Recent Market Turmoil Shows that the Fed Needs a More Resilient Monetary Policy Framework | PIIEPETERSON INSTITUTE FORPIIE INTERNATIONALECONOMICSREALTIME ECONOMIC ISSUES WATCH

Recent Market Turmoil Shows that the Fed
Needs a More Resilient Monetary PolicyFramework
Joseph E. Gagnon (PIIE) and Brian Sack (D. E. Shaw Group)
September 26, 2019 4:00 AM

US markets for short-term credit experienced several days of tumult in mid-September 2019, asinterest rates in the Treasury market for repurchase agreements, or repos, soared and market
participants fretted over a possible reduction in funding availability for their investment activities.
All eyes turned to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to restore order to the market, and it used its
considerable operational firepower to do just that. Nevertheless, this episode indicates that the operationalframework established by the Federal Reserve is not as resilient as it could be. In our view, the Fed shouldmake several changes to help create a more resilient and effective operating system.
The Treasury repo market, where banks and other financial institutions get short-term funding in exchange
for Treasury collateral, may not be well understood by many people, but it is critically important to the US
financial system and the economy. More than $1 trillion in funds flow through it every day.
Volatility in this market threatens the functioning of markets more broadly and could ultimately hurt theeconomy. Even though the Open Market Trading Desk at the New York Fed (the Desk) was able to quellthat volatility over a few days, relying on discretionary operational responses by the Desk allows market
strains and uncertainty to persist to a degree that is unnecessary. A better approach is needed.
To be clear, the issue is not that the Fed chose the wrong type of operating regime. The so-called floor
system, which leaves abundant liquidity in the financial system and relies on the Fed’s ability to pay intereston those balances, has the capacity to provide highly effective control of overnight interest rates. Instead,the issue rests with specific choices about how the floor system has been implemented. We suggest severalchanges.
First, the Fed should implement a standing fixed-rate repo facility from which a set of counterparties(including banks) can borrow at a rate modestly above the rate of interest the Fed pays on excess reserves(IOER). The most important lesson from the recent episode is that, even in a regime with ample reserves,
unexpected developments can occur that put upward pressure on money market rates. A standing repo

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/recent-market-turmoil-shows-fed-needs-more-resilient-monetary

1/2

10/24/2019

Recent Market Turmoil Shows that the Fed Needs a More Resilient Monetary Policy Framework | PIIE

facility, first proposed in our 2014 PIIE Policy Brief, would provide a guardrail against those unexpecteddevelopments. Recent events leave little doubt that a guardrail is needed. By relying on a standing facility,
the Fed would make the operational response transparent, predictable, and forceful, which would in turnstabilize the behavior of market participants.

Second, the Fed should aim for a higher level of reserves in general. We are not making a simple inference
from recent developments that aggregate reserves are too low; that conclusion would be premature until
those developments are better understood. Instead, we want to push back on the general notion that theFed should identify some minimum level of reserves for the financial system and seek to get close to thatlevel. The minimum level of reserves is conceptually murky, impossible to estimate, and likely to vary overtime. The best approach is to steer well clear of it, especially since maintaining a higher level of reserves asa buffer has no meaningful cost. To that end, a case can be made for the Fed to increase the general level ofreserves by $250 billion over the next two quarters through outright purchases of Treasury securities.
Thereafter, the Fed should continue to grow its balance sheet as needed to expand reserves in line withnominal GDP.
Third, the Fed should be explicit about its desire to control the repo rate. Right now, the directive that theFederal Open Market Committee (FOMC) gives to the Desk is specified in terms of the federal funds rate,with instructions to conduct operations only as needed to keep this rate within its target range. But thefederal funds market is much smaller and less important than the repo market, so this directive isdangerously inadequate. For example, the FOMC directive would suggest that last week’s money market
conditions were largely acceptable (the Desk missed the target range on only one day and by only a smallamount), which would be an absurd perspective. It is important for the Fed to control the repo rate, and theFOMC directive should explicitly state that. In fact, the Fed should consider even going as far as adopting
the repo rate, as measured by the secured overnight financing rate (SOFR), as the targeted policy
instrument.
Fourth, the Fed should ensure that the bottom end of the interest rate target range is strong. Even though
this aspect of the framework is not a pressing issue today, the Fed should be prepared for when market
conditions change. The recent decision to bring the reverse repo (RRP) facility rate—the rate that provides
the strongest floor on market rates—below the bottom end of the target range was puzzling, and it could
become problematic for the Fed when market rates soften. The strongest and most equitable policy
approach would be to set both the RRP rate and the IOER at the bottom of the target range.
The lesson from this episode is that unexpected circumstances can arise abruptly at any moment. It is,therefore, crucial to design a monetary policy system that stands up to the unexpected. The four changes
suggested here would create a more resilient and effective operating system for the Fed.
© Peterson Institute for International Economics
The D. E. Shaw Group DisclosureThis document is provided for your information only and does not convey investment advice or an offer of any type with respect to any securities or other financial products. The D. E. Shaw group does notendorse any information and/or beliefs discussed in the document and makes no representation as to their accuracy or adequacy. Please note the date of the document as the information contained in it
has not been updated for any information that may have changed.
No assurances can be given that any aims, assumptions, expectations, and/or goals expressed or implied in the document were or will be realized, or that the activities described have continued or willcontinue at all or in the same manner as they were conducted during the period covered by the document.
This document has been reprinted with permission from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/recent-market-turmoil-shows-fed-needs-more-resilient-monetary

2/2