Banking Collapse & Rate Hikes Explained | Sunday Extra

[Theme music fades out]

Host (John Bickley): This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

Host (John Bickley): The Federal Reserve raised the Fed funds rate by 25 basis points on Wednesday after a tumultuous few weeks in the banking industry. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said the banking turmoil might trigger a credit crunch moving forward, but the Fed needs to stay focused on inflation and more rate hikes could occur in the future. In this episode of Morning Wire, we break down the rate hike, the banking crisis, and what it means to the American consumer. It's March 26th, and this is your Sunday Extra Edition of Morning Wire.

Host (Georgia Howe): Hey guys, I'm Georgia. I know the economy is under a lot of stress right now, but your skincare routine doesn't have to be. GenuCell is dedicated to helping you through these trying times. And to prove it, they're offering over 70% off their most popular package. Plus, for the first time ever, GenuCell is including both the Ultra Retinol and Dark Spot Corrector with every purchase of the most popular package. Don't miss out on this amazing deal. Visit GenuCell.com slash wire and use ConeWire at checkout to claim this special offer. That's GenuCell.com slash wire.

Host (John Bickley): Joining us to discuss is Peter Earle, an economist at the American Institute for Economic Research. Peter, thanks for coming on.

Peter Earle: Thanks for having me.

Host (John Bickley): Now, let's start with the Fed's decision to raise the federal funds rate another 25 basis points this week. A lot of people thought the Fed might pause raising rates due to all the economic uncertainty, but they didn't. What does this tell us about the Fed's priorities and what can we expect going forward?

Peter Earle: So what we saw yesterday was the Fed raising 25 basis points. The interest rate range is now between 4.75 and 5 percent. And Powell changed his language a bit. He didn't say anything about ongoing rate hikes but instead he said that if necessary, rate hikes will continue. And more importantly, that he didn't see any interest rate lowering this year. And there are two things that are significant about that. The first is that the Fed, especially with the latest news in banking, the seeming weakness of a few banks, has been distracted by a growing list of mandates, one of which, of course, is price stability. And that's what they do when they fight inflation. But the other is financial stability, and that's keeping the banking system stable. The statements that they made and the action that they took in raising the interest rate 25 basis points is they're making clear that their commitment is to their price stability mandate.

Host (John Bickley): How did the market react to that?

Peter Earle: Well, it was interesting. The market first seemed to take it in stride and then fell very hard at the end of the session because it seems to view the instability in the banking system as an ongoing issue and one that may see the Fed eventually have to abandon the inflation mandate. However, what's interesting is that in the various markets that sort of forecast what they think the Fed will do, those fell to about 4 or 4.25 percent, indicating that no matter what Powell has said, in fact, the markets believe that rates will be lower by almost three quarters of a percent at the end of 2023.

Host (John Bickley): Now, I want to dig into the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. First off, can you explain the circumstances behind those failures?

Peter Earle: Sure. Silicon Valley Bank is a regional bank, so it's deeply involved in local businesses, which in the case of Silicon Valley, of course, is banking for tech startup firms. Most banks have a pretty diverse depositor base, meaning that they carry bank accounts for a wide variety of different firms and individuals. But because of the very undiversified nature of Silicon Valley Bank's deposit base, it was exposed to trends within that industry. So early in the pandemic, you had people locked out at home. At the same time, you have the Fed lowering interest rates and the Treasury sending out stimulus checks and that sort of thing. So it's a huge monetary expansion and stimulus program. People are at home. They start spending that money. They start buying goods and services. They're doing gaming. They're doing streaming services. And so as these tech firms see their revenues grow, the bank balances at Silicon Valley Bank expand as well. At that same time, the bank decides to invest its money in long-dated Treasuries, 20- and 30-year Treasury bonds and agency securities. Yielding 1 something like that. So we step forward a year or two, it's a good situation when you're receiving one percent or two percent and you're paying out point one percent on deposits. But soon we have inflation. The Fed begins raising rates. And what begins to happen is deposits begin leaving, both because of the fortunes of the tech firms. They're not keeping up after the pandemic. And soon we have what's called the duration mismatch, which means the bank is receiving interest rates from its assets, which are not high enough to meet the requirements of depositors, and probably not high enough if there was a sudden withdrawal of deposits to keep up with them.

Host (John Bickley): So is this something that Silicon Valley Bank could have predicted or should have been prepared for? Or was this more just a rare confluence of factors?

Peter Earle: So there are confluence of factors. Most banks, as I mentioned, don't have as narrow a deposit base as SVB. But the fact is that stress tests probably would not have taken into account what the Fed did between 2022 and 2023. Most stress tests are based upon previous crises, you know, 1987, post-9-11, 2008, that sort of thing. And you can bet that in the future, stress tests will take into account the quick and aggressive rise in the interest rates that the Fed put into place to fight inflation. They just weren't ready for it.

Host (John Bickley): Now, the banking crisis seems to have stabilized somewhat. Do you expect the instability in the banks to spread, or do you think the banking industry is fundamentally healthy?

Peter Earle: There may be a few other banks that have problems, but I think unless we see something very unusual, the Fed is probably near the end of its hiking cycle, so I don't think we're going to see many more problems of this sort.

Host (John Bickley): All right, so for the people who are concerned about another 2008, you don't think that's what we're looking at right now?

Peter Earle: I think it's a different kind of crisis that we're seeing this time and one that's probably mostly in the rearview mirror at this point.

Host (John Bickley): Now, let's talk about the government's response. Why do you think Janet Yellen chose to bail out SVB? And was that the right choice?

Peter Earle: So there's an issue of moral hazard there, to be sure. I think that there was a systemic element to the SVB collapse, and that was not one where it might take down other banks, but that Silicon Valley is a major tax source and it's a major revenue source for the US government and for California. There are implications if that entire region of the country is suddenly unable to access money. So I think that one of the reasons why this bank was rescued. But every time we do something like this, every time the government makes a policy that's an exception to what has been established, we pave the way for the next episode of moral hazard. Would this have happened if there hadn't been bank bailouts in 2008 if there hadn't been airline bailouts in 2001? I'm not sure. But I definitely think that every time something like this happens, we pave the way to more expectations for the government to rescue firms and individuals from their own mistakes. I do believe that we make grievous errors when we privatize or allow gains and successes to be private, but we make losses and errors public. I think that's a terrible thing that the government does. And there were banks out there that did the right thing. So the idea that we would rescue one, regardless of its impact on revenue, is just another step down a moral hazard fraught lane or path.

Host (John Bickley): Now, what can everyday Americans expect for the economy going forward?

Peter Earle: So first with inflation, what we've seen is over the last two months, the pace of disinflation has slowed. And actually, in some cases, we see service prices, especially in the areas like rents and owner-equivalent rents, rising. So that suggests that maybe the Fed's target of a 5.1% terminal rate, which means the high point rate that they anticipate lifting rates to for this cycle, may be on the low side. However, I also think that the existing situation with banks has also sort of led the Fed to pause right now. They said they'll raise rates if they have to. They may do another 25 basis point range. So I think they're going to try to thread a very narrow line between keeping the banking system stable and fighting inflation. But I think for most Americans, service prices are a little bit different than goods because there's just a bit more what we call stickiness to them. So I think we're going to see elevated inflation for a bit longer. It might hover between the 3% or 4% to 5% range for a while, but the Fed is going to attempt to get those rates down by using the various tools that they have. I'm not sure how successful they're going to be at this point. As for a recession, I definitely think that there's a chance that the economy slows a bit more. A soft landing is probably out of the question to this point. I think the question is rather within the next 24 months, whether we get a slowdown or we get an actual recession by definition.

Host (John Bickley): Well, Peter, thanks for coming on today.

Peter Earle: Thank you.

Host (Georgia Howe): That was Peter Earle, economist at the American Institute for Economic Research. And this has been a Sunday Extra Edition of Morning Wire.