The evolution of the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility and FDIC-insured bank utilization

The Term Auction Facility (TAF) was designed by the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis to inject emergency short-term funds into banks, as a supplement to the lender of last resort discount window offerings. We describe how the Federal Reserve altered the design of the Term Auction Facility (TAF) over the course of the financial crisis and examine the utilization of this stand-alone facility. Most specifically we detail the impact of the greatly increased offering amounts in all auctions after October 2008, which resulted in the facility no longer auctioning scarcely available funds. We also document significantly different usage of the facility by FDIC-insured community and non-community banks, consistent with the notion of a two-tiered banking system in the U.S. Community banks were far less likely to use the facility than larger, non-community banks.     

Bank loan supply responses to Federal Reserve emergency liquidity facilities

The Federal Reserve injected unprecedented liquidity into banks during the recent crisis through the discount window and Term Auction Facility. We examine the use and effectiveness of these facilities. We find that recipient banks increased their lending overall, both short- and long-term, and in most loan categories. The facilities resulted in enhanced lending at expanding banks and reduced declines at contracting banks. Small banks increased small business lending and large banks increased large business lending. There were no significant changes in loan quality or loan contract terms by either large or small banks.     

Implications of a TAF program stigma for lenders: the case of publicly traded banks versus privately held banks

Term auction facility (TAF) was created during the financial crisis as a substitute for the Federal Reserve’s discount window, the lender of last resort. We hypothesize if TAF borrowing is viewed as a bailout then publicly traded banks would borrow relatively fewer TAF funds to avoid a bailout stigma. We find publicly traded banks did borrow less (as a percent of total assets) in the TAF program than privately held banks. Further, too-big-to-fail banks and investment banks borrowed relatively less than other publicly traded banks indicating greater levels of public scrutiny reduces borrowing under emergency government liquidity programs. We also find that publicly traded banks pledged lower quality and less liquid collateral than private banks when borrowing under the program. Our results suggest TAF provided more benefit to traditional privately held banks with strong balance sheets that were able to borrow relatively greater amounts in anticipation of either future liquidity needs as suggested by Ivashina and Scharfstein (J Financ Econ 97:319–338, 2010) or increased lending as found by Berger et al. (The Federal Reserve’s discount window and TAF programs: “pushing on a string?” Working paper, University of South Carolina, 2014).     

金融危机条件下美联储新货币政策工具的运用

次贷危机爆发后,美联储根据本国金融市场变化情况,在《联邦储备法令》的授权下,创设了包括定期标售工具、定期证券借贷工具、一级交易商信用工具、货币市场投资者融资工具在内的7种新型货币政策工具,旨在为各类金融机构提供流动性支持,鼓励金融机构的放贷积极性,及恢复金融市场功能。该文详细介绍这些新型货币政策工具的操作规则及市场功能。     

Small business lending under the PPP and PPPLF programs

We use Call Report data to examine the effects of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the PPP Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) on small business and farm lending by individual commercial banks. As program participation was associated with small business lending, we adopt an instrumental variables approach to identify causal implications based on historical bank relationships with the Small Business Administration and the Federal Reserve’s discount window. Our results indicate that both programs encouraged lending growth over the first half of 2020. However, while the PPP encouraged greater lending across all banks, only small and medium-sized bank lending growth was significantly related to participation in the PPPLF.     

Reprint of: Thawing frozen capital markets and backdoor bailouts: Evidence from the Fed's liquidity programs

During the subprime crisis, the Federal Reserve introduced several emergency liquidity programs as supplements to the discount window (DW): TAF, PDCF, and TSLF. Using data on loans to large commercial banks and primary dealers, we find that the programs were used by relatively few institutions and thus provided limited relief to banks that relied on short-term debt markets. Although usage increased after Lehman's bankruptcy, most commercial banks avoided the DW and TAF. We also find that the programs were more often used by failed European banks than by healthy US banks, likely because these loans are expensive relative to private market funds. Our results also show that usage of PDCF and TSLF programs, while higher, was more often used by primary dealers in weaker financial position.     

Thawing frozen capital markets and backdoor bailouts: Evidence from the Fed's liquidity programs

During the subprime crisis, the Federal Reserve introduced several emergency liquidity programs as supplements to the discount window (DW): TAF, PDCF, and TSLF. Using data on loans to large commercial banks and primary dealers, we find that the programs were used by relatively few institutions and thus provided limited relief to banks that relied on short-term debt markets. Although usage increased after Lehman's bankruptcy, most commercial banks avoided the DW and TAF. We also find that the programs were more often used by failed European banks than by healthy US banks, likely because these loans are expensive relative to private market funds. Our results also show that usage of PDCF and TSLF programs, while higher, was more often used by primary dealers in weaker financial position.     

Has market discipline on banks improved after the Dodd–Frank Act?

We investigate whether or not market discipline on banking firms changed after the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA) of 2010. If market discipline is improved, we should see a lower discount for size on yield spreads, particularly for banks identified as too-big-to-fail (TBTF) or systemically important (SIFI). Using secondary market subordinated debt transactions we find that the size discount is reduced by 47% and TBTF discount is reduced by 94% after the DFA. The DFA has been effective in reducing, but not in eliminating the size and TBTF discounts on yield spreads. Market discipline of banks appears to have improved further after the rating criteria changes by Moody’s.     

Predatory trading,Stigma and the Fed׳s Term Auction Facility

Predatory trading may affect the incentives for banks to raise liquidity in times of financial distress. In these periods, borrowing becomes a signal of illiquidity, exposing borrowers to predatory trading and possible insolvency. A stigma of borrowing thus arises, leading distressed banks to take on more illiquid positions than they would otherwise. The Fed׳s Term Auction Facility (TAF) can alleviate this problem. The TAF׳s competitive auction format allows auction winners to signal that they are illiquid but relatively strong. The TAF may therefore be an effective policy tool during financial crises: by altering the signal value of borrowing, this facility supports the injection of liquidity into distressed banks. In normal times, however, this auction facility becomes counterproductive: by cream-skimming the relatively strong banks, the weakest banks are left as potential prey for predators. This suggests that the TAF is a policy best reserved for times of crisis.     

The effects of government capital and liquidity support programs on bank lending: Evidence from the syndicated corporate credit market

This study jointly evaluates the effects of the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the Federal Reserve's Discount Window (DW), and Term Auction Facility (TAF) on bank syndicated lending during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, using a unique data set that tracks the exposure of each lender in each syndicated credit facility in each year. By comparing lending changes within a group of banks that lend to the same facility of the same firm in the same year, it eliminates the impacts of demand-side factors that often bias the results of empirical studies on bank credit supply. Overall, I find that TARP, DW, and TAF played only a marginal role in increasing bank syndicated lending. By examining lending changes at the facility-lender and firm-lender levels, this study is less prone to the reverse causality problem that is inherent in studies using bank-level data. Therefore, this study complements studies using bank-level data and provides policymakers with a balanced view on the effects of these programs.     

Banks' Liquidity and the Cost of Liquidity to Corporations

We consider the liquidity shock banks experienced following the collapse of the asset‐backed commercial paper (ABCP) market in the fall of 2007 to investigate whether banks' liquidity conditions affect their ability to provide liquidity to corporations. We find that banks that borrowed more from the Federal Home Loan Bank system or the Federal Reserve's discount window following that liquidity shock passed a larger portion of their borrowing costs onto corporations seeking access to liquidity when compared to the precrisis period. This increase is larger among banks with a bigger exposure to the ABCP market, credit lines that pose more liquidity risk to banks, and borrowers that are likely dependent on the credit‐line provider. Our findings show that the crisis that affected the banking system had a negative effect not only on the price of credit to corporations, but also on the price corporations pay to guarantee access to liquidity.     

The interbank market after the financial turmoil: Squeezing liquidity in a “lemons market” or asking liquidity “on tap”

After August 2007 the plumbing system that supplied banks with wholesale funding, the interbank market, failed because toxic assets obstructed the pipes. Banks were forced to squeeze liquidity in a “lemons market” or to ask for liquidity “on tap” from central banks. This paper disentangles the two components of the 3-month Euribor–Eonia swap spread, credit and liquidity risk and then evaluates the decomposition. The main finding is that credit risk increased before the key events of the crisis, while liquidity risk was mainly responsible for the subsequent increases in the Euribor spread and then reacted to the systemic responses of the central banks, especially in October 2008. Moreover, the level of the spread between May 2009 and February 2010 was influenced mainly by credit risk, suggesting that European banks were still in a “lemons market” and relied on liquidity “on tap” even before sovereign debt crisis unfolded in Europe.     

Deposit Insurance and Wealth Effects: The Value of Being “Too Big to Fail”

This paper investigates the effect on bank equity values of the Comptroller of the Currency's announcement that some banks were “too big to fail” and that for those banks total deposit insurance would be provided. Using an event study methodology, we find positive wealth effects accruing to TBTF banks, with corresponding negative effects accruing to non-included banks. We demonstrate that the magnitude of these effects differed with bank solvency and size. We also show that the policy to which the market reacted was that suggested by the Wall Street Journal and not that actually intended by the Comptroller.     

The effect of the Federal Reserve’s lending facility on PPP lending by commercial banks

We investigate whether the Federal Reserve’s Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) boosted commercial bank Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) lending. To determine whether this facility had a causal effect, we use pre-existing familiarity with the Federal Reserve’s discount window as an instrumental variable. We show that the PPPLF materially bolstered bank PPP lending and provided a meaningful funding backstop for banks that did not use the facility. Our paper is one of the first to quantitatively illustrate the effectiveness of a central bank facility as a funding backstop.     

Market discipline of banks: Why are yield spreads on bank-issued subordinated notes and debentures not sensitive to bank risks?

The default risk sensitivity of yield spreads on bank-issued subordinated notes and debentures (SNDs) decreased after banks started issuing trust-preferred securities (TPS). The too-big-to-fail (TBTF) discount on yield spreads is absent prior to the LTCM bailout, but the size discount doubles after the LTCM bailout. Prior to TPS issuance and the LTCM bailout, SND yield spreads are sensitive to conventional firm-specific default risk measures, but not after the bailout. We find paradigm shift in determinants of yield spreads after the LTCM bailout. Yield spreads on TPS are sensitive to default risks and can provide an additional source of market discipline.     

Deposit Insurance and the Discount Window: Pricing under Asymmetric Information

The risk-sensitive pricing of deposit insurance and the discount window is determined in an environment where banks have private information concerning their financial conditions. The two facilities are managed jointly; an incentive-compatible policy is designed such that banks' choice of terms at which they can obtain insurance and access to discount window credit will reveal their asset quality. The function of the discount window is to be a risk-neutral “lender of last resort” to banks in a market dominated by risk-averse depositors.     

The effect of the term auction facility on the London interbank offered rate

The Term Auction Facility (TAF), the first auction-based liquidity initiative by the Federal Reserve during the global financial crisis, was aimed at improving conditions in the dollar money market and bringing down the significantly elevated London interbank offered rate (Libor). The effectiveness of this innovative policy tool is crucial for understanding the role of the central bank in financial stability, but academic studies disagree on the empirical evidence of the TAF effect on Libor. We show that the disagreement arises from mis-specifications of econometric models. Regressions using the daily level of the Libor-OIS spread as the dependent variable miss either the permanent or temporary TAF effect, depending on whether the dummy variable indicates the events of the TAF or the regimes before and after an TAF event. Those regressions also suffer from the unit-root problem and produce unreliable test statistics. By contrast, regressions using the daily change in the Libor-OIS spread are robust to the persistence of the TAF effect and the unit-root problem, consistently producing reliable evidence that the downward shifts of the Libor-OIS spread were associated with the TAF. The evidence indicates the efficacy of the TAF in helping the interbank market to relieve liquidity strains.     

Fixed costs and the behavior of the federal funds rate

This paper presents an equilibrium model of the federal funds market that ties movements in the funds rate to changes in the supply of reserves and to a fixed cost facing banks that borrow at the discount window. It is found that the existence of the fixed cost is capable of explaining a number of features of the funds market. In particular, it is critical for explaining occasional instances of extremely high funds rates. It also provides an explanation for heterogeneous behavior across banks towards the discount window and for higher average funds rates at the end of maintenance periods.     

The Effects of Liquidity Regulation on Bank Demand in Monetary Policy Operations

We estimate the effects of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), a liquidity requirement for banks, on the tenders that banks submit in Term Deposit Facility operations, a Federal Reserve tool created to manage the quantity of central bank reserves. We identify these effects using variation in LCR requirements across banks and a change over time that allowed term deposits to count toward the LCR. Banks subject to the LCR submit tenders more often and submit larger tenders than exempt banks when term deposits qualify for the LCR. These results suggest that liquidity regulation affects bank demand in monetary policy operations.     

The Over‐the‐Counter Theory of the Fed Funds Market: A Primer

We present a dynamic over‐the‐counter model of the fed funds market and use it to study the determination of the fed funds rate, the volume of loans traded, and the intraday evolution of the distribution of reserve balances across banks. We also investigate the implications of changes in the market structure, as well as the effects of central bank policy instruments such as open market operations, the discount window lending rate, and the interest rate on bank reserves.