As noted earlier, the rapid rise in delinquencies for home equity lines and junior liens held at banks is occurring despite an unemployment rate of about 5 percent – so, should the unemployment rate rise and housing prices continue to fall, financial stresses caused by the housing correction could well spread beyond the large banks involved in complex securitizations, and the smaller banks with sizeable portfolios of construction loans, to a larger set of financial institutions. 

This is an important and extremely valuable time to be thinking on what is the best role for individual (financial) regulators; how can we best go forward and have the most effective regulatory system. 

I think certainly the supervision and regulation function that we (the Fed) have has been very important in providing us with the information and the expertise to be able to understand financial market developments and respond quickly both to individual institutions and more broadly to market developments.

From Q&A as reported by Market News International

Similarly, firms’ concerns about signaling have hampered the ability of the Federal Reserve to encourage borrowing from the Discount Window during times of stress. A particularly interesting example of this occurred last week with the latest auction conducted under the auspices of the Federal Reserve’s new Term Auction Facility (TAF).

The results of the latest TAF auction are shown on Figure 1. Allow me to provide a bit of background.

The TAF is an alternative to a Discount Window loan. Both result in a loan from the Federal Reserve to a financial institution, collateralized by assets that the borrowing institution has pledged to the Federal Reserve. However, with the addition of the TAF, financial institutions have two ways to borrow from the Discount Window. They can borrow using a traditional Discount Window loan, which is a loan at the primary credit rate – traditionally overnight but now up to 90 days term.2 Currently the primary credit rate is 25 basis points over the Federal Funds rate, or a rate of 2.5 percent. Alternatively, they can borrow for 28 days by participating in the Term Auction Facility, where the bidder is free to bid for funds at any rate above the minimum required for the auction (2.11 percent in the latest auction), and all those bids that are above the stop-out rate get the stop-out rate for the loan.

As can be seen in the graph, last week the stop-out rate was 2.82 percent, significantly higher than the primary credit rate of 2.5 percent. Such a bid could be explained if market participants believed it was likely that market rates would rise over the 28 day term, but evidence from trading in Federal Funds futures and in overnight index swaps indicate the opposite – that market participants believe it is far more likely that the Federal Funds rate will fall from its current target. Similarly, the TAF stop-out rate exceeds the one-month London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the rate at which banks can borrow one month unsecured money in London.
So how can this seeming anomaly be explained?

First, the Federal Reserve does not trade for profits in the markets, so the firms can bid in the auctions without fearing that their bids imply any immediate signaling of potential balance-sheet constraints or liquidity problems to the counterparty, the Federal Reserve. As a result, firms may be willing to pay a premium for transacting with the Federal Reserve in order to avoid any immediate public signaling, and to avoid taking actions that could potentially be construed as signaling the existence of problems.

Second, firms may want to be sure that they have some term funding, and by placing bids well above the primary credit rate they are in effect offering the equivalent of a non-competitive bid in a Treasury auction. They are willing to purchase the use of the term funds at whatever the current market clearing price is in the auction, even if there are less-costly options at the Discount Window or with private parties.

Third, the winners of TAF auctions are not disclosed by the Federal Reserve. Of course, neither are institutions that take out Discount Window loans disclosed by name. However, market participants may believe that the auction process, where a variety of 5 banks are jointly acquiring funds, may be interpreted differently than an individual institution borrowing from the Discount Window.

The fact that banks are still choosing more costly financing options to avoid any potential signal of liquidity or balance-sheet constraints is very noteworthy – in that the financial turmoil that began in July of 2007 continues, even nine months after the onset of problems.

Unlike the credit crunch in the early 1990s in the United States, many financial firms have raised significant capital. Unfortunately, while in many cases these equity issues have offset recent losses, they may leave little additional buffer should further credit losses occur. A number of large financial institutions have reduced their dividends, and given the potential for additional capital shortages it goes without saying that financial institutions should continue to assess whether further reductions or cessation of dividends would be advisable.

The volume of term lending transactions has declined significantly, with few buyers or sellers of term funds. I can suggest several reasons.

First, many potential suppliers of funds have become increasingly concerned about their capital position, causing them to look for opportunities to shrink (or slow the growth of) assets on their balance sheets, in order to maintain a desirable capital-to-assets ratio. Since unsecured inter-bank lending provides relatively low returns and has little benefit in terms of relationships, banks may prefer to use their balance sheet to fund higher-returning assets that advance long-term customer relationships.

Second, as the uncertainty over asset valuations has increased, banks have become reluctant to take on significant counterparty risk to financial institutions – particularly with those that have significant exposure to complex financial instruments.

Third, many potential borrowers are reluctant to buy term funds at much higher rates than can be obtained overnight, for fear that they may signal to competitors that they have liquidity concerns. However, when the counterparty is a central bank, financial institutions have been quite willing to buy term funding, sometimes at rates higher than they would expect if they were to borrow funds overnight.

Smaller banks have generally not held these complicated financial instruments, so they have been more insulated from the financial turmoil.7 They also have not been liquidity providers for securities, so they have experienced less unexpected growth in their assets. As a result, there have been far fewer complaints from small and medium sized businesses – generally the clients of smaller banks – about credit availability.

However, it is important to note that the continued health of small and medium sized banks will be impacted should residential and commercial real estate prices decline in a severe manner. While that is not my forecast, it is only fair to note that for the liquidity problems to be confined it is important for collateral values to stabilize. Significant price declines will likely lead to more residential and perhaps commercial mortgage defaults not necessarily limited to the subprime market, and thus more likely linked to mortgages held in portfolio by smaller banks.8

I believe this period of illiquid markets should also cause central banks to re-evaluate their roles. For a central bank to play an effective role during financial turmoil, it needs to understand the sources of liquidity problems, the interrelationships between market participants, likely losses, and market participants’ potential reactions to these losses

In my view, this can only be done if the central bank has some form of hands-on supervisory experience with institutions – particularly the "systemically important" institutions – regardless of who is the primary regulator. The Federal Reserve has been far more effective during this crisis because it has hands-on experience with bank holding companies that are among the most significant players in many financial markets.

In short, there are significant synergies between bank supervision and monetary policy during periods of financial turmoil – synergies that can be used to achieve better outcomes for the public as policy makers try to determine the impact of liquidity problems and how changes in credit will impact the broader economy

Having some form of similarly hands-on supervisory experience with any systemically important financial institution that may need to access the Discount Window is, in the long term, critically important. We need to understand the solvency and liquidity positions of firms that may access the Discount Window – with access, at the very least, to the information any counterparty would require in a lending relationship. For those financial institutions that do have access to the Discount Window, there is indeed a need for the Fed to have broader access to information than marketplace counterparty creditors, if we are to effectively manage our responsibilities as lender of last resort and custodian of financial stability. So, regardless of who is the primary regulator, it is important for the Fed to understand the consolidated capital and liquidity positions of such firms.

The changing business of the largest commercial banks means that threats to financial stability do not necessarily come from traditional sources such as a deposit run or a deterioration in a bank's portfolio of business loans. The largest banks' capital markets businesses have given rise to new threats to financial stability. These threats stem from banks' securitization activity, from the complexity of banks' capital markets activity, and from the services that banks provide to the asset-management industry, including hedge funds. And risks that are more traditional to banking, such as liquidity risk and concentration risk, have appeared in new forms.

I believe it is fair to say that the creation of new, innovative financial products outstripped banks' risk-management capabilities. As I noted earlier, some banks that chose to hold super senior CDO securities did so because they trusted in an external triple-A credit rating. Because some banks did not fully understand all aspects of these exposures, once the risks crystallized last year in a weak house price environment, compounded by widespread liquidity pressures in many markets, banks had to scramble to measure and hedge these risks.

Liquidity risk is a familiar risk to banks, but it has appeared in somewhat new forms recently. While the originate-to-distribute model aims to move exposures off of banks' balance sheets, the risk remains that a sudden closing of securitization markets can force a bank to hold and fund exposures that it had originated with the intent to distribute. ...

Concentration risk is another familiar risk that is appearing in a new form. Banks have always had to worry about lending too much to one borrower, one industry, or one geographic region. But as smaller banks hold more of their balance sheet in types of loans that are difficult to securitize, concentration risks can develop. Concentrations of commercial real estate exposures are currently quite high at some smaller banks. This has the potential to make the banking sector much more sensitive to a downturn in the commercial real estate market.

To protect their capital and liquidity, banks and other financial market participants are addressing the weaknesses revealed by market developments by becoming much more careful about the risks they are taking. This is a necessary process, but it has been a difficult one as well; it is reducing the values of some assets and tightening credit cost and availability across a wide range of instruments and counterparties, despite considerable easing in the stance of monetary policy. It is this tightening that is accentuating the downside risks for the economy as a whole. And in some sectors, as lenders seek protection against perceived downside risks, it is probably going further than is necessary to foster financial stability in the long run.

All banks--large and small--need to consider whether they need greater capital cushions. The largest banks should consider whether their changing business model means that they need to hold more capital against some of the newer risks I discussed earlier. It is especially concerning that so many of these newer risks have arisen at the same time. Smaller banks must make sure their capital is sufficient to protect against the risk associated with the greater concentrations that have seemed to accompany the increased competition from securities markets.

Banks might find the current circumstances to be especially favorable for raising new capital. Not only would more capital provide a cushion against the sorts of unexpected declines in creditworthiness and asset values that have marked recent months, it would also position banks well for expansion.

So we must worry about excessive leverage and susceptibility to runs not only at banks but also at securities firms. To be sure, investment banks are still different in many ways from commercial banks. Among other things, their assets are mostly marketable and their borrowing mostly secured. Ordinarily, this should protect them from liquidity concerns. But we learned that short-term securities markets can suddenly seize up because of a loss of investor confidence, such as in the unusual circumstances building over the past six months or so. And investment banks had no safety net to discourage runs or to fall back on if runs occurred. Securities firms have been traditionally managed to a standard of surviving for one year without access to unsecured funding. The recent market turmoil has taught us that this is not adequate, because short-term secured funding, which these firms heavily rely upon, also can become impaired.

With many securities markets not functioning well, with the funding of investment banks threatened, and with commercial banks unable and unwilling to fill the gap, the Federal Reserve exercised emergency powers to extend the liquidity safety net of the discount window to the primary dealers.³ Our goal was to forestall substantial damage to the financial markets and the economy. Given the changes to financial markets and banking that we've been discussing this morning, a pressing public policy issue is what kind of liquidity backstop the central bank ought to supply to these institutions. And, assuming that some backstop is considered necessary because under some circumstances a run on an investment bank can threaten financial and economic stability, an associated issue is what sorts of regulations are required to make the financial system more resilient and to avoid excessive reliance on any such facility and the erosion of private-sector discipline.

...

Whatever type of backstop is put in place, in my view greater regulatory attention will need to be devoted to the liquidity risk-management policies and practices of major investment banks. In particular, these firms will need to have robust contingency plans for situations in which their access to short-term secured funding also becomes impaired. Commercial banks should meet the same requirement. Implementation of such plans is likely to entail substitution of longer-term secured or unsecured financing for overnight secured financing. Because those longer-term funding sources will tend to be more costly, both investment banks and commercial banks are likely to conclude that it is more profitable to operate with less leverage than heretofore. No doubt their internalization of the costs of potential liquidity shocks will be costly to their shareholders, and a portion of the costs likely will be passed on to other borrowers and lenders. But a financial system with less leverage at its core will be a more stable and resilient system, and recent experience has driven home the very real costs of financial instability.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall didn't contribute to financial turmoil in a way that we should roll it back.

From audience Q&A as reported by Market News International and Bloomberg News