nonetheless very tempting when the central bank has artificially suppressed interest rates for long periods, as it did for more than a decade. Lots of banks succumbed as the Fed, playing the Pied Piper, led them into the current problems. Recent press reports tell us: “Rising Rates Hit Regional Lenders”; “US banking sector earnings tumble 45%” as “the swift rise in interest rates…continues to weigh on lenders”; “Truist Financial swung to a loss”; “Citigroup …reported a net loss for the fourth quarter 2023 of $1.8 billion”; “Higher-for-longer interest rates remain the key risk for real estate assets globally”; and “Bank losses worldwide reignite fears over US commercial property sector”.

The Federal Reserve itself is suffering mightily from the interest rate risk it induced. Its operating losses now exceed $150 billion, and its mark to market loss is approximately $1 trillion. If the aggregate market value loss of the banks is $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, when we consider the greater banking system to include both the banks and the Fed, its total loss due to interest rate risk is about $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. The Fed is belatedly introducing into its stress test ideas “exploratory scenarios,” to test the effects of rising interest rates. But “the results will not be used to calculate [required] capital.”

Interest-rate risk was at the heart of the notorious collapse of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s, the hopeless insolvency of its government deposit insurer, and the ensuing taxpayer bailout. People thought the lesson had been learned, and probably it had, but it seems it was forgotten. 

Interest-rate risk remains particularly relevant to mortgage finance, mortgages being the largest credit market in the world after government debt, because of the unique devotion of American financial and regulatory politics to 30-year fixed rate mortgages, which are notably dangerous. So are very long-term fixed-rate Treasury bonds, but bank regulation always promotes buying Treasury bonds to help out the government. Both long Treasuries and 30-year mortgages in the form of the mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by government agencies are in current regulation included as “High Quality Liquid Assets.” The agency MBS are given very low risk-based capital requirements. Treasuries are always described as “risk-free assets” and given zero risk-based capital requirements. But of course they both can and have created plenty of interest rate risk.

However the in-process “Basel III Endgame” debate turns out, Basel international risk-based capital requirements will still fail to address interest rate risk. They will still promote investing in 30-year agency MBS and long Treasuries, in spite of their riskiness. This serves the political purpose of favoring and promoting housing and government finance, but not the soundness of the banking system. 

A complete process of including interest rate risk by measuring the dynamic net exposure to interest rate changes of the total on- and off-balance sheet assets, liabilities and derivatives of a bank, and appropriately capitalizing it, would doubtless be a task of daunting complexity for risk-based capital calculations under the Basel agreements, as evidenced by the Basel Committee’s “Standards — Interest rate risk in the banking book.” But an extremely simple fix to address very large amounts of interest rate risk is readily available.

This is simply to correct the woefully low risk-based capital required for 30-year agency MBS and for very long Treasury debt. These miniscule capital requirements get rationalized by very low credit risk, but they utterly fail to reflect very high interest rate risk.

The risk-based capital required for Treasuries, to repeat, is zero. The risk-based capital for 30-year fixed rate mortgages in the form of agency MBS merely 1.6 percent (a risk weighting of 20 percent multiplied by the base of 8 percent). Contrast this zero or minimal capital to the market value losses now being actually experienced. Using as a benchmark the losses the Federal Reserve had on its investments as of September 30, 2023:

          Treasuries    A loss of 15 percent

          Agency MBS  A loss of 20 percent
 

That more capital than provided under the Basel rules is needed to address the interest rate risk of these long term, fixed-rate exposures appears entirely obvious.

I suggest the risk weights of these investments, so potentially dangerous to banks (not to mention to central banks), should be increased to 50 percent for 30-year agency MBS and 20 percent for long Treasuries, thus giving us risk-based capital requirements of 4 percent (instead of 1.6 percent) for long agency MBS and 1.6 percent (instead of zero) for long Treasuries.

These are guesses and approximations, of course. While simple, they come much closer to addressing the real risk than does the current system. It is time to learn and apply the expensive lessons of interest rate risk once again.

Two sets of objections will vociferously be made. The housing complex will complain that this will make mortgages more expensive. The Treasury (and all finance ministries) will complain that this will make ballooning government deficits more expensive to finance. What do we want? To match the capital to the real risks, or to manipulate the capital regulations to subsidize politically favored borrowers?

I am for the former. Lots of people, alas, are for the latter. This is a perpetual problem of political finance.

Can we regulate our way towards financial stability?

Published in the Institute of Economic Affairs:

Here a new book by Alex Pollock and Howard Adler gives the answer. The book is called Surprised Again, and for good reason. Central bankers frequently tell us that they have fixed the problems of stability this time, and then, often quite soon afterwards, they are surprised and another shock comes. 

Why is this? However clever they are, the world fools them, and always will. The explanation turns on the difference between risk and uncertainty. Risk is when we know the range of possible outcomes, and the chance of each. There are many such situations about. But there is also uncertainty – when we may not even know the full range of possible outcomes, and we certainly cannot know how likely each is. This important distinction was the subject of a book by Frank Knight in 1921, and was emphasised recently by John Kay and Mervyn King in their Radical Uncertainty. 

The distinction is at the heart of another new book by Jon Danielsson, who shows that to stabilise finance we need to think about the system as a whole. In The Illusion of Control he writes that 

“The more different the financial institutions that make up the system are and the more the authorities embrace that diversity the more stable the system becomes and the better it performs” (p. 9).  

This is an important part of the explanation for the stability of the British banking system in the nineteenth and a good part of the twentieth centuries. The names of banks – Midland Bank, Bank of Scotland, British Linen Bank for example –make one aspect of this diversity clear. 

Letter: Money, machines and fundamental mistakes

Published in the Financial Times:

In his interesting letter (Letter, August 3), Konstantinos Gravas says that “money is a machine” and repeats the thought in several ways. To the contrary, money is not a machine. Financial markets are not machines. Economies are not machines. The mechanistic metaphor when applied to money, markets and economies is a source of fundamental mistakes.

All of these are complex, uncertain, recursive, reflexive, expectational, unpredictable, intertwined, interacting events, not machines. We don’t have a good name for these fascinating and often surprising worlds in which we live and interact.

FA Hayek in 1968 proposed the name “catallaxy,” to express that they are composed of ongoing exchanges, based on the Greek word “to exchange.” This did not catch on.

My suggestion is to name them “interactivities.” A key aspect of interactivities is that no one is outside them, looking down in divine fashion. Everyone, including central banks, regulators and experts of every kind, is inside the interactivity, subject to its fundamental uncertainty.

Too big to fail or bail

From Peacefare:

On June 4 the American Enterprise Institute hosted a panel discussion titled “Europe’s Populist and Brexit Economic Challenge” moderated by Alex J. Pollock of the R Street Institute and featuring Lorenzi Forni (Prometeia Associazione), Vitor Gaspar (International Monetary Fund), Desmond Lachman (AEI) and Athanasios Orphanides (MIT). The panel discussion was centered around Italy’s rising populism and economic woes, with a short discussion about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit causing damage to the European economy.

Seven decades of the inflation-adjusted Dow Jones Industrial average

Published by the R Street Institute.

Everybody has observed the renewed volatility of stock prices during the last few months. But for all the volatility, so far, the stock market has moved basically sideways since the end of 2017. The Dow Jones industrial average closed at 24,787 yesterday (April 17), only 0.3 percent different from the 24,719 it was at the end of December—with a lot of storm and stress in between.

Of course, it has moved sideways at a high level. How high?  For perspective, the following graph shows the DJIA over seven decades on an inflation-adjusted basis, expressing the history in March 2018 constant dollars.

We see immediately how much real stock prices can move over time, and how long the basic directional moves can last. The chart falls into five sections. We observe the great bull market of 1949-1966, followed by the great bear market of 1966-1982. Then another great boom from 1982 to the 1990s, which morphs into the runaway bubble of the late 1990s. Then a truly volatile decade which ends up in the big bust bottoming in 2009. Since then, the real DJIA is three times as high as at the 2009 low. In a longer view, it is 14 times what it was in 1949, 12 times as high as at the 1982 bottom and more than three times as high as the 1966 peak—all after adjusting out the endemic inflation of the times.

How high are stock prices now?  Pretty high. The boom and its acceleration last year bears a worrisome resemblance to the shape of the 1990s. However, so far the bull market has lasted only about half as long as those of 1949-1966 or 1982-1999.

What’s next?  Alas, to paraphrase Fred Schwed in his classic 1940 book, “Where Are the Customers’ Yachts?,” the one thing we all want most to know is the one thing we never can know. That’s the future, of course, especially the future of financial markets.

The Bubble Economy – Is this time different?

Hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

Two decades after Alan Greenspan’s famous “irrational exuberance” speech at AEI in 1996, Dr. Greenspan spoke at AEI again, addressing record-high global stock and bond market prices following unprecedented central bank balance sheet expansions.  Following Greenspan’s keynote address, R Street’s Alex J. Pollock led an expert panel that discussed whether the world economy is now experiencing an asset market price bubble and what might be done about it.

What Dow 20,000 looks like in inflation-adjusted terms

Published by the R Street Institute.

The Dow Jones industrial average closing Jan. 25 at more than 20,000 inspired big, top of the fold front-page headlines in both the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times (although the story was on Page 14 of The Washington Post). The Journal and FT both ran long-term graphs of the DJIA, but both were in nominal dollars. In nominal dollars, the 100-year history looks like Graph 1—the DJIA is 211 times its Dec. 31, 1916, level.

This history includes two world wars, a Great Depression, several other wars, the great inflation of the 1970s, numerous financial crises, both domestic and international, booms and recessions, amazing innovations, unending political debating and 18 U.S. presidents (10 Republicans and eight Democrats). Through all this, there has been, up until yesterday, an average annual nominal price increase of 5.5 percent in the DJIA.

Using nominal dollars makes the graphs rhetorically more impressive, but ignores that, for much of that long history, the Federal Reserve and the government have been busily depreciating the dollar. A dollar now is worth 4.8 percent of what it was 100 years ago, or about 5 cents in end-of-1916 dollars. To rightly understand the returns, we have to adjust for a lot of inflation when we look at history.

Graph 2 shows 100 years of the DJIA in inflation-adjusted terms, stated in end-of-1916 dollars:

Average annual inflation over these 100 years is 3.1 percent. Adjusting for this, and measuring in constant end-of-1916 dollars, 20,069 on the DJIA becomes 964. Compared to a level of 95 as of Dec. 31, 1916, the DJIA in real terms has increased about 10 times. Still very impressive, but quite different from the nominal picture. The average annual real price increase of the DJIA is 2.3 percent for the 100 years up to yesterday.

Growth rates of 2 percent, let alone 3 percent, extended over a century do remarkable things.