The Fed Pulled no Punches Criticizing Itself and SVB

Image Credit: Alpha Photo (Flickr)

Silicon Valley Bank is Back in the News as the Fed Explains the Mess

Silicon Valley Bank’s management, the board of directors, and Federal Reserve supervisors all ignored banking basics. At least that is the determination of the Federal Reserve itself. The review and report of the situation, created by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, relieve fears that the broader U.S. banking system is fragile. But it does highlight other problems that may need to be addressed by those responsible for a sound U.S. banking system.

Silicon Valley Bank was considered the “go-to bank” for venture capital firms and technology start-ups. But it failed spectacularly in March which set off a crisis of confidence toward the banking industry. Federal regulators seized Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 after customers withdrew tens of billions of dollars in deposits in a matter of hours. The speed of withdrawals was attributed to high levels of communication through social media.

The opening paragraph of the introductory letter by the Federal Reserve in DC said:

“Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failed because of a textbook case of mismanagement by the bank. Its senior leadership failed to manage basic interest rate and liquidity risk. Its board of directors failed to oversee senior leadership and hold them accountable. And Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful action, as detailed in the report.”

The plain-spoken letter and more formal report was critical of all involved, including regulators who are supposed to be evaluating bank management and processes for adequacy.

The lengthy report has four key takeaways:

  • “Silicon Valley Bank’s board of directors and management failed to manage their risks.”

[Editor’s note] Banks present-value their assets (investments and loans) and their liabilities (deposits) then report valuations at regular Asset/Liabilty management meetings. When a depositor locks in a CD and rates rise, the value to the bank of that deposit rises as it is present valued to higher market rates. The same for loans, and the investment portfolio if it is designated marked-to-market. Proper interest rate risk management for banks is stress testing for risk and profitability if rates rise or fall.

  • “Supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity.”

[Editor’s note] Regulators don’t tell banks how to manage their business, but regulators are supposed to check that a suitable plan is in place, it was created by competent managers considering the bank’s complexities, and that it is being followed.

  • “When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough.”

  • “The board’s tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach.

[Editor’s note] SVB’s CEO lobbied for this roll back of Dodd Frank which set ratios and loosened the reigns on regulatory scrutiny of larger banks.

In its criticism of its own lack of oversight, the report stated “The Federal Reserve did not appreciate the seriousness of critical deficiencies in the firm’s governance, liquidity, and interest rate risk management. These judgments meant that Silicon Valley Bank remained well-rated, even as conditions deteriorated and significant risk to the firm’s safety and soundness emerged.”

The Fed also said, based on its report, it plans to reexamine how it regulates banks the size of SVB, which had more than $200 billion in assets when it failed.

The Fed’s release, which includes internal reports and Fed communications, is a rare look into how the central bank supervises individual banks as one of the nation’s bank regulators. Other regulators include the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Typically these processes are confidential and rarely seen by the public, but the Fed chose to release these reports to show how the bank was managed up to its failure.

It probably won’t be long before Silicon Valley Bank is used as a college case study in what not to do.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/svb-review-20230428.pdf

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20180706b.htm

Minutes and Other Indicators are Now Showing Less Agreement on Policy by the FOMC

Image Credit: Federal Reserve (Flickr)

The March FOMC Minutes Show the Fed is Less Aligned

We may be entering a period when we have a Federal Reserve that is split on the direction of monetary policy. This could be the case as early as the May 2-3 FOMC meeting. At least, that is one indication that arose from the just-released minutes of the Committee from the March 21-22 meeting. U.S. economic activity was strong leading up to the meeting, then the collapse of two banks occurred. The concerns that followed prompted several Federal Reserve officials to consider whether the central bank should pause its aggressive pace of hiking interest rates.

Split Federal Reserve

The minutes offer insight into what may follow this year. Over the past ten sessions, the FOMC minutes showed the central bank’s focus has been on quickly tightening policy to squelch persistent inflation. Now after nine consecutive interest-rate hikes and quantitative tightening, the conversation has shifted from wondering how fast they can move to whether and when the Fed should pause. At least, it has for some of the Committee members. Soft landings are seldom successfully orchestrated by monetary policy changes; more often, they set the stage for a recession.

In public addresses since the March meeting, Fed officials have appeared to be somewhat split on the way forward. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee, for example, said on April 11 that the Fed needs to be cautious. “We should gather further data and be careful about raising rates too aggressively until we see how much work the headwinds are doing for us in getting down inflation,” Goolsbee said.

Less concerned about a recession and more concerned about winning the war on inflation, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester said last week she believes the correct move is for the Fed to continue tightening “a little bit higher” before pausing as the economy and inflation adjusts.

Bank Failure Considerations

The March monetary policy meeting was surrounded by uncertainty for both Fed watchers and some FOMC members. The meeting took place only days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Other indicators of a strong economy pointed to an aggressive move from the voting members. But, with the banking sector wounded or perhaps worse, it remained a nailbiter up until 2 pm on March 22 when the Federal Open Market Committee announced a quarter-point interest-rate hike.

While all has since been quiet related to U.S. banks, at the time, the extent of the problem was far from known. The potential economic impact it could have, led Fed staff to project a mild recession starting later in 2023, according to the minutes. This tells financial markets and others impacted by Fed moves that some Fed officials were seriously considering holding steady on rates.

The minutes show, the combination of “slower-than-expected progress on disinflation,” a tight labor market, and the view that the new emergency lending programs had stabilized the financial sector, allowed the central bank to again raise rates. The minutes indicated, “Many participants remarked that the incoming data before the onset of the banking sector stresses had led them to see the appropriate path for the federal funds rate as somewhat higher than their assessment at the time of the December meeting.” Reading on, the minutes said, “After incorporating the banking-sector developments, participants indicated that their policy rate projections were now about unchanged from December.”

Take Away

Although they are released several weeks after each meeting, the Fed minutes are always closely watched for clues as to how central-bank officials are feeling and where monetary policy is likely heading over the next several weeks or months. The indication from these minutes, behind a backdrop of Fed regional president addresses, indicate a less than unified Fed. Unless there is a good deal of unexpected trouble within the banking sector or economy or a clear tick up in economic measures such as employment, the May 3 post-meeting announcement on policy will be tough to forecast.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230412a.htm

https://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-split-on-feds-next-move-as-financial-sector-buckles-after-bank-failures-150737804.html

https://www.barrons.com/articles/march-fed-meeting-minutes-today-cf27aa2?mod=hp_LATEST

The Seemingly Endless Global Battle Over Investment Research Will Soon End

Image Credit: Matt May (Flickr)

How Should Brokers Be Compensated for Investment Research?

Most U.S. investors have not heard of the European Unions Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, referred to as MiFID or MiFID II. But the large U.S. brokers and investment banks certainly have, and they are bumping up against a July end to a “no-action” relief letter from the SEC. At issue is that the directive, which came into effect in January of 2018 in the E.U., doesn’t synch with how brokerage business is conducted in the U.S. The U.S.-based brokers have been provided time, but over five years, there is very little evidence of movement to comply.  

Background

If U.S. broker-dealers (BDs) continue their business model of providing investment research to clients that is now “bundled” with other services, not charged as a separate service, they are in compliance with U.S. security regulations and don’t risk their status as a BD. However, if they follow MiFID with their international clients in order to be in compliance with Europe, they would be acting, under U.S. rules, as an Investment Advisor (the Advisers Act). This is because if they are subject to E.U. jurisdiction, under MiFID II, unless an exemption is met, research that investment managers receive from brokers is considered a prohibited “inducement.”

Research distribution in the U.S. by BDs has historically relied on a definition of “Investment Adviser” under the Advisers Act (related to research distribution). This definition looks to the condition that the investment advice is incidental to the firm’s broker-dealer business and (that the broker-dealer is not receiving “special compensation.” Hard dollar payments in exchange for investment research is considered  “special compensation” for investment advice (ie., equity research). A 2017 dated SEC no-action letter and then another in July 2022 provided a window of relief from this conflict. It provided time to sort through what is allowed under different business types for those falling under both U.S. regulation and MiFID II oversight.

With fewer than three months until the SEC “no action” July 3 deadline, Wall Street firms are quiet on how and whether they may adjust their businesses. The choices would seem to be to either not provide the service of bond and equity research as part of the bundled service by acting strictly as a BD (compliance with MiFID II), or to register as an Investment Adviser that then subjects traditional U.S. brokers to additional rules and licenses.

Where We Are Now

The SEC no-action letter has allowed U.S.-based BDs to accept payments from clients where MiFID applies. This protection will soon end. If they continue the practice, they will be violating the Advisers Act, as they are not Investment Advisers.

Come July 3, they face a choice of registering, moving research teams into registered affiliates, or even cutting off clients subject to MiFID regulations from any research produced in the U.S.

In March, SEC Chair Gary Gensler and senior staff met bank representatives and industry associations to discuss the issue. But the SEC ultimately refused to alter its long-held stance, on the Advisers Act.

Take Away

Broker-dealers in the U.S. have less than three months to adjust their position on compensation methods of clients bound by MiFID II. The clock is ticking, and they are now staring down the barrel of a difficult decision. Should they transition to Investment Adviser status and charge separately for research, or should they stop providing research to affected clients altogether?

Securities Research available on Channelchek is always without cost. Sign up here to receive access and top-tier equity reports in your inbox, each day, before the market opens.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.ft.com/content/2400b520-afa3-45ec-9767-a35805b4f98a

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/markets-in-financial-instruments-directive-mifid/

https://www.kslaw.com/news-and-insights/broker-dealer-research-mifid-related-hard-dollar-sec-investment-adviser-status-relief-to-end-in-july-2023#:~:text=On%20July%2026%2C%202022%2C%20William%20Birdthistle%2C%20Director%20of,letter%20to%20escape%20classification%20as%20an%20investment%20adviser.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=gensler+mifid&filters=ex1%3a”ez3″&pglt=41&cvid=988d16616d5d413e99ae8b9a7aed6c84&aqs=edge..69i57j0l3j69i64.4027j0j1&FORM=000017&PC=LCTS&qpvt=gensler+mifid

The CFA Institute Makes First Major Change to Program Since Inception

Image Credit: WOCintech Chat (Flickr)

CFA Exam is Evolving to Better Reflect Employee, Employer, and Candidate Needs

The CFA Institute is making the most significant changes to its program since first introduced back in 1963. All of the changes are designed to better serve employers, candidates, and charterholders. The designation is considered the gold standard in the investment profession, so modifying the program must have involved much thought and debate. Six additions will be rolled out for those beginning the journey toward a CFA this year. The end result will be expanded eligibility, hands-on learning, a more focused curriculum, additional practice available, the ability to specialize, and recognition at every passed level.

What is a Chartered Financial Analyst?

A Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) is a professional designation awarded to financial analysts who have passed a rigorous set of exams administered by the CFA Institute. The CFA program is a globally recognized, graduate-level curriculum that covers a range of investment topics, including financial analysis, portfolio management, and ethical and professional standards.

To become a CFA charterholder, candidates must pass three levels of exams, each of which are administered once a year. In addition to passing the exams, candidates must also meet work experience or school requirements.

Eligibility

The institute is selective in who can be a candidate. In the past, those with a degree and working in the business, needed to be sponsored by two people; first, a current CFA member, and the second the prospective candidate’s supervisor. For students, the requirement was that they be in their last year of study and be sponsored by a professor in lieu of a supervisor.

The policy that had been in place is that students with just one year remaining in their studies may seek CFA candidacy. The purpose of the new policy, according to Margeret Franklin CFA, President and CEO of the CFA Institute, is to “provide students with the opportunity to Level 1 of the CFA program as a clear signal to employers that they are serious about a career in the investment industry by getting an early start in the program.” This is the first of the revisions in the program and has been in place since November 2022.

Job Ready Skills

This new feature recognizes there is a difference between textbook understanding and work. The upcoming study and test material is designed for charterholders to be able to add value much earlier to their employer by imparting practical skills. A practical skills module will be added beginning with those scheduled for the February 2024 Level 1 exam. Level II candidates taking the test  in May 2024 will also be tested on this new material. Level III candidates will see this material in 2025.

The impetus for this addition, according to the CFA Institute’s website, is it, “allows us to meet the expressed needs of student candidates, providing them with the opportunity to prepare for internships and investment careers, while also addressing industry demand for well-trained, ethical professionals.”

Expanded Study Material

Candidates are told they can greatly increase their chances of success taking the exam if they correctly answer 1,000 practice question during study, and score at least 70% on a mock exam. The Institute has added as an extra (not part of the basic study package) three new elements for preparation.  

To increase the percentage of successful candidates, the CFA Institute now offers a Level I Practice Pack. It includes 1,000 more practice questions and six additional mock exams to go with the study materials that is standard with registration.

The add-on also provides six additional, exam-quality mock exams. The questions are prepared by the same team that create the exams each year.

More Focused

The CFA has branded itself with the promise that 300 hours of study per level is what is needed for success. They recognize that most candidates put in much more time, and the success rate for this tough series of exams is low. The Institute has streamlined study to make more efficient its Level I material beginning with those sitting for the Level I exam in 2024.

To be more efficient, the Institute presumes Level I candidates have already mastered many introductory financial concepts as part of their university studies or career role. To avoid duplication and to streamline Level I curriculum content, they have moved some of this content. It is available separately as reference material for registered candidates.

The content that has been moved to “Pre-Read” incudes topics like the time-value of money, basic statistics, microeconomics, and introduction to company accounts.

Choose Your Specialty

Starting in 2025, candidates will be able to choose one of three specialty paths to be tested at Level III. The reason for the addition is the CFA curriculum has always prepared candidates for investment and finance buy-side roles. This choice allows the CFA credential to grow and develop to meet the needs of a broader group of individuals and employers.

The CFA traditional path has been to prepare the candidate for a portfolio management role. This traditional path is still included. The Institute is also adding concentrations in private wealth management, and private markets. There will only be one credential, the Chartered Financial Analyst, but three areas of specialty.

Recognition at Every Level

While the goal of every candidate is to earn a full-fledged CFA designation, each level is a significant achievement. Now, CFA Institute awarded digital badges will recognize success at the first two levels.

The digital badges, to be used on social media when rolled out later in 2023 will be accompanied by marketing and awareness-building with employers, to improve the visibility and value placed on progress through the CFA program. The goal is for candidates to be distinguished in the market, have one-click social sharing, with instant verification to employers and colleagues to boost credibility and solidify a candidates’ accomplishment.

Overall the change, is to signal to the market that completing Levels I and II are substantial achievements, with tangible recognition of a candidate’s commitment to the industry through their learned skills and experience, professionalism and ethical practices.

Take Away

The world investment world is changing, and the CFA Institute is responding in order to better serve those that benefit from this prestigious designation. Candidates will now have more choices, more study material available, and the ability to take credit for their rigorous studies beginning after passing Level I.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://300hours.com/cfa-requirements/#:~:text=The%20CFA%20Institute%20is%20the,the%20other%20your%20current%20supervisor.

CFA® Program The Next Evolution (brightcove.net)

Real Risks to TikTok Users

Image: Congressional Hearings with Byte Dance (TikTok) CEO, C-SPAN (YouTube)

Should the US Ban TikTok? Can It? A Cybersecurity Expert Explains the Risks the App Poses

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 23, 2023, amid a chorus of calls from members of Congress for the federal government to ban the Chinese-owned video social media app and reports that the Biden administration is pushing for the company’s sale.

The federal government, along with many state and foreign governments and some companies, has banned TikTok on work-provided phones. This type of ban can be effective for protecting data related to government work.

But a full ban of the app is another matter, which raises a number of questions: What data privacy risk does TikTok pose? What could the Chinese government do with data collected by the app? Is its content recommendation algorithm dangerous? And is it even possible to ban an app?

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Doug Jacobson, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University.

Vacuuming Up Data

As a cybersecurity researcher, I’ve noted that every few years a new mobile app that becomes popular raises issues of security, privacy and data access.

Apps collect data for several reasons. Sometimes the data is used to improve the app for users. However, most apps collect data that the companies use in part to fund their operations. This revenue typically comes from targeting users with ads based on the data they collect. The questions this use of data raises are: Does the app need all this data? What does it do with the data? And how does it protect the data from others?

So what makes TikTok different from the likes of Pokemon-GO, Facebook or even your phone itself? TikTok’s privacy policy, which few people read, is a good place to start. Overall, the company is not particularly transparent about its practices. The document is too long to list here all the data it collects, which should be a warning.

There are a few items of interest in TikTok’s privacy policy besides the information you give them when you create an account – name, age, username, password, language, email, phone number, social media account information and profile image – that are concerning. This information includes location data, data from your clipboard, contact information, website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app. The company claims that current versions of the app do not collect GPS information from U.S. users. There has been speculation that TikTok is collecting other information, but that is hard to prove.

If most apps collect data, why is the U.S. government worried about TikTok? First, they worry about the Chinese government accessing data from its 150 million users in the U.S. There is also a concern about the algorithms used by TikTok to show content.

Data in the Chinese Government’s Hands

If the data does end up in the hands of the Chinese government, the question is how could it use the data to its benefit. The government could share it with other companies in China to help them profit, which is no different than U.S. companies sharing marketing data. The Chinese government is known for playing the long game, and data is power, so if it is collecting data, it could take years to learn how it benefits China.

One potential threat is the Chinese government using the data to spy on people, particularly people who have access to valuable information. The Justice Department is investigating TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, for using the app to monitor U.S. journalists. The Chinese government has an extensive history of hacking U.S. government agencies and corporations, and much of that hacking has been facilitated by social engineering – the practice of using data about people to trick them into revealing more information.

The second issue that the U.S. government has raised is algorithm bias or algorithm manipulation. TikTok and most social media apps have algorithms designed to learn a user’s interests and then try to adjust the content so the user will continue to use the app. TikTok has not shared its algorithm, so it’s not clear how the app chooses a user’s content.

The algorithm could be biased in a way that influences a population to believe certain things. There are numerous allegations that TiKTok’s algorithm is biased and can reinforce negative thoughts among younger users, and be used to affect public opinion. It could be that the algorithm’s manipulative behavior is unintentional, but there is concern that the Chinese government has been using or could use the algorithm to influence people.

Can the Government Ban an App?

If the federal government comes to the conclusion that TikTok should be banned, is it even possible to ban it for all of its 150 million existing users? Any such ban would likely start with blocking the distribution of the app through Apple’s and Google’s app stores. This might keep many users off the platform, but there are other ways to download and install apps for people who are determined to use them.

A more drastic method would be to force Apple and Google to change their phones to prevent TikTok from running. While I’m not a lawyer, I think this effort would fail due to legal challenges, which include First Amendment concerns. The bottom line is that an absolute ban will be tough to enforce.

There are also questions about how effective a ban would be even if it were possible. By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means. So a ban might limit the damage going forward to some degree, but the Chinese government has already collected a significant amount of data. The Chinese government also has access – along with anyone else with money – to the large market for personal data, which fuels calls for stronger data privacy rules.

Are You at Risk?

So as an average user, should you worry? Again, it is unclear what data ByteDance is collecting and if it can harm an individual. I believe the most significant risks are to people in power, whether it is political power or within a company. Their data and information could be used to gain access to other data or potentially compromise the organizations they are associated with.

The aspect of TikTok I find most concerning is the algorithm that decides what videos users see and how it can affect vulnerable groups, particularly young people. Independent of a ban, families should have conversions about TikTok and other social media platforms and how they can be detrimental to mental health. These conversations should focus on how to determine if the app is leading you down an unhealthy path.

Block Inc. Versus Hindenberg Research, Who’s Correct?

Image Credit: Hindenberg Research (YouTube)

The Details of the Hindenberg Research Report Include Serious Allegations

A legal face-off may be brewing as Block (SQ), the other company co-founded by Jack Dorsey, calls on the SEC for what Block calls an “inaccurate report.” The report Block (formerly Square) is referring to was released by Hindenberg Research on March 23. The research contends that Dorsey’s fintech company showed, “willingness to facilitate fraud against consumers and the government, avoid regulation, dress up predatory loans and fees as revolutionary technology, and mislead investors with inflated metrics.”

What is each side claiming, and what is the responsibility in releasing a report that may take Hindenberg into a fight with a company with a $44 billion market cap?

Who’s Involved?

Block is a financial technology company specializing in mobile payments founded in 2009 by Jack Dorsey and Jim McKelvey. The company’s flagship product is a small, square-shaped credit card reader that plugs into a smartphone or tablet and allows businesses to accept credit and debit card payments. Block has added other financial products and services, including point-of-sale software, payroll processing, and business loans.

Hindenburg Research provides investors with investigative research and analysis for the purpose of helping them identify potential risks or fraudulent practices in publicly traded companies. They are described as a short-selling, research-based firm. The Research is often considered within the context of its short-position investment strategy.

Image: Block’s flagship product – Nat’l Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution (Flickr)

What is Hindenberg’s Claim?

The research firm with a reputation of looking below the surface for trouble at firms, says Block is not what it claims to be. According to the Hindenberg report, the Dorsey-founded firm claims to have developed a frictionless and magical financial technology. The mission of this technology, the report quotes Block as saying is to empower the “unbanked” and the “underbanked.”

Hindenberg says that over two years of investigation that involved dozens of interviews with former employees that Block has systematically taken advantage of the demographics it claims to be helping. This refers to the stated mission of helping the underbanked. Instead, the research firm says this stands in conflict with, “the company’s willingness to facilitate fraud against consumers and the government, avoid regulation, and dress up predatory loans and fees as revolutionary technology, and mislead investors with inflated metrics.”

The two years of investigation also indicated that  Block severely overstated its user counts and has understated its customer acquisition costs. This information, the report says, is based on former employees’ estimation that 40%-75% of accounts they reviewed were fake, involved in fraud, or were additional accounts tied to a single individual.

They claim a key metric that investors use to value the company are unclear. That is, how many individuals are on the Cash App. The report accuses the company reporting of misleading “transacting active” metrics filled with fake and duplicate accounts. Hindenberg says, “Block can and should clarify to investors an estimate on how many unique people actually use Cash App.”

Hindenberg said the app is used for illegal activity and points to all the rap songs written about engaging in illegal activity, activity made possible with the help of the app. The research company even made a compilation video to demonstrate this point (link to video under “Sources” below).

A line in one of the songs is, “I paid them hitters through Cash App.” Heritage contests that Block paid to promote the video for the song called “Cash App” which described paying contract killers through the app. The song’s artist was later arrested for attempted murder.

According to the Hindenberg report, Block’s Cash App was also cited “by far” as the top app used in reported U.S. sex trafficking, according to a leading non-profit organization. Multiple Department of Justice complaints outline how Cash App has been used to facilitate sex trafficking, including sex trafficking of minors.

Beyond alleged facilitation of payment for crimes, the platform, former employees contend,  is overrun with scam accounts and fake users. Examples of obvious distortions of user numbers is that “Jack Dorsey” has multiple fake accounts, including some that appear aimed at scamming Cash App users.  “Elon Musk” and “Donald Trump” who have dozens of accounts in their names. Hindenberg contends they tested this flaw, “we ordered a Cash Card under our obviously fake Donald Trump account, checking to see if Cash App’s compliance would take issue—the card promptly arrived in the mail,” they gave as an example.

Block’s Response

Not to be dissed, management at Block called out the threatening press release. “We intend to work with the SEC and explore legal action against Hindenburg Research for the factually inaccurate and misleading report they shared about our Cash App business today.”

The Dorsey founded firm suggested that the research firm wrote the report for dubious reasons and that it may be part of an orchestrated reverse pump and dump, “Hindenburg is known for these types of attacks, which are designed solely to allow short sellers to profit from a declined stock price. We have reviewed the full report in the context of our own data and believe it’s designed to deceive and confuse investors.”

The company than comforted stakeholders saying, “we are a highly regulated public company with regular disclosures, and are confident in our products, reporting, compliance programs, and controls. We will not be distracted by typical short seller tactics.”

There’s Smoke, is There Fire?

Are the initial disparaging claims against Block’s business accurate? Is there merit to what Block says of Hindenberg Research? As Block may be seeking a legal remedy, it is unlikely that either party will be very vocal from here.

For investors, it’s logical that both parties cannot be right at the same time. One of the parties is overstating truth. If Block is indeed working with the SEC, this truth should eventually surface.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://youtu.be/StjWk3Mj-M4?t=8

https://hindenburgresearch.com/

https://investors.block.xyz/news/news-details/2023/Blocks-Response-to-Inaccurate-Short-Seller-Report/default.aspx

Will Banking Issues Infect Other Industries?

Image credit: Dan Reed (Flickr)

Fragile Investor Confidence Could Create Greater Repercussions, Says Moody’s

Bankdemic?

Moody’s Investors Service is cautiously optimistic bank problems will not spill over into the broader economy. However, in a new report, this top-three rating agency said they believe the financial regulators have acted in a way to prevent ripple effects from stressed banks, but they admit there is a good deal of uncertainty in both investor confidence and the economy as a whole. Moody’s wrote that “there is a risk that policymakers will be unable to curtail the current turmoil without longer-lasting and potentially severe repercussions within and beyond the banking sector.”

The reason for the rating services concern is, “even before bank stress became evident, we had expected global credit conditions to continue to weaken in 2023 as a result of significantly higher interest rates and lower growth, including recessions in some countries.” Moody’s said that the longer financial conditions remain tight, the greater the chance that industries outside of banking will experience problems.

Moody’s outlined three channels by which bank problems could become contagious to other sectors.

Source: Moody’s Investor Service

Three Spillover Channels Risks Defined

The first and most possible channel would be the problems encountered by entities with direct and indirect exposure to troubled banks. These can come in different forms. Financial and nonfinancial entities in the private and public sectors could have direct exposure to banks via deposits, loans, other transactional facilities, or direct holdings of weakened banks’ stocks or bonds. Unrelated, they may rely on a troubled bank for services essential to their business.

As it relates to this first channel, the rating agency wrote, “Monitoring and evaluating the direct and indirect links at the entity level will be a key focus of our credit analysis over the coming weeks and months.” Moody’s mentioned Credit Suisse by name in their note, saying the consequences of the UBS takeover are still unfolding, “Given the size and systemic importance of Credit Suisse, there likely will be varied consequences of its takeover for a range of financial actors with direct exposure to the bank.” The rating agency also believes the rapid completion of the deal appears to have avoided widespread contagion across the banking sector.”

The second channel Moody’s indicates could be most potent. It is that broader problems within the banking sector would cause banks to have stricter lending practices. Moody’s says that if this occurred, it would impact customers that are “liquidity-constrained.” The domino impact would then be that investors and lenders may become more cautious, “with particular regard to entities that are exposed to risks similar to those of the troubled banks.”

From this scenario, there is a potential for shocks from interest rate risk, asset-liability mismatches, a large imbalance of assets or liabilities, poor governance, weak profits, and higher leverage.  

The third risk is seen as policy risk. For policymakers whose main focus is taming inflation, the bank problems pose additional challenges to steering the economy to a soft landing. Policy actions and expectations will continue to serve to shape market sentiment. Moody’s baseline case forecasts that it expects policy responses to be rapid if risks emerge. This could help keep entity-level issues from becoming systemic problems. Moody’s note recognizes that policy and implementation are challenging, and there are risks of policy missteps, limitations, or unintended consequences.

“One key policy challenge is how policymakers will address both inflation and financial stability risks,” Moody’s explained that inflation is still high and labor market strength continues. “the failure to rein in inflation now could lead to de-anchoring of inflation expectations and increased nominal bond yields, forcing even more tightening later to restore monetary policy credibility.”

Moody’s wrote that the actions taken by the central banks, and financial regulators show that they recognize the importance of agility and coordination to address arising problems while not acting in a way to add more stress and create a systemic crisis.

Take Away

The recent downfall of a few banks demonstrates how pulling liquidity out of an overly stimulated economy can cause withdrawal pains. Whether the new, tighter credit conditions will tip the economy into a deeper economic downturn as the spillover effect spreads to other sectors remains to be seen. If it occurs, Moody’s expects it would come from the interplay between preexisting credit risks, policy actions, and market sentiment. But, its role as a rating agency is to highlight possible risks. This is not a forecast, there forecast is that regulators and policymakers will have eventually succeeded to contain any ripple effects.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.moodys.com/research/Credit-Conditions-Global-Policymakers-have-responded-promptly-to-bank-stress–PBC_1362240?cid=B3FDB92CC8E17352

Arctic Drilling Approval – More than Meets the Eye

Image Credit: Bureau of Land Management

Three Reasons the Willow Arctic Oil Drilling Project Was Approved

For more than six decades, Alaska’s North Slope has been a focus of intense controversy over oil development and wilderness protection, with no end in sight. Willow field, a 600-million-barrel, US$8 billion oil project recently approved by the Biden administration – to the outrage of environmental and climate activists – is the latest chapter in that long saga.

To understand why President Joe Biden allowed the project, despite vowing “no more drilling on federal lands, period” during his campaign for president, some historical background is necessary, along with a closer look at the ways domestic and international fears are complicating any decision for or against future oil development on the North Slope.

More Than Just Willow

The Willow project lies within a vast, 23 million-acre area known as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A. This was one of four such reserves set aside in the early 1900s to guarantee a supply of oil for the U.S. military. Though no production existed at the time in NPR-A, geologic information and surface seeps of oil suggested large resources across the North Slope.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.

Proof came with the 1968 discovery of the supergiant Prudhoe Bay field, which began producing oil in 1977. Exploratory programs in the NPR-A, however, found only small oil accumulations worthy of local uses.

Then, in the 2000s, new geologic understanding and advanced exploration technology led companies to lease portions of the reserve, and they soon made large fossil fuel discoveries. Because NPR-A is federal land, government approval is required for any development. To date, most have been approved. Willow is the latest.

Caribou in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska are important for Native groups. However, Native communities have also been split over support for drilling, which can bring income. Bob Wick/Bureau of Land Management

Caribou in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska are important for Native groups. However, Native communities have also been split over support for drilling, which can bring income. Bob Wick/Bureau of Land Management

Opposition to North Slope drilling from conservationists, environmental organizations and some Native communities, mainly in support of wilderness preservation, has been fierce since the opening of Prudhoe Bay and the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the 1970s. In the wake of 1970s oil crises, opponents failed to stop development.

During the next four decades, controversy shifted east to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Republican presidents and congressional leaders repeatedly attempted to open the refuge to drilling but were consistently stifled – until 2017. That year, the Trump administration opened it to leasing. Ironically, no companies were interested. Oil prices had fallen, risk was high and the reputational cost was large.

To the west of the refuge, however, a series of new discoveries in NPR-A and adjacent state lands were drawing attention as a major new oil play with multibillion-barrel potential. Oil prices had risen, and though they fell again in 2020, they have been mostly above $70 per barrel – high enough to encourage significant new development.

ConocoPhillips’ Willow project is in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. USGS, Department of Interior

Opposition, with Little Success

Opposition to the new Willow project has been driven by concerns about the effects of drilling on wildlife and of increasing fossil fuel use on the climate. Willow’s oil is estimated to be capable of releasing 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide if refined into fuels and consumed.

In particular, opponents have focused on a planned pipeline that will extend the existing infrastructure further westward, deeper into NPR-A, and likely encourage further exploratory drilling.

So far, that resistance has had little success.

Twenty miles to the south of Willow is the Peregrine discovery area, estimated to hold around 1.6 billion barrels of oil. Its development was approved by the Biden administration in late 2022. To the east lies the Pikka-Horseshoe discovery area, with around 2 billion barrels. It’s also likely to gain approval. Still other NPR-A drilling has occurred to the southwest (Harpoon prospect), northeast (Cassin), and southeast (Stirrup).

Young protesters in Washington in 2022 urged Biden to reject the Willow project. Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Sunrise AU

Questions of Legality

One reason the Biden administration approved the Willow project involves legality: ConocoPhillips holds the leases and has a legal right to drill. Canceling its leases would bring a court case that, if lost, would set a precedent, cost the government millions of dollars in fees and do nothing to stop oil drilling.

Instead, the government made a deal with ConocoPhillips that shrank the total surface area to be developed at Willow by 60%, including removing a sensitive wildlife area known as Teshekpuk Lake. The Biden administration also announced that it was putting 13 million acres of the NPR-A and all federal waters of the Arctic Ocean off limits to new leases.

That has done little to stem anger over approval of the project, however. Two groups have already sued over the approval.

Taking Future Risks into Account

To further understand Biden’s approval of the Willow project, one has to look into the future, too.

Discoveries in the northeastern NPR-A suggest this will become a major new oil production area for the U.S. While actual oil production is not expected there for several years, its timing will coincide with a forecast plateau or decline in total U.S. production later this decade, because of what one shale company CEO described as the end of shale oil’s aggressive growth.

Historically, declines in domestic supply have brought higher fuel prices and imports. High gasoline and diesel prices, with their inflationary impacts, can weaken the political party in power. While current prices and inflation haven’t damaged Biden and the Democrats too much, nothing guarantees this will remain the case.

Geopolitical Concerns, Particularly Europe

The Biden administration also faces geopolitical pressure right now due to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

U.S. companies ramped up exports of oil and natural gas over the past year to become a lifeline for Europe as the European Union uses sanctions and bans on Russian fossil fuel imports to try to weaken the Kremlin’s ability to finance its war on Ukraine. U.S. imports have been able to replace a major portion of Russian supply that Europe once counted on.

Europe’s energy crisis has also led to the return of energy security as a top concern of national leaders worldwide. Without a doubt, the crisis has clarified that oil and gas are still critical to the global economy. The Biden administration is taking the position that reducing the supply by a significant amount – necessary as it is to avoid damaging climate change – cannot be done by prohibition alone. Halting new drilling worldwide would drive fuel prices sky high, weakening economies and the ability to deal with the climate problem.

Energy transitions depend on changes in demand, not just supply. As an energy scholar, I believe advancing the affordability of electric vehicles and the infrastructure they need would do much more for reducing oil use than drilling bans. Though it may seem counterintuitive, by aiding European economic stability, U.S. exports of fossil fuels may also help the EU plan to accelerate noncarbon energy use in the years ahead.

Details of The New Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)

FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Issue Joint Statements on Silicon Valley Bank

In a joint statement released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, they announced actions they are now committed to taking to “protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in the banking system.” The actions are being taken to ensure that “the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.”

Specifically, the actions directly impact two banks, Silicon Valley Bank in California and Signature Bank in New York, but it was made clear that it could be extended to other institutions. The joint news release reads, “After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.

In a second release by the three agencies, details were uncovered as to how this was designed to not impact depositors, with losses being borne by stockholders and debtholders. The release reads as follows:

“The additional funding will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.

With approval of the Treasury Secretary, the Department of the Treasury will make available up to $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the BTFP. The Federal Reserve does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds.

After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary Yellen, after consultation with the President, approved actions to enable the FDIC to complete its resolutions of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in a manner that fully protects all depositors, both insured and uninsured. These actions will reduce stress across the financial system, support financial stability and minimize any impact on businesses, households, taxpayers, and the broader economy.

The Board is carefully monitoring developments in financial markets. The capital and liquidity positions of the U.S. banking system are strong and the U.S. financial system is resilient.”

Take Away

Confidence by depositors, investors, and all economic participants is important for those entrusted to keep the U.S. economy steady. The measures appear to strive for the markets to open on Monday with more calm than might otherwise have occurred.

While the sense of resolve of the steps explained in the two statements, both released at 6:15 ET Sunday evening is reminiscent of 2008, there is still no expectation that the problem is wider than a few institutions.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm

Powell’s Testimony to Congress Revealed A Lot

Image Credit: C-Span (YouTube)

Is the Fed Doing Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

The Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has an ongoing credibility problem. The problem is that markets, economists, and now Congress find him extremely credible. So credible that they have already declared him a winner fighting inflation, or of more pertinence, the economy a loser because Powell and the Fed policymakers have been so resolute in their fight against the rising cost of goods and services that soon there will be an abundance of newly unemployed, businesses will falter, and the stock market will be left in tatters. This view that he has already done too much and that the economy has been overkilled, even while it shows remarkable strength, was echoed many times during his visit to Capital Hill for his twice a year testimony.

“As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell (March 8, 2023).

Powell’s Address

Perhaps the most influential individual on financial markets in the U.S. and around the world, Fed Chair Powell continued his hawkish (inflation fighter, interest rate hiker) tone at his Senate and House testimonies. The overall message was; inflation is bad, inflation has been persistent, we will continue on the path to bring it down, also employment is incredibly strong, the employment situation is such that we can do more, we will do more to protect the U.S. economy from the ravages of inflation.

Powell began, “My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation is causing significant hardship, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal.” Powell discussed the forceful actions taken to date and added, “we have more work to do. Our policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of labor market conditions that benefit all.”

Powell discussed the slowed growth last year; there were two periods of negative GDP growth reported during the first two quarters. He mentioned how the once red-hot housing sector is weakening under higher interest rates and that “Higher interest rates and slower output growth also appear to be weighing on business fixed investment.” He then discussed the impact on labor markets, “Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight. The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent in January, its lowest level since 1969. Job gains remained very strong in January, while the supply of labor has continued to lag.1 As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.”

On the subject of monetary policy, the head of the Federal Reserve mentioned that the target of 2% inflation has not been met and that recent numbers have it moving in the wrong direction. Powell also discussed that the Fed had raised short-term interest rates by adding 4.50%. He suggested that recent economic numbers require that an increase to where the sufficient height of fed funds peaks is likely higher than previously thought. All the while, he added, “we are continuing the process of significantly reducing the size of our balance sheet.”

Powell acknowledged some headway, “We are seeing the effects of our policy actions on demand in the most interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. It will take time, however, for the full effects of monetary restraint to be realized, especially on inflation. In light of the cumulative tightening of monetary policy and the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, the Committee slowed the pace of interest rate increases over its past two meetings.” Powell added, “We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting, taking into account the totality of incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation.”

Questions and Answers

Congressmen both in the Senate and the House use the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress (formerly known as Humphrey Hawkins Testimony) to ask questions of the person with the most economic insight in Washington. Often their questions have already been covered in the Chair’s opening address, but Congresspeople will ask anyway to show their constituents at home that they are looking after them.

Elizabeth Warren is on the Senate Banking Committee; her math concluded the result of even a 1% increase in unemployment is a two million-worker job loss. Warren asked Powell, “Do you call laying off two million people this year not a sharp increase in unemployment?” “Explain that to the two million families who are going to be out of work.” In his response, Powell went back to historical numbers and reminded the Senator that an increase in unemployment would still rank the current economy above what Americans have lived through in most of our lifetimes, “We’re not, again, we’re not targeting any of that. But I would say even 4.5 percent unemployment is well better than most of the time for the last, you know, 75 years,” Chair Powell answered.

U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday heard Congressman Frank Lucas concerned about the pressure for the Fed to include climate concerns as an additional Fed mandate. Lucas from Oklahoma asked,  “How careful are you in ensuring that the Fed does not place itself into the climate debate, and how can Congress ensure that the Fed’s regulatory tool kit is not warped into creating policy outcomes?” Powell answered that the Fed has a narrow but real role involving bank supervision. It’s important that individual banks understand and can manage over time their risks from any climate change and it’s impact on business and the economy. He wants to make sure the Fed never assumes a role where they are becoming a climate policymaker.

Other non-policy questions included Central Bank Digital Currencies. House Congressman Steven Lynch showed concerns that the Fed was experimenting with digital currencies. His question concerned receiving a public update on where they are with their partnership with MIT, their testing, and what they are trying to accomplish. Powell’s response seemed to satisfy the Congressman. “we engage with the public on an ongoing basis, we are also doing research on policy, and also technology,” said Powell. Follow-up questions on the architecture of a CBDC, were met with responses that indicated that the Fed, they are not at the stage of making decisions, instead, they are experimenting and learning. “How would this work, does it work, what is the best technology, what’s the most efficient.” Powell emphasized that the U.S. Federal Reserve is at an early stage, but making technological progress. They have not decided from a policy perspective if this is something that the country needs or desires.

Issues at Stake

As it relates to the stock and bond markets, the Fed has been holding overnight interest rates at a level that is more than one percentage point below the rate of inflation. The reality of this situation is that investors and savers that are earning near the Fed Funds rate on their deposits are losing buying power to the erosive effects of inflation. Those that are investing farther out on the yield curve are earning even less than overnight money. The impact here could be worse if inflation remains at current levels or higher, or better if the locked-in yields out longer on the curve are met with inflation coming down early on.

The Fed Chair indicated at the two testimony before both Houses of Congress that inflation has been surprisingly sticky. He also indicated that they might increase their expected stopping point on tightening credit. Interest rates out in the periods are actually lower than they had been in recent days and as much as 0.25% lower than they were last Fall. The lower market rates and inverted yield curve suggest the market thinks the Fed has already won and has likely gone too far. This thought process has made it difficult for the Fed Chair and others at the Fed that discuss a further need to throw cold water on an overheated economy. Fed Tightening has not led to an equal amount of upward movement out on the yield curve. This trust or expectation that the Fed has inflation under control would seem to be undermining the Fed’s efforts. With this, the Fed is likely to have to move even further to get the reaction it desires. The risk of an unwanted negative impact on the economy is heightened by the trust the bond market gives to Powell that he has this under control and may have already won.

Powell’s words are that the Fed has lost ground and has much more work to do.

Take Away

At his semiannual testimony to Congress, an important message was sent to the markets. The Fed has the right tools to do the job of bringing inflation down to the 2% range, but those tools operate on the demand side. In the U.S. we are fortunate to have two jobs open for every person seeking employment. While this is inflationary, it provides policy with more options.

As of the reporting of January economic numbers, a trend may be beginning indicating the Fed is losing its fight against inflation. It is likely that it will have to do more, but the Fed stands willing to do what it takes. Powell ended his prepared address by saying, “Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We at the Federal Reserve will do everything we can to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Director, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony.htm

Three Regulators Provide Direction to Banks on Crypto

Image Credit: QuoteInspector.com (Flickr)

The Statement on Crypto Vulnerabilities by Regulators

A joint statement to banking organizations on “crypto-asset vulnerabilities” was just released by three bank regulatory agencies. Most banks in the U.S. fall under these three federal institutions overseeing them in a regulatory capacity. So when a statement regarding the health and stability of banks is made, it is often a joint statement from the three. At a minimum, statements include the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

About the Statement

Issued on February 23rd, the multiple agencies felt a need to highlight liquidity risks presented by some “sources of funding” from crypto-asset-related entities, and practices they should be using to manage the risks.

The regulators remind banks that they are neither prohibited nor discouraged from offering banking services to this class of customer, but if they do, much of the existing risk management principles should be applied.

Related Liquidity Risks

Highlighted in the statement by the three bank regulatory bodies are key liquidity risks associated with crypto asset participants and crypto-asset organizations involved in banking and what they should be aware of.

This includes some sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities that may pose heightened liquidity risks to those involved in banking due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows, including, for example:

  • Deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity that is for the benefit of thecrypto-asset-related entity’s customers. The stability of the deposits, according to the statement, may be driven by the behavior of the end customer or asset sector dynamics, and not solely by the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the banking organization’s direct counterparty. The concern is the stability of the deposits may be influenced by, for example, periods of stress, market volatility, and related vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, which may or may not be specific to the crypto-asset-related entity. Such deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid inflows as well as outflows when end customers react to crypto-asset-sector-related market events, media reports, and uncertainty. This uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-assetrelated entity.
  • Deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves. The stability of this type of  deposit may be linked to demand for stablecoins according to the agencies, along with the confidence of stablecoin holders in the coin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices. These deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.

More broadly, when a banking organization’s deposit funding base is concentrated in crypto-asset-related entities that are highly interconnected or share similar risk profiles, deposit fluctuations may also be correlated, and liquidity risk therefore may be further heightened, according to the statement.

Effective Risk Management Practices

In light of these hightened risks, agencies think it is critical for banks that use certain sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities, as described earlier, to actively monitor the liquidity risks inherent in these sources of funding and to establish and maintain effective risk management and controls commensurate with the level of liquidity risks from these funding sources. Effective practices for these banking organizations could include:

  • Understanding the direct and indirect drivers of the potential behavior of deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the extent to which those deposits are susceptible to unpredictible vulnerability.
  • Assessing potential concentration or interconnectedness across deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the associated liquidity risks.
  • Incorporating the liquidity risks or funding volatility associated with crypto-asset-related deposits into contingency funding planning, including liquidity stress testing and, as appropriate, other asset-liability governance and risk management processes.
  • Performing significant due diligence and monitoring of crypto-related-entities that establish deposit accounts, including assessing the representations made by those crypto-asset-related entities to their end customers about the accounts – if innaccurate they could lead to to unexpected or rapid outflows.

Additionally, banks and banking organizations are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  For FDIC insured institutions, this includes compliance with rules related to brokered deposits and Call Report filing requirements.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20230223a1.pdf

Do Some Money Measurements Double Count?

Image Credit: John (Flickr)

Can Correlations Help Define Money?

According to popular thinking, the government’s definition of money is of a flexible nature. Sometimes it could be M1, and at other times it could be M2 or some other M money supply. M1 includes currency and demand deposits. M2 includes all of M1, plus savings deposits, time deposits, and money market funds. By popular thinking what determines whether M1, M2, or some other M is considered money is whether it has high correlation with key economic data such as the gross domestic product (GDP).

However, since the early 1980s, correlations between various definitions of money and the GDP have broken down. The reason for this breakdown, many economists believe, is that financial deregulation has made the demand for money unstable. Consequently, the usefulness of money as a predictor of economic activity has significantly diminished.

Some economists believe that the relationship between money supply and the GDP could be strengthened by assigning weights to money supply components. The Divisia indicator, named after the French economist François Divisia, adjusts for differences in the degree to which various components of the monetary aggregate serve as money. This, in turn, supposedly offers a more accurate picture of what is happening to money supply.

The primary Divisia monetary indicator for the US is M4. It is a broad aggregate that includes negotiable money market securities, such as commercial paper, negotiable CDs, and T-bills. By assigning suitable weights, which are estimated by means of quantitative methods, it is held that one is likely to improve the correlation between the weighted monetary gauge and economic indicators.

Consequently, one could employ this monetary measure to ascertain the future course of key economic indicators. However, does it make sense?

Defining Money

No definition of money can be established by means of a correlation. A definition is supposed to present the essence of the subject being identified.

To establish the definition of money, we must determine how a money-using economy came about. Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit would have difficulty finding a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.

The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved from the most marketable commodity. According to Murray Rothbard:

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.

With money, the butcher can exchange his meat for money and then exchange money for fruits. Likewise, the fruit farmer could exchange his fruit for money. With the obtained money, the fruit farmer can now exchange it for shoes. The reason why all these transactions become possible is because money is the most marketable commodity (i.e., the most accepted commodity).

According to Rothbard:

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

It follows then that all other goods and services are traded for money. This fundamental characteristic of money is contrasted with other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings. Capital goods permit the expansion of the infrastructure that, in turn, permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services. Contrary to the mainstream thinking, the essence of money has nothing to do with financial deregulation as this essence will remain intact in the most deregulated of markets.

Some commentators maintain that money’s main function is to fulfill the role of a means of savings. Others argue that its main role is to be a unit of account and a store of value. While all these roles are important, they are not fundamental. The basic role of money is to be a medium of exchange, with other functions such as unit of account, a store of value, and a means of savings arising from that role.

Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, individuals have settled on gold as money. In today’s monetary system, the money supply is no longer gold, but metal coins and paper notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions.

Distinction between Claim and Credit Transactions

At any point in time, an individual can keep money in a wallet or somewhere at home or deposit the money with a bank. In depositing money, an individual never relinquishes ownership over the money having an absolute claim over it.

This contrasts with a credit transaction, in which the lender of money relinquishes a claim over one’s money for the duration of the loan. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Credit transactions do not alter the amount of money. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.

Why Are Various Popular Definitions of Money Misleading?

Consider the money M2 definition, which includes money market securities, mutual funds, and other time deposits. However, investing in a mutual fund is, in fact, an investment in various money market instruments. The quantity of money is not altered because of this investment; only the ownership of money has temporarily changed. Hence, including mutual funds as part of money results in double counting.

The Divisia monetary gauge is of little help in establishing what money is. Because this indicator was designed to strengthen the correlation between monetary aggregates such as M4 and other Ms with an economic activity indicator, the Divisia gauge can better be seen as an exercise in curve fitting.

The Divisia of various Ms, such as the Divisia M4, does not address the double counting of money. The M4 is a broad aggregate and includes a mixture of claim and credit transactions (i.e., a double counting of money). This generates a misleading picture of what money is.

Applying various weights to the components of money cannot make the definition of money valid if it is created from erroneous components. Furthermore, even if the components were valid, one does not improve the money definition by assigning weights to components.

The introduction of electronic money has supposedly introduced another confusion regarding the definition of money. It is believed that electronic money is likely to make the cash redundant. We hold that electronic money is not new money, but rather a new way of employing existing monetary transactions. Regardless of these new ways of employing money, definitions and the role of money do not change.

Conclusion

The attempt to strengthen the correlation between various monetary aggregates and economic activity by using variable weighting of money supply components defeats the definition of money. The essence of money cannot be established by means of a statistical correlation, but rather by understanding what money is about.

About the Author

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University.  

FDA Says Congress Needs to Act on Cannabidiol (CBD) Before it Can

Image Credit: Elsa Olofsson (Flickr)

Cannabidiol (CBD) not Covered Under any Existing FDA Regulatory Framework – Ball Now In the Hands of Congress

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) called on Congress to set a new regulatory pathway for cannabidiol, or CBD, the non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis plants. The FDA said it is willing to work with Congress to create one. The regulatory body said the same is true for CBD in animal products. CBD has been in a form of regulatory limbo since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, the base ingredient to make CBD. The extract is now found in many wellness products and is widely used in all 50 states. The FDA says it is not a food or a supplement, it may now be up to Congress to define its niche.  

According to an FDA press release, the use of CBD raises safety concerns, in particular regarding its long-term use. It cited the potential harm to the liver, interactions with some medications and possible harm to the male reproductive system.

The FDA’s Reasoning

A high-level FDA working group that was to decide which FDA framework CBD products fall under, and related regulatory pathways, announced that it doesn’t easily fit within a regulatory framework that exists at the agency. On January 26 the FDA announced, “that after careful review, the FDA has concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.” They said the FDA is prepared to work with Congress to create a legal, workable framework.

At the same time the FDA also denied three citizen petitions that had asked the agency to conduct rulemaking to allow the marketing of CBD products as dietary supplements. 

The FDA listed safety concerns surrounding CBD use. “The use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially with long-term use. Studies have shown the potential for harm to the liver, interactions with certain medications and possible harm to the male reproductive system.” They were also concerned about children and CBD exposure, and women who are pregnant.

The reason for a new regulatory pathway, according to the FDA, is that it would “benefit consumers by providing safeguards and oversight to manage and minimize risks related to CBD products.” The FDA said these may include clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age. “In addition, a new pathway could provide access and oversight for certain CBD-containing products for animals,” the FDA said.

According to the FDA, existing foods and dietary supplement authorities provide only limited tools for managing risks associated with CBD products. Under the law, any substance, including CBD, must meet specific safety standards to be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement or food additive.  The FDA said “we have not found adequate evidence to determine how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Therefore, we do not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of CBD in dietary supplements or conventional foods.”

The FDA said CBD also poses risks to animals, and people could be unknowingly exposed to CBD through meat, milk and eggs from animals fed CBD. Therefore, it is not apparent how CBD products could meet the safety standard for substances in animal food.  “A new regulatory pathway could provide access and oversight for certain CBD-containing products for animals,” according to the release.

The FDA said it “will remain diligent in monitoring the marketplace, identifying products that pose risks and acting within our authorities. The FDA looks forward to working with Congress to develop a cross-agency strategy for the regulation of these products to protect the public’s health and safety.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fda-says-it-will-not-regulate-cbd-and-calls-on-congress-to-act-11674759895

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-concludes-existing-regulatory-frameworks-foods-and-supplements-are-not-appropriate-cannabidiol