US Dollar (Currency)

More stories

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Dollars or Rubles? Russian Debt Payments Are Due, and Uncertain.

    by

    Citing sanctions, the Russian government warned it might pay foreign debt obligations in rubles. Credit rating agencies say a default is imminent. Russia is teetering on the edge of a possible sovereign debt default, and the first sign could come as soon as Wednesday.The Russian government owes about $40 billion in debt denominated in U.S. dollars and euros, and half of those bonds are owned by foreign investors. And Russian corporations have racked up approximately $100 billion in foreign currency debt, JPMorgan estimates.On Wednesday, $117 million in interest payments on dollar-denominated government debt are due.But Russia is increasingly isolated from global financial markets, and investors are losing hope that they will see their money. As the government strives to protect what’s left of its access to foreign currency, it has suggested it would pay its dollar- or euro-denominated debt obligations in rubles instead. That has prompted credit rating agencies to warn of an imminent default.The Russian currency has lost nearly 40 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar in the past month. Even if the payments were made, economic sanctions would make it difficult for Western lenders to access the rubles if they are in Russian bank accounts.“It is not that Russia doesn’t have money,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told reporters last week. The problem is, Russia can’t use a lot of its international currency reserves, she said, because they have been frozen by sanctions. “I’m not going to speculate what may or may not happen, but just to say that no more we talk about Russian default as an improbable event.”Last week, the chief economist of the World Bank said Russia and Belarus were squarely in “default territory,” and Fitch Ratings said a default was imminent because sanctions had diminished Russia’s willingness to repay its foreign debts.Russia last defaulted on its debt in 1998, when a currency crisis led it to default on ruble-denominated debt and temporarily ban foreign debt payments. The crisis shocked the financial world, leading to the collapse of the U.S. hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, which required Federal Reserve intervention and a multibillion-dollar bailout. If Russia failed to make payments on its foreign currency debt, it would be its first such default since the 1917 Russian Revolution.Foreign investor interest in Russian assets fell in 2014 when sanctions were imposed after the country annexed Crimea, and never fully recovered before more sanctions were imposed by Washington in 2019. But holdings aren’t negligible. Russian government bonds were considered investment grade as recently as a few weeks ago, and were included in indexes used to benchmark other funds. JPMorgan estimates that international investors own 22 percent of Russian companies’ foreign currency debt.BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has already incurred losses on Russian assets and equities.Jeenah Moon/BloombergFunds managed by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have incurred $17 billion in losses on Russian assets, including equities, in recent weeks, according to the firm. The loss in value has a number of causes, including investors selling their holdings.But so far, regulators have said the risk to global banking systems from a Russian default wouldn’t be systemic because of the limited direct exposure to Russian assets. The larger ramifications from the war in Ukraine and Russia’s economic isolation are from higher energy and food prices.Still, financial companies have been scrambling to assess their exposure, according to Daniel Tannebaum, a partner at Oliver Wyman who advises banks on sanctions.“I’m seeing a lot of clients that had exposure to the Russian market wondering what type of default scenarios might be coming up,” said Mr. Tannebaum, who is also a former Treasury Department official. In the case of a default, “those bonds become worthless, for lack of a better term,” he said.On Monday, Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.” The government has the money to meet its debt obligations, he said, but sanctions were hampering its ability to pay. Mr. Siluanov had also said over the weekend that the country had lost access to about $300 billion of its $640 billion currency reserves.The government insists investors will be paid. The finance ministry said on Monday it would send instructions to banks to issue the payment due on dollar- or euro-denominated bonds in dollars or euros, but if the banks don’t execute the order then it will be recalled and payment will be made in rubles instead. The statement also said that the payments could be made in rubles and then converted to another currency only when the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves are unfrozen.Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.”Alberto Pizzoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“In any case, obligations to our investors will be met. And the ability to receive the funds in foreign currency will depend on the imposed restrictions,” Mr. Siluanov said.But the statement doesn’t provide a clear vision of what might happen on Wednesday. American sanctions allow for the receipt of payments of debt obligations until late May, and so the reasoning behind the Russian finance ministry’s claim that banks might refuse the payments is unclear. The payments due on Wednesday also have a 30-day grace period, so a default wouldn’t technically happen until mid-April. But Russia has already blocked interest payments on ruble-denominated bonds to nonresidents, a sign of its hesitancy to transfer funds abroad.While the Russian finance ministry said it could meet its obligations by paying in rubles, others disagreed.“In order to avoid a default, the only way that Russia can really navigate this is to send the full payment in dollars,” said Trang Nguyen, an emerging markets strategist at JPMorgan.Some Russian bonds issued in recent years do have provisions that allow for repayment in other currencies, including the ruble, if Russia can’t make payments in dollars for reasons “beyond its control.” The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Western Sanctions Show Russian Vulnerability in Global Economy

    by

    Even countries with limited trade relationships are intertwined in capital markets in today’s world. Could the Russia sanctions change that?The United States, Europe and their allies are not launching missiles or sending troops to push back against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so they have weaponized the most powerful nonmilitary tool they have available: the global financial system.Over the past few days, they have frozen hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian assets that are held by their own financial institutions; removed Russian banks from SWIFT, the messaging system that enables international payments; and made many types of foreign investment in the country exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.The impact of this brand of supercharged economic warfare was immediate. By Thursday, the value of the Russian ruble had reached a record low, despite efforts by the Bank of Russia to prop up its value. Trading on the Moscow stock market was suspended for a fourth day, and financial behemoths stumbled. Sberbank, Russia’s largest lender, was forced to close its European subsidiaries after running out of cash. At one point, its shares on the London Stock Exchange dropped to a single penny.There’s more to come. Inflation, which is already high in Russia, is likely to accelerate along with shortages, especially of imported goods like cars, cellphones, laptops and packaged medicines. Companies around the world are pulling investments and operations out of Russia.The sanctions “are severe enough to dismantle Russia’s economy and financial system, something we have never seen in history,” Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote this week.Russia had been working to “sanction proof” itself in recent years by further paring down its financial ties to the West, including reducing its dependence on the U.S. dollar and other common reserve currencies. It built a fat reservoir of foreign exchange reserves as a bulwark against hard times, trying to protect the value of its currency. It also shifted its holdings sharply away from French, American and German assets and toward Chinese and Japanese ones, as well as toward gold. Its banks, too, tried to “reduce the exposure to risks related to a loss of U.S. dollar access,” the Institute of International Finance said in a February report.But the disaster now rippling through the nation’s banks, markets and streets is evidence that autonomy is a myth in a modern globalized world.The United Nations recognizes roughly 180 currencies, but “the reality is most global payments are still intermediated through a Western currency-dominated financial system,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of international trade policy at Cornell University.Most of global commerce is carried out in dollars and euros, making it hard for Russia to avoid the currencies. And as much as half of the $643 billion in foreign exchange reserves owned by the Russian central bank is under the digital thumb of central and commercial banks in the United States, Europe and their allies.“They control the wealth of the world,” even the parts that they don’t own, said Michael S. Bernstam, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.While there has been speculation that Russia could mute the fallout of the sanctions by using its gold reserves, turning to Chinese yuan or transacting in cryptocurrency, so far those alternatives seem unlikely to be enough to forestall financial pain.“When the world’s biggest economies and deepest and most liquid financial markets band together and put this level of restrictions on the largest Russian banks, including the Russian central bank, it is very difficult to find a way to significantly offset large parts of that,” Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, told reporters on Wednesday. “I believe these will continue to bite.”The sanctions may come with a longer-term cost. The West’s overwhelming control could, in the long run, encourage other nations to create alternative financial systems, perhaps by setting up their own banking networks or even backing away from reliance on the dollar to conduct international transactions.A market in Moscow this week. Inflation, already high, is likely to accelerate from shortages created by sanctions.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times“I would liken them to very powerful antibiotics,” said Benn Steil, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If they’re overprescribed, eventually the bacteria become resistant.”Other countries, like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, have experienced these sorts of financial penalties before, losing their access to SWIFT or to some of their foreign exchange reserves. But the array of restrictions has never been slapped on a country as large as Russia.During congressional testimony this week, Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, was asked how easily he thought China and Russia could create an alternative service that could undermine the effectiveness of SWIFT sanctions in the future.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Janet Yellen’s Signature Is Not on U.S. Currency

    by

    Until a new treasurer is selected, currency will continue to bear the autograph of former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.WASHINGTON — At a now infamous 2017 ceremony inside the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary at the time, and his wife, Louise Linton, posed for the cameras with an uncut sheet of $1 bills, the first to bear his signature.The images went viral, prompting comparisons of Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker, to a Bond villain.More than four years later, America has a new Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen. But the U.S. currency continues to bear Mr. Mnuchin’s signature.The reason has to do with the vagaries of Washington bureaucracy and the fact that, despite having a Treasury secretary in place since January, President Biden has yet to appoint a United States treasurer. The two signatures must be added to new series of currency in tandem, meaning that the process of adding Ms. Yellen’s signature to the greenback is frozen for the foreseeable future.Ms. Yellen sat for her currency signing in March, meeting with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing director, Leonard Olijar, and providing her official signature for printing on the new 2021 series of paper currency. At the time, the Treasury Department said in a statement that it would “reveal her signature in the coming weeks.” Nine months later, Ms. Yellen’s signature is nowhere to be seen on America’s bank notes, depriving the first woman to be Treasury secretary of one of the job’s prized perks.“It is a little odd,” said Franklin Noll, the president of the Treasury Historical Association.Previous Treasury secretaries have had their signatures added to money, a process which takes several months, within their first year on the job.The delay owes to the slow pace of White House nominations across the federal government, including at the Treasury Department. By tradition, the treasurer must also sign the money along with the secretary, and both signatures are engraved on plates, printed and submitted to the Federal Reserve, which determines what currency will be added to circulation.Since the Treasury secretary has the ultimate say over currency design, in theory Ms. Yellen could do away with the tradition and incorporate her signature right away.The treasurer post, which oversees the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint, does not require Senate confirmation. But even if Mr. Biden appointed someone before year-end, it could take until mid-2022 before the new series of notes was in circulation.The White House appears to be in no rush. A spokesman said that while Mr. Biden is actively considering treasurer candidates, the administration’s priority has been on filling Senate-confirmed positions that are important for protecting national security and combating the pandemic.The Treasury Department declined to comment and referred an inquiry to the White House.The history of who gets to sign the money dates to 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill allowing the Treasury secretary to delegate the treasurer of the United States to sign Treasury notes and bonds. According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1914 was the first year that the Treasury secretary and the treasurer started signing the currency together.In recent years, the signature of the secretary has captured the nation’s attention, as changes to America’s currency are relatively rare.Former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner acknowledged in 2012 that handwriting was not his strong suit and that he polished his penmanship when President Barack Obama offered him the job.“I didn’t try for elegance,” Mr. Geithner said. “I tried for clarity.”Clarity was an Achilles’ heel for Jacob J. Lew, Mr. Geithner’s successor whose loopy autograph was laughed at for being illegible. Mr. Obama joked in 2013 that Mr. Lew, who had been his chief of staff, nearly did not get the job out of concern that his scrawl would debase America’s currency.Early versions of Mr. Mnuchin’s signature on personal documents were not easy to read. But ultimately, former President Donald J. Trump’s Treasury secretary broke with tradition and wrote his name in print rather than cursive.The signatures are closely watched by collectors and students of financial history.Mr. Noll said that during events or lectures at the Treasury Department with former secretaries, attendees would often bring money to be “countersigned” next to their name on the note.“It was kind of cool to get the real signature,” Mr. Noll said.Ms. Yellen’s signature on the money is not the only change to America’s currency that has been delayed. Soon after Mr. Biden took office this year, White House officials said the administration would accelerate efforts to have Harriet Tubman’s portrait grace the front of the $20 bill, a process that stalled under Mr. Mnuchin.However, at a congressional hearing in September, Ms. Yellen indicated that doing so would take some time, saying that redesigning the note is a lengthy process given the need to develop robust anti-counterfeiting features.Rosie Rios, who served as Treasurer under Mr. Geithner and Mr. Lew during the Obama administration, said that it was a privilege to have her signature on nearly $2 trillion worth of currency that is in circulation. Having helped to lead the effort to get images of women added to U.S. currency, she said, she will find it meaningful to have Ms. Yellen’s name on the money.“I’m very excited to see Secretary Yellen’s signature on there,” she said. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    The Path Ahead for Biden: Overcome Manchin’s Inflation Fears

    by

    A key Democrat’s decision to pull support from the president’s sprawling climate and social agenda is rooted in the scope of the bill.WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III, the West Virginia Democrat, effectively killed President Biden’s signature domestic policy bill in its current form on Sunday, saying he was convinced the spending and tax cuts in the $2.2 trillion legislation will exacerbate already hot inflation.Economic evidence strongly suggests Mr. Manchin is wrong. A host of economists and independent analyses have concluded that the bill is not economic stimulus, and that it will not pump enough money into consumer pocketbooks next year to raise prices more than a modest amount.The reason has to do with the pace at which the bill spends money and how much it raises through tax increases that are intended to pay for that spending. The legislation spends funds over a decade, allowing the taxes it raises on wealthy Americans and businesses, which will siphon money out of the economy, to help counteract the boost from spending and tax cuts.The bill also does not provide the type of direct stimulus included in the $1.9 trillion pandemic aid package Mr. Biden signed in March — and which Mr. Manchin supported. Some of its provisions would give money directly to people, like a continued expanded child tax credit, but others would fund programs that would take time to ramp up, like universal prekindergarten.Economists say the net result is likely to be at most a tenth of a percentage point or two increase in the inflation rate. That would be a relatively small effect at a time when supply chain crunches, surging global oil demand and a pandemic shift among consumers away from travel and dining out and toward durable goods have combined to raise the annual inflation rate to 6.8 percent, its fastest pace in nearly 40 years.For months, Mr. Manchin has warned the president and congressional leaders that he was uncomfortable with the breadth of what had become a $2.2 trillion bill to fight climate change, continue monthly checks to parents, establish universal prekindergarten and invest in a wide range of spending and tax cuts targeting child care, affordable housing, home health care and more. He has cited both the risks of inflation and his fear that the package could further balloon the federal budget deficit, saying several programs that are now estimated to end in a few years would likely be made permanent.Over the past week, he has insisted that the bill shrink to fit the framework of less than $2 trillion that Mr. Biden announced this fall, and that — crucially — the legislation not use budget gimmicks to artificially lower the bill’s effect on the budget deficit.In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Manchin said Democrats “continue to camouflage the real cost of the intent behind this bill.”White House officials have tried to promote the idea that the bill would reduce price pressures right away — an outcome economists have not entirely bought into. But the general economic consensus finds little evidence to suggest the bill risks exacerbating rising food, gasoline and other prices.Today’s inflationary surge stems from a confluence of factors, many of them related to the pandemic. The coronavirus has caused factories to shutter and clogged ports, disrupting the supply of goods that Americans stuck at home have wanted to buy, like electronics, televisions and home furnishings.That high demand has been fueled in part by consumers who are flush with cash after months of lockdown and repeated government payments, including stimulus checks. Research from the Federal Reserve has shown that inflation is most likely getting a temporary increase from the coronavirus relief package in March, which included $1,400 direct checks to families and generous unemployment benefits. But Mr. Biden’s social policy bill would do relatively little to spur increased consumer spending next year and not enough to offset the loss of government stimulus to the economy as pandemic aid expires.White House aides have tried to make that case to Mr. Manchin — and the public — in recent weeks, pointing to a series of analyses that have dismissed inflationary fears pegged to the bill. That includes analysis from a pair of Democratic economists who warned about rising inflation earlier this year — Harvard’s Lawrence H. Summers and Jason Furman — and from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania. All of those analyses conclude that the bill would add little or nothing to inflation in the coming year.The disconnect between economic reality and Mr. Manchin’s stated concerns has exasperated the White House, which is struggling with voter discontent toward Mr. Biden over rising prices, as well as an unyielding pandemic.In a scathing statement about Mr. Manchin on Sunday, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, noted that the Penn Wharton analysis found Mr. Biden’s bill “will have virtually no impact on inflation in the short term, and in the long run, the policies it includes will ease inflationary pressures.”White House officials, who along with party leaders have spent weeks trying to bring Mr. Manchin to a place of comfort with Mr. Biden’s bill, registered a sense of betrayal after the senator’s declaration.Ms. Psaki said Mr. Manchin had last week personally submitted to the president an outline for a bill “that was the same size and scope as the president’s framework, and covered many of the same priorities.” He had also promised to continue discussions toward an agreement, she said.Republicans celebrated Mr. Manchin’s statement as evidence that the bill, which Democrats were attempting to pass along party lines, was full of inflationary policies that even the president’s own party could not get behind.Biden’s ​​Social Policy and Climate Bill at a GlanceCard 1 of 7The centerpiece of Biden’s domestic agenda. More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Washington Worries About Stablecoins

    by

    Stablecoins might be the most ironically named innovation of the cryptocurrency era, at least in the eyes of many Washington regulators and policymakers.These digital currencies promise to maintain their value, which is generally pegged to a government currency like the dollar or euro, by relying on stable financial backing like bank reserves and short-term debt. They are exploding in popularity because they are a practical and cheap way to transact in cryptocurrency. Stablecoins have moved from virtual nonexistence to a more than $120 billion market in a few short years, with the bulk of that growth in the past 12 months.But many are built more like slightly risky investments than like the dollars-and-cents cash money they claim to be. And so far, they are slipping through regulatory cracks.The rush to oversee stablecoins — and the industry’s lobbying push to either avoid regulation or get on its profitable side — might be the most important conversation in Washington financial circles this year. How officials handle sticky questions about a relatively new phenomenon will set the precedent for a technology that is likely to last and grow, effectively writing the first draft of a rule book that will govern the future of money.The debate over how to treat stablecoins is also inescapably intertwined with another hot conversation: whether the Federal Reserve ought to offer its own digital currency. A Fed offering could compete with private-sector stablecoins, depending on its features, and the industry is already bracing for the possibility.Below is a rundown of what stablecoins are, why they may be risky, the possible regulatory solutions and the government’s likely next moves when it comes to policing them.What is a stablecoin?A stablecoin — stablevalue coin, if you’re feeling proper — is a type of cryptocurrency that is typically pegged to an existing government-backed currency. To promise holders that every $1 they put in will remain worth $1, stablecoins hold a bundle of assets in reserve, usually short-term securities such as cash, government debt or commercial paper.Stablecoins are useful because they allow people to transact more seamlessly in cryptocurrencies that function as investments, such as Bitcoin. They form a bridge between old-world money and new-world crypto.But many stablecoins are backed by types of short-term debt that are prone to bouts of illiquidity, meaning that they can become hard or impossible to trade during times of trouble. Despite that somewhat shaky backing, the stablecoins themselves promise to function like perfectly safe holdings.That makes them the type of financial product “macroeconomic disasters usually come from,” said Morgan Ricks, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and former policy adviser at the Treasury Department. “The stakes are really, really high here.”That said, some people — including George Selgin, director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute — argue that because stablecoins are used as a niche currency and not as an investment, they may be less prone to runs in which investors try to withdraw their funds all at once. Even if their backing comes into question, people will not want the potential taxes and paperwork that come with changing stablecoins into actual dollars.Given that the technology is so nascent, it is hard to know who is correct. But regulators are worried that they may find out the hard way.Are they all equally risky?Stablecoins are not all created equal. The largest stablecoin, Tether, says it is roughly half invested in a type of short-term corporate debt called commercial paper, based on its recent disclosures. The commercial paper market melted down in March 2020, forcing the Fed to step in to fix things. If those types of vulnerabilities strike again, it could be difficult for Tether to quickly convert its holdings into cash to meet withdrawals.Other stablecoins claim different backing, giving them different risks. But there are big questions about whether stablecoins actually hold the reserves that they claim.The company Circle had said its U.S.D. Coin, or U.S.D.C., was backed 1:1 by cashlike holdings — but then it disclosed in July that 40 percent of its holdings were actually in U.S. Treasurys, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, corporate bonds and municipal debt. A Circle representative said U.S.D.C. will, as of this month, hold all reserves in cash and short-term U.S. government Treasurys.The New York attorney general investigated Tether and Bitfinex, a cryptocurrency exchange, alleging in part that Tether had at one point obscured what the stablecoins had in reserve. The companies’ settlement with the state included a fine and transparency improvements.Tether, in a statement, noted that it has never refused a redemption and that it has amended its disclosures in the wake of the New York attorney general’s investigation. The common thread is that, without standard disclosure or reporting requirements, it is hard to know exactly what is behind a stablecoin, so it is tough to gauge how much risk it entails.It is also difficult to track just how stablecoins are being used.Stablecoins “may facilitate those seeking to sidestep a host of public policy goals connected to our traditional banking and financial system: anti-money-laundering, tax compliance, sanctions and the like,” Gary Gensler, who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission, told Senator Elizabeth Warren in a letter this year.What can regulators do?The trouble with stablecoins is that they slip through the regulatory cracks. They aren’t classified as bank deposits, so the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have limited ability to oversee them. The S.E.C. has some authority if they are defined as securities, but that is a matter of active debate.State-level regulators have managed to exert some oversight, but the fact that significant offerings — including Tether — are based overseas could make it harder for the federal government to exercise authority. Regulators are looking into their options now.What are the government’s next steps?Treasury, the Fed and other financial oversight bodies have a few choices. It’s not obvious what they will choose, but the issue is clearly top-of-mind: The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, anchored by Treasury, is expected to issue a report on the topic imminently. An upcoming Fed report on central bank digital currencies could also touch on stablecoin risks.A few of the top regulatory options include:Designate them as systemically risky. Because stablecoins are intertwined with other important markets, the Financial Stability Oversight Council could designate them a systemically risky payments system, making them subject to stricter oversight.While the market may not be big enough to count as a systemic risk now, the Dodd Frank Act gives regulators the ability to apply that designation to a payments activity if it appears to be poised to become a threat to the system in the future. If that happened, the Fed or other regulators would then need up to come up with a plan to deal with the risk.Treat them as if they were securities. The government could also label some stablecoins securities, which would bring bigger disclosure requirements. Mr. Gensler told lawmakers during a recent hearing that stablecoins “may well be securities,” which would give his institution broader oversight.Regulate them as if they were money market mutual funds. Many financial experts point out that stablecoins operate much like money market mutual funds, which also act as short-term savings vehicles that offer rapid redemptions while investing in slightly risky assets. But money funds themselves have required two government rescues in a little more than a decade, suggesting their regulation is imperfect.“Stablecoins don’t look new,” said Gregg Gelzinis, who focuses on financial markets and regulation at the Center for American Progress. “I see them either as an unregulated money market mutual fund or an unregulated bank.”Treat them as if they were banks. Given flaws in money fund oversight, many financial regulation enthusiasts would prefer to see stablecoins treated as bank deposits. If that were to happen, the tokens could become subject to oversight by a bank regulator, such as the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Mr. Gelzinis said. They could also potentially benefit from deposit insurance, which would protect individuals if the company backing the stablecoin went belly up.Try to compete with central bank digital currency. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has signaled that outcompeting stablecoins could be one appeal of a central bank digital currency — a digital dollar that, like paper money, ties back directly to the Fed.“You wouldn’t need stablecoins, you wouldn’t need cryptocurrencies, if you had a digital U.S. currency. I think that’s one of the stronger arguments in its favor,” Mr. Powell said during testimony this year.But how a central bank digital currency is designed would be critical to whether it succeeded at replacing stablecoins. And industry experts point out that since stablecoin users prioritize privacy and independence from the government, a new form of government-backed currency might do little to supplant them.Cooperate internationally. If there’s one point everyone in the conversation agrees on, it’s that different jurisdictions will need to collaborate to make stablecoin regulation work. Otherwise, coins will be able to move overseas if they face unattractive oversight in a given country.The Financial Stability Board, a global oversight body, is working on establishing stablecoin-related standards and plans for cooperation, aiming for final adoption in 2023. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Digital Currency Is a Divided Issue at the Federal Reserve

    by

    Officials at the Federal Reserve seem to be increasingly divided over whether it ought to issue a digital dollar — a digital currency that traces straight back to the central bank rather than to the private banking sector.Speeches by several Fed officials show they have yet to align on the issue, even as the Fed’s peers in China, parts of Europe and smaller economies like the Bahamas have created digital currencies or are working toward issuing them. The Fed plans to release a report on the potential costs and benefits of a digital dollar this summer.Lael Brainard, a Fed governor appointed during the Obama administration, made it clear during remarks last week that she envisions a future in which America’s central bank explores and issues a digital currency. But Christopher Waller, her colleague on the Fed’s Board of Governors and a Trump nominee, made it equally obvious during a speech on Thursday that he questions whether that is necessary.“The dollar is very dominant in international payments,” Ms. Brainard said during remarks in Aspen, Colo., adding that she could not imagine a situation in which other countries issue digital currencies and the United States doesn’t have one.“I just, I can’t wrap my head around that,” she said. “That just doesn’t sound like a sustainable future to me.”Mr. Waller, by contrast, suggested that there is little a central bank digital offering could do that the private sector cannot and that the potential benefits of a digital dollar are most likely overstated, while the risks are substantial. He added that the United States need not worry about the U.S. dollar’s being supplanted by China’s digital offering.“I am left with the conclusion that a C.B.D.C. remains a solution in search of a problem,” Mr. Waller said on Thursday, referring to a central bank digital currency. He also voiced concerns that a central bank currency would give the Fed too much information about private citizens.Randal K. Quarles, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, has also sounded dubious about the need for a central bank digital currency, painting the idea as a passing fad. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has at times questioned whether such an offering is necessary, but he has more recently stressed that it is important to investigate the idea and has called himself “legitimately undecided.”Supporters of central bank digital currency say it is critical for the United States to stay on top of the technology, even if it is not yet clear what benefits such currencies will offer in practice. Some suggest that a Fed digital dollar could prevent stablecoins — private digital assets backed by a bundle of currencies or other assets — from becoming dominant and creating a big financial stability risk.But opponents worry that a central bank digital currency would not offer benefits that the private sector did not or could not provide and that it might introduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities, issues that Mr. Waller raised Thursday.Commercial banks have also pushed back on the idea, worrying that their consumer banking services will be supplanted by Fed accounts and warning that such a situation would cause them to cut back on their lending. Mr. Waller — despite his overall skepticism — sounded unsympathetic to that argument.“There’s a lot of ways that banks could raise funds,” he said, noting that it might hit bank profit margins but that he wouldn’t have an issue with that. “The whole idea is that if they compete, then the funds don’t flow out, so it could be the case that just the existence of a C.B.D.C. causes fees to go down, deposits to go up.” More