| 摘要 | The Federal Reserve announced earlier this month that it will launch a real-time payment service called “FedNow” sometime in the next five years. The move demonstrates that the independent central bank, already one of the most unaccountable agencies in the federal government, is accumulating too much power. In recent years the Fed has fended off several efforts to determine whether its expenditures—which aren’t appropriated by Congress—are consistent with policies that the American people and their representatives want the central bank to pursue.
Even a partial list of the Fed’s various roles is astonishing. It is the monetary authority of the U.S. and bears particular responsibility for interest rates and employment. But it is also the regulator and supervisor of banks, bank holding companies, savings-and-loan associations, securities holding companies, designated nonbank financial companies, various financial-market utilities such as clearinghouses, the U.S. operations of foreign banks, and the operation of the most important elements of the U.S. payments system. This expansive portfolio of responsibilities creates numerous conflicts of interests—raising interest rates, keeping inflation under control and stimulating employment are all close to zero-sum games—and FedNow will compete with the banking institutions it regulates.
The Fed is one of those magical government agencies that somehow manage to acquire more power when they fail. Consider the Fed’s oversight of banks and bank holding companies between 2002 and 2007. A gigantic housing price bubble was inflating, driven by the expansion of the subprime mortgage market. As this was occurring, the Fed allowed some banks to place risky subprime loans into off-balance-sheet vehicles, supported by short-term borrowings. But when the short-term lenders disappeared, the banks had to take these assets back on their balance sheets.
As things went from bad to worse, then-Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress and the American people that the subprime mortgage problem was “contained.” Then the subprime mortgage market imploded, kicking off a decade of economic pain. Regardless, the Fed was the beneficiary of most of the new regulatory power Congress created through the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010.
And it continues. Last month the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on a proposal that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be declared systemically important financial institutions as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. If that happens, the Fed would become the regulator of the two dominant players in the housing finance system and gain direct control over 15% to 18% of the U.S. economy. Given the Fed’s history, who could believe it would ever let this authority slip from its hands?
The current Fed payment system is a relic of the early 20th century. It’s closed on weekends and relies on the transfer of paper checks and settling bank balances at the Fed’s regional reserve banks. It’s particularly tough on people living paycheck to paycheck, who don’t know whether funds deposited on a Friday will clear by Monday, Tuesday or later. But the solution isn’t more government action. Rather, it’s private competition.
Today’s technology allows funds to be transferred almost instantaneously. In 2017 several large banks launched their own instant-payments system called the Clearing House, but the introduction of FedNow seems likely to stifle this emerging market for real-time payment services.
“I do not see a strong justification for the Federal Reserve to move into this area and crowd out innovation when viable private-sector alternatives are available,” said Randal Quarles, the Fed’s vice chairman for supervision, after the Board of Governors voted 4-1 to launch FedNow. His was the lone dissenting vote.
Mr. Quarles is correct. While the market waits for what the Fed will do, innovation and competition in the payments system will languish. A government real-time payment system is likely to be more harmful than helpful. Government agencies are notorious for holding on for absurdly long times to legacy technologies. Think of the 60-year-old computer system used by the Internal Revenue Service. FedNow, no matter how technologically advanced it is when it’s introduced, will quickly become a dead hand on the rapid transfer of funds.
The Fed already has more power than an independent government agency should. Allowing it to go forward with a payment system plan that unnecessarily competes with the private sector makes no sense. Congress should put an end to FedNow and reconsider whether an independent body like the Fed should have the nonmonetary and regulatory powers it has been given. |
