#PC – Federal Financial Analytics

Karen Petrou: Will There Also be a Financial Firestorm?

Eliza Allen2025-01-21T13:57:41-05:00January 21st, 2025|The Vault|

I live two short blocks from Rock Creek National Park, one of D.C.’s hidden wonders. As befits a national park, Rock Creek is very large and densely wooded, but no one has thought much about fire hazard until last summer’s drought led to some significant brush fires. I thus asked a forestry professor next to whom I happened to be seated waiting for a plane if those of us living near Rock Creek Park should worry. Instantly and unequivocally, his answer was emphatically, “Yes.” I’m still not sure what I or any of us now at risks we never contemplated can do, but I’m even less sure that what can clearly be done to reduce financial-system risk due to natural disasters will be done until after it’s too late.

Is risk really this frightening? A report last week from the Financial Stability Board lays out what it believes to be plausible, yet-severe scenarios demonstrating that the extent to which property insurers and reinsurers are able to absorb natural-disaster risk determines whether a disaster leads to systemic financial risk. In the U.S., this is a thin reed.

We know that the National Flood Insurance Program is woefully unable to address the scale of recent hurricanes and inundations. A treasury study last Friday shows that private insurance is in at least as much disarray. Homeowners in the highest climate-risk zip codes pay premiums about eighty percent higher than those in the lowest-risk codes and have far, far higher non-renewal rates. Fifteen of …

Karen Petrou: The Unintended Consequence Of Capital Hikes Isn’t Less Credit, It’s More Risk

Eliza Allen2023-07-03T12:08:54-04:00July 3rd, 2023|The Vault|

As was evident throughout Chairman Powell’s most recent appearances before HFSC and Senate Banking, conflict between capital and credit availability characterizes what is to come of the “end-game” capital rules set for imminent release. The trade-off is said to be between safer banks and a sound economy, but this is far too simple. As we’ve seen over and over again as capital rules rise, credit availability stays the same or even increases. What changes is who makes the loans and what happens to borrowers and the broader macro framework, which in the past has been irrevocably altered. The real trade-off is thus between lending from banks and the stable financial intermediation this generally ensures and lending from nonbanks and the risks this raises not just to financial stability, but also to economic equality.

As post-2008 history makes clear, banks do not stop lending when capital requirements go up; they stop taking certain balance-sheet risks based on how the sum total of often-conflicting risk-based, leverage, and stress-test rules drives their numbers. That all these rules push and pull banks in often-different directions is at long last known to the Fed based on Vice Chair Barr’s call for a “holistic review”. Whether it plans to do anything about them and their adverse impact on the future of regulated financial intermediation remains to be seen. Until something is done, banks will look across the spectrum of capital rules, spot the highest requirement, and then figure out how best to remain profitable …