Towards a New Paradigm for Monetary Economics

Reserve Bank of India

December 2006

Outline1. Failure of Traditional Monetary Theory

2. Financial Markets Differ from Ordinary Markets

3. Modeling an Ideal Competitive Banking System

4. Differences Between Ideal and Current

5. The Corn Economy

6. From Corn to Modern Credit Economy

7. General Equilibrium Theory of Credit

8. Applications of the New Paradigm

Failings of the Traditional Theory of Money

1. Because of new technologies, “money” is interest bearing, with differences between t-bill rate & “CMA” accounts rate small (determined by transactions costs, unrelated to economic activity, see next 2 slides)

2. With new technologies, money is not required for transactions—only credit

3. Most transactions not income generating—simply exchanges of assets; ratio of exchange of assets to income is not stable

4. Velocity has not been stable, relatively little of the changes in velocity are explained by changes in interest rates (see graphs on 2 slides thereafter)

Differences betweenaverage annual T-bill rate and CMA rate

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

US Treasury Bills(3m)

Merrill Lynch U.S.Treasury Money Fund

Merrill Lynch ReadyAssets Trust

Relationship between yearly returns on T-bill and CMA

b

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

Merrill LynchReady AssetsTrust

3-month T-bills

Non constancy of velocity

Velocity

0

5

10

15

20

25 United States

India

Japan

Korea

Mexico

Venezuela

Money (current LCU) (mill) from World Development Indicators, World Bank, 2000.Definition - Money is the sum of currency outside banks and demand deposits other than those of central government. This series, frequently referred to as M1 is a narrower definition of money than M2. GDP at market prices (current LCU) (mill) from World Development Indicators, World Bank, 2000.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 5 1 0 1 5

N o m i n a l I n t e r e s t R a t e s

Veloc

ity

S o u r c e : I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S t a t i s t i c s D a t a b a s e , I M F 2 0 0 0 . D a t a r a n g e : t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n n u a l d a t a f r o m 1 9 5 9 t o 1 9 9 9 . V e l o c i t y i s c a l c u l a t e d b y G D P d i v i d e d b y M 1 . N o m i n a l i n t e r e s t r a t e s a r e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y T r e a s u r y b i l l r a t e , d i s c o u n t o n n e w i s s u e s o f t h r e e - m o n t h b i l l s a n d a n n u a l a v e r a g e s o f t h e s e .

Variations in nominal interest rates explain only a small fraction of the variation in velocity

More Empirical Failings Real Interest Rate Does Not Seem to Play Pivotal Role

Assumed by Theory:

A. For long periods of time, real interest rate did not vary much at all; can’t explain economic

variability by a constant (see graph on next page)

B. For many investment regressions, nominal interest rates, instead of, or as well as, real interest rates matter(see discussion of regression results, 1 slide later)

C. For long term investments, it is long term interest rate that should matter; But then why should

changes in monetary conditions today have significant effect on long term interest rate?

Relative stability of real interest rates

Source: International Financial Statistics (IFS) , Washington, DC: IMF, 2002.

United States

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

Interest elasticity of investment

"Results appear to differ depending on the data sources and model specifications (e.g. lag structures). A typical straightforward regression of log (investment/GDP) on lagged nominal and real T-bill rates (deflated by CPI) and a constant yields a negative (and significant) coefficient on nominal interest rates and a positive (but insignificant)coefficient on real interest rates. Other data series seemed to generate a negative coefficient for real interest rates  but a coefficient that was smaller in absolute value than that for nominal interest rates."

Credit Should Be at the Center of Monetary Theory

1. Providing credit entails assessing credit-worthiness, ie. probability of repaying loan

2. Based on information

3. Information is highly specific and not easily transferable

4. Credit is not allocated by an auction market (to highest bidder)

5. There may be credit rationing– Because of adverse selection and incentive effects, increasing

interest rate beyond a certain level may lead to a reduction in expected return (i.e. Probability of default increases faster than nominal return)

Key to Understanding the Supply of Credit Is Understanding Bank Behavior1. Banks are firms that certify creditworthiness, screen and monitor

loan applicants

2. Issuing loans is risky, since there is probability of not being repaid

3. Banks, like other firms, act in a risk averse mannerA. “Constraints” in the issuance of equity imply limited ability to diversify out of risk

– Empirical evidence: firms finance little of new investment through issuing new equity

– When firms issue new equity, share price typically declines markedly

– Explained by theories of adverse selection and adverse incentives

Why Banks Are Risk AverseB. With equity constraints, if banks want to increase

lending, they must borrow—fixed obligations, with uncertain returns

C. The more firms borrow, the higher the probability of bankruptcy

D. With significant costs of bankruptcy, banks will limit borrowing and lending—acting as if they are risk averse

E. Risk averse managers provide alternative explanation of risk averse banks

Modeling an Ideal Competitive Banking System

• Government Insured Deposits

• Government Imposed Reserve Requirements, which Acts as a Tax on Deposits

• No Transactions Costs

• High Degree of Competition So

Deposit Rate = T-Bill Rate

The Bank’s Objectives

There are two alternative ways of modeling bank behavior. They both yield similar results, namely, that the bank acts in a risk-averse manner.

The first is based on the assumption that the bank is risk neutral, provided it does not go bankrupt, but there is a high cost to bankruptcy, so it naturally wishes to avert bankruptcy.

Formally, we assume the bank

s.t.where Nd is the demand for loans at the interest rate charged, r1, .

Two Cases: Constraint is not binding—credit rationingConstraint is binding—“competitive” market for loans

cF)E(amax 1t

1rM,N,

e),,(rNN 1d

• As the bank lends more, the likelihood of bankruptcy increases, and so does the marginal bankruptcy cost.

Determining the equilibrium level of lending with bankruptcy

The equilibrium lending activity is where the difference between the expected marginal return and the cost of capital EY is equal to the marginal bankruptcy cost (MBC).

a) The case where the expected marginal return to lending is constant

Shifts in the MBC – as a result of a decrease in the bank's net worth) – As a result of an increased in perceived

riskiness of lendingCan lead to changes in the level of lending.

Determining the equilibrium level of lending with bankruptcy

The case where the expected marginal return to lending decreases as the amount lent increases

Alternative Formulation—Mean Variance

The Bank Maximizes

U = U(,)

where

and

for most of the analysis we assume constant returns, so that. . .

e) r, N,μμ

e) r, N,σσ

= N*(r,e)

= N*(r,e)

which in turn means thatY = N* + M - (1 + ) (N + M + e - at)

for N + M + e - at > 0

Y = N* + M

for N + M + e - at 0

and

Y = N*

Mean Variance AnalysisBasic Diagrammatics:

• RR—Mean variance frontier if all of wealth invested in loans, no bank borrowing– Generalization of Stiglitz-Weiss diagram

• Contrast RR when two variables {e, r1} chosen optimally and case where bank takes r1 as given. Two variable locus is outer envelope of single variable locus

• S—Income if entire portfolio invested in T–bills

Mean-variance model, credit rationing, without reserve requirement

S is the mean and standard deviation if the bank puts all its net worth in T-bills, RR if it puts it all into loans. The full opportunity locus is the line SPK: to the left of P, the bank accepts no deposits, but holds T-bills; to the right of P, the bank accepts deposits and lends more than its net worth.

P

K

R

R

Mean-variance model, credit rationing, with reserve requirement

If the bank puts all of its money into loans, its opportunity locus is RR;S is the return if the bank puts its entire worth in T-bills (the safe asset);it can obtain any point on the locus SP (the tangent line to RR through S) by changing the proportion of assets invested in T-bills; by borrowing and lending it can obtain any point on the locus P'K. Where the bank chooses to operate depends on its risk aversion: E, E', E'' or E'''.

P’PE

’E

E’’

E’’’L

• With lower wealth, entire opportunity locus shifts in proportionately.– In central case, lending reduced proportionate to

the reduction in wealth– With decreasing relative risk aversion, reduction

in lending somewhat smaller

Effects of changes in economic environment

Proposition 1 . A Decrease in Bank’s Net Worth Leads to a Decrease in Bank LendingProposition 2: A Mean Preserving Increase in Risk Reduces Lending Activity

Effects of changes in policy• Proposition 3: An Increase in Reserve

Requirements Leads to Reduced Lending• Proposition 4: An Increase in the Rate of

Interest on T-Bills Leads to Less Lending for Banks that Accept Deposits

With limited competition

• changes in T-bill rate can have large wealth

effect

– Augments substitution effect

– An increase in T-bill rate leads to less lending and

higher loan rates, both because of substitution

effect and wealth effect

• Effect may be partially (or more than partially)

offset by change in franchise value, if interest

rate change is expected to be permanent

• Models provide basis for a new “IS-LM” equilibrium analysis– At each level of Y (national output) construct

demand and supply curve for funds

• Major difference with standard model—LM curve stable over business cycle, IS curve shifts– Here, LM curve shifts as well

• Implication: movements in real interest rates over cycle indeterminate

Key Differences• Focus on lending rate• Equilibrium lending rate may not equate demand

and supply of funds (may be credit rationing)• Need to solve simultaneously for deposit rate –

interest rate spread (in IS curve, investment depends on lending rate, savings depends on deposit rate)– Spread endogenous

• Supply of funds depends not just on monetary stance, but on:– Bank capital– Firm capital (affects probability of default on loans,

indirectly bank’s net worth)

• Model explains why changes in nominal interest rates matter, even when real

interest rates do not change, if loan contracts are not fully indexed

• Model suggests why changing the institutional structure of the banking

system—e.g. increasing competition—may alter efficacy of monetary policy

– Eliminates seignorage effects, with associated wealth effects

– Forces greater reliance on substitution effects

• Because of credit rationing, investment may be affected even when interest

rates are not.

• Model suggests raising interest rates may have larger and more prolonged effects under certain circumstances than previously thought—destroys firm and bank capital

– Important in assessing impacts of large changes in interest rates, as in IMF East Asia policies

Towards a General Equilibrium Theory of Credit

• While banks are pivotal in the supply of credit, credit is also supplied by firms

• Firms can be thought of as “producers” and “financial agents”

• Why not specialization?– Information which forms the basis of providing

credit is dispersed in economy– Obtained as a joint product with other activities– May be better incentives for repayment

• Implication—huge credit interlinkages, as important as commodity and factor interlinkages stressed in standard general equilibrium analysis

• Disturbance in one part of system is transmitted to others

• Impacts can be particularly large in the event of bankruptcy

Multiple Equilibria Can Exist • If everyone believes that there will be bankruptcy in bad

state, then• Interest rate will be high (to compensate for zero return in

bankruptcy state).

• With high interest rate, when firm has low return, it goes bankrupt.

• A bankruptcy cascade—when it fails to repay its loans, its creditors go bankrupt, and then so do their creditors, around circle

• If everyone believes that there will be no bankruptcy, even in bad state, then

• Interest rate will be low

• With low interest rate, even low return firm can repay its loan.

Applications of the New Paradigm

I. Monetary Policy

II. Regulatory Policy

III. Financial Market Liberalization

IV. Regional Downturns and Development and Monetary Policy

V. The East Asia Crisis

VI. The 1991 U.S. Recession and Recovery

VII. Concluding Remarks

I. Monetary Policy

• New paradigm shifts focus of monetary policy– Channels– Instruments– Performance measures/targets

(i) What affects the level of economic activity is terms at which credit is made available, and quantity of credit, not the quantity of money itself nor the interest rate on T-bills.(a) Relationship between the terms at which credit is

available (e.g. the loan rate) and the T-bill (or deposit) rate may change markedly over time.

(b) Similarly, the supply of credit may not change in tandem with the money supply; and changes in the relationship between money and credit may be particularly marked in periods of crisis

(ii) The terms and quantity at which credit is made available are determined by banks

(a) their ability and willingness to lend are affected by the T-bill interest rate, but in ways which depend on economic conditions;

(b) changes in interest rates affect the net worth of the firm, and hence the riskiness of lending

(c) changes in interest rates also affect the opportunity set of the bank.

(iii) - Monetary authorities can affect bank behavior not only through changes in the T-bill rate, but also by altering constraints (e.g. reserve requirements, capital adequacy standards) and incentives;

- impacts on bank behavior are likely to be greater when constraints (e.g. reserve requirements, capital adequacy requirements) are binding than when they are not (there is “excess liquidity”);

- in some extreme circumstances, there may even be a liquidity trap, in which easing of monetary policy has no significant effect on lending

No simple division between “macro” monetary policies and “regulatory” policies

-Was key part in response to US 1991/2 recession

(iv) Monetary policy affects economic activity not only through its effect on demand (e.g. for investment) but also on supply (e.g. when there is credit rationing, it is impacts on the supply of credit that matter);

- impacts on aggregate supply and on aggregate demand are often intertwined.

--While the immediate impact of monetary policy is on the banking system, its full effects are distributed through the economy as a result of the network of credit interlinkages.

(iv)Increases in the competitiveness of the banking system, eliminating or significantly reducing seignorage, is also likely to reduce the effectiveness of monetary policy.

(v)Aggregate money or credit numbers (or free reserve numbers) may be highly misleading; credit entails highly specific information about specific borrowers inside specific lending institutions. Funds may not flow freely from banks with excess free reserves to banks with capital shortages– An increase in the interest rate reduces the value

of the bank’s assets, both directly, and indirectly, through increased probability of default of the loans, with potentially severe consequences, especially if there is a mismatch between maturity of assets and liabilities

(vi)Adverse effects of interest rate increase on lending may be larger and longer lasting than in standard model– increased by uncertainty--effects on any particular

firm, bank may be uncertain• Leads to reduced supply of lending

– Effects are likely to be persistent, i.e. last long after interest rates are lowered

Why Monetary Policy?

• Advantages:– Imposes lower information costs—banks do

screening of projects– At times, there may be large and predictable

multipliers—increasing bank net worth through seignorage may lead to multiple increase in lending activity

Why Monetary Policy?• Disadvantages:

– May be ineffective—liquidity trap– Impact distortionary—largest impact through banking

system– Different sectors rely differentially on banking sector– With credit rationing, certain categories of risk may be

excluded from market– Impacts are especially large on small and medium size

enterprises that do not have access to commercial paper market; large international markets can access capital anywhere in world

– Effects may not be predictable, e.g. when structure of banking system changing or when shocks affect net worth of banking system

– Adverse effects may be particularly significant in economies with high volatility—heavy reliance on interest rate policies induces low debt-equity ratio, forcing reliance on retained earnings, with adverse effects on growth

– Some of the adverse effects may be offset by targeted lending programs

• Reduce efficacy of monetary policy

• Argument that such interventions are “distortionary” based on naïve, wrong model of capital market

Exchange Rate Policy• Using interest rate policy to maintain exchange

rates particularly questionable– Often entails very high interest rates– High interest rates occur when economy is going into

recession (pro-cyclical monetary policy)– Empirical evidence is that they are often ineffective– Standard model ignores bankruptcy probability; high

interest rates increase bankruptcy• Confidence not restored

• Encourages capital flight

Won’t a Decrease in Exchange Rate Also Have Adverse Effects?

• Increase in interest rates often ineffective: lose-lose situation

• Risk averse firms should have cover (e.g. exporters implicitly “covered” by increased value of exports in domestic currency)

• Protecting firms that do not have cover exacerbates moral hazard problem

Inflation targeting

• Replaced monetarism as simplistic rule for governing monetary policy– Simplistic rules don’t use all relevant information

• E.g. source of inflation—whether there is likely to be inflation inertia

• Depends on whether aggregate demand shock temporary or permanent

• Problems illustrated by controversies around choice of inflation measure

– Core inflation means that interest rates may be going up even as overall inflation is coming down

• If there is a problem with excess aggregate demand, raising T-bill rate does not provide good measure of tightening of economy– Lending rate more relevant than T bill rate

– Credit supply more relevant than interest rate

• If there is an aggregate demand shock, tightening interest rates may not be optimal way to re-equilibrate economy– Depends on source of shock

• General point: inflation, money supply, and T bill rates are intermediate variables– Not clearly linked with variables of fundamental

importance– In controlling economy, responding to shocks, one

wants to assess impacts of any rule on variables of fundamental interest, recognizing that issue is one of managing risks

• Monetarism and inflation targeting both are excessively simplistic, and as a result can worsen performance in terms of variables of fundamental importance

Regulatory Policy and the New Paradigm

• Deregulation has played a large role in recent increases in economic instability

• Underlying problem—with implicit or explicit deposit insurance, banks do not bear all the costs of the risks that they undertake

• Sole or primary reliance on capital adequacy standards misguided– Not based on modern finance—looks at assets in

isolation– Often have focused on credit risks

• Recent problems have entailed interactions between credit and market risk

– Pareto efficiency requires using in addition other regulatory instruments

• Increasing capital adequacy standards may even lead to less prudential behavior, because of decrease in franchise value (value as an ongoing enterprise)– With imperfect risk adjustments, banks may shift portfolio to

riskiest assets within any asset class

– With imperfect risk adjustments and failure to mark to market, banks have an incentive to sell off assets that have increased in value, and retain assets that have decreased (deteriorating information content of asset numbers)

– Worse, under same conditions, banks have incentive to invest in high risk activities; maximize above “option” value

– Risk weighting encouraged short term foreign lending, probably contributing to East Asia crisis

Alternative Approach—Portfolio Approach to Regulation

• Recognizes the government can only imperfectly control the actions of banks– Banks must know more about to whom they are

lending than regulator

• Government needs to take variety of actions that affect bank incentives and constraints

Examples of Constraints

• Categories of loans—real estate

• Insider lending

• Bank exposure (e.g. foreign exchange risk, mismatch of maturity structure)

• Speed limits

• Interest rate restrictions

Incentives

• Increase franchise value

• Put others at risk—subordinated debt

• Individual incentives as well as organizational incentives

• Key question: How does changing regulation affect the behavior of the bank—its choices

Financial and Capital Market Liberalization

• Analysis based on false analogy between markets for ordinary goods and services and financial, capital markets

• Allowing entry has benefits from increased competition

• But increased competition erodes wealth, franchise value

• May lead to less prudential behavior

• Information base of new, foreign banks different from information base of domestic banks– May lead to less lending to SME’s, more

lending to large, international firms– Net effect may be to impede efficient allocation

of resources– Problems may be able to be partially addressed

through lending (CRA) requirements

CML

• Increasing evidence (and theory) that CML does not lead to faster growth, but does expose country to more risk– Can’t build factories with money that can come

in and out overnight– But money coming in and out overnight can

increase macro-instability– Short term capital flows often pro-cyclical

CML

– reduces ability of government to respond to risks with countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies

– Greater risk increasing firm risk premia—lowering investment

– Forces firms to have higher debt equity ratios—worsening efficiency of capital markets

– Forces governments to hold higher reserves—high opportunity costs

Regional Downturns and Development and Monetary Policy

• Increasing globalization of world economy, increasing importance of capital flows

• Question: will they eventually undermine role of monetary policy

• Parallel question: within a single country (like U.S.), single currency, no barriers to flow of capital, is there scope for “regional monetary policy”

Perspective of New Paradigm• Information is local (regional)

• Regional banks have more information about their own region, lend to their own region– Shocks to their region affect their net

worth, their ability and willingness to lend– Regional credit interlinkages exacerbate

regional downturns—extend impacts beyond non-traded sectors to traded goods produced within the region

– Statistical studies confirm the effect in the U.S.

Underlying Problem:

• Capital and financial market liberalization without adequate regulatory oversight

• Leading to large ratios of short term debt relative to reserves

• Sudden change in investor sentiment led to crisis—change in flows amounted to 14% of GDP for Thailand, 9% for Korea, 10% for region as a whole

East Asia Crisis

Two Issues

• Interest rate policy

• Dealing with weak banks

Interest Rate Policy• IMF theory—raise interest rates, higher

interest rates attract more capital, exchange rate stabilized, confidence restored, interest rates can be brought down

• In practice—total package, billions of dollars plus raising interest rates—did not stabilize exchange rate, stem flow of capital out of country

• Key mistake—ignored probability of bankruptcy (default)

• Mistake surprising—worries about default were at root of problem, explained why banks refused to roll over loan

• Policies increased probability of default, so much so that expected returns were lowered

• At beginning of crisis economies were in rough economic balance (some problems of excess capacity)

• Fall in stock market, real estate prices would have been expected to reduce investment, induce recession– High interest rates and fiscal contraction only

exacerbated problem– Effects on economy exercised not only through

aggregate demand but also aggregate supply as credit became less available

• Reduction in “supply” by one firm becomes a

• Problem of “demand” for its suppliers. Demand and supply problems intertwined

– Exports did not increase to extent expected, even with large devaluations

– Higher probability of default affects demand—firms become unreliable suppliers

– Supply constraints from lack of credit– Regional interdependence, downward spiral

caused by “beggar thy-self policies”

• Not only were foreign investors not attracted back in, domestic investors were induced to leave—higher risk at home, highly correlated with returns on human capital

• Consequence: confidence was undermined, not restored

• (In fact, hard to reconcile argument that temporary increase in interest rate will have a permanent effect on beliefs with any theory of rational expectations; if anything, high interest rate policy “signaled” adverse information concerning monetary authorities—that they did not understand situation)

• Adverse effects of high interest rates persist after interest rates are reduced– Firms in distress– Depleted net worth of firms– Weakened financial institutions

BanksKey issue from perspective of this lecture:• Banks embody specific information about the

creditworthiness of particular borrowers• Closing banks destroys this informational capital• Borrowers (especially SME’s) depend on one or

two banks• In a recession, banks contract lending• Borrowers whose banks close will find it difficult

or impossible to find alternative sources of credit• Credit interlinkages are important, and can

exacerbate negative effects

Policy Implication• In face of systemic problem, try to maintain credit flows• Recapitalize, merge banks• Need some degree of forebearance

– Impact of strict enforcement of capital adequacy standards different when problem is systemic

– banks will find it difficult to find additional capital in a recession

– Accordingly, to restore capital adequacy, have to cut back on loans

– As each bank cuts back on loans, more firms are forced into distress, number of non-performing loans increase

– Health of banking system as a whole may be weakened

Policies Pursued Sometimes Ignored These Principles

• Worries about moral hazard (forward looking) dominated concerns about maintaining credit flow

• In Indonesia—closed 16 private banks, announced more might be closed, depositors would not be protected—induced run on private banks, weakening banking system

• While funds flowed into other banks, information is specific—customers of weakened or closed private banks lost access to credit

• Throughout region, controversy over degree of forbearance

The 1991 U.S. Recession and Recovery

• Both recession and recovery linked to banking system– Recession to weaknesses– Recovery to unanticipated strengthening

History

• Huge increases in interest rates under Volcker in 1979-1982 weakened financial system, especially S&L’s– Long term assets (mortgages)– Had to pay higher interest rates for deposits

• To forestall closing of S&Ls, accounting rules changed; at same time deregulation allowed S&Ls to enter new lines of business, reduced supervisory oversight

• Banks with negative net worth—given new opportunities for risk taking—“gambled on resurrection.” – Because of deposit insurance, had no problem

attracting funds

• 1989 issue came to head– Gambles had not paid off– S & L’s had to be bailed out– Regulatory standards tightened

• As U.S. went into recession, Fed failed to recognize the changed state of banking system (especially S&Ls)

• Fed lowered interest rates in accord with standard IS-LM model

• Predicted effects did not occur

• Did not realize key issue—banks’ willingness and ability to lend, given weakened net worth and tighter regulatory standards

• Some in Fed recognized, but dominant view stuck to traditional “model.”

• Only in 1993, at end of recession, was due recognition taken of financial system problems

Recovery• Standard explanation: deficit reduction allowed

interest rates to come down, and that spurred investment

• Two problems:– Fed should be able to maintain economy at “NAIRU”

with higher deficit, higher interest rate, but output/employment should be same

– Fed thought NAIRU was 6.0- 6.2%. Why did Fed allow unemployment to fall so far below NAIRU? Models predicted inflation would result. Given widespread belief within Fed that one should mount “pre-emptive” attacks against inflation, why did they not do so? Did they not believe their models?

Answer:Recovery was due to deficit reduction, plus two

mistakes by Fed (mistakes do not always work against you)

• In 1989 Fed had resisted using appropriate risk adjustments in capital adequacy standards, did not treat long term bonds as risky– Provided incentives for banks to put more of their capital into

long term bonds– High interest rates reflected market judgments that capital

values might fall (e.g. if inflation increased, and future short term interest rates increased). Risk ignored by regulators; banks “recapitalized” as long term interest rates exceeded short term (what they had to pay depositors).

– Risk meant that if deficits grew faster, interest rates increased, banks could have found their capital value greatly diminished

• Deficit reduction: barely got through Congress, led to lowering of long term interest rates, increases in value of long term bonds. Banks, in effect, were recapitalized– Led to increased supply of loans

Fed failed to anticipate strength of recovery, again because relied on standard models, did not focus on banks and financial markets

• Quicker than anticipated recovery led to lower unemployment rates but no inflation—demonstrating that estimates of NAIRU were also faulty.

• Good news was that Fed took pragmatic line—allowed unemployment to continue to fall so long as inflation did not increase.

Concluding Remarks

• New paradigm focused on the central role of credit in a monetary economy

• Credit is based on highly specific information

• Such information is widely dispersed within a market economy

• New technologies are changing rapidly access to information, and the speed with which information can be transmitted

• Information that a credit card company judges an individual “credit worthy” (up to some limit) can be transmitted instantaneously around the world

• It is still the case that much of the relevant information for judging creditworthiness will remain highly concentrated and banks continue to play a key role in the processing of such information and in forming judgments about creditworthiness

• New technologies and increased competition may affect the efficiency with which they perform those tasks

• But these changes may, at the same time, impair the efficacy of monetary policy.

• Will this herald in a new era of economic instability?

• Or will changes elsewhere in the economy enable the market economy to have less need for monetary authorities to perform their traditional roles in stabilization?