How Should U.S. Bank Regulators Respond to the COVID-19 Crisis?

Michael  Blank; Samuel G. Hanson; Jeremy C. Stein; Adi   Sunderam

Working Paper | 2020

How Should U.S. Bank Regulators Respond to the COVID-19 Crisis?

by Michael Blank, Samuel G. Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein and Adi Sunderam

Abstract

Drawing on lessons from the 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and a simple conceptual framework, we examine the response of U.S. bank regulators to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the current regulatory strategy of “watchful waiting”—the same strategy that was used during the early stages of the GFC—poses unnecessary risks to the financial system and broader U.S. economy. Instead, promoting an early recapitalization of the banking system, by stopping dividends and by encouraging new equity issues, would be a more prudent way to manage the vulnerabilities the pandemic has created. We close by suggesting additional measures that we believe regulators should take in both the short and long run.

Keywords: COVID-19; bank regulation; recapitalization; Health Pandemics; Banks and Banking; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Strategy; Risk Management; United States;

Language: English

Format: Print

Read Now

Citation:

Blank, Michael, Samuel G. Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein, and Adi Sunderam. "How Should U.S. Bank Regulators Respond to the COVID-19 Crisis?" Hutchins Center Working Paper, No. 63, June 2020.

Using historical data on post-war financial crises around the world, we show that crises are substantially predictable. The combination of rapid credit and asset price growth over the prior three years, whether in the nonfinancial business or the household sector, is associated with about a 40% probability of entering a financial crisis within the next three years. This compares with a roughly 7% probability in normal times, when neither credit nor asset price growth has been elevated. Our evidence cuts against the view that financial crises are unpredictable “bolts from the sky” and points toward the Kindleberger-Minsky view that crises are the byproduct of predictable, boom-bust credit cycles. The predictability we document favors macro-financial policies that “lean against the wind” of credit market booms.

We propose a novel measure of bond market liquidity that does not depend on transaction data: the strength of the cross-sectional relationship between mutual fund cash holdings and fund flow volatility. Our measure captures how liquid funds perceive their portfolio holdings to be at a given point in time. The perceived liquidity of speculative grade and Rule 144A bonds is significantly lower than investment grade bonds in the cross section and deteriorated significantly following the 2008-9 financial crisis. Our measure can be applied in settings where either transaction data are not available or transactions are rare, including the markets for asset-backed securities, syndicated loans, and municipal bonds.

We develop three novel measures of how much of the price impact of their trading different mutual funds internalize. We show that mutual funds that internalize more of their price impact hold larger cash buffers and use these buffers more aggressively to accommodate inflows and outflows. As a result, stocks held by these funds have lower volatility, and flows out of these funds have smaller spillover effects on other funds holding the same securities. Our results provide evidence of meaningful fire sale externalities in the mutual fund industry.

Faculty & Research

How Should U.S. Bank Regulators Respond to the COVID-19 Crisis?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors