How Shadow Banking Reshapes the Optimal Mix of Regulation

Decisions that are privately optimal often impose externalities on other agents, giving rise to regulations aimed at implementing socially optimal outcomes. In the banking industry, regulations are particularly heavy, plausibly reflecting a view by regulators that the relevant externalities could culminate in financial crises and destabilize the broader economy. Over time, the toolkit for regulating banks and bank-like institutions has expanded, as has banks’ restructuring of activities into shadow banking to lessen the regulatory burden. This post, based on our recent Staff Report, explores the optimal mix of prudential tools for bank regulators in a wide range of environments.
Who Lends to Households and Firms?

The financial sector in the U.S. economy is deeply interconnected. In our previous post, we showed that incorporating information about this network of financial claims leads to a substantial reassessment of which financial sectors are ultimately financing the lending to the real sector as a whole (households plus nonfinancial firms). In this post, we delve deeper into the differences between the composition of lending to households and nonfinancial firms in terms of direct lending as well as the patterns of “adjusted lending” that we compute by accounting for the network of claims financial subsectors have on each other.
The Rise in Deposit Flightiness and Its Implications for Financial Stability

Deposits are often perceived as a stable funding source for banks. However, the risk of deposits rapidly leaving banks—known as deposit flightiness—has come under increased scrutiny following the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks in March 2023. In a new paper, we show that deposit flightiness is not constant over time. In particular, flightiness reached historic highs after expansions in bank reserves associated with rounds of quantitative easing (QE). We argue that this elevated deposit flightiness may amplify the banking sector’s response to subsequent monetary policy rate hikes, highlighting a link between the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and conventional monetary policy.
The Fed’s Treasury Purchase Prices During the Pandemic

In March 2020, the Federal Reserve commenced purchases of U.S. Treasury securities to address the market disruptions caused by the pandemic. This post assesses the execution quality of those purchases by comparing the Fed’s purchase prices to contemporaneous market prices. Although past work has considered this question in the context of earlier asset purchases, the market dysfunction spurred by the pandemic means that execution quality at that time may have differed. Indeed, we find that the Fed’s execution quality was unusually good in 2020 in that the Fed bought Treasuries at prices appreciably lower than prevailing market offer prices.
The Zero Lower Bound Remains a Medium‑Term Risk

Interest rates have fluctuated significantly over time. After a period of high inflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s, interest rates entered a decline that lasted for nearly four decades. The federal funds rate—the primary tool for monetary policy in the United States—followed this trend, while also varying with cycles of economic recessions and expansions.
New Dataset Maps Losses from Natural Disasters to the County Level

The Federal Reserve’s mission and regional structure ask that it always work to better understand local and regional economic activity. This requires gauging the economic impact of localized events, including natural disasters. Despite the economic significance of natural disasters—flowing often from their human toll—there are currently no publicly available data on the damages they cause in the United States at the county level.