Low interest rates are supposed to accelerate economic growth. However, if central banks cut rates too much, they could actually slow the economy. So says a counterintuitive theory that is making the rounds in academic and banking circles.
“Fed actions may be having little effect, or even effects opposite to those the Fed intends,” Charles Calomiris, an economist at Columbia Business School, wrote in an article in the winter issue of the libertarian Cato Journal called “The Microeconomic Perils of Monetary Policy Experiments.”
The concept that central banks might inadvertently make matters worse starts from an uncontroversial principle: Banks make money on the difference — the margin — between how much they must pay to attract deposits and how much they can earn by lending them out.
Problems arise when central banks lower interest rates toward zero or even below, because the banks’ profit margins get compressed.
The rate that banks are able to earn on their loans is pushed down by the central bank’s action.
However, they cannot lower how much they pay for deposits by an equal amount. That would require them to pay less than zero for deposits, which depositors would not stand for. People would rather keep their cash under the mattress than pay to keep it in a bank.
When interest rates are ultralow, banks’ profit margins on loans are so small that they have no real incentive to take on the risks of lending. Instead they put their money into safe assets such as Treasury bills, which yield almost as much as loans would.
That suppresses the volume of loans, especially the ones that banks retain on their books such as commercial and industrial loans.
“We need to get back to a normal-functioning federal funds market. Then we will know better what the Fed should be doing,” Calomiris said.
The US Federal Reserve should raise the short-term rate that it controls by at least 1 percentage point right away, he said.
Doing so would not upset the US economy and could even help it, he said.
Banking organizations, without signing on to everything share his concern about low interest rates, Calomiris said.
American Bankers’ Association chief economist James Chessen said in an interview on Monday that “interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.”
The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller US banks, believes that “higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,” spokesman Paul Merski said.
US Federal Deposit Insurance Corp Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig, on a Monday visit to Bloomberg headquarters in New York, said that raising interest rates now — as the Fed is gradually doing — would have mixed effects on the banks that his organization oversees and insures.
“It’ll probably be painful for some and pleasant for others,” Hoenig said. “It’s a big machine with a lot of moving parts.”
Some other economists who specialize in monetary policy conclude that the issue Calomiris is raising is more applicable in Europe and Japan than in the US, where interest rates have already begun to creep up.
After keeping the range for the federal funds rate at an unprecedented floor of zero to 0.25 percent for seven years, the Fed began hiking it gradually at the end of 2015. The range is now 0.75 percent to 1 percent.
Financial markets are betting on an additional quarter-point hike at the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on Wednesday and Thursday next week.
Princeton University economist Markus Brunnermeier co-authored a paper with Princeton colleague Yann Koby last year that found, as Calomiris has, that below a certain threshold lowering the interest rate “becomes contractionary for lending.”
He calls that tipping point the “reversal rate.”
What is hard to say is exactly where the reversal kicks in.
“It’s not clear at the moment that US banks are constrained,” Brunnermeier said, pointing to the healthy profits and lending volumes of US banks in recent years.
While the US might be out of the danger zone, “in Europe it’s very different,” Brunnermeier said. “The banks there are still in the reversal range.”
New York University economist Philipp Schnabl agrees with Brunnermeier that Europe and Japan are the places where ultralow interest rates may be problematic.
“To emphasize, this is an unusual period we’re coming out of,” he said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty in anything we say about monetary policy.”
Officials at the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates.
In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates “may compress banks’ net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.”
However, he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, “the overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.”
To promote loan growth, the ECB makes four-year loans at annual rates as low as minus-0.4 percent to banks that prove they are expanding their lending to the real economy.
The Bank of Japan is propping up its banks’ profits in a different way, by trying to make sure that the 10-year interest rate is higher than the short-term rate. That helps banks because they generally borrow short-term and lend long-term.
In Europe and Japan, the concept is that banks need to be financially healthy to provide the credit that the economy needs to grow.
Calomiris continues to argue that this is not just an issue for other countries, although he wrote in an e-mail: “I agree that we are getting out of the trap if the Fed continues to raise rates this year.”
He said that Fed officials are confused about how low rates affect economic growth, but do not want to reveal their uncertainty for fear of undermining their “mystique.”
“It’s one of the most interesting times in the past 100 years of the Federal Reserve’s history,” Calomiris said.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS