Knowledge that Transforms

This study analyzes the wide dispersion in bid-ask spreads across clients in over-the-counter (OTC) markets. Our data detailed data comprise a dealing bank's complete trading record in a major OTC contract and include client IDs, seven client types, and precise markups. Average spreads are lowest for hedge funds (<1 basis point, bp) and highest for individuals and for small and medium enterprises (>50 bps). Regression results suggest that the primary source of variation is clients’ execution efficiency, meaning their ability to minimize execution costs. Efficient trading, which can require investments in knowledge and technology, has three dimensions: reliance on low-cost platforms; familiarity with market technologies, conventions, and negotiating strategies; and breadth of dealing relationships. Relations between proxies for client execution efficiency and client incentives to invest, such as trade frequency, are consistent with rational inattention.

We study how supply disruptions interact with monopoly pricing, inventory management, and consumer stockpiling in a continuous-time model. Preemption incentives—consumers prefer to stock up before a price hike while the firm prefers to hike before consumers stock up—lead to an equilibrium with gradual stockpiling and endogenous uncertainty over the timing of a price hike, which can trigger a run at the disruption onset. Consumer storage introduces welfare losses from randomized pricing, but can also strengthen the firm’s incentive to hold buffer stock. Rationing, price controls, and reserve mandates can each improve welfare, but only strategic government reserves can implement the social optimum.

Rapid growth of stablecoins has raised concerns about issuer default and spillover risks. To assess these risks, we model a stablecoin issuer facing persistent demand shocks. Absent regulation, the issuer holds little capital and favours interest-bearing but illiquid bonds over cash. This exposes coin-holders to default risk and poses spillovers via bond fire-sales. How can regulation mitigate these risks? Capital and liquidity thresholds can help, especially when introduced as usable buffers. The thresholds can be breached, providing flexibility. However, breaches trigger additional redemptions that discipline the issuer. The thresholds operate through asymmetric channels: the liquidity threshold raises only cash, whereas the capital threshold increases both capital and cash. Both thresholds mitigate default and spillover risks, making them substitutes when either risk is targeted separately but complements when both risks are targeted jointly. We provide a two-way mapping that helps derive capital-liquidity threshold combinations implied by chosen risk targets (and vice-versa).

We study the interaction of expansionary rate-based monetary policy and quantitative easing, despite their concurrent implementation, by exploiting heterogeneous banks and the introduction of negative monetary-policy rates in a fragmented euro area. Quantitative easing increases credit supply less when banks’ funding costs do not decrease simultaneously. Using administrative data from Germany, we uncover that among banks selling their securities, central-bank reserves remain disproportionately with high-deposit banks that are constrained due to sticky customer deposits at the zero lower bound. Affected German banks lend relatively less to firms while increasing their interbank exposure in the euro area.