Inflation Comes for the Profligate

Published in Law & Liberty.

Printing money to finance wars with resulting inflation is the most time-honored monetary policy. It can also be used for other crises thought of as analogies to wars, like to finance the massive expense of bridging the Covid 19-triggered bust of 2020.

In these situations, the central bank necessarily becomes the Treasury’s partner and servant, stuffing its balance sheet with government debt and correspondingly inflating the supply of money. This captures an essential mandate of every central bank, though it is not one you will find in the Federal Reserve’s public relations materials, namely lending money to the government of which it is a part.

Now, as the economic recovery from the Covid bust strengthens, soaring government debt is still being heavily monetized in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, which has now expanded to a previously unimagined $7.6 trillion, in a classic Treasury-Fed cooperation. The printing (literal and metaphorical) continues and the new administration wants to expand it even more. Isn’t accelerating inflation on the way?

The distinguished former Secretary of the Treasury, economist Larry Summers, recently suggested that it may be. “There is a chance,” he wrote, that government actions “on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” I believe this is correct.

If we agree that there is such “a chance,” how big a chance is it? With political delicacy, Summers’ essay does not address this question. Instead, he carefully points out the “enormous uncertainties” involved. While the fog of uncertainty always obscures the economic future, it looks to me like the answer is that the chance is substantial. It would not be at all surprising to see inflation move significantly higher.

“There is the risk,” Summers writes, “of inflation expectations rising sharply.” Well, inflation expectations are already rising among bond investors and analysts, giving rise to such commentaries as these:

“According to the Bank of America’s January fund manager survey, some 92% of respondents expect rising inflation.” (Almost Daily Grant’s Newsletter, February 10, 2021)

“Bonds Send Message that Inflation is Coming” (Barron’s, February 5, 2021)

“For those of us not inclined to believe in free lunches, the funding of large deficits with printed money is another source of inflation and financial stability concerns” (Barron’s, February 12, 2021)

“A new worry now is whether the tremendous spending plans…can really be done without prompting a historic inflation.” (Don Shackelford, Proceedings newsletter)

“With growth in unit labor costs surging and a range of survey indicators also pointing to rising price pressures, we think inflation will be much stronger over the rest of this year.” (Andrew Hunter in Capital Economics)

“Inflation Worries Drive Platinum Up” (Wall Street Journal)

“The rat the Treasury market is smelling is consumer price inflation.” (Wolf Street, February 13, 2021).

Reflecting these concerns, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, while still low, has risen meaningfully of late, to about 1.4 percent from 0.7 percent six months ago. This move has imposed serious losses on anybody who bought long-term Treasuries last summer and held them. The price of the iShares Treasury Bond ETF, for example, is down about 18 percent since the beginning of August.

In contrast to the views just quoted, Summers observes “administration officials’ dismissal of even the possibility of inflation.” Who is right, the investors or the politicians? Whose assessments of inflation risk do you believe? Politicians may be expected to deny an economic result that would get in the way of their intense desire to spend newly printed money.

As has frequently been discussed, a notable inflation has already been running for some time—the inflation in asset prices. Monetary expansion, needing to go somewhere, has gone into the prices of equities, bonds, houses, gold, and Bitcoin. The “Everything Bubble” stoked by the Federal Reserve and the other principal central banks has taken asset prices to historically extreme, and in the case of Bitcoin, amazing, valuations. Financial history presents an essential recurring question: How much can the price of an asset change? It also provides the answer: More than you think.

U.S. house prices have been and are inflating rapidly. They are substantially over their Housing Bubble peak of 2006. According to December’s Case-Shiller index, they are rising at an annualized rate of 10 percent, and AEI’s December Home Price Appreciation Index shows a year-over-year increase of 11 percent. This is abetted by the Fed’s monetization of long-term mortgages, of which it owns, including unamortized premiums, a striking $2.3 trillion—a sum 2.6 times its total assets in 2007—and which it continues to buy in size. This huge monetization of mortgages by the institution they created would greatly surprise the founders of the Federal Reserve, could they see it, and displease them. Instead of taking away the punch bowl as the party warms up, the Fed is now pouring monetary vodka into the housing finance punch. Reflecting on this inversion of the famous metaphor, Ed Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute has reasonably asked if they couldn’t at least stop buying mortgages. But it appears this will not happen anytime soon.

Of course, as a base line, we have endemic inflation of goods and services prices. The Federal Reserve has moreover formally committed itself to perpetual inflation. The Covid bust notwithstanding, the Consumer Price Index increased 1.4 percent year-over-year in January, 2021, and over the two months of December-January at an annualized rate of 3.1 percent. We are told frequently by the Fed about its “2% target” and hear it endlessly repeated by a sycophantic chorus of journalists. Since the Constitution unambiguously gives the power of regulating the value of money to the Congress, I believe the Federal Reserve acted unconstitutionally in announcing on its own, and carrying out without the approval of the Congress, a commitment to perpetual depreciation of the purchasing power of the U.S. currency.

Last year it formally added a new willingness to let inflation go higher than 2 percent for a while. How much higher and for how long nobody knows, including the Fed itself, but this willingness is consistent with a greater chance of accelerating inflation.

How much inflation is a sustained 2 percent? At that rate, average prices quintuple in a lifetime. The global movement among central banks, including the Fed, to trying for 2 percent inflation is a notable example of the changing intellectual fashions of central bankers. When serving as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan suggested the right inflation target was zero, correctly measured, and an inflation rate of zero was the long-term goal of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. The distinguished economist, Arthur Burns wrote in 1957 that “our economy is faced with a threat of gradual or creeping inflation over the coming years.” He was right about that, except that gradual unexpectedly became galloping in the 1970s (ironically, when he was Fed Chairman).

“It is highly important that we try to…stop the upward drift of the price level,” Burns argued. Over time, “even a price trend that rises no more than 1 percent a year will cut the purchasing power of the dollar”—so much the more would 2 percent, he added. How ideas have changed. . Since the 1970s, we never are told about “creeping inflation” anymore. While Burns in the 1950s attacked 1 or 2 percent inflation, our current monetary mandarins strive for 2 percent forever and more than 2 percent for now. This increases the risk, consistent with Summers’ observations, that they will get more than they are bargaining for.

Economics is so little a science that economists can always be found on both sides of any question. This is certainly true of the debate about escalating debt, monetization, and the risk of accelerating inflation.

At 3 percent inflation, prices would multiply by 11 times in the course of a lifetime. We are always a little surprised at the result over time of relatively small changes in a compound growth rate like the average rate of inflation.

One of the key Keynesian arguments for inflation was that wages are sticky downwards, so that if real wages economically need to fall, you can make then go down by inflation instead. Over the decade prior to the Covid crisis, average U.S. hourly earnings for all employees were rising first at about 2 percent and later 3 or 3.5% percent a year. So a 2 or 3 percent inflation would sharply cut or wipe out real wage gains, at the same time as it imposes negative real returns on savers. Other items you will never see in the Federal Reserve’s public relations materials are its potent abilities to reduce real wages and punish savers.

“Throughout history, there’s absolutely no currency in the world that has maintained its value,” international fund manager Mark Mobius pronounced. The U.S. dollar certainly has not, losing 96 percent of its purchasing power since the creation of the Federal Reserve and losing 98 percent of its value in terms of gold since 1971. (That was when the U.S reneged on its Bretton Woods commitments and led the world into a pure fiat currency regime.) Increasing inflation going forward from here would be consistent with history.

Economics is so little a science that economists can always be found on both sides of any question. This is certainly true of the debate about escalating debt, monetization, and the risk of accelerating inflation.

With the opinion farthest from mine, we have the cheerleaders for monetizing a lot more debt and practicing “What, me worry?”—these are the proponents of “MMT” or Modern Monetary Theory. Of course, it should be written “M”MT, or “Modern” Monetary Theory, since solving your problems by printing up money and forcing the people to accept the depreciating currency is a very old financial idea. The City of Venice used it in 1630, for example, to spend with inflationary result during an attack of bubonic plague. Alternately, we could consider calling it “WMT” or “ZMT” for Weimar Monetary Theory or Zimbabwe Monetary Theory. Even better would be “JLMT” for John Law Monetary Theory.

John Law was the creative, persuasive theorist of risk and paper money, “secretary to the King of France and controller general of His Majesty’s finances,” who presided over first the inflation and then the panicked collapse of the Mississippi Bubble of 1720. A main theme, then as now, was how to produce paper assets to cover the government’s debts, but his history also provides a precedent for our house price discussion: “Thanks to Law’s money-printing, land and houses were expensive.”

Like the close ties of John Law to the French monarchy, the question of debt monetization and its inflationary risks is closely tied to the question of what kind of government we want. Should the federal government’s power be limited or expansive and dominant? What the proponents of “M”MT really long for is a vastly expanded and more powerful government, with themselves in charge. If debt can be indefinitely expanded by bloating the central bank, then you don’t have to tax much in order to spend forever. Thus one of the most important limits on the power of Leviathan to dominate the society can be removed. We see that much more is involved than a monetary theory.

Are those desiring to wield the expanded power willing to cause much higher inflation to get it? This is the political meaning of the monetary question.

What Drove Five Decades of Big Changes in Banking?

Published by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

A new post authored by Alex J. Pollock, Hashim Hamandi, and Ruth Leung (2021) on the Office of Financial Research (OFR) website helps answer that question, and it focuses specifically on the changes in U.S. banking that occurred from 1970 to 2020. The analysis includes chartered state and national banks, other depository institutions, and some specialized banking intermediaries, such as the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, and what the authors label the government mortgage complex, which consists of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. It also considers subgroups of banks—in particular, the ten largest commercial banking enterprises.

…

Much of this is well known. What is less understood is how the expansion in the generosity of deposit insurance has fueled real estate lending by deposit-financed intermediaries. A typical U.S. bank today has about three-quarters of its lending devoted to real estate loans of some kind. As observed by Pollock (2019), “We still use the term ‘commercial banks,’ but a more accurate title for their current business would be ‘real estate banks.’” This is a far cry from the prohibition on real estate lending for national banks prior to 1913. How does increased deposit insurance generosity affect banks’ mortgage lending?

…

Alex J. Pollock (2019), “Bigger, Fewer, Riskier: The Evolution of U.S. Banking since 1950,” The American Interest , February 25.

Alex J. Pollock. Hashim Hamandi, Ruth Leung (2021). “Fifty-Year Changes in the Banking Credit System, 1970-2020.” Post, Office of Financial Research.

Banking Credit System, 1970-2020

Published by the Office of Financial Research, U.S. Department of Treasury.

BY Alex J. Pollock, Hashim Hamandi, Ruth Leung, OFR*

This essay puts the depository institutions industry into broad historical perspective, looking at the fifty year changes from 1970 to 2020.

For this analysis, we aggregate the Banking Credit System, defined as the government-chartered depositories and their principal chartered support entities. We define the relevant components as:

• The largest ten bank holding companies (BHCs)

• All other insured depository institutions

• The Government Mortgage Complex (Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac + Ginnie Mae)

• The Federal Reserve Banks.

As the following five tables demonstrate, the changes in this system and its components over this period with respect to asset size, relative size, share, size relative to nominal GDP, and long-term growth rates are dramatic.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, there has been dramatic expansion in the scale of the institutions involved. Table 1 measures this in nominal dollars. Table 2 adjusts these numbers for inflation, using constant 2020 dollars. The increase in size in both nominal and real terms is remarkable.

Over the same period, the number of insured depositories has dropped dramatically: from over 19,800 in 1970 to about 5,000 in 2020—a reduction of 75% since one co-author (Alex Pollock) was a bank management trainee.

Meanwhile, the huge residential mortgage sector has become dominated by the Government Mortgage Complex, which was in 1970 relatively small, almost a rounding error, but has grown very big indeed. In nominal terms, it is now almost 260 times as big as it was in 1970, compared to the depository institutions asset growth of 28 times.

Table 1.

(1)Our goal is to understand the banking sector. If we expanded to non-bank companies, the size and growth would be even larger. Some of these companies’ activity is reflected in the Government Mortgage Complex, where they have a dominant share of mortgage servicing, and also in auto loans, credit cards and other consumer lending.

(2)1971

Of course, a lot of the growth when expressed in nominal dollars represents the endemic inflation of the post-1970 monetary regime. Table 2 shows the system’s still remarkable growth after adjusting for inflation.

Table 2.

(1)Values for 1970 are expressed in constant 2020 dollars using CPI values for June 2020 and December 1970.

Equally remarkable is the shift in the composition of the system, as shown in Table 3.

The ten largest BHCs in 1970 together equaled only 16% of the Banking Credit System, equal to about one-quarter of the aggregate size of all the other insured depositories. By 2020, the top ten have become 34% of the total system and have 1.3 times the assets of all the rest of the banks put together. Alternately stated, over these decades the consolidation of the historically highly fragmented American banking business has proceeded very far.

The big winners of share of the system over 50 years are the largest ten banks, the Government Mortgage Complex, and the Fed. The big losers of share are all the other depository institutions.

Table 3.

(1)Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4, the Banking Credit System over 50 years grew enormously relative to the economy as a whole—from 89% to 182% of GDP.

Table 4.

(1)Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

The assets of the biggest ten banks grew much faster than the other banks, increasing from 14% to 62% of GDP. All the other banks put together, now numbering about 5,000, fell from 63% to 47% of GDP.

The Government Mortgage Complex hugely inflated from 3% of GDP to 40%, by far the biggest change.

Table 5 shows the 50-year compound average rates of growth, both nominal and real, for the Banking Credit System, and GDP growth rates as a baseline comparison.

Table 5.

The Banking Credit System as a whole grew substantially faster than GDP over 50 years.

The Federal Reserve, now by far the biggest bank of all, grew much faster than GDP.

The Government Mortgage Complex grew fastest of all by far, at 11.8% per year in nominal terms, almost double the 6.1% for nominal GDP.

In Sum

Over the last 50 years, the Banking Credit System grew vastly bigger relative to the economy, much more consolidated, and much more dependent on both the government mortgage complex and the government’s central bank, greatly increasing its dependence on explicit and implicit government guarantees. This history exemplifies the maxim of Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber (1) that every banking system is a deal between the bankers and the politicians.

(1)Fragile by Design (2014)

*Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions or policy of the OFR or Treasury. All the data used in this paper are from public sources, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Congress Must Take Control of Money Back From the Fed

Published in Real Clear Markets.

The question of Money is always political.  What is the definition of “money,” what is its nature, how is it created, and how are debts settled—these are questions that have been much debated over time, sometimes very hotly.  Recall, for example, William Jennings Bryan’s famous, burning rhetoric of 1896:

“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns—you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold”!

He was addressing the definition of money.

What the U.S. Constitution says about the definition of money is succinct.  Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the express power:

“To coin money [and] to regulate the value thereof.”

As writers on the subject have pointed out innumerable times, to “coin” is obviously not the same as to “print.”

How then does it come about that the American government issues irredeemable, fiat, paper money, and this is the only kind of money we have today?

The Constitution expressly prohibits the states from issuing such paper money, but is silent about the national government on this point.

Considering original intent through the Constitutional debates, the founding fathers were nearly unanimous in their strong opposition to paper money, as the Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention make completely clear.  In general, they shared the view later expressed by James Madison about:

“The rage for paper money…or any other improper or wicked project.”

Although this was the dominant opinion of the members of the convention, and although they debated an express prohibition of national paper money, they decided not to include it.  Of course, neither was there an authorization.

In the discussion, George Mason explained:

“Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet…he could not foresee all the emergencies” of the future and was “unwilling to tie the hands of the legislature.”

Paper money in this view is a matter only for emergencies.

The Constitutional result was the express power “to coin” and silence on “to print.”  Should one conclude that there is an implied power for the government to print pure paper money?  Further, is there an implied power to make it a legal tender in payment of debts, even if those debts had been previously contracted for and explicitly required payment in gold coin?

A lot of supreme judicial ink would later be devoted to debating and ultimately deciding this question.
In the Constitutional Convention debates, Gouverneur Morris:

“Recited the history of paper emissions and the perseverance of the legislative assemblies in repeating them, with all the distressing effects.”

He further predicted:

“If a war was now to break out, this ruinous expedient would again be resorted to.”

This prediction was proved right when the Civil War did break out, and the Lincoln administration soon turned to paper money to pay the costs of the Union Army.

In 1861, faced with the staggering expenses of the war, Congress authorized the issuance of paper money, or “greenbacks,” as they were called.  In 1862, it made them a legal tender.  Predictably, the greenbacks went to a large discount against gold—their value fluctuated with the military fortunes of the ultimately victorious Union.

As another war measure, national bank notes were created by the National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864, which we now know as the National Bank Act.  The main point was to use the new national banks to monetize the Treasury’s debt.  Governments always like the power to monetize their deficits.

After the Civil War, the expedient of paper money as legal tender resulted in a series of Supreme Court cases in which:

First, making paper money a legal tender for debts previously contracted in gold was found unconstitutional in a 4-3 decision.

Then, soon afterwards, the Court reversed itself 5-4, after the addition of two new justices, finding that it was constitutional, after all.  The new majority stressed the sovereign right of a government to do what was necessary to preserve itself.

About the legal tender cases it has been said:

“Measured by the intensity of the public debate at the time, it was one of the leading constitutional controversies in American history.”

Yet they are now largely forgotten.

In one of the series of legal tender decisions, one later overruled, the Court wrote:

“Express contracts to pay in coined dollars can only be satisfied by the payment of coined dollars…not by tender of United States notes.”

That this decision did not stand was handy for the United States government later—in 1933, when it defaulted on its express promise to pay Treasury gold bonds in gold.  Instead it paid in paper money.

This action the Supreme Court upheld in 1935 by 5-4, although no one doubted the clarity of the promise to pay that was broken.  Among the majority’s arguments were the sovereign right of the government to default if it wanted to and the sovereign right of the national government to regulate money.

Coming to today: We have a pure fiat money system of the paper Federal Reserve notes in your wallet and bookkeeping entries on the books of the Fed.

This paper currency, the Federal Reserve on its own has committed to depreciate by 2% per year forever, in spite of the fact that the Federal Reserve Act instructs it to pursue “stable prices.”

By promising perpetual 2% inflation, the Fed keeps promising to make average prices quintuple in a normal lifetime.  (That is simply the math of compound interest.)

The Fed made this momentous, inherently political, decision on its own, without the approval of the Congress.  It did not ask Congress for legislative approval and no hearings on this debatable proposal about the nature of money were held.

Where, under the Constitution, did the Fed get this right to proceed without Congress?  That the Fed presumed to do this on its own authority was a highly questionable action of the administrative state.

I believe one could correctly argue that this was an unconstitutional violation of Article I, Section 8. Unfortunately, we have no lawsuit about it, so we can only observe it.

One scholar of the legal tender cases concluded:

“There remains the intriguing question of the Constitutional basis for today’s legal tender paper… today’s fiat money.”

Indeed there does.  But the political basis rules and life goes on.

In Memoriam: George Kaufman, PhD

Published in Loyola University Chicago.

At a retirement dinner held following the conference, banking leader Alex J. Pollock gave a speech about Kaufman and his contributions to the field entitled “57 Years of Banking Changes and Ideas.” He ended his remarks: “Let us raise our glasses to George Kaufman and 57 years of achievement, acute insights, scholarly contributions, policy guidance and professional leadership, all accompanied by a lively wit. To George!” Read Pollock’s entire speech→

Are Remote Workers More Productive? We Finally Have the Answer

Published in FOND.

Productivity is typically measured by an individual’s output vs. input over a period of time. One example of this is gross domestic product (GDP) per worker, which measures output by person over the course of a year. However, the ways in which we measure productivity today are much more complex.

Comment Letter To OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and FDIC

Published by the R Street Institute.

Via e-mail to:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

         Re.: Comments on the Proposed Joint Rule on “Regulatory Capital Treatment for Investments in  Certain Unsecured Debt Instruments of Global Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies, and Global Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations”

              OCC: Docket ID OCC-2018-0019; RIN 1557-AE38

              Board: Docket No. R-1655; RIN 7100-AF43

              FDIC: RIN 3064-AE79

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed joint rule.

In my view, the logic of the proposal is impeccable.  Because it is, it should be applied to another, parallel situation, as discussed below.  The proposal’s objective, “to reduce interconnectedness and contagion risk among banks by discouraging banking organizations from investing in the regulatory capital of another financial institution,” makes sense, but might be improved by adding, “or if such investments are made, to ensure that they are adequately capitalized.”

I believe another rule with exactly the same logic and exactly the same objective is required to address a key vulnerability of the U.S. banking system.  That is to apply the logic of the proposed rule to any investments made by U.S. banks in the equity securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the very largest and most systemically risky of American financial institutions.  As you know, hundreds of American banks took steep losses on their investments in the preferred stock of Fannie and Freddie when those institutions collapsed, and such investments caused a number of banks to fail.  That banks were able to make these investments on a highly leveraged basis was, in my judgment, a serious regulatory, as well as management, mistake.  On top of this, U.S. regulations allowed banks to own Fannie and Freddie securities without limit.

Banks were thus encouraged by regulation to invest in the equity of Fannie and Freddie on a hyper-leveraged basis, using insured deposits to fund the equity securities.  Hundreds of banks owned about $8 billion of Fannie and Freddie’s preferred stock.  For this disastrous investment, national banks had a risk-based capital requirement of a mere 1.6%, since changed to a still inadequate 8%.  In other words, they owned Fannie and Freddie preferred stock on margin, with 98.4%, later 92%, debt. (With due respect, your broker’s margin desk wouldn’t letyou do that.)

In short, the banking system was used to double leverage Fannie and Freddie, just as the investments in TLAC debt addressed by the proposal would otherwise double-leverage big banks.  To analogously correct the systemic risk, when banks own Fannie and Freddie equities, they should have a dollar-for-dollar capital requirement, so that it really would be equity from a consolidated system point of view.

I respectfully recommend, true to the principle and the logic of the proposed joint rule, that any investments by a bank in the preferred or common stock of Fannie and Freddie should be deducted from its Tier 1 regulatory capital.  I believe this should apply to banks of all sizes.

These are my personal views.  It would be a pleasure to provide any further information or comments which might be helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

                                                                                    Respectfully,

                                                                                    Alex J. Pollock

Financial Goblins

Published by the R Street Institute.

Just in time for Halloween last week, three financial goblins appeared in the Financial Times in the same October 31 issue:

-China Minsheng Investment Group, “the country’s largest private investment company,” with “crushing debt problems,” reportedly is cutting senior and mid-tier salaries by 53% “in a bold decision to save itself.”

-WeWork, the struggling former financial darling, drew a forecast from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman that it has “a high probability of being a zero for the equity as well as for the debt.”

-“South Korea’s biggest hedge fund, Lime Asset Management” is “swamped by investors’ demands to get their money back,” is “forced to sell hard-to-trade assets…at fire-sale prices,” and has “suspended withdrawals.”

The next day, the Wall Street Journal added:

“Depositors swarmed a rural bank here…rushing to pull money out.”

Perhaps these four goblins represent various leaks springing in the global “Everything Bubble” the central banks have inflated?

Will the Federal Reserve have a monopoly in digital currencies?

Published in The Hill.

Cryptocurrencies started out with a libertarian desire to give people an alternative to national money, thereby escaping government power to depreciate their fiat currencies through inflation. Many governments, including the United States, have gone so far as to promise perpetual inflation, a key function of which is to help governments depreciate their own debt. Governments can also completely destroy the value of their currency through hyperinflation, as has happened throughout history.

To create a meaningful alternative to this government money monopoly was a noble intent, consistent with the classic proposal by Friederich Hayek in “Choice in Currency.” He asked, “Why should we not let people choose freely what money they want to use?” He argued, “Practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people.” Cryptocurrency enthusiasts agreed. They were, however, too optimistic about how forcefully governments could react, first by imposing regulation and then by realizing that governments themselves could issue digital currency to the public.

The great irony here is that the idea of a digital alternative to national money can morph into an idea to expand and solidify the government money monopoly. According to a survey by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructure of the Bank for International Settlements, more than 60 central banks, representing 80 percent of the world population, are researching central bank digital currencies. More than half of them have moved on to actual experiments or more “hands on” activities.

The broadest form of government digital currency would be the central bank offering deposit accounts to the public at large, so individuals, businesses, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and municipal entities could have deposit accounts at the Federal Reserve instead of with a private bank. Then their financial transactions in the digital currency with each other would be settled directly by the accounting entries on the electronic books of the Federal Reserve. Efficient and risk reducing!

Such a centralization has happened before. Paper currency became monopolized by the Federal Reserve in the form of government notes in the early 20th century. Until then, private banks issued their own paper currency. I have a copy of a $3 bill issued in the 1840s by a previous banking employer. Needless to say, no such currency is used today.

Could money in the form of deposits, such as money in the form of paper currency, be monopolized by the central bank, given current technology? In principle that could be the case. Direct deposits at the Federal Reserve would be close to being default and liquidity risk free. No need to worry about whether your bank might fail, whether it might become illiquid or insolvent, or whether your deposit was over the insurance limit. You would have no need to withdraw cash if you were worried about banks in a crisis because you would be holding a direct Federal Reserve obligation. That would no doubt appeal to many holders of money and, in our electronic world, it is quite easy to imagine such a central bank digital currency.

Do we like the idea, however, that deposits would be concentrated in the government instead of spread among 5,000 private banks? How much of the deposit market the central bank could take over depends on whether it would pay interest on the deposits. If it paid zero interest, its market share would be much less. But the Federal Reserve can and does pay interest on deposits. There are $14 trillion in total deposits in the banking system. Suppose 50 percent of them moved to digital deposits with the Federal Reserve compared to the 100 percent market share the Federal Reserve has in paper currency. That would be a towering $7 trillion. The government money monopoly would become bigger and more powerful.

What would the Federal Reserve do with its new $7 trillion? It would have to invest it. It would become an even bigger allocator of credit. It might allocate a lot more credit to the government itself and its favored housing sector. Or it might get into corporate credit, displacing private investors and becoming a state commercial bank. The history of such banks has been generally pathetic because their credit decisions inevitably become politicized. The Federal Reserve could also more readily impose negative interest rates directly on the people, thereby expropriating their savings.

On top of all that, the government would also have financial Big Data extraordinaire. It would know almost everything about our financial lives. Digital currency would then have traveled from libertarian choice to Big Brother. If not strictly limited and controlled, central bank digital currency could turn out to be one of the worst financial ideas of the 21st century.

Should the Fed Be Run by Economists?

Published in Law & Liberty.

Tomorrow, November 2, marks two years since the nomination of Jerome Powell to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Leaving aside President Trump’s subsequent expressions of regret at his choice, the nomination represented an important institutional change for the Fed: the first Chairman in 30 years lacking a Ph.D. in economics.

The anniversary of Powell’s appointment offers us an opportunity to reflect: Was this a good thing, or should the Fed always be an “econocracy,” run by economists? Does other expertise matter?

In a 1977 conference at the American Enterprise Institute, Irving Kristol observed: “Most professors of economics genuinely believe they know how to run the economy and would very much like to have the chance to prove it.”

It does seem that inside every macroeconomist is a philosopher-king trying to get out, and that being part of the Federal Reserve is the closest an economist can ever get to being a philosopher-king—or at least an assistant deputy philosopher king.

On the other hand, the will to power is hardly limited to economists. What kind of education and experience, we may wonder, helps us best moderate our natural ambitions, apply wisdom to our actions, and control, in Friedrich Hayek’s terms, the “fatal conceit” of “the pretense of knowledge”?

On the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve, I made a dozen predictions about the Fed’s next 100 years.[1] Among them was this:

An intriguing trend in recent decades is how economists have tended to take over the Fed, including the high office of Chairman of the Board of Governors and the presidencies of the Federal Reserve Banks. But there is no necessity in this, especially once we no longer believe that macro-economics is or can be a science.

I predict the Fed’s next 100 years will again bring a Federal Reserve chairman who is not an economist.

This prediction was fulfilled much more quickly than I thought with the appointment of Chairman Powell, and I think it is a good thing for the Fed to move away from econocracy. Whatever the illusions in the past may have been, we not only no longer believe, but we all ought to know by now that macroeconomics is not a science. Moreover, in my view, it cannot ever be one. Therefore, it is healthy to move the chairmanship of the Fed around among various professional domains.

Chairman Powell was trained as a lawyer and has significant Wall Street experience in investment banking and private equity investing. This is a completely appropriate background, as it seems to me.

Speaking of lawyers, the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board was William G. McAdoo, who was at that time the Secretary of the Treasury. Under the original Federal Reserve Act, the Treasury Secretary was automatically the chairman. McAdoo was a lawyer and a businessman, who among other things built two tunnels under the Hudson River between Manhattan and New Jersey. As Treasury Secretary during the cataclysm of the First World War, he set out to and succeeded in helping New York displace London as the world financial center.

But the real power inside the Fed in its early days was Benjamin Strong, the president (they called it “Governor” at the time) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1914 to 1928. Strong was definitely one of Kristol’s “men of experience.” He went to work in banking right out of public high school—no college, let alone a graduate degree for him. He nonetheless became president of Bankers Trust Company and then took charge of the New York Fed.

If you were President of the United States, whom would you want to pick as chairman of the central bank to the dollar-based world? Here, by principal vocation, are the ones who did get picked in chronological order: Lawyer, banker, lawyer, banker, investment banker, banker, banker, corporate executive, financier, Ph.D. economist (we have reached Arthur Burns), corporate executive, economist without Ph.D. (that is, Paul Volcker), Ph.D. economist, Ph.D. economist, Ph.D. economist, financier (bringing us up to the present).

We may further consider that there are two major Federal Reserve buildings in Washington, DC. The first is the main Fed headquarters. This familiar, impressive temple to the importance of money is the Eccles Building, named for Marriner Eccles, who was chairman of the Fed from 1934 to 1948, and after that stayed on the Federal Reserve Board without being chairman until 1951. About Eccles, we read:

Although he neither attended college nor received any formal training in economics, Marriner S. Eccles became the intellectual force who led the Fed through financial crises during the Depression and World War II.

Eccles was a Salt Lake City banker who controlled two dozen banks, in addition to a number of other companies, and set up one of the first multiple bank holding companies. It is fair to say that this powerful Fed chairman bore little resemblance to an economics Ph.D.

The second main Federal Reserve building in Washington is the Martin Building. It is named for William McChesney Martin, who was chairman of the Fed from 1951 to 1970, which included serving under five U.S. presidents, and represents the record tenure in the job.

Martin’s highest academic degree was a B.A. in English from Yale, where he also studied Classics. Perhaps this prepared him to be, as Peter Conti-Brown has written, the Fed’s greatest creator of language. His most famous metaphor, of course, was “the punchbowl,” which the Fed must take away “just when the party was really warming up.”

Martin did take classes in economics in college, in which “he was astonished,” we are told, that the academic economists believed that his father, who was the president of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, and other Fed bankers were “hopelessly out of date because of their misguided warnings about excessive speculation in the stock market” of the 1920s. Of course, his father and friends turned out to be right.

Among other things, Martin served as the president of the New York Stock Exchange. He did take some graduate classes in economics, too, but through his long tenure at the Fed, he remained highly skeptical of economic models and forecasts.

History does make clear that while having professional education in economics can be a relevant qualification for leading the Federal Reserve, it certainly isn’t the only one or a necessary one.

A very instructive book on whom you might want as Federal Reserve chairman is Donald Kettle’s Leadership at the Fed. Its final chapter, “The Chairman as Political Leader,” draws these insightful conclusions:

The Fed’s policymaking is inevitably political, and no institutional (or even constitutional) fix can change that. History demonstrated the folly of thinking that monetary management can be reduced to a process of technical adjustment, for any monetary policy has political implications and creates political conflicts. The very attempt to shield such inherently political decisions behind “technical” standards and legal “independence” is itself a political strategy.… In framing monetary policy, the chairman operates as a political leader. He seeks to craft a policy for which he can build political support (and deflect attack)… [while enmeshed in] the intricate and complex balance of political forces in the Fed’s constituencies.

These points seem to me correct and to reflect reality. They must make us think of Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed from 1986 to 2006, who earned an economics Ph.D., but was not an academic, and repeatedly demonstrated his skills as a master politician and political leader. This took him all the way to being “The Maestro”—though even he could not sustain that exalted but unrealistic perception.

In sum, are we better off for having had at the Fed an econocracy of Ph.D.s for most of the last three decades? Forty years ago, Kristol mused: “I am not so sure the world has improved much since we began being governed by economic theories rather than by men of experience using some common sense.” As with other counter-factual speculations, we can never know what would otherwise have been.

Turning to the future, it is safe to predict that the Federal Reserve staff will continue to be full of economics Ph.D.s, whose advice and analysis any Fed chairman will want to consider.

But at the top of the Fed, will Chairman Powell be the start of a new phase, which returns to a model of financial experience and practical knowledge—like Eccles, Martin, McAdoo, and Strong? In my view, this would be a good addition to the Fed leadership mix over time. We should certainly not exclude economics Ph.D.s from the office, but they should most definitely not have an exclusive claim on this hugely powerful, globally impactful, systemically important job. The Fed should not be an econocracy.

Eliminating Fannie & Freddie’s Competitive Advantages by Administrative Action

Published in Real Clear Markets.

Among the strategic goals for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac specified by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in Congressional testimony on October 22 was: “Legislation could achieve lasting structural reform that…eliminates the GSEs’ competitive advantages over private-sector entities.” A good idea, except legislation won’t happen.

As the Secretary suggests, replacing the current government-dominated, duopolistic secondary housing finance sector with a truly competitive one is an excellent goal. But fortunately, it does not take legislation. It can be achieved with purely administrative actions—three of them, to be exact. These administrative actions are:

1. Set Fannie and Freddie’s capital requirements equal to those of private financial institutions for the same risks.

2. Have Fannie and Freddie pay the same fee to the government for its credit support that other Too Big To Fail financial institutions have to pay.

3. Set Fannie and Freddie’s g-fees at the level that includes the cost of capital required for private financial institutions to take the same risk.

The Same Capital Requirement

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, has full authority to set their capital requirements. FHFA simply has to set them in a systemically rational way: namely, so that the same risk requires the same capital across the system: the same for Fannie and Freddie as for private financial institutions.

Running at hyper-leverage was a principal cause of Fannie and Freddie’s failure and bailout. It naturally induced market actors to perform capital arbitrage and send credit exposure to where the capital was least—that is, into Fannie and Freddie—thereby sticking the taxpayers with the risk.

The capital for mortgage credit risk is still the least at Fannie and Freddie and the risk is still sent every day to the taxpayers by way of them. Even with the revised agreement between the FHFA and the Treasury announced on September 30, Fannie and Freddie will be able to in time increase their capital only to $45 billion combined. This is exceptionally small compared to their risk of $5.5 trillion: it would represent a capital ratio of less than 1%, still hyper-leverage.

Something like a 4% capital requirement would be more like the equilibrium standard required to eliminate the capital arbitrage, which would imply a total capital for the two government-backed entities of about $220 billion. I do not insist on the exact numbers, only that the FHFA should implement the right principle: same risk, same capital.

The Same Fee for Government Support

Fannie and Freddie are Too Big To Fail (TBTF). No one doubts or can doubt this. Their business and indeed their existence utterly rely on the certainty of government support. This means their creditors have immense moral hazard: they don’t have to worry about the credit risk of the trillions of Fannie and Freddie fixed income securities they hold. History has proved that the creditors are right to rely on government support—when Fannie and Freddie were deeply insolvent, the bailout assured that the creditors nonetheless received every penny of interest and principal on time.

What is this government support worth? A huge amount. There is widespread agreement that Fannie and Freddie should pay an explicit fee for it, but how much? The right answer is to remove their unfair competitive advantage by having them pay at the same rate as any other Too Big To Fail institution with the same leverage and the same risk to the government.

In other words, have the FDIC determine what the deposit insurance rate for a TBTF bank with Fannie and Freddie’s leverage and risk would be, and require them to pay that to the Treasury. Then they would be on the same competitive basis as private financial institutions.

Setting the right fee in exchange for the ongoing government support is within the power of the FHFA as Conservator and the Treasury, by the two of them amending their Fannie and Freddie Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements accordingly.

The Same Guaranty-Fee Logic

The key action here, which the FHFA is already not only empowered but directed by Congress to take, is already in law—to be specific, in the Temporary Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011. This statute requires the setting of Fannie and Freddie’s g-fees to include not only the risk of credit losses, but also “the cost of capital allocated to similar assets by other fully private regulated financial institutions.” The FHFA Director is instructed to make this calculation and increase the g-fees accordingly. The FHFA has egregiously not carried out this unambiguous instruction. It should do so now, thereby removing the third distorting competitive advantage which historically allowed Fannie and Freddie to drive out private capital.

Each of these administrative actions by itself would create a serious advance toward the stated goal. To take all three of them would settle the matter: game, set, match. No legislation needed.

Given Enough Time

Published in Barron’s.

Randall W. Forsyth distorts Murphy’s celebrated law with a truncated version of it, writing “whatever can go wrong, will” (“Sometimes Things Can Go Right—and a Lot Did for the Stock Market Last Week,” Up & Down Wall Street, Oct. 11).

Although a common misquotation, this is an incomplete version. The full, correct, and much subtler statement of Murphy’s Law is, “Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, given enough time.” It is with enough time that structural flaws in a system will necessarily emerge, and that financial vulnerabilities will burst from potential dangers to an actual bust. As properly stated, Murphy’s Law will doubtless prevail once again in finance, as in other domains.

Do you believe central bank assurances?

Published by the R Street Institute.

To reassure savers worried about the safety of their deposits, the Reserve Bank of India (India’s central bank) recently announced it “would like to assure the general public that Indian banking is safe and stable and there is no need to panic.”

The problem is that when government officials issue such assurances, do you believe them?

Governments confronted by the risk of a banking crisis have to say the same thing regardless how severe the risk really is. They must say that the system is safe and you should not panic, because they are afraid that, by sharing any doubts, they would themselves set off the panic they fear. Therefore, their statements of assurance have no informational substance.

“When it becomes serious, you have to lie,” Jean-Claude Juncker, then head of the eurozone finance ministers, with admirable candor said of the European financial crisis of the 2000s.

“We have no plans to insert money into either of those two institutions,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the summer of 2008. One month later, he began inserting into both of them what became $187 billion of bailout money.

Governments and banks in stressed situations are up against Walter Bagehot’s insight into the fragility of credit. “Every banker knows that if he has to prove he is worthy of credit,” Bagehot wrote in 1873, “in fact his credit is gone.” I imagine that will always be true.

The term “credit” comes from credo = “I believe.” In a threatened crisis, you suddenly realize that you have not much ground, if any, for believing in a bank’s soundness or believing the government’s assurances that things are fine.

Actually, Sovereigns Do Go Broke

Published in Law & Liberty.

The ballooning debt of the United States government is an especially large and interesting case of sovereign debt. One chronicler of sovereign debt’s long, global, colorful history, Max Winkler, concluded that “The history of government loans is really a history of government defaults.” More moderately, we may say that at least defaults figure prominently in that history.

In a vivid recent example, the government of Greece, in its 2012 debt restructuring, paid private holders of its defaulted debt 25 cents on the dollar, so these creditors suffered a 75 percent loss from par value. Greek government debt was at the vortex of Europe’s 21st century sovereign debt crisis. Various governments of Greece have defaulted seven times on their debt, which has been in default approximately half the time since the 1820s.

With such a record, how soon would the lenders be back this time?

Pretty soon, as usual. Defaults were the past; new loans proclaim a belief in the future. Thus in July, the print edition of the Financial Times informed us, “Greek debt snapped up as investors seek higher yields”! That’s a headline that would not have been predicted a few years ago—except by students of financial history who have observed the repeating cycles of sovereign borrowing, default, and new borrowing.

“Greece has seen vigorous demand for its latest bond sale,” read the Financial Times article. “The Mediterranean country received orders of more than €13 billion for the seven-year bonds, well above the €2.5 billion on offer.” And the “higher yield”? A not very impressive 1.9 percent. The recently again-defaulting Greek government has succeeded in borrowing at the same interest rate as the United States government was at the same time for the same tenor. Of course the currencies are different, but this is nonetheless remarkable.

Note the common but inaccurate figure of speech used in the article. It talks about the country borrowing, when it is in fact the government of the country that borrows. That these two are not the same is an important credit consideration. Governments can be overthrown and disappear, while the country goes on. Governments can and do default on their debt with historical regularity.

Breaking the Faith

Notorious in this respect is the government of Argentina, which has “broken good faith with its creditors on eight occasions since it declared independence from Spain in 1816,” as James Grant reminds us. That is a default on average about once every 25 years. Obviously the lenders reappeared each time—in 2017, they bought Argentine government bonds with a maturity of 100 years. That is long enough on average to cover four defaults. In August 2019, the Argentine government announced it would seek to restructure its debt once again, and its 100-year bonds at the end of the month were quoted at 41 cents on the dollar.

In contrast to this, an optimistic columnist for Barron’s pronounced in that same August that sovereign bonds “have minimal to no credit risk because they are backstopped by their governments.” This financially uneducated statement is reminiscent of the notorious Walter Wriston line that “countries don’t go bankrupt.” Wriston, then prominent in banking as the innovative chairman of Citicorp, was defending the credit expansion that would shortly lead to the disastrous sovereign debt collapse of the 1980s. While sovereign governments indeed do not go into bankruptcy proceedings, they nevertheless do often default on their debt.

The great philosopher, economist and historian, David Hume, famously argued two and a half centuries ago, “Contracting debt will almost infallibly be abused, in every government.”

Max Winkler shared a realistic appreciation of the risk involved, as he was writing during the sovereign debt collapse of the 1930s. His instructive and entertaining book, Foreign Bonds: An Autopsy (1933), provides a simple but convincing explanation for the recurring defaults. Considering “politicians in the borrowing countries, from Abyssinia to Zanzibar,” Winkler memorably observed:

The position they occupy or the office they hold is ephemeral. Their philosophy of life is carpe diem. . . . Tomorrow they may be swept out of office. Today they can live only by yielding to the multiple undertaking of expenditures, proposed by themselves and their temporary adherents. . . . In order to enjoy the present they cheerfully mortgage the future, and in order to win the favor of the voter they . . . exceed the taxable possibilities of the country.

This sounds familiar indeed. We only need to update Winkler’s A to Z country names—we could make it “from Argentina to Zimbabwe.” Otherwise, the logic of the politicians’ behavior he describes is perpetual. It applies not only to national governments but to the governments of their component states, cities, and territories, like over-indebted Illinois and Chicago; New York City, which went broke in 1975; and Puerto Rico, now in the midst of a giant debt restructuring, among many others.

The observation fits the governments of advanced, as well as emerging, economies. This political pattern includes the expanding debt of the United States government, although it has not defaulted since 1971. In that year, it reneged on its Bretton Woods agreement to pay in gold. The U.S. government also defaulted on its gold bonds in 1933. Then Congress declared that paying these bonds as their terms explicitly provided had become “against public policy.”

The always insightful Chris DeMuth, writing in The American Interest and pondering the long-term trend of rising U.S. government debt, proposes that we have seen “the emergence of a new budget norm.” This is “the borrowed benefits norm.” “Voters and public officials,” he writes, have forged “a new political compact: for the government to pay out benefits considerably in excess of what it collects in taxes, and to borrow the difference.” He points out that the benefits “are mainly present consumption and are not going to generate returns to pay off the borrowed funds. Borrowing for consumption leads to immoderation now, immiseration down the road.”

This scholarly language captures the same behavior Winkler described in more popular terms in 1933.

A Habit of Default that Few Seem to Have Noticed

How frequent are defaults on sovereign debt? In their modern financial classic, This Time Is Different (2009), Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff counted 250 government defaults on their external debt between 1800 and 2006, or 12 sovereign defaults per decade on average (of course, there have been more since 2006). In addition, they found 70 defaults on domestic public debt over that period.

A study by the Bank of Canada finds that, since 1960, 145 governments “have defaulted on their obligations—well over half the current universe of 214 sovereigns.” That is on average 24 defaulting governments per decade.

The study considers “a long-held view among some market participants . . . that governments rarely default on local currency sovereign debt [since] governments can service such obligations by printing money.” It points out that “high inflation can be a form of de facto default on local currency debt.” Holders of U.S. Treasury bonds found that out in the Great Inflation of the 1970s, when the bonds became called “certificates of confiscation.” But not counting the inflation argument, the Bank of Canada still finds 31 sovereigns with local currency defaults between 1960 and 2017. “Sovereign defaults on local currency debt are more common than is sometimes supposed,” it concludes.

The Wikipedia “List of sovereign debt crises,” relying heavily on Reinhart and Rogoff, shows 298 sovereign defaults by the governments of 88 countries between 1557 and 2015.

“The regularity of default by countries on their sovereign debt” is how Richard Brown and Timothy Bulman begin their study of the Paris Club and the London Club. These are organizations of governmental and private creditors, respectively, to negotiate with over-indebted governments. The first Paris Club debt rescheduling was in 1956 for Argentina; the London Club’s first was in 1976 for Zaire. (A to Z again.) The clubs have been busy since then. “Reschedulings increased dramatically from 1978 onwards,” Brown and Bulman observed in 2006. The current webpage of the Paris Club reports that in total it has made 433 debt agreements with the governments of 90 debtor countries.

The cycle of sovereign borrowing, default, and new borrowing has a long and continuing history. “Defaults will not be eliminated,” Winkler wrote in 1933. He further predicted that “debts will be scaled down and nations will start anew,” and that “all will at last be forgotten. New loans will once again be offered, and bought as eagerly as ever.” He was entirely right about that, and now we observe once again “Greek debt snapped up.”

How far back in time do government defaults go? Over 2,300 years in Greece. As Sidney Homer, in A History of Interest Rates, tells us: “In 377-373 B.C., thirteen [Greek] states borrowed from the temple at Delos, and only two proved completely faithful; in all, four-fifths of the money was never repaid.”

Shall we expect the fundamental behavior of politicians and governments to change?

Unfunded Pensions: Watch out, bondholders!

Published in Real Clear Markets.

A reorganization plan for the debt of the government of Puerto Rico was submitted to the court Sept. 27 by the Puerto Rico Oversight Board. It covers $35 billion of general obligation and other bonds, which it would reduce to $12 billion.

On average, that is about a 66 percent haircut for the creditors, who thus get 34 cents on the dollar, compared to par. Pretty steep losses for the bondholders, but steep losses were inevitable given the over-borrowing of the Puerto Rican government and the previous over-optimism of the lenders. Proposed haircuts vary by class of bonds, but run up to 87 percent, or a payment of 13 cents on the dollar, for the hapless bondholders of the Puerto Rican Employee Retirement System.

In addition to its defaulted bonds, the Puerto Rican government has about $50 billion in unfunded pension obligations, which are equivalent to unsecured debt. But the pensioners do much better than the bondholders. Larger pensions are subject to a maximum reduction of 8.5 percent, while 74 percent of current and future retirees will have no reduction. Those with a reduction have the chance, if the Puerto Rican government does better than its plan over any of the next 15 years, to have the cuts restored.

The Oversight Board’s statement does not make apparent what the overall haircut to pensions is, but it is obviously far less than for the bondholders. “The result is that retirees get a better deal than almost any other creditor group,” as The New York Times accurately put it. This may be considered good and equitable, or unfair and political, depending on who you are, but it is certainly notable. The Times adds: “Legal challenges await the plan from bondholders who believe the board was far too generous to Puerto Rico’s retired government workers.”

The Puerto Rican debt reorganization plan demonstrates once again, in municipal insolvencies and bankruptcies, unfunded pension obligations are de facto a senior claim compared to any other unsecured debt, including general obligation bonds that pledge the full resources and taxing power of the issuing government. This is not because they are legally senior, but because they are politically senior.

By running up their unfunded pensions, municipalities have not only stressed their own finances, but have effectively subordinated the bondholders. When it comes to unfunded pensions, the Puerto Rico outcome, like that of Detroit and others, announces: Bondholders, Watch Out!

Surprised again

Published by the Housing Finance International Journal.

“Why We’re Always Surprised” is the subtitle of my book, Finance and Philosophy. The reason we are so often surprised by financial developments, I argue in the book, is that “The financial future is marked by fundamental uncertainty. This means we not only do not know the financial future, but cannot know it, and that this limitation of knowledge is ineluctable for everybody.” That certainly includes me!

At the end of last year (in December 2018), interest rates had been rising, and it seemed obvious that they would likely rise to a normal level, at last adjusting out of the abnormally low levels to which central banks had pushed them in reaction to the financial crisis. The crisis began in 2007 with the collapse of the subprime lending sector in the United States and of the Northern Rock bank in the United Kingdom, and ran to 2012, which saw the trough of U.S. house prices and settlement of defaulted Greek sovereign debt at 25 cents on the dollar.

Six years had gone by since then, it seemed that it was high time for normalization. This view was shared during 2018 by the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and its Open Market Committee. It also seemed that the long period of imposing negative real interest rates on savers, thus transferring wealth from savers to leveraged speculators and other borrowers, needed to end.

What would “normal” be? I thought a normal rate for the 10-year U.S. Treasury note would be about 4 percent and correspondingly for a 30-year U.S. fixed-rate mortgage loan about 6 percent, assuming inflation ran at about 2 percent. I still think those would be normal rates. But obviously, it is not where we are going at this point.

For the final 2018 issue of Housing Finance International, I wrote, “The most important thing about U.S. housing finance is that long-term interest rates are rising.” Surprise! Long-term interest rates have fallen dramatically. The United States does not have the negative interest rates, once considered impossible by many economists, which have become so prevalent in Europe, remarkably spreading in some cases to deposits and even mortgage loans. But the United States does have negative rates in inflation-adjusted terms. The 10-year U.S. Treasury note is, as I write, yielding about 1.5 percent. The year-over-year consumer price index is up 1.8 percent, and “core inflation” running at 2.2 percent, so the investor gets a negative real yield once again, savers are again having their assets effectively expropriated, and we can once again wonder how long this can continue.

What do the new, super-low interest rates mean for U.S. housing finance?

The higher U.S. mortgage loan rates, which reached almost 5 percent for the typical U.S. 30-year fixed-rate loan in late 2018, “would have serious downward implications for the elevated level of U.S. house prices, which already stress buyers’ affordability,” I wrote then. Had those levels been maintained, they definitely would have put downward pressure on prices. But as of now, seven years after the 2012 bottom in house prices, the U.S. long-term mortgage borrowing rate has dropped again to about 3.8 percent. This has set off another American mortgage refinancing cycle and is helping house prices to continue upward.

In the U.S. system, getting a new fixed-rate mortgage to refinance the old one is an expensive transaction for the borrower, with fees and costs which must be weighed against the future savings on interest payments. The fees depend on state laws and regulations; they range among the various states from about $1,900 on the low end to almost $6,900 on the high end, according to recent estimates. On the lender side, the post-crisis increases in regulatory burden had raised the lenders’ cost to originate a mortgage loan to as much as $9,000 per loan – the increased volume from “refis” (as we say) may have reduced this average cost to the lender to about $7,500. It is expensive to move all the paper the American housing finance system requires in order for the borrower to obtain a lower interest rate.

Meanwhile, with the new low interest rates and high house prices, “cash out refis” are again becoming more popular. In these transactions, not only do borrowers increase their debt by borrowing more than they owe on the old mortgage loan, but they reset their amortization of the principal further out to a new 30-year schedule. In both ways, they reduce the buildup of equity in their house, making it more likely that they will still have mortgage debt to pay during their retirement.

In general, there are no mortgage prepayment fees in the United States. The old, higher rate loans are simply settled at par. This continues to make prices of mortgage securities in the U.S. system very sensitive to changes in expected prepayment rates. If investors have bought mortgage loans at a premium to par, which they often do, upon prepayment they have lost and must write off any unamortized premiums they paid.

The most notable American investor in mortgage securities is the central bank, the Federal Reserve. As of Aug. 21, 2019, it had on its books $115 billion (with a B) of unamortized premium, net of unamortized discounts. Not all of this may be for its $1.5 trillion mortgage portfolio; still, a refi boom might be expensive for the Fed.

Speaking of the Federal Reserve, then-Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote in 2010 about his bond buying or “quantitative easing” programs: “Lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance.” The latter effect of promoting refis is always true, but not the former claim of improved affordability. It ceases to be true when low mortgage rates have induced great increases in house prices, as they have. The high prices obviously make houses less affordable, and obviously mean that more debt is required to buy the same house, often with higher leverage – notably higher debt service-to-income ratios.

U.S. house prices are now significantly above where they were at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. They have risen since 2012 far more rapidly than average incomes. The Fed’s strategy to induce asset price inflation has succeeded in reducing affordability.

According to the Federal Housing Finance Board’s House Price Index, U.S. house prices increased another 5 percent year-over-year for the second quarter of 2019. “House prices rose in all 50 states…and all 100 of the largest metropolitan areas,” it reports. Its house price index has now gone up for 32 consecutive quarters.

The S&P Case-Shiller National House Price Index has just reported a somewhat lower rate of increase, with house prices on average up 3.1 percent for the year ending in June. There is art as well as science in these indexes – the FHFA’s index notably does not include the very high (“jumbo,” in American terms) end of the market. According to Case-Shiller, in some particularly expensive cities, house price appreciation has distinctly moderated, with year-over-year increases of 1.1 percent for New York, 0.7 percent for San Francisco, and negative 1.3 percent for Seattle.

The AEI Housing Center of the American Enterprise Institute has house price indexes that very usefully divide the market into four price tiers. It finds that at the high end of the market, the rate of increase in prices is now falling, while the most rapid increases are in the lowest-priced houses – just where affordability and high leverage are the biggest issues, and where the U.S. government’s subprime lender, the Federal Housing Administration, is most active.

On a longer-term view, Case-Shiller reports that national U.S. house prices are 57 percent over their 2012 trough, and 14 percent over their bubble peak. When U.S. interest rates rise again, whether to normal levels or something else, these prices are vulnerable. How much might they fall? That may be another surprise.

HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard

Published by the R Street Institute.

EDWARD J. PINTO and TOBIAS J. PETER                       ALEX J. POLLOCK

AEI Housing Center                                         R Street Institute

September 26, 2019

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Regulations Division

Office of the General Counsel

451 7th Street SW

Washington, DC 20410

Submission via www.regulations.gov

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re.: Docket No. FR-6111-P-02; RIN: 2529-AA98

HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule on the Disparate Impact Standard. The authors of the comment have many years of experience in housing finance, as operating executives, analysts, and students of housing finance systems and their policy issues.  We believe this rulemaking has the potential to significantly improve the existing standard.

Our fundamental recommendation is that the consideration of disparate impact issues must be able to include credit outcomes, i.e. default rates, not only credit underwriting inputs.  Specifically:

1. Mortgage lenders, including smaller lenders, should have the option to use a credit outcomes-based statistical approach, as defined below, which qualifies as a valid defense under the Disparate Impact rule. This would improve the fairness, operation, and statistical basis of the rule.

2. HUD should develop a credit outcomes-based statistical screening approach that allows it to assess with a high degree of confidence, whether differences in mortgage lending results raise disparate impact questions for further review.

In both cases, the ability to use credit outcomes would enhance clarity and reduce uncertainty.

Problems with the Pure Input Approach

Applying its credit standards in a non-discriminatory way, regardless of demographic group, is exactly what every lender should be doing.  Typically, the question of whether this is being carried out has been approached by looking only at inputs to a lending decision.  This results in a focus on differing credit approval/credit decline rates between protected and non-protected classes.  The argument is then made that the existence of differing credit approval/credit decline rates between classes is evidence of discrimination even if a lender applies exactly the same set of credit underwriting standards to all credit applicants.[1]

Read in full here.

Fund managers are the agents of shareholders

Published in the Financial Times.

“Large institutional shareholders, notably BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, recognise that companies must serve broader social purposes,” writes Martin Lipton (Opinion, September 18). There is one big problem with this statement: these firms are not shareholders. They are mere agents for the real shareholders whose money is at risk. They are moreover agents that display all the conflicts of classic agency theory. Yet they go about calling themselves “shareholders”, pushing the personal political agendas of their executives.

What they should be doing is finding out what the real shareholders desire and voting shares accordingly as faithful agents, not pontificating about personal ideas, which are irrelevant as far as what shareholders want.

The New Campus Housing Bubble

Published in Forbes, The Independent Institute, Ohio University College of Arts & Sciences Forum, and Catalyst.

My good friend, banker-scholar Alex Pollock of the R Street Institute, has shared with me some startling new data. High priced, comparatively luxury college student housing has been popular, and in this century lots of apartment complexes have been built with many amenities —granite or marble counter-tops, fancy swimming pools or saunas, etc. With unemployment rates below four percent and  low overall real estate delinquency since recovering from the traumas of a decade or more ago, this sector should be booming. But according to a story published by Wolf Street (Wolf Richter), delinquencies are rising dramatically.

Have Fannie and Freddie Paid the Taxpayers Back Yet?

Published in the Real Clear Markets.

The distinguished judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have considered how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have paid the Treasury Department to compensate the taxpayers for the giant bailout which kept Fannie and Freddie in existence and business.  The court observed in its September 6 judgment:

“The net worth sweep transferred a fortune from Fannie and Freddie to Treasury.”  Specifically, “Treasury had disbursed $187 billion and recouped $250 billion.”

The “net worth sweep” is the dividend on the senior preferred stock in Fannie and Freddie acquired by the Treasury in the bailout.  Originally set at 10% per year in 2008, the dividend was changed in August 2012—in the “Third Amendment” to the governing agreement—to essentially, “just send in all your profit” each quarter, hence a “sweep.”  The Treasury then owned $187 billion of senior preferred stock acquired for cash, as the court suggested, and another $2 billion in exchange for the original credit support agreement, for a total of $189 billion.  (Now it owns $199 billion.)

Fannie and Freddie should, said the court, “of course…pay back Treasury for [their] draws on the funding commitment.” And “Treasury was also entitled to compensation for the cost of financing.”  No one could disagree.  “But the net worth sweep continues transferring [Fannie and Freddie’s] net worth indefinitely, well after Treasury has been repaid,” it critically points out.  This must make us ask: Have Treasury and the taxpayers been repaid at this point?  The answer is not obvious, as sometimes has been asserted, and requires a little arithmetic.

In short, does having been paid $250 billion vs. a $189 billion principal amount automatically mean full repayment?  As every banker knows, it doesn’t.

Consider a simple analogy.  Suppose you borrowed $1,000 at an interest rate of 10%, under a $5,000 commitment with a commitment fee of 1% per year.  Suppose you pay only the interest and the commitment fee, but never a penny of principal.  After ten years, you will have paid $1,500.   You could truly observe that “You lent me $1,000 and I have paid you $1,500.”  But how much principal do you still owe?  You still owe all $1,000, without a doubt.

We can apply the same logic to Fannie and Freddie and see what happens.

Let us go back to August 2012, and suppose that the Third Amendment and the “net worth sweep” had never happened.  There is outstanding $189 billion of senior preferred stock.  The dividend remains the original 10%.  That is a dividend of $18.9 billion a year.  In addition to the dividend, as the court rightly noted, the original deal provides for Treasury also to charge an ongoing commitment fee. This was to compensate the taxpayers for their continuing credit support, which backed up and continues to back up all Fannie and Freddie’s liabilities.  Nine Fifth Circuit judges in an accompanying opinion call this support “a virtually unlimited line of credit from the Treasury.”  It effectively guarantees liabilities totaling $5.5 trillion—you don’t get that for free.  With vast liabilities and effectively zero capital, Fannie and Freddie could not function for even a minute without taxpayer support.  The Housing Reform Plan just published by the Treasury clearly provides for Fannie and Freddie to pay a commitment fee—and they undoubtedly should.

What would be a fair price for the taxpayers’ credit commitment?  Based on what the FDIC would charge a severely undercapitalized bank for the credit guarantee which is called deposit insurance, I believe 0.18% of total liabilities per year is a good guess.  This credit support fee on $5.5 trillion in liabilities gives an annual fee of $9.9 billion.

Thus, going back to our hypothetical 2012 with no profit sweep, Fannie and Freddie should have been paying Treasury $18.9 billion plus $9.9 billion or a total of $28.8 billion a year.  That was seven years ago.  Had Fannie and Freddie been paying that instead of the profit sweep for seven years the aggregate payment for dividends and commitment fee only, would have been $202 billion.  That payment would provide no reduction of the $189 billion of principal.

But Fannie and Freddie paid $250 billion.  That is $42 billion more than $202 billion, which might fairly be used to retire some of the $189 billion principal.  If we credit Fannie and Freddie with the going rate of interest, say 2%, on this amount, we might make that $45 billion.  That gives us $189 billion less $45 billion, leaving $144 billion of principal still to be repaid.

Suppose you think my suggested commitment fee is too high.  Let us cut it in half, to 0.09 %.  Then by analogous math, Fannie and Freddie’s required payment of 10% dividends plus commitment fees would be $23.9 billion a year, or $167 billion in total for seven years.  That would leave $83 billion, or $88 billion with interest, for principal reduction.  Result: they would have $101 billion still to pay.

Even when we remove by hypothesis Treasury’s claim on the perpetual net worth sweep criticized by the court, it is far from the case that Treasury has been repaid.

These considerations must be taken into account as Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (as conservator for Fannie and Freddie) revise the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement as part of the administration’s housing finance reform plan.