Central Bank Digital Currencies Unmasked by Dr. Alicia Garcia-Herrero at Natixis

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have increasingly sparked interest in recent years. With the notion of China’s central bank, People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announcing its plan to issue its digital currency (DCEP) and Facebook’s Libra stablecoin emergence, the world has been paying more attention to CBDCs. 

Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Asia Pacific Chief Economist at Natixis shared her insights into CBDCs at an event in Hong Kong in September this year. Garcia-Herrero also serves as a Senior Fellow at European think-tank Bruegel and is an advisor to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s research arm (HKIMR) and the Asian Development Bank. In addition, Garcia-Herrero has been very active in international media and she has been nominated TOP Voices in Economy and Finance by Linkedin for her leadership thoughts. 

Blockchain.News has been delighted to reach out to Garcia-Herrero for her to share some thoughts on central bank digital currencies around the world.  

Why are central bank digital currencies considered as an autonomous factor for monetary policy implementations? 

As autonomous factors are items which are not controlled by the monetary policy function of the central bank, CBDCs could compete with bank deposits and draw liquidity away from the banking system depending on how CBDCs are regulated by central banks and, in particular, whether CBDC holdings at the central bank are remunerated positively. This could raise the funding rates of banks, reducing their margins.  

Do you agree that the issuance of CBDCs can strengthen the pass-through of the policy rates to the money market and deposit rates? What are the crucial design features of CBDC to enhance the pass-through? 

Some CDBCs, especially those used at the retail level, allow central banks to have direct monetary interaction with the public, which reduces the role of banks in intermediation. One could even think of a perfect pass-through but, on the other hand, there is no real intermediation as those funds cannot be lent on to borrowers. It would be some kind of narrow banking. 

Furthermore, given that central banks set the CBDC interest rate (the CBDC interest rate could become the policy instrument) and that CBDCs could be used by the general public for daily transactions, the policy rate transmission will be better on paper but hard to think how such funds will be intermediated.  

In terms of design features most research seems to have focused on creating design features to avoid a CBDC run (out of bank deposits and into CBDCs), such as enforcing daily limits on the number of bank deposits that can be converted into CBDCs. 

How does the interest-bearing characteristic of CBDCs affect the effectiveness of the monetary policy? Do you think interest-bearing CBDCs can serve as an effective lower bound of interest rates and thus facilitating central banks to control market interest rates? 

CBDC, being a central bank’s liability, can be interest-bearing or not (or even negative if needed) as opposed to cash. If set negatively, it basically can allow a central bank to bypass the zero-bound. In order to assess the impact of CBDC on the term structure of interest rates, what are the factors to consider? 

A CBDC (especially a positive interest-bearing CBDC) has the potential to eliminate cash. Gradually as cash gets converted into electronic money, it is likely to get invested in capital market instruments. This could have a downward impact on interest rates. The proportion of cash which is today maintained by households for day to day transactions may get invested in short term interest rate instruments that are easy to liquidate. As a result, short term interest rates may fall more than long term interest rates. 

Some academics suggested that CBDCs can enhance financial stability, similar to the concept of “narrow banking.” Do you agree? What are the main differences between narrow banking and CBDCs? 

Under narrow banking, a deposit-taking institution may invest its deposits only in safe (risk-free) and liquid assets like government bonds. Given that deposits are invested in risk-free assets, deposit insurance is not required, and banks need not be bailed out.  

Lending to corporations and to the general economy is left to other institutions (non-deposit taking finance companies) that raise funds through the wholesale market. 

Like narrow banking, the risk of credit default (and the need to insure deposits) is reduced significantly with CBDCs as the liability shifts from risk-taking commercial banks to risk-free central banks. 

The disadvantage of narrow banking is that there is no intermediation so the cost of risky lending will increase enormously, hampering growth. 

What are the possible impacts of CBDC on seigniorage? 

Seignorage, the profit made by a government by issuing currency, will depend on the interest rate paid on the CBDC and the relative cost of producing CBDC versus the costs of producing the equivalent amount of cash. 

Dr. Alicia Garcia-Herrero's Take on China’s CBDC and Facebook’s Libra

In Part 1 of our interview with Alicia Garcia-Herrero of Natixis, we took a deep dive into the impact of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) regarding monetary policy and financial stability. In Part 2 of the interview, Garcia-Herrero explained the disruption of China’s CBDC – digital currency electronic payment (DCEP) on China’s monetary system. She also commented on the basket of currencies that Facebook’s Libra supports and Libra’s potential threat to monetary sovereignty. 

  

How will China’s CBDC disrupt the existing monetary system in the nation? Do you think the Chinese CBDC will completely replace the renminbi (RMB) in 5 – 10 years?  

  

The PBoC’s issuance of a CBDC could be more or less disruptive, depending on the model that the PBoC finally chooses for its digital currency. In particular, a wholesale model will be less disruptive for existing digital payments. In addition, a centralized model (rather than a blockchain-based decentralized one) will also be less disruptive in terms of the degree of anonymity of transactions. Such centralization allows for traceability of CBDC transactions.  

  

If the Chinese CBDC is launched, how will you predict the responding action by the Federal Reserve of the United States? Do you think the Federal Reserve will issue its CBDC?  

  

Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Patrick Harker recently stated that it is “inevitable” that central banks including the US Federal Reserve will start issuing digital currency. However, he cautions that the United States should not be the nation to lead such a move.  

  

The issuance of a CBDC by the PBoC may push the FED to act more quickly if such E-RMB moves cross border very quickly, substituting USD banknotes in circulation.  

  

Facebook announced that Libra supports the following basket of currencies: USD (50%), EUR (18%), JPY (14%), GBP (11%) and SGD (7%), yet RMB is excluded. What do you think about the currency selection? Do you think the weight of different currencies is appropriate for Libra?  

  

China’s reluctance to promote Facebook (within China) and potentially bar Libra could be reasons behind the RMB’s exclusion from the Libra basket. The Libra Association might be foreseeing some technical/regulatory hurdles in including the RMB. In his congress testimony, David Marcus had a similar response to a question asked on the exclusion of Chinese companies within the Libra Association.    

  

Countries like France, Germany and the US believe Facebook’s Libra can threaten their “monetary sovereignty,” although David Marcus of Libra disagreed. What do you think?  

  

David Marcus claims that with Libra there is no new money creation and I fully agree. Libra is just a basket of currencies.   

  

Cryptocurrencies represent a new money issuance standard based on blockchain, which has the potential of fulfilling Friedrich Hayek’s vision on the “Denationalization of Money.” With the emergence of CBDC, do you think the denationalization of money is more likely a dream instead of reality?  

  

Even though the technology enables CBDCs to be used beyond national boundaries, there is likely to be political resistance to making any single CBDC a global currency. For instance, a national central bank may lose control over its domestic inflation, if a significant value of domestic goods were denominated in foreign CBDCs. In reality, host central banks can actually use their regulatory power to stop the use of an E-RMB by not accepting payments in such currency. However, China’s economic power might be so high in some countries that they might not have a choice other than accept E-RMB for legal tender (or at least as far as Chinese nationals are concerned, either individuals or companies).  

  

What are the impacts of CBDC on the IMF Special Drawing Rights basket?  

The impacts are not significant, as the technology behind CBDCs should make processing faster, which will enhance foreign trade. Countries with a CBDC may be in a position to increase their trade with other countries, just because they could process their trade transactions faster. With greater trade representation, their weightage in the Special Drawing Rights may increase.  

Exit mobile version