Executive Summary

If the main purpose of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is to give banks confidence in each other, then enabling Treasury directly to bolster the capital positions of banks that need more capital may be an even more effective way to restoring confidence to the inter-bank market than the purchased of troubled assets. Whatever Congress may have intended about the pricing of the distressed assets, it also authorized a much more direct way to recapitalize the financial system and weak banks in particular: direct purchases by Treasury of securities that individual institutions may wish to issue to bolster their capital. At this writing, Treasury reportedly is considering ways do this. In this essay, we outline a specific bank recapitalization plan for Treasury to consider.

In particular, Treasury could announce its willingness to entertain applications for capital injections, using a set pricing formula. For publicly traded banks, Treasury could buy at the price as of a given date, such as the price one or more days before its plan was announced. For privately-owned banks, Treasury could use a price based on the average price-to-book value for publicly traded banks as of that date. To prevent government intrusion into the affairs of the banks, the stock should be non-voting. Treasury would make clear that it only would take minority positions. There should be no takeovers of more companies—AIG, Fannie and Freddie are quite enough. Treasury also should announce that it will dispose (or sell back to the bank) any stock acquired through these actions as soon as the financial system has stabilized and the bank is in sound financial condition (perhaps a time limit, such as three years, should be a working presumption).

We believe Treasury can accommodate a systematic recapitalization plan within the funding it has been given – initially $350 billion and another $350 billion later upon request to Congress (unless it disapproves) – by using the required disclosures about its asset purchases as a way of jump starting private sector pricing and trading of these securities. This should conserve Treasury’s resources it might otherwise use for asset purchases, and thus free up funds to recapitalize weak banks directly, but in an orderly fashion.

Treasury will have to be careful when it buys distressed assets to guard against the possibility that banks will just dump their worst stuff on taxpayers. The Department will also have to be careful when buying equity in banks. There cannot be an open invitation for bank owners to move assets out of the bank and then, in effect, say: “We don’t want this bank, you buy it.” To avoid this problem, Treasury should work closely with the FDIC and other regulators to determine whether or not a particular bank is eligible for an equity injection. The Department also may need to limit the scope of the recapitalization program to larger national banks, if it becomes infeasible to allow smaller banks to participate.

Making the Rescue Package Work: Asset and Equity Purchases [1]

The unprecedented financial rescue plan – technically the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA,” the “Act”, or the “plan”) -- has now been enacted by the Congress. One of the goals of the plan is to end the immediate panic in inter-bank lending markets, and on this basis several omens are not encouraging.

The Dow Jones stock index has been dropping daily, by large amounts, since EESA was enacted. The TED spread measures the difference between the interest rate on short term Treasury bills and the interest rate banks pay to borrow from each other (the LIBOR) and is a widely accepted measure of perceived risk in the financial sector. For several years this spread had hovered around 50 basis points or half a percentage point, reflecting the fact that lending to other financial institutions was considered almost as safe as buying Treasury bills. However, the spread shot up to 2.4 percentage points in July 2007 as the financial crisis hit, and it fluctuated widely in subsequent months. Following passage of the plan it remains even more elevated than it was last July—it was 3.8 percentage points as of October 7 and broke 4 percent on October 8. Financial institutions simply do not trust each other’s credit worthiness. Some of the market worries, of course, reflect the fragile state of the U.S. and global economies, but clearly the passage of the rescue plan itself has not calmed markets.

A second and related goal for the plan, according to media accounts, is to facilitate the recapitalization of the financial system, but the language of the bill is surprisingly coy about this. While the Act aims to “restore liquidity and stability to the financial system” it also directs the Treasury Secretary to prevent “unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating” in the asset purchase program. It is not yet clear whether Treasury will choose to recapitalize banks through its asset purchases – by buying them at prices above the values to which banks and other sellers have already written them down – or whether Treasury will simply use its purchases to stabilize prices for these securities and thus provide liquidity to the market, even if it may result in additional write-downs of their values (and thus additional reductions in capital).

Whatever Congress may have intended about the pricing of the distressed assets, it also authorized a much more direct way to recapitalize the financial system and weak banks in particular: direct purchases by Treasury of securities that individual institutions may wish to issue to bolster their capital. Of course, in normal times, such authority would be unnecessary because financial institutions would seek to tap private sources of capital first. But these are not normal times, to say the least.

If the main purpose of the plan is to give banks confidence in each other, then enabling Treasury directly to bolster the capital positions of banks that need more capital may be an even more effective way to restoring confidence to the inter-bank market. Accordingly, we outline here a possible supplementary bank recapitalization plan that we believe Treasury should pursue, at the same time it purchases distressed assets. As this paper is being completed on October 9, 2008, The New York Times reports that the Treasury is now considering such a move. We are encouraged by this and in this essay we provide both a rationale for doing so and some concrete suggestions for how such a direct recapitalization program might work. We do not support further nationalization of the banking system beyond what has already been done but we believe that the crisis has become so severe that the asset purchase plan on its own will not be enough to turn the current situation around. Additional capital is urgently needed and could be supplied by Treasury purchases of minority, non-voting equity stakes, or by warrants.

We believe Treasury can accommodate a systematic recapitalization plan within the funding it has been given – initially $350 billion and another $350 billion later upon request to Congress (unless it disapproves) – by using the required disclosures about its asset purchases as a way of jump starting private sector pricing and trading of these securities. This should conserve Treasury’s resources it might otherwise use for asset purchases, and thus free up funds to recapitalize weak banks directly, but in an orderly fashion, as we describe below.

Why Do Banks Need More Capital?

Financial institutions make money by borrowing money on favorable terms, that is, at low interest rates, and then lending it out at higher rates or by buying assets that yield higher returns. They may make money in other ways too, but the state of their balance sheets of assets and liabilities is crucial. In order to create a viable financial institution that can accommodate requests by depositors to take money out, someone has to put up capital and typically this comes from the equity in the company. The owners of the company have an incentive to keep this equity capital low and to build a large volume of borrowing and lending off a small base of capital—to increase leverage. This is because the profits earned are divided among the equity owners and the less capital there is, the higher the return on equity.

Governments for many years and in almost all countries have regulations in place setting capital requirements for banks in particular to stop them from taking too much risk in the pursuit of high returns and also protect any fund that insures their deposits against loss (the FDIC in this country). But some of our larger banks in recent years found a way around these rules by establishing “off-balance sheet” entities – Structured Investment Vehicles (“SIVs”) – to purchase mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities that the banks were issuing. In addition, large investment banks significantly increased their leverage in the years running up to the recent crisis, and were able to do so without mandated capital requirements. As a result, when the mortgage crisis hit, our financial system was weaker than was widely believed, and in the case of large banks in particular, than was officially reported.[2]

The mortgage crisis, which first surfaced in 2006 and has escalated rapidly since then, has hit bank balance sheets severely. As banks were forced to recognize losses on the mortgages they held in their portfolio, and especially to write down the values of their mortgage securities to their “market values” (even though the prices in those “markets” reflected relatively few “fire-sale” trades), they suffered reductions of their capital. Furthermore, the large banks that had created SIVs to escape such events found they could not hide from them when the SIVs could no longer roll over the commercial paper they had issued to finance their holdings of mortgage securities. To avoid dumping these securities on the market to satisfy their creditors, the banks took the SIVs back on their balance sheets, only to suffer further losses to their capital.

As we have seen, some of our largest banks – Washington Mutual and Wachovia, to name two – have not been able to survive all of this, and have been forced or are or being forced into the hands of stronger survivors. Other banks have been doing their best to shore up their capital bases by issuing new equity to replace the losses they have absorbed on delinquent loans and declining prices of their asset-backed securities. According to media reports, financial institutions (largely banks) worldwide have suffered over $700 billion in such losses to date, of which they replaced approximately $500 billion by issuing new equity.

But more losses are sure to come; indeed Secretary Paulson has said to expect further bank failures. Earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund projected that losses due to the credit crisis worldwide could hit $1 trillion. The IMF has recently upped that forecast to $1.4 trillion. If anything close to this latest forecast is realized, then many banks – here and abroad – will need to raise even more equity, but in a capital market that is now highly more risk averse than only a few months ago.

It is in this environment that banks have grown much less comfortable dealing with each other, even though they must to keep the financial system running. Every day, some banks have more cash on hand, or reserves, than they need to meet reserve requirements and ordinary demands for liquidity, while others are short of such funds. In the United States, banks thus trade with each other in the Federal Funds market while global banks borrow and lend to each other through the London Interbank market using the LIBOR rate of interest. The Federal Reserve’s main objective of monetary policy is to stabilize the “Fed funds” rate around a target, now just lowered to 1.5%, down from 2% where it has been for some months (and down from 5.25% before subprime mortgage crisis). To do so, the Fed has added a huge amount of liquidity to the financial system, even going so far this week as to buy up commercial paper issued by corporations, an unprecedented step. But the Fed does not and probably cannot control the longer term inter-bank market, in which banks lend to each other typically over a 3-month period.

The steep jump in the 3-month inter-bank lending rate – well over 4 percent – reflects two fundamental facts that EESA is designed to address. One is that banks don’t trust each others’ valuations of the mortgage and possibly other asset-backed securities they are all holding, precisely because the “markets” in those securities are so thin and thus not generating reliable prices. The second problem is that banks either are short of capital themselves, or fear that their counterparties are. No wonder that banks are so unwilling to lend to each other for a period even as short as three months – which in this environment, can seem like an eternity.

The capital shortage in the banking system, in particular, has severe implications for the rest of the economy. An institution that is short of capital is forced to cut back on its lending and this shows up in denials of lines of credit to companies and reductions in credit limits for consumers. Households cut back on spending; it is difficult to get a mortgage or a car loan; and companies reduce investment and curtail operations. And as we learn in any college course on banking, the impact of a loss of capital on bank lending can be multiplied. Each dollar of bank capital supports roughly ten dollars of overall lending in the economy. Each dollar of lost capital thus can result in ten dollars of lending contraction. The impact of an economy-wide bank contraction can be devastating for Main Street. The Great Depression was greatly exacerbated by the collapse of banks. The long stagnation in Japan was in large part the result of a failure to recapitalize the banks.

How bad is the current problem? We do not know how many banks, insurance companies or other financial institutions are in a weakened state, or perhaps even more important, may become weakened as the overall economy deteriorates. The official data published so far don’t really help on this score. The FDIC compiles information on the number and collective assets held by “problem banks,” or those in danger in failing. As of the second quarter of 2008, there were 117 such banks with assets of $78 billion up from 90 in the second quarter with assets of $28 billion., These figures did not include Washington Mutual, which would have failed had it not been bought by J.P. Morgan, or Wachovia, which at this writing, looks like it will be acquired by Wells Fargo (but also was in danger of failing without being acquired by someone). Together these banks hold more than $500 billion in customer deposits. Furthermore, according to recent media reports, even some large insurance companies (beyond AIG) may be having capital problems, having suffered large losses on the securities they hold in reserve to meet future claims.

Can the Asset Purchase Plan Succeed in Recapitalizing the Banks?

In principle, there are two ways in which the original Treasury asset purchase plan would recapitalize the banks. The first method is premised on the view that private markets are unwilling to supply capital to the banks because investors do not know how much their assets are worth. The Treasury, it is argued, would use its asset purchase plan as a way of revealing the prices of the assets and once that information is known, the banks will be able to raise new capital again from private markets. But better pricing will only attract capital if there are investors out there who are willing to supply it. Given the dramatic downturn in equities markets, finding such willing investors will be difficult, to say the least. Those investors that provided capital to banks early on in the crisis have been hit hard by the subsequent decline in equity prices and are reluctant to get burned again. When Bank of America said it would raise $10 billion from the markets, for example, its stock price fell sharply, suggesting there is a lot of market resistance to be overcome before private investors are willing to recapitalize the banking system.

Second, in principle, Treasury could recapitalize the banks by buying distressed assets at prices above those at which the securities are currently carried on the books of the institutions that sell them (original book or purchase value minus any write-offs).[3] In this case, the bank would be able to report a capital gain from its sale to the Treasury, a gain that would reverse, at least in part, the capital losses it had taken in the past and thereby add to its capital.

Treasury has said it will use reverse auctions[4] when it buys assets, and it is possible that the Department will be able to construct some auctions that will enable some holders of troubled assets to sell them to the Treasury at prices that earn a capital gain. But we are somewhat skeptical how many securities will fall into this category. For one thing, asset-backed securities are not homogenous, like traditional equity or bonds. In addition, it would be surprising in the current environment if reverse auctions would reveal prices that are above the written-down values of many of these securities. After all, an auction does not necessarily produce valuations that reflect the “hold to maturity” price rather than the “liquidation” price for the securities, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested the purchase plan would accomplish.

Accordingly, we strongly suspect that Treasury will have to purchase many securities in one-on-one deals rather than through auctions. But in doing this, it may be both legally and politically difficult for the Treasury to pay prices in negotiations that are above the valuations banks or other sellers already have given them. Section 101 (e) of EESA specifically requires the Treasury Secretary “to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment” of participating financial institutions, and Congress could construe such language to preclude such sales.[5] Furthermore, even if there were not a specific prohibition in the EESA, Treasury may wish to avoid the public criticism it would face if it purchased assets at prices that would allow participating institutions to book gains. And, in the case of sales at prices below the explicit or implicit price of the securities carried on an institution’s books, the sales will trigger further accounting losses and thus additional deductions from reported capital.

In short, we are not at all confident that the Treasury’s planned purchases of troubled securities, by themselves, will do much to recapitalize the banking system. This does not mean that the planned asset purchases will not deliver some needed help. Although at this writing the inter-bank lending market remains frozen even though EESA has been enacted and signed into law, one reason why banks and others may not yet have confidence that it will lead to a thaw in credit markets is that the guidelines for the asset purchases have not yet been issued. Once these guidelines are announced and the purchases begin, and the markets start to see real results, it is possible that some of the missing trust in the banking system will come back.[6]

However, Treasury may not need to spend, and for reasons elaborated below we do not believe it should spend, anywhere near the full $700 billion, or perhaps even most of the initial $350 billion tranche in borrowing authority, to liquefy the markets for mortgage and other asset-backed securities. EESA requires Treasury to publish (within two days) information about each of these purchases. We urge the Department to include in such publications (presumably on its website) regular data on the defaults and delinquencies to date of the loans underlying each batch of securities it purchases. Such information should enable financial institutions that are still holding similar securities not only to price them more accurately, but also to give market participants enough confidence to begin trading these securities without further Treasury purchases.

Husbanding its resources should be a prime objective for Treasury. In conducting its purchases of troubled assets, it should target first those asset categories that are the most illiquid. The main objective always should be jump-starting private sector activity or at least bringing greater clarity to the pricing of particular classes of securities. There is no need for Treasury, therefore, to make repeat purchases of similar securities (such as collateralized debt obligations issued within several months of each other, structured in roughly a similar way). Rather, the aim should be to make a market in as many different asset categories as are reasonably necessary to provide guidance to market participants, no more, no less.

Yet no one can be confident at this point that asset purchases alone will give banks sufficient confidence to begin dealing with each other at much lower interest rates. If the asset purchases do the trick, fine. But if they don’t, Treasury should make sure it has enough financial ammunition to pursue a second, more direct, strategy for restoring banks’ confidence – the direct bank recapitalization strategy to which we now turn.

Recapitalizing the Financial System Directly

Having the government put capital into financial institutions directly is not a new idea. It is the approach followed in this crisis for Fannie and Freddie and has been used in other countries. Sweden recapitalized its banks by adding capital to them during its crisis in the 1980s. Most recently, the British government has announced a sweeping bank recapitalization amidst the current crisis. And of more relevance to the U.S. situation, Congress specifically added authority in EESA for Treasury to make direct capital injections into banks.

In recent days, Treasury Secretary Paulson has acknowledged that the Department may take advantage of this authority and thus use some of its funds to buy equity in troubled banks. This is a welcome development. Even if Treasury’s asset purchase program restores confidence in the pricing of troubled securities, many banks still believe that many other banks lack sufficient capital, and thus can still be reluctant to lend to them. The fact that the FDIC stands ready (especially with its new unlimited line of credit at the Treasury) to assist acquiring banks in taking over failing banks is probably not sufficient, even with a successful Treasury asset purchase program, to provide this confidence. Bank lenders to failed banks can still lose money in such transactions, or at the very least may have difficulty accessing their funds for some period, at times when all banks seem to want or need as much liquidity as they can get.

How might such a capital injection program work? Treasury could announce its willingness to entertain applications for capital injections, using a set pricing formula. For publicly traded banks, Treasury could buy at the price as of a given date, such as the price one or more days before its plan was announced, as has been suggested by former St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole.[7] For privately-owned banks, Treasury could use a price based on the average price-to-book value for publicly traded banks as of that date. To prevent government intrusion into the affairs of the banks, the stock should be non-voting. Treasury would make clear that it only would take minority positions. There should be no takeovers of more companies—AIG, Fannie and Freddie are quite enough. Treasury also should announce that it will dispose (or sell back to the bank) any stock acquired through these actions as soon as the financial system has stabilized and the bank is in sound financial condition (perhaps a time limit, such as three years, should be a working presumption).

The Treasury will have to be careful when it buys distressed assets to guard against the possibility that banks will just dump their worst stuff on the taxpayers. The Department also will have to be careful when buying equity in banks, especially if it decides to go for a broad, nationwide program. There cannot be an open invitation for owners to move assets out of the bank and then, in effect, say: “We don’t want this bank, you buy it.” This problem suggests that Treasury would need to work closely with the FDIC and other regulators to determine whether or not a particular bank is eligible for an equity injection. Treasury also may need to limit the scope of the program to larger banks, if it becomes infeasible to allow smaller banks to participate.

We presume that Treasury did not initially embrace the idea of a more systematic recapitalization of the banking system out of concern not to have any further government involvement in the banking system, especially on the heels of the Fannie/Freddie conservatorship and the Fed’s rescue of AIG. That Treasury is now considering direct capital injections indicates that this may no longer be a concern. In our view, limiting Treasury’s purchases to non-voting stock in any event would address this concern directly.

Conclusion

Ben Bernanke has compared the current financial crisis to a heart attack in the economy. For some heart attacks, it is enough to administer drugs and change diet and exercise habits. But in acute cases, major surgery is needed and the current crisis is in the acute phase. Direct surgery in the form of capital injected into financial institutions, along with direct asset purchases, should help calm the inter-banking lending market.

Based on recent monthly data it appears that GDP started to fall in mid-year and the economy is moving into recession so the proposals made here will not change that. Nor can the proposals compel banks to make loans to their traditional customers – consumers and businesses – in the current climate of fear. But Treasury can do something to mitigate that fear and thus, along with the recent further easing of monetary policy, likely additional fiscal stimulus and further homeowner relief, the Department will help reduce the severity of the current recession if it uses all the tools in its financial arsenal.

Downloads

• Download

The mayoral election in Baltimore has brought local economic development strategies to the forefront. In a city in which inequality—by income, by race, and between neighborhoods—has increased in the past five years, the candidates have made it clear that more action must be taken to close disparities and improve economic outcomes for all residents. In a podcast segment, I commend the much-needed focus on equity but argue that the mayoral candidates should not lose sight of another critical piece of the equity equation: economic growth. Citing lessons from my recent paper, I outline strategies that Baltimore’s presumptive leaders should pursue—as well as several they should abandon—to place the city’s residents on the path to a more prosperous, equitable future.

Listen to the full podcast segment here: 

Demand for more walkable, mixed use neighborhoods is growing across the United States. However, the challenges associated with fi nancing these developments are allowing much of this demand to go unmet. This paper discusses how more, and more upfront, patient equity in walkable projects—from various sources and providers—would facilitate their development, and yield high returns over the long term. The paper also examines how patient equity contributed to the success of several such developments built over the past 15 years, illustrating untapped potential. Finally, it notes the role the public sector can play in providing patient equity investments.

Downloads

• Download

The Brexit vote has stunned us. It has shaken us. It has forced upon us a set of dreadful questions none of us ever wished answers were required for:

• How do you disarticulate deeply integrated economies? How do you prevent the rancor of the U.K.'s divorce from the EU wreaking more havoc, not only in Europe but in the rest of the world? The divorce metaphor is apt here as it signals the treacherous waters ahead when the feeling of betrayal and the temptation of revenge may result in a misguided punitive approach to separation. Let's not forget that almost half of U.K.'s referendum voters chose "remain." Let's not forget that the youth in the U.K. overwhelmingly chose the EU for their future. EU leaders therefore face the ultimate test of leadership. In negotiating exit terms they must strengthen this constituency for internationalism. The U.K. needs committed internationalists. We all need them.
• How do you prevent rising nationalism from dialing back globalization? Is the "Great Convergence" at risk? In the past few decades, developing countries have emerged into the international trading system, and in opening their economies they have lifted millions from abject poverty. Will this future be off-limits to the next round of poor nations seeking to avail themselves of the opportunities of the international marketplace? Has globalization already peaked and are we to be the unlucky generation that lives through the tumultuous process of retrenchment? Are we to feel firsthand the dread that the generation of a century ago experienced when they all suffered from beggar-thy-neighbor policies?
• Are we next? Are the forces of economic nationalism and nativism that drove the referendum outcome in the U.K. unstoppable elsewhere? Will they decide the outcome of the American presidential election this fall? And if so, what happens to the international economic order?

These are still imponderable questions, but I would venture two answers: Brexit is not the final indictment of globalization, and our futures are not yet destined to be ruled by the politics of grievance.

The United States need not become the next domino to succumb to the harmful influence of populism. The parallels in the anti-globalization campaign on both sides of the Atlantic are of course unnerving:

• Anti-elitism: Fueled by the sense of economic disenfranchisement of older white voters who feel that a future of "splendid isolation" is possible.
• Nationalism: Driven by a desire to "take back" our country.
• Nativism: Spurred by strong anti-immigration feelings and rejection of a multicultural polity.

But the differences are also striking, especially when it comes to the issue of trade which commanded so much attention during both the Brexit campaign and the American presidential nomination debates. In reading the "Leave" campaign's statement on trade policy, you will not find:

• The rejection of trade deals for "killing jobs" with special blame placed on developing countries (aka China) for inflicting a mortal wound on manufacturing prowess;
• The promise to impose punitive tariffs on major trading partners even at the risk of initiating a trade war;
• The call for a boycott of firms that relocate part of their production overseas.

Brexit then is not an endorsement of the Trump brand of predatory protectionism.

Instead, what the Leave campaign offered on trade policy are heaps of wishful thinking and hidden truths. It sought to downplay the importance of the EU market to U.K. producers in order to justify setting its sights on other horizons. It promised to open up trade opportunities and job growth by negotiating trade deals with emerging economies such as China and India. And it confidently stated that trade links with the EU could be restored through a U.K.-EU trade deal that would mirror what countries like Norway have done. But this optimistic prognosis left out a lot. For starters, a future U.K.-EU free trade agreement will most likely yield pared-down benefits. Norway gained access to the single market by agreeing to free movement of labor that Brexiters vehemently reject. Moreover, the U.K. cannot chart its own course on trade policy until its separation from the EU is complete. Restructuring U.K.'s trading relations will take years and the results are hard to predict. But the costs of uncertainty are immediate as companies and investors will recalibrate their strategies without waiting for a protracted process of trade negotiations.

Brexiters struck a xenophobic note, but did not produce an overtly protectionist manifesto. Yet, their success at the ballot did deliver a major blow to economic internationalism. Trumpism is both xenophobic and protectionist, and were it to prevail in the November election, its negative impact on globalization will be vastly more profound. But the die has not been cast, and there are sound reasons to doubt a Trump victory.

If we are to prevail in overcoming the politics of grievance, we must first reckon that populism did not materialize from thin air. It is based on a fact: As globalization intensified during the past two decades, the middle classes in the industrialized world experienced stagnant incomes. The inward push is enabled by the manipulation of this fact: Offering trade as an easy scapegoat for a vastly more complex set of factors producing economic disparities (such as technological change and political decisions on taxation, education, and safety nets). And this populism is based on a false promise—that "taking control," i.e., taking our countries out of the existing trading regime will make those left behind better off. Its one unmistakable deliverable will be to make all of us worse off.

ABSTRACT

The AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa puts increasing pressure on the buffer capacity of low- and middle-income households without access to health insurance. This paper examines the relationship between health shocks, insurance status and health-seeking behaviour. It also investigates the possible mitigating effects of insurance on income loss and out-of-pocket health expenditure. The study uses a unique dataset based on a random sample of 1769 households and 7343 individuals living in the Greater Windhoek area in Namibia. The survey includes medical testing for HIV infection which allows for the explicit analysis of HIV-related health shocks. We find that the economic consequences of health shocks can be severe for uninsured households even in a country with a relatively well-developed public health care system such as Namibia. The uninsured resort to a variety of coping strategies to deal with the high medical expenses and reductions in income, such as selling assets, taking up credit or receiving financial support from relatives and friends. As HIV-infected individuals increasingly develop AIDS, this will put substantial pressure on the public health care system as well as social support networks. Evidence suggests that private insurance, currently unaffordable to the poor, protects households from the most severe consequences of health shocks.

Read the full article on Oxford Journals »

Neel Kashkari, the newly appointed President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, is super-smart with extensive experience in the financial industry at Goldman Sachs and then running the government’s TARP program, but his call to break up the big banks misses the mark.

Sure, big banks, medium-sized banks and small banks all contributed to the devastating financial crisis, but so did the rating agencies and the state-regulated institutions (mostly small) that originated many of the bad mortgages.  It was vital that regulation be strengthened to avoid a repetition of what happened – and it has been.  There should never again be a situation where policymakers are faced with either bailing out failing institutions or letting them fail and seeing financial panic spread.

That’s why the Dodd-Frank Act gave the authorities a new tool to avoid that dilemma titled “Orderly Liquidation Authority,” which gives them the ability to fail a firm but sustain the key parts whose failure might cause financial instability.  Kashkari thinks that the authorities will not want to exercise this option in a crisis because they will be fearful of the consequences of imposing heavy losses on the original owners of the largest banks.  It’s a legitimate concern, but he underestimates the progress that has been made in making the orderly liquidation authority workable in practice.  He also underestimates the determination of regulators not to bail out financial institutions from now on.

To make orderly liquidation operational, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) devised something called the “single point of entry” approach, or SPOE, which provides a way of dealing with large failing banks.  The bank holding company is separated from the operating subsidiaries and takes with it all of the losses, which are then imposed on the shareholders and unsecured bond holders of the original holding company, and not on the creditors of the critical operating subs and not on  taxpayers.  The operating subsidiaries of the failing institution are placed into a new bank entity, and they are kept open and operating so that customers can still go into their bank branch or ATM and get their money, and the bank can still make loans to support household and business spending or the investment bank can continue to help businesses and households raise funds in securities markets.  The largest banks also have foreign subsidiaries and these too would stay open to serve customers in Brazil or Mexico.

This innovative approach to failing banks is not magic, although it is hard for most people to understand.  However, the reason that Kashkari and other knowledgeable officials have not embraced SPOE is that they believe the authorities will be hesitant to use it and will try to find ways around it.  When a new crisis hits, the argument goes, government regulators will always bail out the big banks.

First, let’s get the facts straight about the recent crisis.  The government did step in to protect the customers of banks of all sizes as well as money market funds.  In the process, they also protected most bondholders, and people who had lent money to the troubled institutions, including the creditors of Bear Stearns, a broker dealer, and AIG, an insurance company.  This was done for a good reason because a collapse in the banking and financial system more broadly would have been even worse if markets stopped lending to them.  Shareholders of banks and other systemically important institutions lost a lot of money in the crisis, as they should have.  The CEOs lost their jobs, as they should have (although not their bonuses).  Most bondholders were protected because it was an unfortunate necessity.

As a result of Dodd-Frank rules the situation is different now from what it was in 2007.  Banks are required to hold much more capital, meaning that there is more shareholder equity in the banks.  In addition, banks must hold long-term unsecured debt, bonds that essentially become a form of equity in the event of a bank failure.  It is being made clear to markets that this form of lending to banks will be subject to losses in the event the bank fails—unlike in 2008.  Under the new rules, both the owners of the shares of big banks and the holders of their unsecured bonds have a lot to lose if the bank fails, providing market discipline and a buffer that makes it very unlikely indeed that taxpayers would be on the hook for losses.

The tricky part is to understand the situation facing the operating subsidiaries of the bank holding company — the parts that are placed into a new bank entity and remain open for business.  The subsidiaries may in fact be the part of the bank that caused it to fail in the first place, perhaps by making bad loans or speculating on bad risks.  Some of these subsidiaries may need to be broken off and allowed to fail along with the holding company—provided that can be done without risking spillover to the economy.  Other parts may be sold separately or wound down in an orderly way.  In fact the systemically important banks are required to submit “living wills” to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve that will enable the critical pieces of a failing bank to be separated from the rest.

It is possible that markets will be reluctant to lend money to the new entity but the key point is that this new entity will be solvent because the losses, wherever they originated, have been taken away and the new entities recapitalized by the creditors of the holding company that have been “bailed in.”   Even if it proves necessary for the government to lend money to the newly formed bank entity, this can be done with reasonable assurance that the loans will be repaid with interest.  Importantly, it can be done through the orderly liquidation authority and would not require Congress to pass another TARP, the very unpopular fund that was used to inject capital into failing institutions.

There are proposals to enhance the SPOE approach by creating a new chapter of the bankruptcy code, so that a judge would control the failure process for a big bank and this could ensure there is no government bailout.  I support these efforts to use bankruptcy proceedings where possible, although I am doubtful if the courts could handle a severe crisis with multiple failures of global financial institutions.  But regardless of whether failing financial institutions are resolved through judicial proceedings or through the intervention of the FDIC (as specified under Title II of Dodd-Frank) the new regulations guaranty that shareholders and unsecured bondholders bear the losses so that the parts of the firm that are essential for keeping financial services going in the economy are kept alive.  That should assure the authorities that bankruptcy or resolution can be undertaken while keeping the economy relatively safe.

The Federal Reserve regulates the largest banks and it is making sure that the bigger the bank, the greater is the loss-absorbing buffer it must hold—and it will be making sure that systemically important nonbanks also have extra capital and can be resolved in an orderly manner.  Once that process is complete, it can be left to the market to decide whether or not it pays to be a big bank.  Regulators do not have to break up the banks or figure out how that would be done without disrupting the financial system.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Bloomberg Government. 

Event Information

The financial crisis is now eight years behind us, but its legacy lingers on. Many Americans are concerned about their financial security and are particularly worried about whether they will have enough for retirement. Guaranteed benefit pensions are gradually disappearing, leaving households to save and invest for themselves. What role could equities play for retail investors?

Another concern about the lingering impact of the crisis is that business investment and overall economic growth remains weak compared to expectations. Large companies are able to borrow at low interest rates, yet many of them have large cash holdings. However, many small and medium sized enterprises face difficulty funding their growth, paying high risk premiums on their borrowing and, in some cases, being unable to fund investments they would like to make. Equity funding can be an important source of growth financing.

On Friday, April 15, the Initiative on Business and Public Policy at Brookings examined what role equity markets can play for individual retirement security, small business investment and whether they can help jumpstart American innovation culture by fostering the transition from startups to billion dollar companies.

You can join the conversation and tweet questions for the panelists at #EquityMarkets.

Video

• Keynote address by Richard G. Ketchum
• Panel Discussion
• Keynote address by Roger Ferguson

Audio

• Not just for the professionals? Understanding equity markets for retail and small business investors

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• Equity Markets Retirement Security 2016 Apr 15 (2)
• 20160415_equity_markets_transcript