Category Archives: Notes

“Governments are bigger than ever. They are also more useless”

Says The Economist. The authors argue that falling state capacity, incompetence, corruption, and transfer/entitlement spending, which crowds out public investment and services, are to blame.

Update: Related, in VoxEU, Martin Larch and Wouter van der Wielen argue that

[g]overnments lamenting a stifling effect of fiscal rules on public investment are often those that have a poor compliance record and, as a result, high debt. They tend to deviate from rules not to increase public investment but to raise other expenditure items.

The New Keynesian Model and Reality

To analyze the transmission from interest rate policies to output and inflation, many academics and central bank economists use the basic New Keynesian (NK) ‘three-equation model’ and its various extensions. A key factor responsible for the model’s success is the seeming alignment with conventional wisdom—some of the model features can be framed in the language of familiar business cycle narratives, as found in newspapers, central bank communication, or introductory macroeconomics courses. But the resemblance between model and narratives is deceptive and the framing misleading. Practitioners and journalists might think that they base their reasoning on the NK model, but typically that’s not what they do.

So, what does the NK model really say? Few writers have identified the model’s fundamental elements more clearly than Stanford’s John Cochrane. In the context of his work on the ‘Fiscal Theory of the Price Level’ (FTPL), which partly overlaps with the NK model, he has thoroughly scrutinized the latter framework and compared it to prevalent views among policy makers and commentators. His verdict is harsh. In a recent blog post he writes:

There is a Standard Doctrine, explained regularly by the Fed, other central banks, and commentators, and economics classes that don’t sweat the equations too hard: The Fed raises interest rates. Higher interest rates slowly lower spending, output, and hence employment … slowly bring down inflation … So, raising interest rates lowers inflation …

The trouble is, standard economic theory, in essentially universal use since the 1990s, including all the models used by central banks, don’t produce anything like this mechanism. We do not have a simple economic theory, vaguely compatible with current institutions, of the Standard Doctrine.

At the heart of the NK model are three equations: One that nearly all macroeconomists take seriously, another one that many consider reasonable, and a final equation that only a few would wholeheartedly endorse. The first equation is the consumption Euler equation. It represents the fundamental concept of choice in the face of scarcity, capturing substitution towards cheaper goods: When the price of apples relative to oranges falls, households consume relatively more apples. The same logic applies with respect to current and future consumption: Higher real interest rates render future relative to current consumption cheaper, i.e., higher real interest rates go hand in hand with stronger growth. Accordingly, a higher nominal interest rate is associated with a strengthening of economic activity unless it triggers an even stronger increase in inflation.

Higher real interest rates make output higher in the future than today, and so raise output growth. The best we can hope [for in terms of reconciling Standard Doctrine and Euler equation] … is to have output jump down instantly today when the interest rate rises.

The second equation, the ‘Phillips curve,’ represents firms’ price setting. It relates current as well as expected future inflation to contemporaneous output. Underlying this second equation is the assumption that firms compete against each other and try to charge a markup over cost. Price increases by other firms as well as higher production, which pushes up costs, induce firms to raise their own prices as soon as they get a chance (sticky prices). But again, this is not easy to reconcile with the ‘Standard Doctrine:’

Again the sign is “wrong.” Suppose the economy does soften, lower [production] … A softer economy means lower inflation … relative to future inflation. It means inflation rises over time. At best, perhaps we can get inflation to jump down immediately, but then inflation still rises over time. … (This is an old puzzle, pointed out by Larry Ball in 1993.)

The final, least credible equation represents an interest rate rule whose coefficients satisfy the ‘Taylor principle.’ The assumption is that the interest rate set by the central bank systematically responds to inflation (and potentially output), and strongly so. The third equation and the ‘Taylor principle’ do not bear resemblance to real-world central banking, although many central bankers and journalists talk about ‘Taylor rules,’ which is not the same as the ‘Taylor principle.’ Rather, the equation and the principle are needed for technical reasons that relate to the dynamic properties of difference equations and more specifically, the number of unstable eigenvalues and jump variables. Paired with the assumption that output and inflation eventually return to their pre-shock trends, the equation subject to the ‘Taylor principle’ forces output and inflation to jump to specific values after the system is shocked.

Cochrane rejects the interest rate rule subject to the ‘Taylor principle’ as bogus. Instead, he favors an ‘FTPL’ mechanism to pin down output and inflation after a shock. According to the ‘FTPL,’ fiscal policy makers set primary surpluses ‘actively,’ i.e., independently of inflation. Inter temporal government budget balance then implies that changes in the economic environment, for instance a change in interest rates, give rise to an equilibrating jump in the aggregate price level, so fiscal policy pins down inflation.

Obviously, I think the fiscal theory story makes a lot more sense. The Fed does not have an “equilibrium selection policy.” The Fed does not deliberately destabilize the economy. The central story of how interest rates lower inflation is that the Fed threatens to blow up the economy in order to get us to jump to a different equilibrium. If you said that out loud, you wouldn’t get invited back to Jackson Hole either, though equations of papers at Jackson Hole say it all the time. The Fed loudly announces that it will stabilize the economy — that if inflation hits 8%, the Fed will do everything in its power to bring inflation back down, not punish us with hyperinflation.

Given the weak conceptual and empirical foundations of the third equation and the ‘Taylor principle,’ Cochrane is right to dispute the conventional argument that inflation is pinned down by this very equation—the Fed’s threat to ‘blow up the economy.’ But the FTPL mechanism he favors relies on a similar threat, in this case by fiscal policy makers. With ‘active’ fiscal policy, inflation is pinned down by the inter temporal government budget balance requirement; unless inflation assumes the ‘right’ value, government debt spirals out of control.

Independently of whether you believe in the third equation of the NK model subject to the ‘Taylor principle’ or in ‘active’ fiscal policy along the lines of the ‘FTPL,’ the implications are stark:

But we don’t have to take sides on that debate, because the result is the same, and the question here is whether current models can reproduce the Standard Doctrine. When interest rates rise, we can have an instantaneous jump down in inflation, that lasts one period before inflation rises again.

But this is a long way from the Standard Doctrine. First, we still have inflation that jumps down instantly and then rises over time, where the Standard Doctrine wants inflation that slowly declines over time. That sign is still wrong.

Second, the jump occurs because, coincidentally, fiscal policy tightened at the same time. Whether that happened independently, by fiscal-monetary coordination, or because the Fed made an equilibrium-selection threat and Congress went along doesn’t matter. Without the tighter fiscal policy you don’t get the lower inflation. So this is not really the effects of monetary policy. At best it is the effect of a joint monetary and fiscal policy.

Moreover, the fiscal/equilibrium selection business is doing all the work. You can get exactly the same unexpected inflation decline (or rise) with no change in interest rate at all. …

The mechanism is also a long way from the Standard Doctrine. The decline in inflation has nothing to do with the higher interest rates. There are no higher real interest rates anyway in this story. There is a fall in aggregate demand, but it comes entirely from tighter fiscal policy, having nothing to do with higher interest rates.

Cochrane is right to argue that the NK model’s transmission from interest rates to output and inflation has fiscal consequences, which the literature typically disregards. Consider the consequences of a shock. If we insist on the third equation subject to the ‘Taylor principle,’ then the inflation jump that guarantees stable system dynamics implies a revaluation of outstanding nominal debt (if there is some), which in turn requires fiscal policy makers to adjust future primary surpluses. So, the standard model subject to the ‘Taylor principle’—the Fed’s threat to blow up the world—implies that a shock to the interest rate (a ‘monetary policy shock’) forces fiscal responses. Cochrane asks, why researchers do not pay more attention to the fiscal consequences of ‘monetary policy shocks,’ and why they interpret the output and inflation dynamics resulting from the shock as the effects of monetary rather than monetary-and-fiscal policy.

If we instead dump the third equation and replace it with the notion of ‘active’ fiscal policy, then the shock cannot change future primary surpluses. Now, the inter temporal government budget balance requirement joint with the predetermined level of nominal debt (if some is outstanding) pins down contemporaneous inflation. And according to Cochrane, the traditional output and inflation adjustment paths to the ‘monetary policy shock’ are gone.

Cochrane discusses how the problems of the NK model transcend that model—they are not a consequence of the price stickiness assumption, i.e., the ‘Phillips curve.’ Even without price stickiness, the dynamics according to the ‘Standard Doctrine’ are hard for the Euler equation and the third equation to match.

The only way to get inflation and output to decline at all is to pair the interest rate rise with a FTPL fiscal shock or a multiple-equilibrium-selection-threat by the Fed, which induces a fiscal shock. Even then, we still get inflation that jumps down and then rises, and has nothing to do with the mechanism of the Standard Doctrine. The fiscal shock or equilibrium-selection threat is still coincidental with raising interest rates, and indeed has to fight the fact that higher interest rates want to raise inflation.

Cochrane suggests long-term debt as a potential model ingredient to better align model predictions under the ‘FTPL’ approach with the data. He also speculates why the NK model has been so successful in academia and central banks in spite of its dubious mechanics:

How could this state of affairs have gone on so long, that the basic textbook model produces the opposite sign from what everyone thinks is true, for 30 years? Well, interpreting equations is hard.

This paper contains more discussion and analysis. Have a look yourself and be prepared for a new business cycle framework.

A Financial System Built on Bail-Outs?

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and an accompanying paper and blog post, John Cochrane and Amit Seru argue that vested interests prevent change towards a simpler, better-working financial system. They describe various “bail-outs” since 2020, in the U.S. financial sector and elsewhere. They point out that in Switzerland, too, the government orchestrated takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS relied on taxpayer support. And they conclude that regulatory measures after the great financial crisis including the implementation of the Dodd-Frank act failed. Instead, Cochrane and Seru favor narrow banking (they prefer to call it “equity-financed banking and narrow deposit-taking”):

Our basic financial regulatory architecture allows a fragile and highly leveraged financial system but counts on regulators and complex rules to spot and contain risk. That basic architecture has suffered an institutional failure. And nobody has the decency to apologize, to investigate, to talk about constraining incentives, or even to promise “never again.” The institutions pat themselves on the back for saving the world. They want to expand the complex rule book with the “Basel 3 endgame” having nothing to do with recent failures, regulate a fanciful “climate risk to the financial system,” and bail out even more next time.

But the government’s ability to borrow or print money without inflation is finite, as we have recently seen. When the next crisis comes, the U.S. may simply be unable to bail out an even more fragile financial system.

The solution is straightforward. Risky bank investments must be financed by equity and long-term debt, as they are in the private credit market. Deposits must be funneled narrowly to reserves or short-term Treasurys. Then banks can’t fail or suffer runs. All of this can be done without government regulation to assess asset risk. We’ve understood this system for a century. The standard objections have been answered. The Fed could simply stop blocking run-proof institutions from emerging, as it did with its recent denial of the Narrow Bank’s request for a master account.

Dodd-Frank’s promise to end bailouts has failed. Inflation shows us that the government is near its limit to borrow or print money to fund bailouts. Fortunately, plans for a bailout-free financial system are sitting on the shelf. They need only the will to overcome the powerful interests that benefit from the current system.

Budgetary Effects of Ageing and Climate Policies in Switzerland

A report by the Federal Finance Administration anticipates lower net revenues for all levels of government.

… demographic-related expenditure will increase from 17.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 19.8% of GDP by 2060. If no reforms are made, public debt would rise from the current 27% to 48% of GDP. The need for reform is particularly pronounced at federal (including social security) and cantonal level. While AHV expenditure in particular poses a challenge for the Confederation, especially after the adoption of the popular initiative for a 13th AHV pension payment, cantonal finances are coming under greater pressure, particularly in terms of healthcare expenditure.

… the path to net zero will primarily place a financial burden on the federal government and the social security funds. This is because climate protection measures dampen economic growth and thus also the growth in public receipts. The electrification of the transport sector will also lead to a loss of revenue from mineral oil tax and the performance-related heavy vehicle charge (LSVA). However, the study assumes that these can be offset by replacement levies. Greater use of subsidies in the climate policy will further increase the pressure on public finances. In 2060, depending on the policy scenario, the general government debt ratio would be 8% to 11% higher than without climate protection measures. Although no robust international or Swiss estimates are yet available, scientists agree that the costs of climate change for public finances will be significantly higher than the costs of climate protection measures.

SNB Annual Report

The SNB has published its annual report. Some highlights from the summary:

Climate risks and adjustments to climate policy can trigger or amplify market fluctuations and influence the attractiveness of investments. From an investment perspective, such risks are essentially no different from other financial risks. The SNB manages the risks to its investments by means of its diversification strategy. …

A prerequisite for illiquid assets to be used as collateral in obtaining liquidity assistance is that a valid and enforceable security interest in favour of the SNB can be established on these assets. Otherwise, should the loan not be repaid, the SNB would be unable to realise the collateral. A decisive factor for the usability of assets is that the banks have made the necessary preparations. …

The crisis at Credit Suisse highlighted weaknesses in the regulatory framework. Banks’ resilience and their resolvability in a crisis should therefore be strengthened. At the same time, the current ‘too big to fail’ (TBTF) regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they take adequate account of the systemic importance of individual banks. In particular, the SNB recognises a need for action in the areas of early intervention, capital and liquidity requirements, and resolution planning. It is participating at both national and international level in the ongoing debate about regulatory adjustments.

In 2023, the SNB presented its ‘Liquidity against Mortgage Collateral’ (LAMC) initiative to the public. Banks of all sizes can find themselves in a situation where they need significant amounts of liquidity quickly despite having precautions in place that comply with regulations. The aim of the LAMC initiative is to ensure that, should the need arise, the SNB will in future be able to provide liquidity against mortgage collateral to all banks in Switzerland that have made the requisite preparations. This possibility was already available to systemically important banks. Preparatory work for this initiative started in 2019. …

Employees from the BIS and the SNB continued their research activities at the BIS Innovation Hub Swiss Centre. Work focused on technologies for tokenising assets and on the analysis of large volumes of data. …

At the invitation of the Indian G20 presidency, Switzerland again participated in the Finance Track in 2023. In this forum, the SNB emphasised the importance of pursuing a monetary policy geared towards price stability and contributed its analyses of central bank digital currency and payment systems. …

The SNB introduced a new current account survey in order to better record the global production of multinational enterprises whose production and trade processes are distributed across various countries in Switzerland’s balance of payments statistics.

Banks and Privacy, U.S. vs Canada

JP Koning writes:

An interesting side point here is that Canadians don’t forfeit their privacy rights by giving up their personal information to third-parties, like banks. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the information we give to our bank, and thus our bank account information is afforded a degree of protection under Section 8 of the Charter.

My American readers may find this latter feature odd, given that U.S. law stipulates the opposite, that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information they provide to third parties, including banks, and thus one’s personal bank account information isn’t extended the U.S. Constitution’s search and seizure protections. This is known as the third-party doctrine, and it doesn’t extend north of the border.

Bank of England CBDC Academic Advisory Group

The Bank of England and HM Treasury have formed a CBDC Academic Advisory Group (AAG).

The AAG will bring together a diverse, multi-disciplinary group of experts to encourage academic research, debate and promote discussion on a range of topics, to support the Bank and HM Treasury’s work during the design phase of a digital pound.

Members:

Alexander Edmund Voorhoeve Professor of Philosophy London School of Economics
Alistair Milne Professor of Financial Economics Loughborough University
Andrew Theo Levin Professor of Economics Dartmouth College
Anna Omarini Tenured Researcher and an Adjunct Professor in Financial Markets and Institutions Bocconi University
Bill Buchanan Professor of Computing Edinburgh Napier University
Burcu Yüksel Ripley Senior Lecturer of Law University of Aberdeen
Danae Stanton Fraser Professor in Human Computer interaction, CREATE Lab University of Bath
Darren Duxbury Professor of Finance Newcastle University
David Robert Skeie Professor of Finance University of Warwick
Davide Romelli Associate Professor in Economics Trinity College Dublin
Dirk Niepelt Professor of Macroeconomics University of Bern & CEPR
Doh-Shin Jeon Professor of Economics Toulouse School of Economics
Gbenga Ibikunle Professor and Chair of Finance University of Edinburgh
Iwa Salami Reader (Associate Professor) in Law and Director, Centre of Fintech University of East London
Jonathan Michie Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Innovation & Knowledge Exchange Kellogg College, University of Oxford
Marta F. Arroyabe Reader & Deputy Head of Group University of Essex
Michael Cusumano Deputy Dean and Professor of Management Sloan School of Management, MIT
Pinar Ozcan Professor of Entrepreneurship and innovation Said Business School, University of Oxford
Sheri Marina Markose Professor of Economics University of Essex

Conference on “The Macroeconomic Implications of Central Bank Digital Currencies,” CEPR/ECB, 2023

Conference jointly organized by CEPR’s RPN FinTech & Digital Currencies and the European Central Bank. Welcome speech by Piero Cippolone, keynote by Fabio Panetta.

Organizers: Toni Ahnert, Katrin Assenmacher, Massimo Ferrari Minesso, Peter Hoffmann, Arnaud Mehl, Dirk Niepelt.

CEPR’s conference website. ECB’s website with videos. Website with pictures.

Central Bank Balance Sheets, LOLR Safety Nets, and Moral Hazard

Niall Ferguson, Martin Kornejew, Paul Schmelzing and Moritz Schularick in CEPR dp 17858:

From the introduction:

… time and again, central banks deployed their power to create liquidity in a bid to insulate economies from disasters. … first began to be linked to geopolitical tail events during the 17th and 18th centuries – occurring with increasing regularity during wars and revolutions –, … the context of central bank liquidity support gradually but consistently shifted towards financial crises: … central banks’ sensitivity to financial crises has risen sharply over the 20th century and increasingly became a systematic response to financial distress after the Great Depression.

… central bank liquidity support systematically cushioned economic effects of financial crises throughout modern history of advanced economies. …

Historically, central bank liquidity support in crises is associated with a rising probability of future episodes of excessive risk-taking by financial intermediaries that end in another financial crisis. If central banks refrained from using their balance sheet to support markets in the last crisis, episodes of renewed excessive risk taking are much rarer.

On the Credibility of the ‘Credibility Revolution’

Kevin Lang argues in NBER wp 31666:

When economists analyze a well-conducted RCT or natural experiment and find a statistically significant effect, they conclude the null of no effect is unlikely to be true. But how frequently is this conclusion warranted? The answer depends on the proportion of tested nulls that are true and the power of the tests. I model the distribution of t-statistics in leading economics journals. Using my preferred model, 65% of narrowly rejected null hypotheses and 41% of all rejected null hypotheses with |t|<10 are likely to be false rejections. For the null to have only a .05 probability of being true requires a t of 5.48.

Conference on “The Future of Payments and Digital Assets,” Bocconi/CEPR, 2023

Conference jointly organized by Bocconi’s Algorand FinTech Lab and CEPR’s RPN FinTech & Digital Currencies. Keynotes by Hyun Song Shin and Xavier Vives. Organized by Claudio Tebaldi and Dirk Niepelt.

CEPR’s conference website with program. Bocconi’s website with videos and more.

Report of the Banking Stability Expert Group

The “Banking Stability” Expert Group that was formed following the failure of Credit Suisse has published its report (in German). I quote and add my own comments in brackets […].

Summary:

Die staatlich unterstützte Übernahme der Credit Suisse durch die UBS im März 2023 hat eine gefährliche Situation schnell stabilisiert. Die Schweiz hat damit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur internationalen Finanzstabilität geleistet.

Die Credit Suisse war am 19. März 2023 die erste global systemrelevante Bank («Global Systemically Important Bank», G-SIB4), die unmittelbar vor einer Abwicklung stand. Vorangegangen waren Jahre von Skandalen, verfehlten Strategien, schlechter Profitabilität der Bank und vielen Führungswechseln. Die anhaltende Krise einer ganzen Reihe von Spezial- und Regionalbanken in den USA in den ersten Monaten des Jahres 2023 beschleunigte den Vertrauensverlust in die Credit Suisse zusätzlich. Diese erlitt schliesslich einen Bankensturm und konnte sich aus eigener Kraft nicht mehr stabilisieren.

Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde die staatlich unterstützte Übernahme der Credit Suisse durch die UBS im In- und Ausland mit Erleichterung aufgenommen. Sie hat grössere Verwerfungen verhindert und die Situation erstaunlich schnell und nachhaltig [?] beruhigt. Damit hat sie wesentlich zur globalen Finanzstabilität beigetragen [?]. Diese Tatsache ist für die schweizerische und die globale Wirtschaft von grosser Bedeutung und wird auch von ausländischen Behörden anerkannt und begrüsst.

Die staatlich unterstützte Übernahme hatte im Vergleich zu einer Abwicklung Vorteile, weil sie vergleichsweise wenig Ausführungsrisiken mit sich brachte. Sie hat aber dazu geführt, dass mit der UBS nur noch eine international tätige Grossbank ihren Hauptsitz in der Schweiz hat. [Und sie hatte weitere Nachteile, z.B. was die Erwartungsbildung betrifft.]

Die Schweiz verfügt über einen starken internationalen Bankenplatz. Das setzt eine wirksame und international anerkannte Bankenregulierung voraus.

Die schweizerische Volkswirtschaft profitiert von der Präsenz grosser, international tätiger Schweizer Banken und von der Bedeutung des Finanzplatzes. Banken, und namentlich international tätige Grossbanken wie die UBS, sind ein wichtiger Teil des Ökosystems des Finanzplatzes. Sie ermöglichen vorteilhafte Finanzierungsbedingungen für die Realwirtschaft und stellen Finanzexpertise sicher, die in allen Teilen der Wirtschaft von Bedeutung ist. Ausserdem bildet die Ausstrahlung des Bankenplatzes eine wesentliche Grundlage für die Attraktivität des Schweizer Frankens und für seinen Status als sicheren Hafen. [Ist die “Ausstrahlung” zentral oder vielmehr die Stabilität?]

Die Bedeutung des Bankenplatzes bedingt eine wirksame und international anerkannte Bankenregulierung und -aufsicht. Diese bilden die Voraussetzung dafür, dass eine Grossbank mit Sitz in der Schweiz international tätig sein kann.

Die Expertengruppe «Bankenstabilität» 2023 kommt zum Schluss, dass das Too-big-to-fail-(TBTF)-Regime wichtige Fortschritte im Vergleich zur Situation vor der globalen Finanzkrise 2007/2008 erzielt hat. Die verschärften Eigenmittel- und Liquiditätserfordernisse haben sich als nützlich erwiesen.

Es ist aber auch eine Tatsache, dass die Behörden den vorbereiteten Abwicklungsplan, den das TBTF-Regime vorsieht, nicht umgesetzt haben. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob dieser Plan im Prinzip hätte funktionieren können oder ob dessen Umsetzung als nicht realistisch oder zu riskant beurteilt wurde.

Die Schweiz soll das TBTF-Regime überprüfen und identifizierte Lücken schliessen. Bei einer Krise der UBS wird es die Option einer Schweizer Übernahme nicht mehr geben. Umso wichtiger ist die Stärkung des Krisenmanagements.

Weil die UBS die einzige verbleibende G-SIB des Landes ist, wird bei einer Krise der UBS die Übernahme innerhalb der Schweiz nicht mehr als Option zur Verfügung stehen. Die Frage der Funktionstüchtigkeit der Abwicklungsinstrumente und der Bereitschaft der Behörden, sie einzusetzen, stellt sich deshalb mit verschärfter Dringlichkeit. Die Expertengruppe stellt in den folgenden vier Bereichen Empfehlungen zur Diskussion, mit denen der regulatorische Rahmen und das Krisenmanagement gestärkt werden können.

1. Die Schweiz soll in der Krisenvorbereitung und im Krisenmanagement nachbessern. Die drei Behörden — die Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA), die Schweizerische Nationalbank (SNB) und das Eidgenössische Finanzdepartement (EFD) — müssen für ein erfolgreiches Krisenmanagement die Verantwortung gemeinsam tragen. Die behördliche Zusammenarbeit muss deshalb auf eine solide Grundlage gestellt werden. Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Schweizer Behörden für den Umgang mit der UBS im Krisenfall muss gestärkt werden.

2. Die Schweiz soll die Liquiditätsversorgung in der Krise ausbauen. Die Sicherstellung von Liquidität auch unter schwierigen Bedingungen ist für Banken unabdingbar. Die Digitalisierung hat die Wahrscheinlichkeit und die Geschwindigkeit von «bank runs» zusätzlich erhöht. Bei der Liquiditätsversorgung von Banken in Not gibt es aber Lücken, die behoben werden müssen. Dies betrifft einerseits die Versorgung mit ausserordentlicher Liquiditätshilfe durch die SNB (ELA) und andererseits die subsidiäre Versorgung einer Banken mit vom Staat garantierter Liquidität im Fall einer Sanierung (PLB). [Warum liegt es in der Verantwortung des Staates, Banken mit Liquidität zu versorgen? Warum liegt es nicht vielmehr in der Verantwortung des Staates, Banken daran zu hindern, ihren Kunden Liquiditätsversprechen zu geben, ohne diese Versprechen einhalten zu können?]

3. Die Schweiz soll das Instrumentarium der Bankenaufsicht vervollständigen. Die FINMA benötigt weitere Instrumente, um ihr eine wirksamere Aufsicht und ein frühzeitiges Eingreifen zu ermöglichen. Es sollen Wege entwickelt werden, wie die FINMA Marktinformationen effektiver in ihrer Aufsichtstätigkeit einsetzen kann.

4. Die Schweiz soll die Eigenmittelqualität und -beschaffung stärken. Im Bereich der Eigenmittelqualität der Banken besteht zu wenig Transparenz. Die FINMA soll die Transparenz über die Qualität der Eigenmittel verbessern. Der Markt für AT1-Anleihen von Schweizer Banken wurde durch die Krise der Credit Suisse beeinträchtigt. Entsprechend sind Massnahmen notwendig, um den Schweizer AT1-Markt zu revitalisieren.

Tidbits from the report:

Page 21: Die wesentliche Aussage der FT-Fassung ist, dass die Schweizer Regierung der Meinung sei, der globale Abwicklungsrahmen («Resolution-Framework») funktioniere nicht [!]. … Verschiedene Gesprächspartner der Expertengruppe haben sich dahingehend geäussert, dass einzelne ausländische Aufsichtsbehörden heute weniger Vertrauen als vor dem Fall der Credit Suisse hätten, dass die Schweiz bei einer Schieflage der UBS in der Lage und bereit wäre, die geplante Abwicklung der systemrelevanten Bank umzusetzen [!]. Zudem wurde der Rückgriff auf Notrecht im Ausland teilweise nicht verstanden.

Page 25: Folgende Schwierigkeiten in der tripartiten Zusammenarbeit haben sich in der Credit Suisse-Krise manifestiert: 1. Der Entscheidungsprozess ist nicht nachvollziehbar — Es fehlt bis anhin eine vertiefte Aufarbeitung der Gründe, weshalb die Behörden die vorbereitete Abwicklungsplanung nicht umgesetzt haben und wer die Entscheidung getroffen hat [!] respektive wer wie darauf Einfluss genommen hat. 2. Formell ist die FINMA für die Einleitung und Durchführung der Sanierung verantwortlich — Die SNB hat aufgrund ihrer Monopolstellung als «Lender of Last Resort» jedoch faktisch ein Vetorecht [!]. Sie hat keine Pflicht, Liquidität vor und während der Sanierung bereitzustellen und muss sich dafür auch nicht rechtfertigen.

Page 30: Bei der Abwicklungsplanung für die Credit Suisse haben sich der US Securities Act und der Securities Exchange Act sowie die dafür zuständige amerikanische Börsenaufsicht (SEC) als eine Risikoquelle offenbart. … Gemäss US Securities Act muss jede Ausgabe einer Wertschrift entweder registriert oder unter eine Ausnahme subsumiert werden können. Die Registrierung eines Bail-in über ein Wochenende ist nicht möglich, der Prozess dauert zu lange. Ein Bail-in muss somit zwingend unter eine Ausnahme der Registrierungspflicht fallen. Die SEC erteilt allerdings grundsätzlich keine Ex-ante-Bestätigung, dass eine Transaktion unter eine solche Ausnahme fällt. Zudem kennt der US Securities Act keine auf Bail-in-Bonds zugeschnittene Ausnahmebestimmung. … Ähnliche Risiken existieren in Japan und möglicherweise in anderen Jurisdiktionen. … Im konkreten Fall hat die FINMA mit der SEC intensiv zusammengearbeitet und eine hinreichende Sicherheit erlangt, dass der Bail-in den Anforderungen für eine Ausnahme von der Registrierungspflicht genügt hätte [!].

Page 31: Ob diese Verwerfungen das Potential haben, eine weltweite Finanzkrise auszulösen, ist nicht zuverlässig vorhersehbar und kann deshalb von verschiedenen Entscheidungsträgern unterschiedlich bewertet werden. Die SNB und das EFD haben das Risiko einer Finanzkrise hervorgehoben. Die meisten Gesprächspartner der Expertengruppe (Vertreter ausländischer Behörden und privater Institutionen) betrachten dieses Risiko als deutlich weniger gravierend [!].

Page 33: Ein Grund für die nicht erfolgte Umsetzung des Abwicklungsplans könnte dessen mangelnde Flexibilität gewesen sein. Die FINMA hatte sich, wie auch das europäische Single Resolution Board SRB, entschieden, eine bail-in Strategie ohne Übergangsbanklösung («bridge bank» und «closed bank bail-in») vorzubereiten [!]. Diese hätte der FINMA unter Umständen mehr Zeit gegeben, um die Rechtsrisiken des Bail-in zu reduzieren und neben dem vorgesehenen Abwicklungsplan weitere Optionen, wie eine Übernahme der Credit Suisse innerhalb der Sanierung («merger in resolution») oder einen Verkauf von Teilen der Bank an Dritte, zu prüfen und umzusetzen.

Page 37: Die Expertengruppe erachtet die Möglichkeit der Verstaatlichung einer ganzen Bank, auch wenn sie nur temporär ist, als gefährlichen Rückschritt [!]. Eine solche Lösung steht im Widerspruch zu den Zielsetzungen des TBTF-Regimes und könnte im Fall einer Krise der UBS zu einer Destabilisierung des öffentlichen Haushaltes führen. Die Möglichkeit einer beschränkten staatlichen Beteiligung soll aber unter folgenden Umständen geprüft werden:

Page 41: Sämtliche Geschäftsfelder einer Bank sind somit einem Liquiditätsrisiko ausgesetzt. Die Forderung nach einem Trennbankensystem, in welchem die Investmentbank von anderen Geschäftsteilen getrennt wird, greift deshalb zu kurz [!]. Um der erhöhten Abflussgeschwindigkeit der Einlagen zu begegnen, wurde kürzlich die Idee in den Raum gestellt, dass ein wesentlicher Teil der Einlagen mit Kündigungsfristen oder auf Termin gehalten werden sollte. Die Expertengruppe steht diesem Vorschlag skeptisch gegenüber. … Mit positiven Zinsen könnte sich die Situation normalisieren. Die Expertengruppe vertritt deshalb die Auffassung, dass eine konservative Neukalibrierung (e.g. Erhöhung des Abflussparameters der Sichteinlagen) der LCR zielführender ist als Restriktionen beim Abzug von Kundengeldern. Eine solche Anpassung steht auch im Einklang mit den Arbeiten des Basler Ausschusses für Bankenaufsicht («Basel Committee on Banking Supervision», oder BCBS).

Page 42: Die Banken stellen esisuisse im Anwendungsfall derzeit Mittel im Umfange von maximal CHF 8.1 Mrd. zur Verfügung (Stand Ende 2022) [!]. Dazu müssen die Banken dauernd die Hälfte dieser Summe in Form von Wertschriften oder – auf einem Sicherungskonto der SNB – in bar sicher hinterlegen oder der esisuisse als Darlehen zur Verfügung stellen. Ziel der Einlagensicherung ist, dass die Auszahlung an die Kunden im Anwendungsfall innert sieben Arbeitstagen stattfinden wird. Von den 241 Banken haben elf (inklusive alle systemrelevanten Banken) privilegierte Einlagen, die je CHF 8.1 Mrd. übersteigen [!].

Page 43: Der IWF erachtet es als notwendig, dass die Einlagensicherung öffentlich-rechtlich ausgestaltet sei und im Bedarfsfall Abwicklungsmassnahmen finanzieren können sollte. Zudem seien die Gesamtsumme der Beitragsverpflichtungen deutlich zu erhöhen und eine Staatsgarantie zur Finanzierung der Einlagensicherung im Fall von nicht ausreichenden Mitteln vorzusehen. … Es gibt allerdings keine Anzeichen, dass eine stärkere Einlagensicherung die Situation der Credit Suisse bzw. deren Kunden merklich verbessert hätte. Der «bank run» fand im Private Banking statt und betraf weitgehend ungesicherte Einlagen und verwaltetes Vermögen sehr vermögender Kunden.

Page 45: Aufgrund der Gespräche kommt die Expertengruppe zum Schluss, dass die SNB eine im internationalen Vergleich restriktive ausserordentliche Liquiditätshilfe-Praxis verfolgt, was den Zugang zu Liquidität für eine Bank in Notlage erschwert:

Page 46: Die Expertengruppe unterstützt Postulat 23.3445 der WAK-NR, welches verlangt, die ausserordentliche Liquiditätshilfe-Praxis der SNB mit der Praxis anderer Länder zu vergleichen [!].

Page 47: Stigma ist ein schwieriges Problem, das alle Notenbanken betrifft. Wie andere Notenbanken muss auch die SNB dieses Problem dringend angehen [Warum nicht die  Banken?]

Page 50: Die durch die ausserordentliche Liquiditätshilfe gewährte Liquidität wurde überwiegend in der Schweizer Tochter verfügbar [!]. Die Liquiditätshilfe wird durch die SNB immer an diejenige Einheit des Konzerns geleistet, welche ihr die Sicherheiten geliefert hat. Das Stammhaus der Credit Suisse, in welchem auch die ausländischen Einheiten organisatorisch angesiedelt sind, hatte aber nur wenige Sicherheiten, welche für die SNB akzeptabel waren. Benötigt wurde die Liquidität allerdings nicht nur in der Schweiz, sondern auch bei Credit Suisse-Einheiten im Ausland. … Dieses Problem konnte letztlich über die zusätzliche Liquiditätshilfe der SNB (zusätzliche Emergency Liquidity Assistance, ELA+) gelöst werden. … Generell soll ELA+ nicht zur Norm werden. … Vielmehr ist sicherzustellen, dass die Banken jeweils ausreichende Sicherheiten am richtigen Ort im Konzern bereitstellen können, damit die ausserordentliche Liquiditätshilfe entweder ins Stammhaus oder direkt in die Einheiten im Konzern geliefert werden kann, in denen sie benötigt wird. Um das Problem der Verfügbarkeit von Liquidität im Konzern zu lösen, soll die FINMA oder die SNB die Banken anweisen können, genügend übertragbare und unbelastete Sicherheiten am richtigen Ort im Konzern bereitstellen [!].

Page 53: Der PLB soll deshalb in das ordentliche Recht überführt werden. Die Expertengruppe unterstützt die erwähnte Vorlage des Bundesrates [!]. … grundsätzlich subsidiär, … auf systemrelevante Banken beschränkt … Sanierungsverfahren ist eingeleitet worden … [d]amit ist die Bank unter der Kontrolle der FINMA … mit einer Ausfallgarantie des Bundes … Bank bezahlt dem Bund eine Bereitstellungsprämie … zusätzlich eine Risikoprämie … der SNB einen über dem Marktpreis liegenden Zins.

Page 55: Empfehlungen im Bereich Liquidität [!] … 1. Die SNB soll das Universum von Sicherheiten, die sie für die ausserordentliche Liquiditätshilfe (ELA) akzeptiert, erweitern. … 2. Die SNB soll das Stigma-Problem von ELA angehen. … 3. Der «Public Liquidity Backstop» (PLB) soll unverzüglich gemäss Bundesratsvorlage eingeführt werden, um die Liquiditätsversorgung einer systemrelevanten Bank in der Sanierung sicherzustellen. 4. Das EFD soll regulatorische Grundlagen ausarbeiten, damit die FINMA systemrelevante Banken auch ausserhalb einer Sanierung anweisen kann, genügend Sicherheiten bei der SNB und ausländischen Zentralbanken zu platzieren, um jederzeit Zugriff auf genügend liquide Mittel sicherstellen zu können. 5. Das EFD und esisuisse sollen die Einlagensicherung angesichts der Digitalisierung auf ihre künftige Tauglichkeit überprüfen.

Page 65: Empfehlungen im Bereich der Aufsicht … 1. Das EFD soll regulatorische Grundlagen ausarbeiten, um die Aufsichtsinstrumente der FINMA zu ergänzen und ihr eine wirksamere Aufsicht über die systemrelevanten Banken zu ermöglichen. … insbesondere Massnahmen in den Bereichen «prompt corrective actions», Verfahrensdauer, «naming and shaming», «senior managers regime» und Bussenkompetenz … 2. Das EFD soll zudem regulatorische Grundlagen für ein frühzeitiges Eingreifen der FINMA ausarbeiten. … Anwendung von Schutzmassnahmen bereits vor Eintritt des PONV … Rechtsrahmen für die Feststellung des PONV durch die FINMA hinsichtlich Ermessensspielraum bei der Berücksichtigung von Marktinformationen und anderen alternativen Datenquellen präzisiert …

Page 75: Empfehlungen im Bereich der Eigenmittel … zu wenig Transparenz … wurde der Markt für AT1-Anleihen von Schweizer Banken durch die Krise der Credit Suisse beeinträchtigt … 1. Mit der Umsetzung von «Basel III final» in der Schweiz werden strengere Eigenmittelvorschriften für grosse Banken eingeführt. Es drängt sich nicht auf, die Eigenmittelvorschriften in der Schweiz darüber hinaus anzuheben [!]. 2. Die FINMA soll Erleichterungen und Übergangsregelungen zu Eigenmittelvorschriften sowie «double leverage» transparent und offensiv kommunizieren. 3. Das EFD soll, zusammen mit der FINMA und der Branche, prüfen, wie der Schweizer Markt für AT1-Instrumente rehabilitiert werden kann. Im Zentrum steht dabei eine klare und international verständliche Ausgestaltung der Instrumente. Zu prüfen ist insbesondere eine Beschränkung auf AT1-Anleihen, die vor einer Sanierung nur wandelbar oder teilweise (pro-rata) abschreibbar sind.

Update, 5 September 2023:

    • English version of the report.
    • Media release.
    • VoxEU column by Yvan Lengwiler and Beatrice Weder di Mauro. They emphasize the following broader messages of the report that apply beyond the specific Swiss case:
      • A robust mechanism is needed to assure sufficient funding in resolution.
      • There are benefits of flexibility and of having several options for restructuring.
      • Bank supervisors should make use of market signals in addition to regulatory metrics in their evaluation of a bank’s viability.
      • Transparency about the quality of capital is crucial.
      • The TBTF regime is not broken.

“Digital Euro: An Assessment of the First Two Progress Reports,” SUERF, 2023

SUERF Policy Brief 612, June 2023. HTML, PDF.

Executive summary:

The ECB’s first two progress reports on the digital euro clarify the project teams’ considerations. Some motivations for a digital euro remain vague, some fundamental tradeoffs receive limited attention. Most importantly, the reports lack an analysis of why digital euro holdings as stores of value are not desirable and whether strategies to limit such holdings cause collateral damage. Against that backdrop some of the design choices backed by the Governing Council appear premature.

“Digital Euro: An Assessment of the First Two Progress Reports,” European Parliament, 2023

European Parliament, April 2023. PDF.

Executive summary:

The two progress reports provide an insightful overview over some of the thinking underlying the digital euro project. The reports remain vague in some respects, which is not surprising given the early stage of the project and the division of tasks between the ECB and the Commission.

The first report suggests that the digital euro can help preserve public money as the anchor of the payment system, but it does not explain how the decline in cash use endangers the anchor role or how a digital euro would mitigate the associated risks. It motivates the digital euro as contributing to Europe’s strategic autonomy, but does not clarify whether the autonomy concerns national security, cheaper payment services, or monetary sovereignty, and why either of these would suggest a focus on consumers rather than business users. More generally, the report discusses few economic motives for a digital euro in depth and this raises doubts about the proper sequencing of design choices. Some arguments for privacy restrictions are not fully convincing. The most important shortcoming of the first report is the lack of analysis of why digital euro holdings as stores of value are not desirable (or why this issue is beyond discussion) and whether strategies to limit such holdings cause collateral damage.

The second report lacks a discussion of incentive compatibility of the envisioned public-private partnership model. It also lacks detail on the proposed settlement, funding and defunding models and on the incidence of the payment scheme’s costs.

The reports do not discuss implications for central bank balance sheets, interest rates, political interference, and the ECB’s mandate to introduce a digital euro.

My colleague Cyril Monnet also wrote a report (PDF). His executive summary:

Since Facebook’s announcement of Libra in July 2019, central banks, including the European Central Bank (ECB), have accelerated investigations on the introduction of their own retail digital currency.

This study analyses the two reports published by the ECB regarding its investigation for the introduction of a digital euro.

The digital euro can offer many advantages over existing means of payment. However, most of these benefits, as outlined in the two reports, are of a systemic and social nature, rather than being benefits for users.

A broad acceptance and usage of the digital euro requires that it brings benefits not only to consumers but also to merchants. The digital euro needs a platform business model that brings consumers but also incentivises merchants to adopt it.

In addition, considering the social benefits it brings, the ECB should design the digital euro to promote its appeal. The ECB should consider eliminating holding limits and discontinuing penalising remuneration schemes as soon as possible after its introduction. Also, the ECB should consider adding some programmability features to the digital euro.

There are also some challenges ahead.

The deployment of the digital euro by regulated intermediaries results in a conflict of interest, as the digital euro competes with a significant source of their revenue, i.e. payments. To restrict the fees charged to users of the digital euro by intermediaries, the ECB should consider implementing a transparent fee structure that may incorporate subsidies.

Also, while consumers use cash to preserve their anonymity, the digital euro will always leave a data trail. It is therefore key that the future design of the digital euro preserves at least the privacy of its users, which may require the central bank to make compromises with some other objectives.

It is not clear that distributed ledger technology (DLT) is the best way to deploy the digital euro but making it DLT compatible and programmable can foster innovations in decentralised finance.

Update, late May 2023: Christian Hofmann also wrote a report (PDF). His executive summary:

… This paper argues that the paramount reason for introducing a digital euro should lie in the imperfections of the existing money landscape that offers the public suboptimal choices for store of value and payment transactions. In that respect, the introduction of a digital euro holds great promise for the public, and this paper focuses on one of the most essential design features of a digital euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) plans to introduce a limited version of a digital euro that would cap the maximum amounts of digital euros that individuals can hold, but this paper challenges the ECB’s assumption that such caps are needed in the interest of financial stability. The concerns voiced by the ECB and other central banks about the risks from sudden outflows of liquidity from bank deposits to CBDC are realistic, but this paper argues that these risks are manageable and that a digital euro might even support financial stability in a banking crisis. Properly implemented, an unlimited digital euro would allow central banks and other authorities to wield control more effectively during bank run scenarios and improve their overall ability to manage crises situations. 

The Economist on CBDC—and SVB

The Economist refers to our work in the `Free Exchange’ section:

But some argue banks would work fine if the public switched their deposits for central-bank digital currencies, so long as the central bank stepped in to replace the lost funding. “The issuance of [such currencies] would simply render the central bank’s implicit lender-of-last-resort guarantee explicit,” wrote Markus Brunnermeier and Dirk Niepelt in 2019. This scenario seems to have partly materialised since the failure of svb, as deposits have fled small banks for money-market funds which can park cash at the Fed, while the Fed makes loans to banks.

SNB Strategy Update

With its annual report from a few weeks ago the SNB communicated minor changes in its monetary policy strategy (p. 24):

The review of the monetary policy strategy showed that it has fundamentally proved its worth. There was no need to adjust the first two elements, namely the definition of price stability and the conditional inflation forecast. The strategy has enabled the SNB to fulfil its mandate of price stability well, despite repeated strong external shocks in recent years. The definition of price stability has allowed the SNB to react flexibly to such shocks and to weigh up the costs and benefits of monetary policy measures. The conditional inflation forecast has also proved its worth as the main indicator for the orientation of monetary policy and as a tool for its communication. It summarises the need for monetary policy action and helps to communicate monetary policy decisions in an understandable manner.

The formulation of the third element, however, has been adjusted. The SNB implements its monetary policy by setting the SNB policy rate. The third element now explicitly provides for the SNB to also use additional monetary policy measures to influence the exchange rate or the interest rate level, if necessary. With this adjustment, the SNB is taking into account the increased importance of such measures in recent years. Until now they have been mentioned in explaining the strategy, but were not explicitly included in the third element.

As part of this review, the SNB also decided to hold a news conference following every monetary policy assessment, in order to explain the monetary policy decision to the public in greater detail. This change was implemented for the first time at the September assessment.

In my NZZ article from August 2021 I had concluded (in German):

Daher ist eine Strategieüberprüfung inner- und ausserhalb der SNB sinnvoll. Geldpolitisch prüfenswert sind das Inflationszielband, die Zentralität des Zinsinstruments und die Kommunikation. Die Glaubwürdigkeit der SNB verbietet ein Auseinanderklaffen von Theorie und Praxis, aber auch allzu häufiges und detailversessenes Feilen an der Strategie, und sie verlangt Konzentration auf das Wesentliche. Gleichzeitig sollte die SNB ihre Bindung an den – gegebenenfalls sich wandelnden – Willen des Gesetzgebers betonen. Bei Fragen, die nicht allein in ihre Zuständigkeit fallen, muss sie klarstellen, dass sie Partei und nicht Schiedsrichterin ist. Damit die SNB auch in Zukunft zu den grossen Schweizer Erfolgsgeschichten zählt, muss sie von Zeit zu Zeit über die Bücher gehen. Doch alleine kann sie die Verantwortung in Geld- und Währungsfragen nicht tragen.

The title of that article was “Die Nationalbank ist an vielen Fronten gefordert”. Online, the NZZ added “—die Schweizerische Nationalbank braucht eine neue Strategie”.

Plans for a Deposit Token in Switzerland

Swiss Banking proposes a “Deposit Token,” New Money for Switzerland.

This white paper focuses on the question of how banks can best support the Swiss economy when it comes to settling transactions in digital assets and executing payments in a digitalised economy. As the digital transformation sweeps through the economy and society at large, it requires support from efficient, generally accepted and secure means of payment. Against this background and considering developments such as the tokenisation of assets and the emergence of decentralised finance applications, the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) is working on the concept of a digital currency in the form of tokenised deposits based on distributed ledger technology (DLT): the “Deposit Token” (DT). This kind of stablecoin, if carefully designed, would potentially allow for a wide range of new applications, reduce risks, increase efficiency, and open up whole new areas of business. Looking at the big picture, the main goals are to preserve and strengthen Switzerland’s standing as a leading hub for innovation, support the Swiss franc (CHF) as a means of payment, and bolster the technological sovereignty of the CHF economic area.

Report in the NZZ.

German University Life c. 1900

An American professor’s perspective as reported on Irwin Collier’s Economics in the Rear-View Mirror:

On an October morning, some years since, a recent Vermont graduate and I entered together the Aula of the Friedrich-Wilhelms-University at Berlin. Lectures were still two weeks away; but Germany is a country of leisurely beginnings and this was the morning of matriculation. The great hall was thronged with an interesting company. At a long table sat the Rector Magnificus, Harnack, the mighty theologian, and the professors of the various faculties. Moving about the room were students of three types: foreigners like ourselves; wanderers from other universities of the Fatherland; and boys from the “Gymnasium,” who had passed the “Abiturient” examination and become “mules” or freshmen. These last we regard with interest. They are unquestionably the best trained school boys in the world. For nine years they have been drilled by the best masters, every one a doctor, for some thirty hours a week. They have been taught not simply to remember, but to analyze, compare and classify, until, at the age of eighteen or nineteen stand often on a better footing than graduates of our colleges. But there is another side to the shield, as I learned when I grew to know them better. They have marred their sight — sixty per cent of Germans over eighteen wear glasses. They have hurt their health by long hours of work at home and by little play save perhaps skating in winter and gymnastic exercises on the “Turnboden.” With all his learning, the German Jack is often a dull boy. …