500 likes | 2.64k Views
Diamond Dybvig Model (1983). Captures elements of what a bank does. Shows that there is a basic problem of bank runs. The model consists of two parties. Depositors Banks The model has three time periods: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Depositors.
E N D
Diamond Dybvig Model (1983) • Captures elements of what a bank does. • Shows that there is a basic problem of bank runs. • The model consists of two parties. • Depositors • Banks • The model has three time periods: yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Depositors • Depositors placed money (say £1000) in a bank (yesterday) before learning when they need the money. • Depositors either need their money today (impatient) or tomorrow (patient). There is a 50% chance of being either type. • The ones that need their money tomorrow can always take the money today and hold onto it. • The ones that need money today get relatively very little utility for the money tomorrow.
Banks • Banks have both a short term and a long term investment opportunity for the money. • The short term investment (reserves) is locking the money in the vault. This investment returns the exact amount invested. • The long term investment returns an amount R tomorrow. It is illiquid and returns only L<1 today.
Deposit Contract • The depositors invested £1000 yesterday have a contract with the bank. • The depositors can withdraw their money today and receive £1000 or wait until tomorrow and receive R*£1000.
Bank’s decision • How can the bank meet this contract? • The bank can divide into two parts. • Take half and keep it as reserves. • Take the other half and put it in the long term investment. • Say there are 10 depositors: 5 patient and 5 impatient. The bank puts £5000 in the vault and invests £5000. • Demands today are 5*1000, and 5*R*1000. The bank has 5000 and R*5000 tomorrow. • Thus, a bank makes zero profit.
Multiple equilibria • This leads to multiple (Nash) equilibria. • It is inherent in banking. • Here is an example with 2 patient depositors (and 2 impatient depositors). • This forms a 2x2 game between the patient depositors. • R=1.5 and L=.5
Game between patient depositors Depositor 1 Tomorrow Today 0 3/4 Today 3/4 1 Depositor 2 1 3/2 Tomorrow 0 3/2 R=1.5, L=.5
Our experiment credit crunch Normal conditions
What is not captured in the model • Uncertainty in depositor’s preferences. • Too many actually need the money today. • Riskiness in technology. • Perhaps there really isn’t enough to meet demand tomorrow. • Implication: some bank runs will be rational.
Early Solutions to Bank Runs • Put money in the windows • Slow up payments.
Solutions. • Make sure R is not risky. • Pay early withdrawers less than 1 or pay late withdrawers less than R (and keep more reserves) • Problems: not best contract. • Suspend payments/ Partial Suspension. • Problem when number needing money today is uncertain. • Creditor Coordination. • Long Term Capital Management ran into trouble in 1998. • The NY FED organized a bailout with creditors. • Lender of last resorts. • Central bank will stop in and loan the bank money to replace deposits. • This should work with depositors in the case of a problem with liqudity • In 1975, • April 14th, Credit Suisse announced lost some money in one of its branches. It didn’t mention details. • April 25th, The Swiss Central Bank announced it was willing to lend money. • This had the opposite result cauing share price to tumble 20%. • Deposit Insurance. • This works well. Risk-Sharing between banks.
Better Contract • Why should the bank pay the depositors withdrawing early only 1? • The bank can pay them more. • This would “insure” a depositor against needing the money early. • For R=1.5, what would the full insurance contract look like. In other words, the payment is the same in either period. • The amount would solve (2000-X)*R=X • This amounts to a gamble of having either 1000 or 1500 or 1200 for sure. Risk-averse enough people would prefer 1200. • Note the best contract (and perhaps fairest) will pay depositors withdrawing today somewhere 1000 and 1200.
Hidden assumption • Depositors withdraw sequentially: a bank cannot count the number of people wanting to withdraw today and then decide how much to pay them. • Otherwise, they can just pay them 5000/N where N is the number withdrawing early (for the 10 depositor case).
Insurance Problem: Moral hazard • Todd buys theft insurance for his laptop. • Because he buys the insurance, he is more likely to leave the laptop in his car. • Ideally, he would like to commit to not leaving the computer in his car. • Sometimes, we can contract on it. • Other times, we can’t. • Do we have a moral hazard problem with deposit insurance?
Answer: Yes. • Marc is the manager of a Springfield S&L. • Marc pays higher interest than a bigger and safer bank claiming his small size helps him cut costs. • Springfield has deposit insurance (100%). • Todd puts money in Springfield. • Springfield lends money to a dodgy lecturer at Springfield State University at a higher rate. • When there is no default, everyone wins. • When there is a default, Todd still gets paid. • Without insurance, Todd wouldn’t invest if he sees Springfield’s risky behavior.
Model of Moral Hazard. • The bank can choose any investment x, where 3>x=>1. • Any investment costs £.95 and is either successful and pays of x or unsuccessful and pays £0. • The probability of the investment being successful is P(X)=(3-x)/2. • Choosing x=1 is safe, choosing x close to 3 is unsafe. • Todd is close to risk neutral and wants to earn at least as much as £1 (in expectation) which the other banks are offering as a risk free investment. He wants R where R*P(x)=1. • Without insurance, the bank maximizes • P(X)*(X-R) where R=1/P(x) • With insurance, Todd only needs R=1. So the bank maximizes • P(X)*(X-R) where R=1
Savings and Loans scandal • In the 1980s about 1000 S&L’s went bankrupt. • They originally lent money out at fixed rates of 6% and paid deposits 3%. • With inflation, they lost money. • Took gambles to catch up, went to Vegas. • They were able to take high risk due to the deposit insurance. • This cost US taxpayers $120 billion.
Solution to Moral Hazard • One solution is for insurance to not be 100% (co-pay as in the UK). • However, this requires the depositors to be savvy and this still keeps the multiple equilibrium problem. • In the US, in 2006 Bush signed a law allowing the FDIC to charge premiums based upon risk.
Lender of Last Resorts: commitment • Gambling Jim has a rich uncle. • Jim’s uncle loves him very much. • Jim blows his money in a poker game. His rich uncle bails him out. • His uncle says that is the last time. • Jim gambles again and loses. His rich uncle can’t bear to see Jim’s legs broken. • The problem is that Jim knows his uncle will always be there for him. • The uncle can either find some way to commit not to help Jim afterwards, or sacrifice Jim to stop his other nephews from gambling.
Northern Rock and the Subprime crisis. • Jim Cramer on subprime. • Bill Poole says that it is risky lenders that got what they deserved. • Jim Cramer more or less says everyone is in trouble. • Bernanke is thinking about whether to cut rates.
Subprime mortgages • Miriam, a divorced mother, was offered a mortgage on a 2-28 deal: 2 years of a teaser rate of a mortgage and the rest floating. • Finally, the dream of owning a home is a reality. • Miriam did not have to verify income or assets. She got a piggyback loan to cover the down payment. • She was told that she can refinance after two years and with the prices the way they are going get some money out as well. • She took some extra credit cards and agreed. • The bank took her mortgage packaged it up with others. The rating agency (paid by the bank) rates the package high. It is sold to a hedge fund. • The bank now only collects the money.
Sub-prime continued • Unfortunately, rates went up and she couldn’t make the payments. • Housing prices didn’t go up and she has no equity. • The local bank doesn’t want to work out a deal so forecloses (actually collects extra fees doing so). • These packages drop faster than one would have thought.
Hedge fund • Hedge funds are highly leveraged. The price of these securities drop more than they should given the state of the economy, interest rate, etc. • People loaning the hedge funds want to take their money out. Forcing the hedge funds to sell more. This further suppresses the price. • Hedge funds start to go broke. • Banks also have these mortgages on their books. It isn’t clear who owns what. • Banks don’t want to lend to each other for two reasons: • Afraid of the financial state of other banks. • Want to keep extra reserves in case they can’t borrow.
Northern Rock • Had mortgages not necessarily subprime. • To provide funding for these mortgages, it had deposits and borrowed from other banks. • The other banks were in essence another depositor. • When the credit dried up, the other banks needed the money (became impatient). • Northern Rock couldn’t continue to borrow. • They had to borrow from the lender of last resorts.
Analogy • There are a limited number of homes around a lake. • The owners of the homes only sometimes go there for a few days. They only know if they can go last minute. • When they don’t go, they rent them out. Say that they stay there only 1/5 the time and there is 3 non-owners for every owner during a summer. • The owners are indifferent to staying at their home or someone else’s home. • Thus, the owners are not too worried about renting out their home since they can always rent someone else’s home.
Lake Analogy • Suddenly, a rumour spreads that it will be hard to rent. • The owners want to stay very much when they are free and take their homes off the market. • Since all the owners do so, there is no rental market and it is self-fulfilling.
Northern Rock Bank Run • Depositors now started to run. • Was it rational for shareholders to run as well? • Not enough deposit insurance. • It also wasn’t clear how much lending was to Northern Rock. • It isn’t clear how good their loans are.
Should Mervyn King act? Questions: • Was there a risk of contagion. • Was it a solvency problem or a liquidity problem? • Would it cost tax-payers? • Does this set a bad example? Actions: Cut Rate, Lend, Organize a bailout (LTCM) Future: • Rewrite the deposit insurance?
Other applications • Farepak. • People saved during the year and got coupons at end worth their savings. • Company used next year’s money to pay for this year’s coupons. • Defined-Benefit Pension schemes/Social Security. • Young pay for old. • Usually mandatory to stop runs.
What we learned • Theoretical Model of Bank Runs. • That these may actually happen (experiment). • Possible solutions to the problem. • The Moral Hazard problem. • A bit about the current crisis.
Homework. • Take the DD model with L=.5 and R=2. Let us say that deposits are insured up to fraction f. For what values of f is there only one equilibrium and what values are there two equilibria? (Early withdrawers are guaranteed to get 1*f and late get 2*f.) • How would you modify our classroom experiment to test different deposit insurance schemes? Under what parameters do you think we will get a bank run.