« How big is the mortgage funding gap? | Main | Pain in Spain falls on deaf ears at ECB »

Suggestions for easing the funding crisis

Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 08:25AM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | Comments2 Comments

Markets are awaiting details of new measures promised by the Bank of England to ease banks’ difficulties obtaining longer-term funding, particularly to finance mortgage lending. What form could they take?

In principle, the Bank can offer relief in three main ways:

  1. Increase the average term of its lending to the banking system.
  2. Widen the definition of eligible collateral against which loans are made.
  3. Increase the total volume of lending.

Under 1, the Bank has already moved a long way. Longer-term lending (i.e. for three months or longer, including the loan to Northern Rock) now accounts for an estimated 80% of funds advanced to the banking system, up from 30% in September last year. A further increase is possible but is unlikely to have a significant beneficial impact.

Under 2, the Bank has allowed some widening but continues to operate stricter rules than the Fed and ECB. It still requires government collateral for its normal weekly operations and a portion of its longer-term lending. Banks have been allowed to use AAA-rated asset-backed securities in special auctions of three-month funds in December and January, which have been rolled over and expanded in March and April. Last September, the Bank offered to auction three-month funds against a broad range of collateral including mortgages and corporate bonds as well as ABS but imposed a high minimum bid rate, resulting in no take-up. Applying this broad collateral definition to all longer-term lending, without enforcing a penal rate, would be helpful in both widening access to official funds and allowing liquidity-short banks to borrow in greater amounts.

A significant improvement in funding conditions is, however, also likely to require measure 3 – an increase in aggregate lending to the banking system. This presents a technical issue: any such expansion requires offsetting sterilisation measures to prevent banks’ reserve balances with the Bank rising above target. (An overshoot of reserve balances would result in very short-term interest rates falling below Bank rate, undermining MPC policy.) Two possible measures for achieving a rise in lending without boosting banks’ reserves are as follows. First, the Bank could ask the Debt Management Office to repay immediately the government’s remaining “ways and means” borrowing from the Bank, releasing funds for market operations. Secondly, the DMO could issue an additional quantity of Treasury bills or gilts relative to its current plans, placing the proceeds on deposit at the Bank for onward lending to the banks.

The tables below illustrate how the Bank of England’s balance sheet and the size and composition of its lending to the banking system might change if these proposals were implemented. Specifically, the following assumptions are made:

  1. A further reduction of £3 billion in short-term lending in favour of longer-term loans (measure 1 above).
  2. Application of the broad September definition of eligible collateral (i.e. including mortgages) in all longer-term operations (measure 2).
  3. Full repayment of the remaining £7 billion “ways and means” advance to the government.
  4. Placement of a £20 billion special deposit by the DMO at the Bank, financed by additional issuance of gilts and / or Treasury bills.

Changes c and d would allow an increase in the Bank’s aggregate lending to the banking system from its current level of £65 billion to £93 billion. Within this total, changes a and b would permit new longer-term lending of £38 billion against mortgage collateral. This is a significant sum in the context of the overall mortgage market – sufficient to finance five months worth of net lending at its recent pace.

In addition to these measures, the authorities should also consider emulating the Federal Reserve’s “term securities lending facility”, under which banks are able to swap mortgage-backed securities for Treasuries held on the Fed’s balance sheet, with the Treasuries then used as collateral to obtain funds in the market. The Bank of England holds few gilts on its balance sheet so such a facility would require the DMO to create extra gilts specifically for this purpose.

BoE_Balance_Sheet_090408.gif

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Simon
I wonder if you would comment on the fact that the BOE now seems to being doing for all UK banks what it said it could not do for the then management of Northern Rock two months ago. Namely opening up a brand new line of funding. As I understand it the banks still have access to the lender of last resort at the BOE but they are unwilling to use it as they have seen what happened to Northern Rock.

Could you also comment on the fact that given much of the problem with Northern Rock was caused by the bank being named and it appears it was simply the first UK bank to need the funding and the rest all need it now. If you think it is right that Northern Rock followed the rules and was nationalised yet obviously many banks are now getting extra BOE funding and are not being named? Do you think this will have any affect on possible compensation paid to the then shareholders of Northern Rock?

Thank you

Interested

April 17, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterInterested

There is a chance that Northern Rock could have survived as an independent institution if it had enjoyed access to ECB-type liquidity support or the new Bank of England swap facility currently under discussion. However, Rock’s management should have made plans on the basis of existing UK arrangements. Its business model is widely acknowledged to have been extreme. Access to ECB funds did not prevent the failure of the German banks IKB and Sachsen last year.

April 18, 2008 | Registered CommenterSimon Ward

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>