Speech
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
At the Dallas Regional Chamber, Dallas, Texas
April 7, 2010
Economic Challenges: Past, Present, and Future
This is a momentous time. During the past two and a half years, our nation
has endured the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, a
crisis that in turn helped cause a deep recession both here and abroad. During
some of the worst phases of the crisis, a new depression seemed a real
possibility.
Fortunately, today the financial crisis looks to be mostly behind us, and the
economy seems to have stabilized and is beginning to grow again. But we are far
from being out of the woods. Many Americans are still grappling with
unemployment or foreclosure, or both. Cities and states are struggling to
maintain essential services. And, although much of the financial system is
functioning more or less normally, bank lending remains very weak, threatening
the ability of small businesses to finance expansion and new hiring.
In my comments today, I will briefly describe the origins of the financial
crisis and economic downturn, with a particular focus on the policy response of
my institution, the Federal Reserve. I will then turn to some near-term and
longer-term challenges facing our country.
Origins of the Crisis
The financial crisis that began in
the summer of 2007 was an extraordinarily complex event with multiple causes.
Its immediate trigger was a downturn in the national housing market that
followed a long period of rapid construction and rising home prices. The housing
slump in turn brought to light some very poor lending practices, especially for
subprime mortgages extended to less-creditworthy borrowers. Relative to the
global financial system, the market for subprime mortgages was quite small,
probably less than 1 percent of global financial assets. How, then, did problems
in this market appear to have such widespread consequences? One important reason
is that the subprime mortgage market was closely linked to a broader framework
for credit provision that came to be known as the shadow banking system. That
broader framework, at least as it was structured during the run-up to the
crisis, proved deeply flawed.
The innovation underlying the shadow banking system was that it helped
provide a wide range of borrowers indirect access to global credit markets. For
example, originators of subprime mortgages did not typically retain the loans
they made on their own books. Instead, the mortgages were packaged together in
complex ways, sometimes with other types of loans, stamped with a seal of
approval from one or more credit rating agencies, and sold to investors
worldwide, thus--it was thought--broadly dispersing the underlying risks. Credit
risks were further dispersed--again, at least in theory--through the use of
derivative financial instruments such as credit default swaps. Importantly,
residential mortgage markets were not the only markets caught up in the boom. In
part because large flows of capital into the United States drove down the
returns available on many traditional long-term investments, such as Treasury
bonds, investors' appetite for alternative investments--such as loans to finance
corporate mergers or commercial real estate projects--increased greatly in the
years leading up to the crisis. These securities too were packaged and sold
through the shadow banking system.
As we now know, however, neither the investors, nor the rating agencies, nor
the regulators, nor even the firms that designed the securities fully
appreciated the risks that those securities entailed. Nor were the risks as
widely dispersed as thought: For example, many complex securities were held in
off-balance-sheet vehicles financed by short-term loans. When investors lost
confidence in the underlying securities and pulled their funding, many firms
that sponsored the off-balance sheet vehicles found that they were bound by
explicit or implicit promises to stand behind the securities. Together with
other direct or indirect exposures to risky debt, these commitments left
financial institutions dangerously exposed to rising losses.
These risks grew rapidly in the period before the crisis, in part because the
regulators--like most financial firms and investors--did not fully understand or
appreciate them. But significant gaps in the regulatory framework itself also
contributed to the inadequate government response. For example, firms like the
insurance giant American International Group (AIG), which sold credit insurance
on large quantities of risky securities, or the investment bank Lehman Brothers,
which speculated heavily in these securities, were not subject by law to strong
consolidated supervision by federal regulators. Moreover, none of the federal
regulators had a mandate or sufficient powers to evaluate and respond to the
risks posed by large financial organizations to the financial system as a whole.
Thus, the stage was set for the unraveling that began in the summer of 2007
and continued throughout 2008. As house prices and the equity of homeowners
fell, mortgage delinquencies and defaults soared. As I mentioned,
investors--stunned by the resulting losses on mortgage-backed securities and
other credit instruments they had believed to be safe--pulled back from a wide
range of credit markets and financial institutions. As funding dried up, losses
mounted, and confidence plummeted, a number of major financial firms, both here
and abroad, came under severe pressure. In March 2008, the investment house Bear
Stearns became the first major firm to come to the brink of failure, nearly
collapsing before being purchased, with government assistance, by JPMorgan
Chase. In August, the two largest players in the housing market, the
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were taken
into conservatorship. In September, the sharply intensifying panic hit the
investment bank Lehman Brothers, and soon after, AIG. Much as in a traditional
run on a bank, the creditors and counterparties of these companies raced to call
in loans or demand extra collateral, ratcheting up the pressure on already shaky
firms. Concerted government attempts to find a buyer for Lehman proved
unavailing; lacking sufficient collateral to secure a Federal Reserve loan, the
company's only option was bankruptcy.
In contrast to Lehman, AIG had sufficient assets to secure credit from the
Federal Reserve and thus avoid imminent failure. I have said before that nothing
made me angrier during the crisis than the irresponsible decisions at AIG that
put our entire financial system and economy at grave risk and left the
government with no good options. However, with the financial system already
teetering on the brink of collapse, the disorderly failure of AIG, the world's
largest insurance company, would have undoubtedly led to even greater financial
chaos and a far deeper economic slump than the very severe one we have
experienced.
The rapidly worsening crisis soon spread beyond financial institutions into
the money and capital markets more generally. Losses on Lehman's commercial
paper at a prominent money market mutual fund led to a run on that fund and many
others; over the subsequent weeks, fearful money-fund investors withdrew more
than $400 billion. Equity prices fell precipitously, large firms and banks
hoarded cash, and short-term credit became available, if at all, only at very
high interest rates and for very short terms.
As we now know, the financial turmoil dealt an economic body blow that spread
worldwide. Businesses slashed production and payrolls, including in countries
that had not thus far experienced much effect. International trade collapsed,
and many nations dependent on trade experienced even sharper slides in economic
activity than the United States.
The Federal Reserve's Policy Response
As the crisis
became global, the policy response became global as well. After watershed
meetings in Washington of finance ministers and central bank governors on
October 10-11, 2008, many countries, including the United States, announced
comprehensive plans to stabilize their banking systems. They expanded deposit
insurance, injected public capital into banks, guaranteed bank-issued debt, and
increased access to funding from central banks.1 This strong and unprecedented response--a sharp
contrast to the failures of international cooperation that helped make the
depression of the 1930s so devastating--proved broadly effective. During the
subsequent months the risk of a global financial meltdown and economic collapse
receded.
In support of these efforts to stabilize the financial system, and in its
traditional central bank role as backstop liquidity provider, the Federal
Reserve developed innovative programs to provide well-collateralized, mostly
short-term credit to the financial system. Without this credit, otherwise sound
financial institutions could have been forced to dump assets onto the market,
further depressing prices, or even been driven into failure, intensifying the
crisis. We provided this liquidity through a number of channels. To help
stabilize banks of all sizes, we eased the terms of lending to banks through our
regular short-term lending facility, known as the discount window, and auctioned
fixed quantities of discount window credit. We also expanded access to our
short-term lending to many securities firms, whose normal funding sources had
been disrupted by the crisis. And we worked closely with the Treasury to develop
programs that successfully ended the run on the money market mutual funds.
The Federal Reserve also acted to help restore normal functioning in key
financial markets. We established a backstop commercial paper facility to help
address severe strains in the commercial paper market, on which many firms rely
to finance their operations. To improve the availability of credit more broadly,
we created a facility to support the issuance of securities backed by a range of
assets including small business loans, auto loans, credit card receivables,
student loans, and commercial real estate. Additionally, after heavy foreign
demand for dollar funding began to disrupt money markets and squeeze credit
availability in the United States, we established cooperative programs with 14
foreign central banks to allow them to provide sufficient dollar funding to help
calm markets in their own jurisdictions. Importantly, these programs--most of
which have been deemed no longer necessary and shut down--not only helped
stabilize financial conditions and restart the flow of credit to American
families and businesses, they did so at no financial cost to taxpayers and with
no credit losses.
Beyond its actions to help stabilize the financial system, the Federal
Reserve also responded to the deepening recession with an aggressive monetary
policy, in both conventional and less conventional forms. We lowered interest
rates sharply, including, in October 2008, an unprecedented coordinated rate cut
with five other major central banks. For the past 15 months, we have maintained
our target short-term interest rate near zero. In a less conventional operation,
we also purchased more than $1.7 trillion of Treasury securities and securities
issued or guaranteed by the housing-related GSEs. These purchases contributed to
a marked improvement in credit markets. In particular, they significantly
lowered mortgage interest rates, which made housing more affordable and allowed
millions of Americans to reduce their payments by refinancing.
Finally, the Federal Reserve also responded to the crisis in its capacity as
a bank supervisor. Last spring we led a forward-looking, simultaneous evaluation
of the financial conditions and capital positions of 19 of the largest bank
holding companies in the United States, with the Treasury committing to provide
public capital as needed. The goal of the Supervisory Capital Assessment
Program--popularly called the stress test--was to ensure that these firms held
sufficient capital, in both quantity and quality, to withstand
worse-than-expected economic conditions over the subsequent two years and yet
remain healthy and capable of lending to creditworthy borrowers.2 This exercise was
unprecedented in scale and scope, as well as in the range of information we made
public regarding the projected losses and revenues of the tested firms, which
allowed private analysts to judge for themselves the credibility of the
exercise. Markets responded favorably to the release of the stress test results,
and many of the tested banks were able to raise substantial amounts of capital
from investors and to repay government capital.
Overall, the policy actions implemented over the past two and a half years by
the Federal Reserve and other agencies in the United States and abroad have
helped stabilize key global financial markets: Short-term funding markets are
essentially back to normal, corporate bond issuance has been strong, and stock
prices have partially recovered. Bank lending remains constrained, as I will
discuss in a moment, but critically, fears of financial collapse have lessened
substantially. Most important, the economy has stabilized and is growing again,
although we can hardly be satisfied when 1 out of every 10 U.S. workers is
unemployed and family finances remain under great stress.
Toward Better Financial Regulation and Supervision
As I
noted earlier, we found some of the choices that we faced during the financial
crisis exceedingly distasteful. The Federal Reserve has always recognized the
importance of allowing markets to work, and government oversight of financial
firms will never be fully effective without the aid of strong market discipline.
The decisions we took, in collaboration with the Treasury, to assist distressed
firms during the height of the crisis thus ran strongly against the grain of our
institution. However, as I said, our options under extremely difficult
circumstances were bad and worse, as our ability to respond effectively was
sharply limited by the lack of tools available to act in a crisis. In
particular, the U.S. government lacked any workable means to address the
potential disorderly failure of a large, systemically important firm in a way
that protected the economy and taxpayers from severe collateral damage.
With the crisis largely behind us, we as a country must now turn to fixing
structural weaknesses in the financial system, in particular in the regulatory
framework. We need tough new rules to make financial institutions safer and to
constrain excessive risk-taking, and we need a regulatory framework that gives
the Federal Reserve and other agencies the ability to address risks to the
financial system as a whole. Critically, so that we will never again face the
unpalatable choice between bailouts and a disorderly bankruptcy that threatens
to bring down our financial system, we must bring an end to the belief that some
financial institutions are too big to fail. To do that, we urgently need a new
resolution regime for large, complex, and interconnected financial firms,
similar to that already established for banks. To end too-big-to-fail, the new
regime should permit regulators to close a failing firm and impose losses on
shareholders and creditors; indeed, I would argue that no financial instrument
counted as regulatory capital should be allowed to receive any
protection from losses. At the same time, regulators must have the tools
necessary to minimize the associated disruption to the financial system and the
broader economy.3
The Federal Reserve strongly supports ongoing congressional efforts to reform
our financial regulatory framework, but we are not waiting for new legislation
to make improvements. We have been working hard to strengthen our own oversight
of financial institutions and to broaden our field of vision to include
potential risks to the financial system as a whole as well as risks to
individual firms. For example, we have played a key part in ongoing
international efforts to ensure that systemically critical financial
institutions hold more and higher-quality capital and have sufficient liquid
assets on hand to be able to survive a market crisis. And we are leading the
international and domestic initiative to push banking organizations of all sizes
to ensure their compensation practices link pay to performance and do not
encourage excessive risk-taking.
To make our supervision more effective and better able to identify risks to
the financial system as a whole, we are also making fundamental changes to our
daily operations. For example, we have adopted a more multidisciplinary approach
that makes better use of the wide range of expertise and skills at the Federal
Reserve--in economics, financial markets, payments systems, and other
specialties, as well as bank supervision. We will be doing more cross-firm
comparisons to better understand differences in the practices of different firms
and the risks they face, and we will be complementing on-site examinations with
off-site, quantitative analyses by experts in a range of disciplines. As we
improve our supervision, we will be sure not to lose sight of the diversity of
our banking system. Banks of all sizes, including regional and community banks,
make critical contributions to our economy; thus, we must continue our efforts
to ensure the stability and vitality of smaller banks as well as larger ones.
As we've been working to make our supervision more effective, we have also
been taking care to ensure we do not inadvertently impede sound lending.
Businesses need access to credit to maintain or expand their payrolls and make
productive investments. Banks need to continue to lend to creditworthy borrowers
to earn a profit and remain strong. If bankers become overly conservative in
response to past lending mistakes--or if examiners force such behavior--it will
hurt bankers' own long-term interests and the economy in general. For this
reason, we have joined with the other federal banking agencies to issue a series
of policy statements to examiners: on the importance of bank lending to
creditworthy borrowers, on small business lending, and on commercial real estate
loan restructuring.4 We
have followed up this formal guidance with training for examiners and outreach
to the banking industry. Our message is a simple one: Institutions should strive
to meet the needs of creditworthy borrowers, and the supervisory agencies should
do all they can to help, not hinder, those efforts. We also must support
sensible efforts to work with troubled borrowers to bring them back into good
standing. To help us better understand what is going on in the banks we
supervise and in the communities they serve, we continue to seek many views. For
example, our Reserve Banks across the country are holding meetings with
community bankers and others to talk about opportunities for and barriers to
small business lending.
Additionally, the Federal Reserve continues to demonstrate its commitment to
consumer protection in financial services. We have recently overhauled the
regulations governing mortgage transactions and implemented enhanced protections
for credit card accounts and private student loans. We also have made new rules
for overdraft protection programs and for gift cards. In addition, we have
expanded our compliance program for enforcing consumer protection rules at
nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies and foreign banking
organizations.
In these and other areas, we at the Federal Reserve will continue to improve
how we regulate and supervise financial firms while continuing to do all in our
power to identify and mitigate risks that may endanger the financial system as a
whole.
Economic Challenges
Notwithstanding the progress that
I've noted, critical challenges--both near term and longer term--remain. We have
yet to see evidence of a sustained recovery in the housing market. Mortgage
delinquencies for both subprime and prime loans continue to rise as do
foreclosures. The commercial real estate sector remains troubled, which is a
concern for communities and for banks holding commercial real estate loans.
Some of the toughest problems are in the job market. The unemployment rate
has edged off its recent peak, but at 9.7 percent, it is still close to its
highest level since the early 1980s. Although layoffs have eased in recent
months, hiring remains very weak. More than 40 percent of the unemployed have
been out of work six months or longer, nearly double the share of a year ago. I
am particularly concerned about that statistic, because long spells of
unemployment erode skills and lower the longer-term income and employment
prospects of these workers.
That said, my best guess is that economic growth, supported by the Federal
Reserve's stimulative monetary policy, will be sufficient to slowly reduce the
unemployment rate over the coming year. If economic conditions improve, as I
expect, we should see increased optimism among consumers and greater willingness
on the part of banks to lend, which in turn should aid the recovery. Meanwhile,
for the near term, inflation appears to be well controlled. Productivity
improvements have helped firms control costs, and little pricing power is
evident. Inflation expectations, as measured in the financial markets or in
surveys, appear stable.
What about the longer term? The economist John Maynard Keynes said that in
the long run, we are all dead.5 If he were around today he might say that, in the long
run, we are all on Social Security and Medicare. That brings me to two
interrelated economic challenges our nation faces: meeting the economic needs of
an aging population and regaining fiscal sustainability. The U.S. population
will change significantly in coming decades with the combined effect of the
decline in fertility rates following the baby boom and increasing longevity. As
our population ages, the ratio of working-age Americans to older Americans will
fall, which could hold back the long-run prospects for living standards in our
country. The aging of the population also will have a major impact on the
federal budget, most dramatically on the Social Security and Medicare programs,
particularly if the cost of health care continues to rise at its historical
rate. Thus, we must begin now to prepare for this coming demographic
transition.6
The economist Herb Stein once famously said, "If something cannot go on
forever, it will stop."7 That adage certainly applies to our nation's fiscal
situation. Inevitably, addressing the fiscal challenges posed by an aging
population will require a willingness to make difficult choices. The arithmetic
is, unfortunately, quite clear. To avoid large and unsustainable budget
deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes,
modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less
spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of
the above. These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them
off--until the day they cannot be put off any more. But unless we as a nation
demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we
will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.
Today the economy continues to operate well below its potential, which
implies that a sharp near-term reduction in our fiscal deficit is probably
neither practical nor advisable. However, nothing prevents us from beginning now
to develop a credible plan for meeting our long-run fiscal challenges. Indeed, a
credible plan that demonstrated a commitment to achieving long-run fiscal
sustainability could lead to lower interest rates and more rapid growth in the
near term.
Our economic challenges, both near term and longer term, are daunting indeed.
Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that they can be met. History has demonstrated
time and again the inherent resilience and recuperative powers of the American
economy. Our country's competitive, market-based system, its flexible capital
and labor markets, its tradition of entrepreneurship, and its knack for
innovation have ensured that the nation's economy has surmounted difficult
challenges in the past. I do not doubt that we can do so once again.
Footnotes
1. In addition, a number of foreign governments--including
the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands,
Luxembourg, and Iceland--took steps to prevent the disorderly failures of
distressed financial firms. Return to text
2. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(2009), "Federal
Reserve, OCC, and FDIC Release Results of the Supervisory Capital Assessment
Program," press release, May 7; and Ben S. Bernanke (2009), "The Supervisory
Capital Assessment Program," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta 2009 Financial Markets Conference, Jekyll Island, Ga., May 11. Return to text
3. Because most large financial firms are multinational, the
development of an effective regime will require consultation and collaboration
with authorities abroad. Return to text
4. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision (2008), "Interagency Statement
on Meeting the Needs of Creditworthy Borrowers," joint press release,
November 12; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and Conference of
State Bank Supervisors (2010), "Regulators Issue Statement on Lending to Creditworthy Small
Businesses," joint press release, February 5; Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation (2009),
"Prudent Commercial Real Estate
Loan Workouts," Supervision and Regulation Letter SR 09-7 (October 30); and
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council and Office of Thrift Supervision (2009), "Policy Statement on Prudent
Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts," joint policy statement, October 30.
Return to text
5. See John Maynard Keynes (1923), A Tract on Monetary
Reform (London: Macmillan and Co.), as quoted in Alison Jones, ed. (1997),
Chambers Dictionary of Quotations (New York: Chambers), p. 554. Return to text
6. See Ben S. Bernanke (2006), "The Coming
Demographic Transition: Will We Treat Future Generations Fairly?" speech
delivered at the Washington Economic Club, Washington, October 4; and Louise
Sheiner, Daniel Sichel, and Lawrence Slifman (2006), "A Primer on the Macroeconomic Implications of
Population Aging," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007-01
(Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September). Return to text
7. See Herbert Stein (1997), "Herb Stein's Unfamiliar
Quotations," Slate, May 16, www.slate.com/id/2561. Return
to text