The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND 2002 ANNUAL REPORT The Federal Reserve System is responsible for formulating and implementing U.S. monetary policy. It also supervises banks and bank holding companies, and provides financial services to depository institutions and the federal government. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is one of 12 regional Reserve Banks in the United States that, together with the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., comprise the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, including its branch offices in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh and its check processing center in Columbus, serves the Fourth Federal Reserve District (Ohio, western Pennsylvania, the northern panhandle of West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky). It is the policy of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland to provide equal employment opportunity for all employees and applicants without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND 2002 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS 3 President’s Foreword 6 Deflation 17 Management’s Report on Responsibility for Financial Reporting 18 Report of Independent Accountants on Financial Reporting 19 Report of Independent Accountants on Financial Statements 20 Comparative Financial Statements 22 Notes to Financial Statements 31 Officers and Consultants 32 Boards of Directors 34 2002 Operational Highlights 40 Business Advisory Council and Community Bank Advisory Council President’s Foreword T he U.S. economy is still in the process of recovering from a recession that began over two years ago. The official arbiter of business cycle peaks and troughs, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet decided when the recession ended — or indeed, whether it has ended. Many economists expect the latest recession’s trough to be dated near the end of 2001, but considerable uncertainties about the future course of economic activity remain. The most immediate problem confronting the economy is an issue facing not only our nation, but also the world. Terrorist activities and the strain of military conflict weigh heavily on people everywhere. In the economic realm of our lives, one consequence of these geopolitical tensions is a hesitation to take risks, particularly risks that involve significant capital expenditures. Capital spending requires confidence in the future because the benefits of long-lived investments accrue over time and, once made, are not easily reversed. Because we thrive in a global trading environment, the U.S. economy is especially sensitive to developments around the world. Once geopolitical tensions ease, we will be in a better position to assess the received a great deal of attention in the past few years is price stability— though not for the usual reasons. Rather than worrying about inflation, some analysts have been assessing the likelihood of deflation and its consequences. Because deflation is rarely found in modern economies, its effects are not well understood. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT economy’s underlying condition. One aspect of economic performance that has 3 David H. Hoag, chairman; Sandra Pianalto, first vice president; Jerry L. Jordan, president; and Robert W. Mahoney, deputy chairman. The Great Depression, as well as Japan’s more recent experience with outright deflation for four years and a flat price level for eight, have convinced some central bankers that a little inflation is, in fact, desirable. In the essay that follows, we defend deflation as an occasionally acceptable macroeconomic outcome, so long as it is small in magnitude and accompanied by strong productivity growth. The Bank could not have accomplished all that we did in 2002 without the guidance provided by the directors of our Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh offices and the members of our business and community bank advisory councils. We especially want to thank those directors who completed their terms of service on our boards FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND in 2002. For their oversight and valuable contributions, we are truly grateful. 4 On our Cleveland Office board of directors, we are appreciative for the leadership of David H. Hoag (retired chairman, LTV Corporation), who served as deputy chairman and then chairman of the board during his term of service. During his tenure, Mr. Hoag was an integral part of the search committee that selected my successor as president, Sandra Pianalto. In addition, Tiney M. McComb (chairman and president, Heartland BancCorp) and David L. Nichols (president and chief operating officer, Rich’s/Lazarus/Goldsmith’s) completed their service on the Cleveland board. On our Cincinnati Office board of directors, Mary Ellen Slone (chairman and chief executive officer, Meridian Communications), completed a term as a director. Special acknowledgment goes to George C. Juilfs (chairman and chief executive officer, SENCORP), who served as chairman of that board for two terms. On our Pittsburgh Office board of directors, Georgia Berner (president, Berner International Corporation) and Peter N. Stephans (chairman and chief executive officer, Trigon, Incorporated) each completed their second term as directors. We will miss the valuable contributions of all of our departing board members. In addition, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the officers and staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland for their service during 2002 and throughout my tenure as president. The employees of the Cleveland Bank have impressed me with their commitment to efficiency, innovation, customer service, and good public policy. Collectively and continuously, they have strengthened our banking and payments systems, served the U.S. Treasury, and championed price stability. For all of these reasons and more, I sincerely thank them. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT Jerry L. Jordan President 5 Deflation O ne of the most remarkable economic developments of the last two decades has been the overwhelming success of central banks in the industrialized world at reducing inflation. U.S. inflation, for instance, spiked at over 14 percent in 1980, but by 2002, the consumer price index had fallen to 2.3 percent, and inflation worries seemed nowhere to be found. This experience has not been unique to the United States. The International Monetary Fund’s consumer price index for industrialized countries peaked in excess of 13 percent in 1980. In sharp contrast, inflation in the same nations registered 1.7 percent in 2002, an order of magnitude lower than the pace set two decades earlier.1 6 Today, however, some fear that central banks risk and lengthy periods of negative inflation. In our becoming victims of their own success in the war final analysis, the macroeconomic impact of negative against inflation. Deflation has now replaced infla- inflation hinges on other key aspects of the environ- tion as the principle concern of many in the central ment in which deflation arises—particularly price banking community. expectations, the return to capital, and the central In simple terms, deflation is the opposite of inflation; it describes a persistent decline in the general price bank’s operating choices. CORRECTING MISPERCEPTIONS level or, from another perspective, a persistent It is important to delineate what we mean by the increase in the purchasing power of money. In the term “deflation.” Deflation refers to a persistent early 1980s, worrying about deflation was some- decline in the average of a set of prices. Most of us, thing like worrying about a shortage of pigeons in of course, don’t observe the average of all prices Trafalgar Square. But now, with annual inflation directly, but rather some (typically small) subset of rates near zero, periodic deflations are much more prices. Price changes in our particular subset may plausible. In fact, many analysts take the recent reflect trends in all prices, or they may signal only experience of Japan—which is in the midst of a a change in that subset’s prices relative to all decade-long period of economic stagnation accom- others. The distinction is important in our dynamic panied by a small deflation—as a cautionary economy, in which some prices are always rising and example of deflation’s dangers. some falling in relation to the average price level. Just how dangerous is deflation? This question seems especially pertinent in light of modern central banks’ near-universal commitment to low inflation and their increasing use of inflation targeting as an operational framework. If deflation is truly perilous, how low should inflation targets—formal or informal—be set? Is it more costly to undershoot than to overshoot the target? In an environment where the average rate of price increase is large, the relative prices of some items may decline even if the dollar prices of individual goods or services do not actually fall. The lower the general inflation rate, however, the more likely it is that relative price changes will be associated with some falling prices. It is natural—for producers especially—to interpret these sorts of declining prices as deflation. In fact, this situation is no In this essay, we offer our understanding of deflation different from the case in which some goods and and its economic impact. First, we conclude that services prices rise, but less rapidly than others. deflation often is associated with economic problems that are not, in fact, intrinsic to deflation. For that reason, understanding the true costs of deflation requires that we isolate the issues that are particular to negative price-level growth. Furthermore, it is apparent that small, periodic deflations are not necessarily problematic, and that deflation can in fact be compatible with a healthy economy. That said, we also conclude there is a reasonable case to be made that central bankers should avoid large Producer equipment prices provide an interesting illustration of this point. Figure 1 shows the rates of absolute and relative price change in equipment and software investments since 1947. Although absolute prices have begun to decline recently, relative price declines have been the rule for most of the postwar period. This long-term trend reflects greater technological progress in the production of durable equipment—a boon to consumers and to the economy, even if it is sometimes a matter of 2002 ANNUAL REPORT consternation to the manufacturers of those goods. 1. Most recent data available, 12-month change from October 2001 to October 2002. 7 In addition to clarifying the distinction between The tax interpretation is useful because it leads relative price changes and deflation, this example us to think explicitly in terms of public policy. In highlights two important themes in our discussion the production of any good, the “right” amount of deflation: First, people attribute some economic satisfies the condition that the marginal cost to the consequences to deflation when deflation itself public equals the social marginal cost of producing is not really the issue. Second, there are circum- the good. For cash, the social marginal cost of stances in which deflation can be a characteristic production is effectively zero; ideally, the cost of of a healthy economy—namely, during productivity- holding cash should be minimal as well. This require- driven booms. ment is met when the market nominal interest rate is extremely low. How can central banks engineer FIGURE 1: ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE PRICE GROWTH IN EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE extremely low interest rates? Think of the nominal interest rate as the sum of the real return to saving Percent change 15 and the expected inflation rate. Because the real Absolute price growth return is usually positive, a very low nominal 10 interest rate can be achieved only if the rate of 5 decline in the price level matches the size of the real interest rate. In short, the optimal rate of change 0 in the price level is negative—that is, deflation. –5 Relative price growth –10 1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 This particular justification for deflation is so 1992 1997 2002 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. prominent in monetary theory that it has a special name, the Friedman rule. To be sure, there are respectable counterarguments to this rule; in fact, we T H E C A S E F O R D E F L AT I O N What is the most desirable rate of inflation? According to economic theory, a common answer is not “low,” or “zero,” but negative. In other words, in many cases economic theory implies that deflation is preferable to inflation, even to zero inflation. of many economic models, and it remains the benchmark for discussing the “appropriate” rate of inflation. Why, then, do so many people blanch at the thought of deflation? And why do we not observe the Friedman rule in guiding the behavior of the world’s central banks? Why would we, in consisted of nothing but cash. The opportunity cost fact, hesitate to suggest that the Friedman rule of holding cash is the market interest rate—the guide the course of U.S. monetary policy? the form of cash instead of an interest-bearing bank account or a mutual fund. The higher the interest rate, the greater the incentive not to hold FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND rule has proven to be a remarkably resilient property The reasoning is fairly intuitive: Suppose that money return that people forgo by holding their funds in 8 will present one later in this essay. But the Friedman cash. In other words, high nominal interest rates act as an implicit tax on economic activities that require currency. H I S T O RY C O N F R O N T S E C O N O M I C T H E O RY The difference between the Great Depression World economic history provides some pretty good and this earlier period, of course, is more than the clues as to why the prospect of deflation makes magnitude of the price declines—the environments central bankers nervous. In their monumental in which the price contractions occurred were work A Monetary History of the United States, completely different. The last half of the nineteenth 1867–1960, Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson century experienced what has become known Schwartz observe that every significant real output as a “growth deflation.” Textbooks roughly define decline in the United States has been associated inflation as “too much money chasing too few goods.” 2 with deflation. The most notorious episode, of Growth deflation, however, can be thought of as a course, is the Great Depression: Between 1929 situation in which too little money is chasing too and 1933, the price level fell 24 percent (roughly many goods. During periods of rapid technological 5 percent per year), while real GDP fell nearly progress, output may expand quicker than the 40 percent (table 1). Furthermore, both output and money supply, causing the price level to decline. prices remained below their 1929 levels for the rest The purchasing power of money increases, allowing of the decade. Considering that the United Kingdom, people to buy more goods and services. By contrast, Germany, and France simultaneously experienced deficient money supply and the resulting price significant output declines and deflation, central declines that occurred during the Great Depression bankers’ intense concern with deflation today is hardly can be described as growth deflation. at least partly an outgrowth of this broad historical TABLE 1: OUTPUT, PRICES, AND WAGES DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION perspective. Although the weight of professional opinion favors the idea that deflation played a central role in the Great Depression, the claim that price deflation was the initial cause is less obvious. The sharp initial decline in output that occurred in 1929–30 (13.1 percent) was accompanied by almost no price movement (table 1). If anything, the output data tend to lead the price data. Nevertheless, as we will 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Real GDP 100 86.9 77.6 64.0 60.9 GDP deflator 100 97.5 88.5 79.5 77.5 Nominal wage, manufacturing 100 99.1 94.1 83.5 79.9 Real wage, manufacturing 100 102.1 106.8 106.5 104.2 Real wage, nonmanufacturing, nonmining 100 98.6 96.9 92.4 85.6 NOTE: Data are indexed to 1929 values. SOURCE: Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, “Re-Examining the Contributions of Money and Banking Shocks to the U.S. Great Depression,” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, edited by Ben Bernanke and Kenneth Rogoff (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001). point out later, the magnitude of the deflation may magnitude and severity of the economic contraction. Rather than exhuming the bodies of history, why not consider a few contemporary cases? Japan, Even if we grant that deflation was a central cause still struggling through a decade-long period of of the Great Depression, we should not forget the subpar growth, is cited most often in the case positive experiences the United States and other against deflation. From 1992 through 2001, that countries have had during periods of mild deflation. nation’s real GDP growth averaged a mere 1 percent For example, from 1880 to 1896, the wholesale price per year. The price level fell at an average rate of level in the United States fell 30 percent—nearly about 1/2 percent per year during that period, and, 2 percent per year. Far from being a period of gloom by the beginning of 2003, Japan’s economy had and doom, this deflation accompanied a period of experienced deflation in four of the previous five relative prosperity: Real income increased 85 percent years (table 2). 3 over this time span, nearly 5 percent per year. 2. Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States 1867 – 1960 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963). 2002 ANNUAL REPORT have played an important role in determining the 3. For a discussion of this period in the United States and Canada, see Michael D. Bordo and Angela Redish, “Is Deflation Depressing? Evidence from the Classical Gold Standard,” National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. w9520, March 2003. 9 How prominent a role does deflation play in the concerned about deflation? To answer these ques- explanation of Japan’s poor economic performance? tions, it is necessary to look more closely at some of Although that country’s economic malaise appears the causal mechanisms that economists offer to to have been triggered by other factors (such as explain how deflation contributes to output a malfunctioning banking system), many analysts declines. We will find that, in hindsight, the prob- believe mild deflation has inhibited its recovery. lems that have been attributed to deflation are, in This interpretation is reinforced by the seeming many instances—most instances, perhaps—the impotence of monetary policy—with nominal result of phenomena that are distinct from or not interest rates near zero—to reignite the economy. confined to deflation. TABLE 2: OUTPUT AND PRICES IN CHINA, 1990 – 2002 (percent change) 1990 1991 1992 1993 Real GNP 4.2 9.1 14.1 13.1 General retail price index 2.1 3.0 5.3 13.0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 12.6 9.0 9.8 8.6 7.8 7.2 8.4 7.0 n.a. 21.7 14.8 6.1 0.7 – 2.5 – 3.0 –1.5 – 0.8 –1.3 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TABLE 3: OUTPUT AND PRICES IN JAPAN, 1990 – 2002 (percent change) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Real GDP 5.2 3.3 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.9 3.6 1.8 –1.2 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.6 Consumer price index 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.3 0.7 – 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.7 – 0.3 – 0.7 – 0.8 – 0.9 SOURCES: China National Bureau of Statistics; China State Statistical Bureau; Japan Cabinet Office; Japan Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts, and Telecommunications; and Haver Analytics. But the very visible example of Japan may have overshadowed a neighboring counterexample. Those Take, for example, the idea that nominal wages who believe that deflation is everywhere and always are downwardly rigid. This notion has a long history associated with recession must account for the in macroeconomic analysis, appearing in John situation in the People’s Republic of China, where Maynard Keynes’ 1936 analysis of the business cycle real GDP has been growing between 6 percent and (which was itself motivated by the experience of the 8 percent per annum for several years, despite Great Depression). Clearly, deflation is problematic deflation (table 3). in such an environment. If employers cannot reduce As we will see, the contrasts between Japan and China—a struggling, mature economy versus a robust, developing country with a relatively small capital stock (hence, high return to investment)— FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND D E F L AT I O N A N D T H E L A B O R M A R K E T 4 nominal wages, even when prices are falling, the relative cost of labor will increase and firms will respond by using fewer workers—with the attendant effect of income and production losses. are central to our assessment of the impact of But the problems associated with downwardly falling prices. At this point, however, several rigid dollar wages are not confined to deflationary questions remain: To the extent that deflation environments. Everyone’s wages do not move in may emerge at some point in the United States, tandem. Keeping labor markets in balance requires which experiences provide a better reference point, that workers’ wages continuously rise and fall in the United States of the 1880s or the 1930s, China, relation to one another, regardless of the overall or Japan today? When should central bankers be inflation rate. Even when inflation is positive, changes in labor markets may require actual wage reductions for some workers. If employees are unwilling to accept nominal wage cuts, then their relative wages will increase, resulting in some 4. John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1964), p. 232. 10 employment loss. Lower inflation obviously increases A similar story holds true for net-debtor house- the number of workers affected by downwardly holds: A shock that weakens these consumers’ sticky nominal wages—and perhaps the magnitude net worth positions will impair their ability to matters—but deflation does not change the nature service their existing debt burdens and borrow for of the problem. It is reasonable to suppose that additional consumption. Conventional textbook the economic disruptions are nearly as large at low macroeconomics points to a subsequent decline in positive inflation rates as they would be at small consumer spending as a source of output decline. deflation rates. More sophisticated treatments, however, might look In any case, nominal wages may not be as downwardly sticky as one might suspect, especially in situations where the economic burden of not adjusting nominal payments is particularly high. Evidence indicates that during the Great Depression, for example, nominal wages did decline. One recent to a surge in bankruptcies and more restrictive borrowing constraints as a drag on growth because of the associated reduction in productive financial intermediation. In either case, the health of private balance sheets is an essential component of macroeconomic fortunes. study suggests that during the Depression, the How might deflation affect the balance sheets of aggregate real wage actually decreased 3 percent, businesses and consumers? In short, by inducing implying that nominal wages fell more than the a redistribution of wealth from debtors to creditors. 5 Falling prices imply an increase in the real debt price level. burden of firms and households, weakening their D I S T I N G U I S H I N G D E F L AT I O N F R O M D I S I N F L AT I O N The tendency to blame deflation for economic distress extends as much—or more —to capital financial condition and reducing the prospects for sustaining the pace of economic activities that rely on access to credit markets. markets. In 1933, the famous economist Irving Fisher But the debt-deflation problem we’ve just described proposed an explanation known as “debt-deflation” is not unique to episodes during which the general 6 as the root cause of the Great Depression. Modern price level literally falls. It is also a problem when versions of the debt-deflation story begin with the the rate of price-level change is below people’s observation that firms typically rely on external expectations. If borrowers and lenders expect the funds to finance current operations and investment price level to march upward 10 percent per year spending, and the cost of these funds is inversely (10 percent inflation), then a decline in the actual related to the firm’s position on its balance sheet. pace of price change to 5 percent (5 percent inflation) Firms with substantial positive net worth can obtain will distribute wealth away from borrowers and financing at a low cost, while the converse is true toward lenders. Unanticipated disinflation in the of firms with weak asset positions. Shocks that early 1980s and again in the early 1990s created just redistribute wealth away from firms may impede such a situation. In this respect, the effect of a drop their ability to borrow and invest, creating a barrier in the inflation rate from 10 percent to 5 percent to productive activity that contributes to overall is the same as if the price level unexpectedly fell economic weakness. 5 percent (5 percent deflation) when everyone expected it to remain constant (zero inflation). Thus, the burden that deflation places on debtors from the deflation itself. 5. Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, “Re-Examining the Contributions of Money and Banking Shocks to the U.S. Great Depression,” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, edited by Ben Bernanke and Kenneth Rogoff (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001). 2002 ANNUAL REPORT stems from the fact that it is unanticipated, not 6. Irving Fisher, “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica, vol. 1, no. 4 (1933), pp. 337–57. 11 T H E C A S E A G A I N S T D E F L AT I O N rates can only move higher. This short-circuits To this point, it may seem that we are reluctant the natural market processes that, under normal to ascribe any negative effects at all to deflation. circumstances, would push real interest rates even Thus far, we have not identified a set of economic lower. Rising real interest rates, engendered by links through which deflation could pose a unique growing deflationary expectations at the zero macroeconomic risk. In our examples, deflation nominal interest rate bound, are the exact opposite is inappropriately blamed because (1) it coincides of what the doctor would order in times of economic with events that actually have little or nothing stress. Now the only way that real interest rates to do with deflation (relative price movements); can be made to fall—thus spurring the market (2) complications arise from institutional features forces that contribute to a rebound in economic that are not unique to deflation (as in downward activity—is for the central bank to credibly inflexibility of wages); or (3) output losses following engineer future inflation. from unanticipated disinflation (a class of pricechange outcomes in which deflation has no special status). Do any circumstances remain in which a perfectly anticipated, reasonably stable rate of deflation might pose a problem? Yes. Recall that the nominal market interest rates we The central bank’s inability to lower nominal rates that already reside at zero, along with the implications for real rates if deflationary pressures continued to build, is the strongest case against policies that engineer (or allow) persistently negative inflation rates. But just how strong a case is it? observe have two components: a real return to saving and an adjustment for the expected rate of price change. If the anticipated deflation rate is large enough and the real return to saving low enough, then nominal rates might plunge toward zero, and may even be “pressed” against that floor. This result, many believe, could create an undesirable 7 macroeconomic outcome. The large deflation of the Depression occurred because the (relatively inexperienced) Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to contract. This deflation was long enough and severe enough that it became embedded in people’s expectations, and thus in nominal interest rates. Separately, the real interest If nominal interest rates fall to zero, the symmetry rate—or the real return to capital—was also low between inflation and deflation may break down. because of forces that were depressing economic There is, presumably, no upper bound on nominal activity. Because the nominal interest rate is the sum interest rates, but there is a lower bound: They of the real component and (in this case) a negative cannot fall below zero. If the nominal interest rate “premium” for expected deflation, short-term were negative, no one would bother to hold the nominal interest rates were near zero during most usual interest-bearing assets because the return from of the Depression. simply putting money under the mattress would be greater. Obviously, once nominal interest rates FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND Z E R O I N T E R E S T R AT E S AND THE LIQUIDITY TRAP reach the zero bound, the central bank’s capacity to reduce that rate is gone. Worse yet, once the nominal interest rate is zero, expectations of additional deflationary pressure mean that real interest If low real interest rates and deflationary monetary policy contributed to the problem, why not simply expand the money supply, reversing the forces that set the wheels in motion in the first place? Unfortunately, this is a situation in which the normal processes don’t necessarily work. The problem is that the increased money supply may have trouble finding its way out of banks and into the economy, 7. While the Friedman rule suggests that nominal interest rates should be very low, this analysis suggests that actually reducing them to zero could be problematic. 12 THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM thereby preventing “reflation.” Some observers maintain that Japan has been pursuing what it The practical relevance of the liquidity trap is a regards as an aggressively expansionary monetary matter of considerable debate among economists policy for the past two years, but to no avail, because and policymakers, and central banks have little 8 its approach has been too conventional. Although experience with zero nominal interest rates. This nonstandard tactics might be more successful, their brings us back to the central question posed earlier very idiosyncrasies illustrate why a central bank in this essay: How dangerous is deflation? Should might be reluctant to try them. The challenge is to we view it in light of the experience of the United find ways for the increased money supply to move States during the 1880s or China today? Or should 9 out of the banking system and into the economy. This problem may arise because, when the interest we think of it more in the light of the United States during the 1930s and Japan today? rate is zero, interest-bearing assets and money are Perhaps the answer to these questions is “all of the nearly indistinguishable. Even if the central bank above.” The liquidity trap is not typically a problem created more money, commercial banks would not in times of optimism and rapid growth. The key is necessarily lend this money. Banks could simply the real interest rate: In good times, the productivity hold the money as reserves and earn the same of capital is rising and the demand for funds to return as if they loaned the money to those seeking finance consumption and investment is high. In bad to finance investment projects and consumption. times, the opposite is true. Accordingly, real interest This condition, or one like it, is sometimes referred rates tend to rise during good times and fall during to as the “liquidity trap.” 10 The only way for a central bank to get out of a liquidity trap, it seems, is to promise to significantly expand the money supply both today and in the bad times. To the extent that zero nominal interest rates and liquidity traps represent the real dangers of deflation, the problems are most likely to occur in times of economic distress. future —and to deliver on that promise. With Deflation alone—even anticipated deflation—does enough monetary expansion, some of this money not necessarily imply zero nominal interest rates eventually will find its way into the economy, and liquidity traps, provided the real interest rate increasing inflationary expectations and, in turn, is sufficiently positive (the normal state of affairs). nominal interest rates. This instrument is very blunt, In some sense, then, we have come full circle: There however, and fine-tuning inflation expectations is is nothing special about deflation in and of itself. extremely difficult even in the best of times. Over- The greater and more anticipated the pace of price- shooting is likely, and the cost of this inflationary level decline, the greater the chance that we will policy may be the central bank’s hard-won credibility. find ourselves with a problem. Again, however, the danger is not deflation itself, but the liquidity traps that might arise when nominal interest rates 8. Bennett McCallum discusses several nonstandard approaches in his paper “Japanese Monetary Policy, 1991–2001,” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 1 (2003), pp. 1–32. 9. Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke suggests several ways that a central bank could operate if short-run policy rates hit zero. See “Deflation: Making Sure it ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here,” remarks before the National Economists’ Club, Washington D.C., November 21, 2002, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/ 20021121/default.htm. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT approach zero. 10. A formal model in which low nominal interest rates can dampen economic activity by reducing the level of financial intermediation can be found in Bruce Smith, “Taking Intermediation Seriously,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, forthcoming. 13 CONCLUSION Other economists contend, however, that such a It seems certain to us that a good deal of deflation solution is unnecessarily restrictive. Should a few angst is misplaced. Some businessmen mistakenly bad deflation experiences make central banks wary fear deflation when it is only the relative prices of any growth deflation? How strong is the evidence of the goods or services they produce that are that small deflations are harmful, especially if the declining. Second, some of the disruptions attributed central bank can credibly commit to ensuring these to deflation arise, not because the price level is episodes are short-lived? Should central banks avoid actually falling, but because prices are rising more targeting near-zero inflation rates simply because slowly than was anticipated. Unexpectedly low doing so inevitably implies the actual inflation rate inflation raises the debt burdens of borrowers occasionally may be negative? and the real labor costs to employers as much as unexpected deflation. Clearly, each of these effects can have a negative influence on aggregate economic activity, but they arise from the unanticipated nature of the price event, not deflation itself. Positions in this debate obviously depend on one’s view of how desirable deflation is in normal times, how dangerous one thinks liquidity traps are, and how quickly and credibly one believes central banks can act to avoid them. Countries whose central One of our goals in this essay has been to highlight banks have explicit inflation targets already have situations in which deflation has been confounded had to decide whether to include zero in their target with other circumstances and effects. We do so, not ranges and under what circumstances, if any, to argue that deflation is always innocuous, but to deflation is acceptable. In the United States, more focus the discussion on the problems that are truly attention is being paid to the desirability of inflation unique to negative rates of inflation. We conclude targeting and the setting of explicit, transparent that deflation is not everywhere and always some- goals for monetary policy. Because participants in thing to be feared and avoided. Nevertheless, we that discussion must come to terms with deflation, recognize that central bankers must be wary of we hope this essay plays a constructive role in circumstances in which nominal interest rates shaping the future course of U.S. monetary policy. 11 approach the zero bound. We find that we are left with more questions than answers. If the implications of deflation differ with the context, should monetary policy be tailored to the specific types of deflation? Or is a one-size-fitsall policy approach the better alternative? In either case, what might the policy regimes look like? Many economists believe so strongly that liquidity traps threaten the economy that they want central FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND banks to avoid the zero interest rate bound altogether. 14 Consequently, they advocate gearing policy to always avoid deflation—and even zero inflation as a further cushion. These supporters claim it is best to commit to low but positive inflation rates. 11. See, for example, Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke’s speech, “A Perspective on Inflation Targeting,” presented at the Annual Washington Policy Conference of the National Association of Business Economists, Washington, D.C., March 25, 2003, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2003/20030325/default.htm. FINANCIAL CONTENTS 17 Management’s Report on Responsibility for Financial Reporting 18 Report of Independent Accountants on Financial Reporting 19 Report of Independent Accountants on Financial Statements 20 Comparative Financial Statements 22 Notes to Financial Statements M A N A G E M E N T ’ S R E P O RT O N R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y F O R F I N A N C I A L R E P O RT I N G March 5, 2003 To the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland: The management of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (“FRBC”) is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the Statement of Financial Condition, Statement of Income, and Statement of Changes in Capital as of December 31, 2002 (the “Financial Statements”). The Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with the accounting principles, policies, and practices established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and as set forth in the Financial Accounting Manual for the Federal Reserve Banks (“Manual”), and as such, include amounts, some of which are based on judgments and estimates of management. To our knowledge, the Financial Statements are, in all material respects, fairly presented in conformity with the accounting principles, policies and practices documented in the Manual and include all disclosures necessary for such fair presentation. The management of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is responsible for maintaining an effective process of internal controls over financial reporting including the safeguarding of assets as they relate to the Financial Statements. Such internal controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance to management and to the Board of Directors regarding the preparation of reliable Financial Statements. This process of internal controls contains self-monitoring mechanisms, including, but not limited to, divisions of responsibility and a code of conduct. Once identified, any material deficiencies in the process of internal controls are reported to management, and appropriate corrective measures are implemented. Even an effective process of internal controls, no matter how well designed, has inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error, and therefore can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to the preparation of reliable financial statements. The management of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland assessed its process of internal controls over financial reporting including the safeguarding of assets reflected in the Financial Statements, based upon the criteria established in the “Internal Control–Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, we believe that the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland maintained an effective process of internal controls over President and Chief Executive Officer Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland 2002 ANNUAL REPORT financial reporting including the safeguarding of assets as they relate to the Financial Statements. 17 R E P O RT O F I N D E P E N D E N T A C C O U N TA N T S O N F I N A N C I A L R E P O RT I N G PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. To the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland: We have examined management’s assertion that the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (“FRB Cleveland”) maintained effective internal control over financial reporting and the safeguarding of assets as they relate to the financial statements as of December 31, 2002, based on criteria described in “Internal Control–Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion. FRB Cleveland’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and the safeguarding of assets as they relate to the financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of the internal control over financial reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of the internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. In our opinion, management’s assertion that the FRB Cleveland maintained effective internal control over financial reporting and over the safeguarding of assets as they relate to the financial statements as of December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on criteria described in “Internal Control–Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND the Treadway Commission. 18 March 3, 2003 Cleveland, Ohio R E P O RT O F I N D E P E N D E N T A C C O U N TA N T S O N F I N A N C I A L S TAT E M E N T S PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. To the Board Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland: We have audited the accompanying statements of condition of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (the “Bank”) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of income and changes in capital for the years then ended, which have been prepared in conformity with the accounting principles, policies, and practices established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Bank’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed in Note 3, the financial statements were prepared in conformity with the accounting principles, policies, and practices established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. These principles, policies, and practices, which were designed to meet the specialized accounting and reporting needs of the Federal Reserve System, are set forth in the “Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks” and constitute a comprehensive basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bank as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and results of its operations for the years then ended, in conformity with the basis of accounting described in Note 3. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT March 3, 2003 Cleveland, Ohio 19 Comparative Financial Statements S TAT E M E N T S OF CONDITION As of December 31, 2002 As of December 31, 2001 (in millions) ASSETS Gold certificates Special drawing rights certificates Coin $ 522 104 $ 538 104 43 61 764 219 35,264 32,885 1,531 996 Accrued interest receivable 301 334 Bank premises and equipment, net 182 181 64 62 $ 38,775 $ 35,380 $ 28,170 $ 30,620 1,164 — 1,393 1,103 4 4 685 224 71 28 5,818 2,008 58 56 Items in process of collection U.S. government and federal agency securities, net Investments denominated in foreign currencies Other assets Total assets L I A B I L I T I E S A N D C A P I TA L Liabilities: Federal Reserve notes outstanding, net Securities sold under agreements to repurchase Deposits: Depository institutions Other deposits Deferred credit items Interest on Federal Reserve notes due U.S. Treasury FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND Interdistrict settlement account 20 Accrued benefit costs Other liabilities 8 7 $ 37,371 $ 34,050 Capital paid-in 702 665 Surplus 702 665 1,404 1,330 $ 38,775 $ 35,380 Total liabilities Capital: Total capital Total liabilities and capital The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. S TAT E M E N T S OF INCOME (in millions) For the year ended December 31, 2002 For the year ended December 31, 2001 $ 1,410 $ 1,708 24 22 Interest income: Interest on U.S. government and federal agency securities Interest on investments denominated in foreign currencies Interest on loans to depository institutions Total interest income — 1 1,434 1,731 1 — 1,433 1,731 66 65 Interest expense: Interest expense on securities sold under agreements to repurchase Net interest income Other operating income (loss): Income from services Reimbursable services to government agencies 26 23 194 (98) U.S. government securities gains, net 4 18 Other income 4 5 Foreign currency gains (losses), net $ Total other operating income 294 $ 13 Operating expenses: Salaries and other benefits 86 81 Occupancy expense 11 13 Equipment expense 13 12 Assessments by Board of Governors 40 39 Other expenses 46 55 196 200 $ 1,531 $ 1,544 $ $ Total operating expenses Net income prior to distribution Distribution of net income: Dividends paid to member banks Transferred to surplus 30 37 193 1,452 1,321 $ 1,531 $ 1,544 Payments to U.S. Treasury as interest on Federal Reserve notes Total distribution 42 S TAT E M E N T S O F CHANGES IN CAPITAL For the years ended December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001 Capital paid-in Balance at January 1, 2001 (9.4 million shares) $ Net income transferred to surplus $ — Net change in capital stock issued (3.9 million shares) Balance at December 31, 2001 (13.3 million shares) 472 Surplus 193 193 $ 665 472 $ Total capital $ 944 193 — 193 665 $ 1,330 Net income transferred to surplus — 37 37 Net change in capital stock issued (0.7 million shares) 37 — 37 702 $ 1,404 Balance at December 31, 2002 (14 million shares) $ 702 $ 2002 ANNUAL REPORT (in millions) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 21 Notes to Financial Statements 1. STRUCTURE The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (“Bank”) is part of the Federal Reserve System (“System”) created by Congress under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (“Federal Reserve Act”) which established the central bank of the United States. The System consists of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board of Governors”) and twelve Federal Reserve Banks (“Reserve Banks”). The Reserve Banks are chartered by the federal government and possess a unique set of governmental, corporate, and central bank characteristics. The Bank and its branches in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh serve the Fourth Federal Reserve District, which includes Ohio and a portion of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Other major elements of the System are the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) and the Federal Advisory Council. The FOMC is composed of members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”) and, on a rotating basis, four other Reserve Bank presidents. Banks that are members of the System include all national banks and any state chartered bank that applies and is approved for membership in the System. Board of Directors In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, supervision and control of the Bank are exercised by a Board of Directors. The Federal Reserve Act specifies the composition of the Board of Directors for each of the Reserve Banks. Each board is composed of nine members serving three-year terms: three directors, including those designated as Chairman and Deputy Chairman, are appointed by the Board of Governors, and six directors are elected by member banks. Of the six elected by member banks, three represent the public and three represent member banks. Member banks are divided into three classes according to size. Member banks in each class elect one director representing member banks and one representing the public. In any election of directors, each member bank receives one vote, regardless of the number of shares of Reserve Bank stock it holds. 2 . O P E R AT I O N S A N D S E RV I C E S The System performs a variety of services and operations. Functions include: formulating and conducting monetary policy; participating actively in the payments mechanism, including large-dollar transfers of funds, automated clearinghouse (“ACH”) operations and check processing; distributing coin and currency; performing fiscal agency functions for the U.S. Treasury and certain federal agencies; serving as the federal government’s bank; providing short-term loans to depository institutions; serving the consumer and the community by providing educational materials and information regarding consumer laws; supervising bank holding companies and state member banks; and administering other regulations of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors’ operating costs are funded through assessments on the Reserve Banks. The FOMC establishes policy regarding open market operations, oversees these operations, and issues authorizations and directives to the FRBNY for its execution of transactions. Authorized transaction types include direct purchase and sale of securities, matched sale-purchase transactions, the purchase of securities under agreements to resell, the sale of securities under agreements to repurchase, and the lending of U.S. government securities. The FRBNY is also authorized by the FOMC to hold balances of, and to execute spot and forward foreign exchange (“F/X”) and securities contracts in nine foreign currencies, maintain reciprocal currency arrangements (“F/X swaps”) with various central banks, and “warehouse” foreign currencies for the U.S. Treasury and Exchange Stabilization Fund (“ESF”) through the Reserve Banks. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND 3. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Accounting principles for entities with the unique powers and responsibilities of the nation’s central bank have not been formulated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The Board of Governors has developed specialized accounting principles and practices that it believes are appropriate for the significantly different nature and function of a central bank as compared to the private sector. These accounting principles and practices are documented in the Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks (“Financial Accounting Manual”), which is issued by the Board of Governors. All Reserve Banks are required to adopt and apply accounting policies and practices that are consistent with the Financial Accounting Manual. 22 The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Financial Accounting Manual. Differences exist between the accounting principles and practices of the System and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The primary differences are the presentation of all security holdings at amortized cost, rather than at the fair value presentation requirements of GAAP, and the accounting for matched sale-purchase transactions as separate sales and purchases, rather than secured borrowings with pledged collateral, as is generally required by GAAP. In addition, the Bank has elected not to present a Statement of Cash Flows. The Statement of Cash Flows has not been included as the liquidity and cash position of the Bank are not of primary concern to the users of these financial statements. Other information regarding the Bank’s activities is provided in, or may be derived from, the Statements of Condition, Income, and Changes in Capital. Therefore, a Statement of Cash Flows would not provide any additional useful information. There are no other significant differences between the policies outlined in the Financial Accounting Manual and GAAP. Effective January 2001, the System implemented procedures to eliminate the sharing of costs by Reserve Banks for certain services a Reserve Bank may provide on behalf of the System. Major services provided for the System by the Bank, for which the costs were not redistributed to the other Reserve Banks, include: Retail Payment Office, Savings Bonds Software, Check Standardization Project, Cash Materials Handling Software, Audit Application Competency Center, and Electronic Access Products. The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with the Financial Accounting Manual requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Unique accounts and significant accounting policies are explained below. a. Gold Certificates The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to issue gold certificates to the Reserve Banks to monetize gold held by the U.S. Treasury. Payment for the gold certificates by the Reserve Banks is made by crediting equivalent amounts in dollars into the account established for the U.S. Treasury. These gold certificates held by the Reserve Banks are required to be backed by the gold of the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. Treasury may reacquire the gold certificates at any time and the Reserve Banks must deliver them to the U.S. Treasury. At such time, the U.S. Treasury’s account is charged and the Reserve Banks’ gold certificate accounts are lowered. The value of gold for purposes of backing the gold certificates is set by law at $42 2/9 a fine troy ounce. The Board of Governors allocates the gold certificates among Reserve Banks once a year based upon average Federal Reserve notes outstanding in each District. b. Special Drawing Rights Certificates Special drawing rights (“SDRs”) are issued by the International Monetary Fund (“Fund”) to its members in proportion to each member’s quota in the Fund at the time of issuance. SDRs serve as a supplement to international monetary reserves and may be transferred from one national monetary authority to another. Under the law providing for United States participation in the SDR system, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury is authorized to issue SDR certificates, somewhat like gold certificates, to the Reserve Banks. At such time, equivalent amounts in dollars are credited to the account established for the U.S. Treasury, and the Reserve Banks’ SDR certificate accounts are increased. The Reserve Banks are required to purchase SDRs, at the direction of the U.S. Treasury, for the purpose of financing SDR certificate acquisitions or for financing exchange stabilization operations. At the time SDR transactions occur, the Board of Governors allocates SDR certificate transactions among Reserve Banks based upon Federal Reserve notes outstanding in each District at the end of the preceding year. There were no SDR transactions in 2002. c. Loans to Depository Institutions The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 provides that all depository institutions that maintain reservable transaction accounts or nonpersonal time deposits, as defined in Regulation D issued by the Board of Governors, have borrowing privileges at the discretion of the Reserve Banks. Borrowers execute certain lending agreements and deposit sufficient collateral before credit is extended. Loans are evaluated for collectibility, and currently all are considered collectible and fully collateralized. If loans were ever deemed to be uncollectible, an appropriate reserve would be established. Interest is accrued using the applicable discount rate established at least every fourteen days by the Boards of Directors of the Reserve Banks, subject to review by the Board of Governors. Reserve Banks retain the option to impose a surcharge above the basic rate in certain circumstances. There were no outstanding loans to depository institutions at December 31, 2002 and 2001. d. U.S. Government and Federal Agency Securities and Investments Denominated in Foreign Currencies The FOMC has designated the FRBNY to execute open market transactions on its behalf and to hold the resulting securities in the portfolio known as the System Open Market Account (“SOMA”). In addition to authorizing and directing operations in the domestic securities market, the FOMC authorizes and directs the FRBNY to execute operations in foreign markets for major currencies in order to counter disorderly conditions in exchange markets or to meet other needs specified by the FOMC in carrying out the System’s central bank responsibilities. Such authorizations are reviewed and approved annually by the FOMC. In December 2002, the FRBNY replaced matched sale-purchase (“MSP”) transactions with securities sold under agreements to repurchase. MSP transactions, accounted for as separate sale and purchase transactions, are transactions in which the FRBNY sells a security and buys it back at the rate specified at the commencement of the transaction. Securities sold under agreements to repurchase are treated as secured borrowing transactions with the associated interest expense recognized over the life of the transaction. The FRBNY has sole authorization by the FOMC to lend U.S. government securities held in the SOMA to U.S. government securities dealers and to banks participating in U.S. government securities clearing arrangements on behalf of the System, in order to facilitate the effective functioning of the domestic securities market. These securities-lending transactions are fully collateralized by other U.S. government securities. FOMC policy requires FRBNY to take possession of collateral in excess of the market values of the securities loaned. The market values of the collateral and the securities loaned are monitored by FRBNY on a daily basis, with additional collateral obtained as necessary. The securities loaned continue to be accounted for in the SOMA. F/X contracts are contractual agreements between two parties to exchange specified currencies, at a specified price, on a specified date. Spot foreign contracts normally settle two days after the trade date, whereas the settlement date on forward contracts is negotiated between the contracting parties, but will extend beyond two days from the trade date. The FRBNY generally enters into spot contracts, with any forward contracts generally limited to the second leg of a swap/warehousing transaction. The FRBNY, on behalf of the Reserve Banks, maintains renewable, short-term F/X swap arrangements with two authorized foreign central banks. The parties agree to exchange their currencies up to a pre-arranged maximum amount and for an agreed upon period of time (up to twelve months), at an agreed upon interest rate. These arrangements give the FOMC temporary access to foreign currencies that it may need for intervention operations to support the dollar and give the partner foreign central bank temporary access to dollars it may need to support its own currency. Drawings under F/X swap arrangements can be initiated by either the FRBNY or the partner foreign central bank, and must be agreed to by the drawee. The F/X swaps are structured so that the party initiating the transaction (the drawer) bears the exchange rate risk upon maturity. The FRBNY will generally invest the foreign currency received under an F/X swap in interest-bearing instruments. Warehousing is an arrangement under which the FOMC agrees to exchange, at the request of the Treasury, U.S. dollars for foreign currencies held by the Treasury or ESF over a limited period of time. The purpose of the warehousing facility is to supplement the U.S. dollar resources of the Treasury and ESF for financing purchases of foreign currencies and related international operations. In connection with its foreign currency activities, the FRBNY, on behalf of the Reserve Banks, may enter into contracts which contain varying degrees of off-balance sheet market risk, because they represent contractual commitments involving future settlement and counter-party credit risk. The FRBNY controls credit risk by obtaining credit approvals, establishing transaction limits, and performing daily monitoring procedures. U.S. government and federal agency securities and investments denominated in foreign currencies comprising the SOMA are recorded at cost, on a settlement-date basis, and adjusted for amortization of premiums or accretion of discounts on a straight-line basis. Interest income is accrued on a straight-line basis and is reported as “Interest on U.S. government and federal agency securities” or “Interest on investments denominated in foreign currencies,” as appropriate. Income earned on securities lending transactions is reported as a component of “Other income.” Gains and losses resulting from sales of securities are determined by specific issues based on average cost. Gains and losses on the sales of U.S. government and federal agency securities are reported as “U.S. government securities gains, net.” Foreign-currency-denominated assets are revalued daily at current foreign currency market exchange rates in order to report these assets in U.S. dollars. Realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments denominated in foreign currencies are reported as “Foreign currency gains (losses), net.” Foreign currencies held through F/X swaps, when initiated by the counter-party, and warehousing arrangements are revalued daily, with the unrealized gain or loss reported by the FRBNY as a component of “Other assets” or “Other liabilities,” as appropriate. Balances of U.S. government and federal agency securities bought outright, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, securities loaned, investments denominated in foreign currency, interest income and expense, securities lending fee income, amortization of premiums and discounts on securities bought outright, gains and losses on sales of securities, and realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments denominated in foreign currencies, excluding those held under an F/X swap arrangement, are allocated to each Reserve Bank. Income from securities lending transactions undertaken by the FRBNY are also allocated to each Reserve Bank. Securities purchased under agreements to resell and unrealized gains and losses on the revaluation of foreign currency holdings under F/X swaps and warehousing arrangements are allocated to the FRBNY and not to other Reserve Banks. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT While the application of current market prices to the securities currently held in the SOMA portfolio and investments denominated in foreign currencies may result in values substantially above or below their carrying values, these unrealized changes in value would have no direct effect on the quantity of reserves available to the banking system or on the prospects for future Reserve Bank earnings or capital. Both the domestic and foreign components of the SOMA portfolio from time to time involve transactions that can result in gains or losses when holdings are sold prior to maturity. Decisions regarding the securities and foreign currencies transactions, including their purchase and sale, are motivated by monetary policy objectives rather than profit. Accordingly, market values, earnings, and any gains or losses resulting from the sale of such currencies and securities are incidental to the open market operations and do not motivate its activities or policy decisions. 23 e. Bank Premises, Equipment, and Software Bank premises and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis over estimated useful lives of assets ranging from two to fifty years. New assets, major alterations, renovations and improvements are capitalized at cost as additions to the asset accounts. Maintenance, repairs and minor replacements are charged to operations in the year incurred. Costs incurred for software, either developed internally or acquired for internal use, during the application development stage are capitalized based on the cost of direct services and materials associated with designing, coding, installing, or testing software. f. Interdistrict Settlement Account At the close of business each day, all Reserve Banks and branches assemble the payments due to or from other Reserve Banks and branches as a result of transactions involving accounts residing in other Districts that occurred during the day’s operations. Such transactions may include funds settlement, check clearing and ACH operations, and allocations of shared expenses. The cumulative net amount due to or from other Reserve Banks is reported as the “Interdistrict settlement account.” g. Federal Reserve Notes Federal Reserve notes are the circulating currency of the United States. These notes are issued through the various Federal Reserve agents (the Chairman of the Board of Directors of each Reserve Bank) to the Reserve Banks upon deposit with such agents of certain classes of collateral security, typically U.S. government securities. These notes are identified as issued to a specific Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Act provides that the collateral security tendered by the Reserve Bank to the Federal Reserve agent must be equal to the sum of the notes applied for by such Reserve Bank. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, gold certificates, special drawing rights certificates, U.S. government and federal agency securities, securities purchased under agreements to resell, loans to depository institutions, and investments denominated in foreign currencies are pledged as collateral for net Federal Reserve notes outstanding. The collateral value is equal to the book value of the collateral tendered, with the exception of securities, whose collateral value is equal to the par value of the securities tendered, and securities purchased under agreements to resell, which are valued at the contract amount. The par value of securities pledged for securities sold under agreements to repurchase is similarly deducted. The Board of Governors may, at any time, call upon a Reserve Bank for additional security to adequately collateralize the Federal Reserve notes. The Reserve Banks have entered into an agreement which provides for certain assets of the Reserve Banks to be jointly pledged as collateral for the Federal Reserve notes of all Reserve Banks in order to satisfy their obligation of providing sufficient collateral for outstanding Federal Reserve notes. In the event that this collateral is insufficient, the Federal Reserve Act provides that Federal Reserve notes become a first and paramount lien on all the assets of the Reserve Banks. Finally, as obligations of the United States, Federal Reserve notes are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. The “Federal Reserve notes outstanding, net” account represents the Bank’s Federal Reserve notes outstanding, reduced by its currency holdings of $4,417 million and $4,316 million at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. h. Capital Paid-in The Federal Reserve Act requires that each member bank subscribe to the capital stock of the Reserve Bank in an amount equal to 6 percent of the capital and surplus of the member bank. As a member bank’s capital and surplus changes, its holdings of the Reserve Bank’s stock must be adjusted. Member banks are those state chartered banks that apply and are approved for membership in the System and all national banks. Currently, only one-half of the subscription is paid-in and the remainder is subject to call. These shares are nonvoting with a par value of $100. They may not be transferred or hypothecated. By law, each member bank is entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on the paid-in capital stock. This cumulative dividend is paid semiannually. A member bank is liable for Reserve Bank liabilities up to twice the par value of stock subscribed by it. i. Surplus The Board of Governors requires Reserve Banks to maintain a surplus equal to the amount of capital paid-in as of December 31. This amount is intended to provide additional capital and reduce the possibility that the Reserve Banks would be required to call on member banks for additional capital. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, Reserve Banks are required by the Board of Governors to transfer to the U.S. Treasury excess earnings, after providing for the costs of operations, payment of dividends, and reservation of an amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in. In the event of losses or a substantial increase in capital, payments to the U.S. Treasury are suspended until such losses are recovered through subsequent earnings. Weekly payments to the U.S. Treasury may vary significantly. j. Income and Costs Related to Treasury Services The Bank is required by the Federal Reserve Act to serve as fiscal agent and depository of the United States. By statute, the Department of the Treasury is permitted, but not required, to pay for these services. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND k. Taxes The Reserve Banks are exempt from federal, state, and local taxes, except for taxes on real property, which are reported as a component of “Occupancy expense.” 24 4. U.S. GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL AGENC Y SECURITIES Securities bought outright are held in the SOMA at the FRBNY. An undivided interest in SOMA activity and the related premiums, discounts, and income, with the exception of securities purchased under agreements to resell, is allocated to each Reserve Bank on a percentage basis derived from an annual settlement of interdistrict clearings. The settlement, performed in April of each year, equalizes Reserve Bank gold certificate holdings to Federal Reserve notes outstanding. The Bank’s allocated share of SOMA balances was approximately 5.517 percent and 5.854 percent at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The Bank’s allocated share of securities held in the SOMA at December 31, that were bought outright, was as follows (in millions): 2002 Par value: Federal agency U.S. government: Bills Notes Bonds Total par value $ Unamortized premiums Unaccreted discounts Total allocated to Bank $ 1 2001 $ 1 12,507 16,436 5,784 34,728 10,659 15,569 6,069 32,298 594 (58) 662 (75) 35,264 $ 32,885 Total SOMA securities bought outright were $639,125 million and $561,701 million at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The maturity distribution of U.S. government and federal agency securities bought outright, which were allocated to the Bank at December 31, 2002, was as follows (in millions): Maturities of Securities Held Within 15 days 16 days to 90 days 91 days to 1 year Over 1 year to 5 years Over 5 years to 10 years Over 10 years Total U.S. government securities Par value Federal agency obligations $ $ $ 1,514 8,509 7,826 9,532 2,941 4,405 34,727 $ — — 1 — — — 1 Total $ $ 1,514 8,509 7,827 9,532 2,941 4,405 34,728 As mentioned in footnote 3, in December 2002, the FRBNY replaced MSP transactions with securities sold under agreements to repurchase. At December 31, 2002, securities sold under agreements to repurchase with a contract amount of $21,091 million and a par value of $21,098 million were outstanding, of which $1,164 million and $1,164 million, respectively, were allocated to the Bank. At December 31, 2001, MSP transactions involving U.S. government securities with a par value of $23,188 million were outstanding, of which $1,358 million was allocated to the Bank. Securities sold under agreements to repurchase and MSP transactions are generally overnight arrangements. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT At December 31, 2002 and 2001, U.S. government securities with par values of $1,841 million and $7,345 million, respectively, were loaned from the SOMA, of which $102 million and $430 million were allocated to the Bank. 25 5 . I N V E S T M E N T S D E N O M I N AT E D I N F O R E I G N C U R R E N C I E S The FRBNY, on behalf of the Reserve Banks, holds foreign currency deposits with foreign central banks and the Bank for International Settlements, and invests in foreign government debt instruments. Foreign government debt instruments held include both securities bought outright and securities purchased under agreements to resell. These investments are guaranteed as to principal and interest by the foreign governments. Each Reserve Bank is allocated a share of foreign-currency-denominated assets, the related interest income, and realized and unrealized foreign currency gains and losses, with the exception of unrealized gains and losses on F/X swaps and warehousing transactions. This allocation is based on the ratio of each Reserve Bank’s capital and surplus to aggregate capital and surplus at the preceding December 31. The Bank’s allocated share of investments denominated in foreign currencies was approximately 9.053 percent and 6.844 percent at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The Bank’s allocated share of investments denominated in foreign currencies, valued at current foreign currency market exchange rates at December 31, was as follows (in millions): 2002 European Union Euro: Foreign currency deposits Government debt instruments including agreements to resell $ Japanese Yen: Foreign currency deposits Government debt instruments including agreements to resell 505 $ 314 299 185 162 129 558 364 Accrued interest Total 2001 7 $ 1,531 4 $ 996 Total investments denominated in foreign currencies were $16,913 million and $14,559 million at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The maturity distribution of investments denominated in foreign currencies which were allocated to the Bank at December 31, 2002, was as follows (in millions): Maturities of investments denominated in foreign currencies Within 1 year Over 1 year to 5 years Over 5 years to 10 years Over 10 years Total $ 1,413 82 36 — $ 1,531 At December 31, 2002 and 2001, there were no open foreign exchange contracts or outstanding F/X swaps. At December 31, 2002 and 2001, the warehousing facility was $5,000 million, with zero balance outstanding. 6. BANK PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT A summary of bank premises and equipment at December 31 is as follows (in millions): 2002 Bank premises and equipment: Land Buildings Building machinery and equipment Construction in progress Furniture and equipment $ 7 150 45 2 71 2001 $ FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND 275 26 Accumulated depreciation Bank premises and equipment, net 273 (93) $ 182 7 149 43 1 73 (92) $ 181 Depreciation expense was $11 million and $12 million for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The Bank leases unused space to outside tenants. Those leases have terms ranging from one to thirteen years. Rental income from such leases was $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable agreements in existence at December 31, 2002, were (in millions): 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Thereafter $ 1 1 1 1 1 5 $ 10 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES At December 31, 2002, the Bank was obligated under noncancelable leases for premises and equipment with terms ranging from one to approximately five years. These leases provide for increased rentals based upon increases in real estate taxes, operating costs or selected price indices. Rental expense under operating leases for certain operating facilities, warehouses, and data processing and office equipment (including taxes, insurance and maintenance when included in rent), net of sublease rentals, was $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. Certain of the Bank’s leases have options to renew. Future minimum rental payments under noncancelable operating leases and capital leases, net of sublease rentals, with terms of one year or more, at December 31, 2002, were (in thousands): Operating 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Thereafter $ 140 144 147 151 102 0 $ 684 At December 31, 2002, the Bank, acting on behalf of the Reserve Banks, had contractual commitments through the year 2005 totaling $27 million, none of which has been recognized. These contracts represent equipment, maintenance, software, and other miscellaneous costs for Check operations and the Check Modernization project that will be allocated annually to other Reserve Banks. It is estimated that the Bank’s allocation share will be $6 million. Under the Insurance Agreement of the Federal Reserve Banks dated as of March 2, 1999, each of the Reserve Banks has agreed to bear, on a per incident basis, a pro rata share of losses in excess of 1 percent of the capital paid-in of the claiming Reserve Bank, up to 50 percent of the total capital paid-in of all Reserve Banks. Losses are borne in the ratio that a Reserve Bank’s capital paid-in bears to the total capital paid-in of all Reserve Banks at the beginning of the calendar year in which the loss is shared. No claims were outstanding under such agreement at December 31, 2002 or 2001. The Bank is involved in certain legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, in management’s opinion, based on discussions with counsel, the aforementioned litigation and claims will be resolved without material adverse effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Bank. 8. RETIREMENT AND THRIFT PLANS Retirement Plans The Bank currently offers two defined benefit retirement plans to its employees, based on length of service and level of compensation. Substantially all of the Bank’s employees participate in the Retirement Plan for Employees of the Federal Reserve System (“System Plan”) and the Benefit Equalization Retirement Plan (“BEP”), and certain Bank officers participate in a Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan (“SERP”). The System Plan is a multi-employer plan with contributions fully funded by participating employers. No separate accounting is maintained of assets contributed by the participating employers. The Bank’s projected benefit obligation and net pension costs for the BEP at December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the SERP at December 31, 2002, and for the years then ended, are not material. Thrift Plan Employees of the Bank may also participate in the defined contribution Thrift Plan for Employees of the Federal Reserve System (“Thrift Plan”). The Bank’s Thrift Plan contributions totaled $3 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, and are reported as a component of “Salaries and other benefits.” 9 . P O S T R E T I R E M E N T B E N E F I T S O T H E R T H A N P E N S I O N S A N D P O S T E M P LOY M E N T B E N E F I T S Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions In addition to the Bank’s retirement plans, employees who have met certain age and length of service requirements are eligible for both medical benefits and life insurance coverage during retirement. The Bank funds benefits payable under the medical and life insurance plans as due and, accordingly, has no plan assets. Net postretirement benefit costs are actuarially determined using a January 1 measurement date. Following is a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of the benefit obligation (in millions): 2001 $ 40.8 1.1 2.8 1.6 0.2 (2.0) — $ 39.4 1.0 2.7 0.4 0.2 (1.9) (1.0) Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at December 31 $ 44.5 $ 40.8 2002 ANNUAL REPORT 2002 Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at January 1 Service cost-benefits earned during the period Interest cost of accumulated benefit obligation Actuarial loss Contributions by plan participants Benefits paid Plan amendments 27 Following is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of the plan assets, the unfunded postretirement benefit obligation, and the accrued postretirement benefit costs (in millions): 2002 Fair value of plan assets at January 1 Actual return on plan assets Contributions by the employer Contributions by plan participants Benefits paid $ — — 1.8 0.2 (2.0) 2001 $ — — 1.7 0.2 (1.9) Fair value of plan assets at December 31 $ — $ — Unfunded postretirement benefit obligation Unrecognized initial net transition asset (obligation) Unrecognized prior service cost Unrecognized net actuarial gain $ 44.5 — 0.9 6.3 $ 40.8 — 1.0 8.2 Accrued postretirement benefit costs $ 51.7 $ 50.0 Accrued postretirement benefit costs are reported as a component of “Accrued benefit costs.” At December 31, 2002 and 2001, the weighted average discount rate assumptions used in developing the benefit obligation were 6.75 percent and 7.00 percent, respectively. For measurement purposes, a 9.00 percent annual rate of increase in the cost of covered health care benefits was assumed for 2003. Ultimately, the health care cost trend rate is expected to decrease gradually to 5.00 percent by 2008, and remain at that level thereafter. Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for health care plans. A one percentage point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would have the following effects for the year ended December 31, 2002 (in millions): One percentage point increase Effect on aggregate of service and interest cost components of net periodic postretirement benefit costs Effect on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation $ One percentage point decrease 0.8 7.5 $ (0.6) (5.9) The following is a summary of the components of net periodic postretirement benefit costs for the years ended December 31 (in millions): 2002 Service cost-benefits earned during the period Interest cost of accumulated benefit obligation Amortization of prior service cost Recognized net actuarial loss Net periodic postretirement benefit costs $ $ 1.1 2.8 (0.1) (0.2) 3.6 2001 $ $ 1.0 2.7 — (0.6) 3.1 Net periodic postretirement benefit costs are reported as a component of “Salaries and other benefits.” Postemployment Benefits The Bank offers benefits to former or inactive employees. Postemployment benefit costs are actuarially determined and include the cost of medical and dental insurance, survivor income, disability benefits, and self-insured workers’ compensation expenses. Costs were projected using the same discount rate and health care trend rates as were used for projecting postretirement costs. The accrued postemployment benefit costs recognized by the Bank at December 31, 2002 and 2001, were $7 million and $6 million, respectively. This cost is included as a component of “Accrued benefit costs.” Net periodic postemployment benefit costs included in 2002 and 2001 operating expenses were $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND 10. S U B S E Q U E N T E V E N T In January 2003, the System announced plans to restructure its check collection operations. The restructuring plans include streamlining the check management structure, reducing staff, decreasing the number of check-processing locations, and increasing processing capacity in other locations. The restructuring, which is expected to begin in 2003 and conclude by the end of 2004, will result in the Bank discontinuing its check operations at the Pittsburgh office, increasing its check processing capacity at the Cleveland and Cincinnati offices, and consolidating its check adjustment function at the Cleveland office. At this time, the Reserve Banks have not developed detailed estimates of the cost of the restructuring plan in the aggregate or for the individual Reserve Banks affected. 28 31 Officers and Consultants 32 Boards of Directors 34 2002 Operational Highlights 40 Business Advisory Council and Community Bank Advisory Council As of December 31, 2002 David E. Altig Douglas A. Banks President and Chief Executive Officer Vice President and Associate Director of Research Research Assistant Vice President and Consumer Affairs Officer Supervision and Regulation Sandra Pianalto First Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Terry N. Bennett Vice President Information Technology Lawrence Cuy Senior Vice President Financial Management Services, Strategic Planning, Information Technology, COSO R. Chris Moore Senior Vice President Supervision and Regulation, Credit Risk Management, Data Services Robert W. Price Senior Vice President Retail Payments Office, National Check Automation and Operations, National Product Development Susan G. Schueller Senior Vice President and General Auditor Audit Samuel D. Smith Senior Vice President Cash, Treasury Services, Savings Bonds, Facilities, Information Security, Protection, Business Continuity Mark S. Sniderman Senior Vice President and Director of Research Research, Corporate Communications, Community Affairs Peggy A. Velimesis Senior Vice President Human Resources, Payroll, Internal Communications, Quality Process, EEO Officer Robert F. Ware Senior Vice President Check, Marketing, Electronic Payments, Customer Satisfaction Andrew W. Watts Senior Vice President and General Counsel Legal, Ethics Officer Kelly A. Banks James A. Blake Assistant Vice President and Public Information Officer Corporate Communications and Public Information Senior Consultant Retail Payments Office Stephen J. Geers Raymond L. Brinkman Assistant Vice President Marketing, National Account Program Vice President Savings Bonds, EZ Clear Patrick Geyer Michael F. Bryan Assistant Vice President Electronic Payments, Standard Cash Application User Support Vice President and Economist Research Andrew C. Burkle, Jr. Vice President Supervision and Regulation Ruth M. Clevenger Vice President and Community Affairs Officer Corporate Communications and Community Affairs William D. Fosnight Vice President and Associate General Counsel Legal Barbara B. Henshaw Vice President Cincinnati Location Officer, Protection, Business Continuity Kenneth J. Good Assistant Vice President Pittsburgh Check Operations Felix Harshman Assistant Vice President Expense Accounting, Budget Joseph G. Haubrich Consultant and Economist Research Jon C. Jeswald Assistant Vice President Retail Payments Office Paul E. Kaboth Suzanne M. Howe Assistant Vice President Supervision and Regulation Vice President Electronic Payments Kenneth E. Kennard David P. Jager Assistant Vice President Protection Vice President Cash, Treasury Services, Electronic Payments Dean A. Longo Stephen H. Jenkins Consultant Information Technology Vice President Supervision and Regulation Martha Maher Rayford P. Kalich Assistant Vice President Retail Payments Office Vice President Accounting, Budget, Purchasing, Strategic Planning, COSO James W. Rakowsky Stephen J. Ong Vice President Supervision and Regulation David E. Rich Senior Consultant Information Technology Edward E. Richardson Vice President Sales, Marketing, National Account Program Terrence J. Roth Vice President Retail Payments Office, Check Products Robert B. Schaub Assistant Vice President Facilities, Business Continuity John P. Robins Consultant Supervision and Regulation Elizabeth J. Robinson Assistant Vice President Human Resources Jerome J. Schwing Assistant Vice President Cincinnati Check Operations Stacey C. Talley Assistant Vice President and Corporate Secretary Office of the Corporate Secretary Vice President Pittsburgh Location Officer, Protection, Business Continuity Henry P. Trolio Gregory L. Stefani Michael Vangelos Vice President Credit Risk Management, Data Services Assistant Vice President Information Security Edward J. Stevens Lisa Vidacs Senior Consultant and Economist Research Assistant Vice President Cleveland and Pittsburgh Cash Operations Assistant Vice President Information Technology James B. Thomson Vice President and Economist Research Joseph C. Thorp Vice President Facilities, Business Continuity Anthony Turcinov Vice President Cleveland Check Operations and Check Adjustments Charles F. Williams Vice President Cincinnati and Columbus Check Operations Darell R. Wittrup Vice President Accounting, Billing 2002 ANNUAL REPORT Officers and Consultants Jerry L. Jordan 31 2002 Operational Highlights T he mission of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is to enable the economy to achieve maximum sustainable growth by preserving the purchasing power of the dollar, promoting a strong financial system, and providing efficient and innovative payments solutions to financial institutions, the U.S. Treasury, and the public. This section summarizes the Bank’s operational achievements in these three areas. ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND MONETARY POLICY In 2002, economic developments — including rising oil prices, low inflation, low interest rates, and growing geopolitical tensions — presented new challenges and opportunities in fostering stable prices and sustainable economic growth through monetary policy. In this environment of rapid change, anticipating and preparing for such change is one of the Bank’s key responsibilities to the Fourth District and to the nation. The economic research staff are respected contributors to the discourse on topics that concern the Federal Reserve System and promote constructive discussion of those issues in the public domain. Research staff published articles and papers on monetary, economic, and banking topics in the Bank’s annual report, in its Economic Commentary series, and in Policy Discussion Papers and working papers, as well as respected academic journals. In addition, the Bank hosted a conference (together with the Journal of Money, Credit, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND and Banking) on “Recent Developments in Monetary Economics.” 34 One of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s key strategic initiatives has been the development of the Central Bank Institute. The Institute was established in 2001 to foster greater understanding of the monetary policy, supervisory, and payments aspects of central banking by promoting research and dialogue and by forging partnerships among central banks. In 2002, the Institute hosted three conferences on current monetary policy research and cosponsored two additional conferences with the Swiss National Bank and the Chicago Reserve Bank; altogether, 150 scholars took part in these programs. As part of its staff exchange program, the Institute hosted scholars from the central banks of Sweden, Austria, Azerbaijan, and the Kyrgyz Republic, while Cleveland Fed economists traveled to the Sveriges Riksbank, Bank of England, and Deutsche Bundesbank. Public outreach is one of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s key objectives, and the public tour program and speakers bureau are the cornerstones of that program. In 2002, Fourth District staff delivered more than 55 speeches, reaching over 3,000 people. Although the Bank restricted its tour program during the first half of the year, more than 2,000 visitors toured the Cleveland Fed’s historic building in 2002. In the area of economic education, the Bank again sponsored the Fed Challenge competition, in which teams of high school students participate in mock Federal Open Market Committee deliberations. In addition, the Bank launched a new program, “Great Minds Think,” which traveled to four cities across the Fourth District. The program—a partnership between the Cleveland Bank, the Ohio Department of Education, the Ohio Center for Economic Education, the Cleveland Public Schools, Jump$tart, and the Foundation for Teaching Economics— highlighted the importance of critical-thinking skills for students and educators and centered on the concept of financial literacy. Nearly 300 students and 118 teachers (who teach 12,000 students annually) attended the workshops. Altogether, participation in District educational programs increased 130 percent in 2002. The Cleveland Reserve Bank continued to develop plans for a Learning Center, which will foster a better understanding of the Bank’s purposes and functions and provide an infrastructure for its educational activities. The centerpiece of the Learning Center will be a permanent Museum of Central Banking. In 2002, the Bank installed a temporary exhibit on “What Gives Money Value?” in the Cleveland Office, and it reviewed proposals 2002 ANNUAL REPORT to create a permanent exhibit that reflects the Bank’s educational visions. 35 SUPERVISION AND REGULATION Recent events and legislative changes have had a profound impact on the way bankers and supervisors view corporate governance and risk management in the financial services industry. Changes in the operations and credit quality of the banks and bank holding companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland continue to present new challenges and opportunities for the Bank’s Supervision and Regulation function. Prominent among these forces are emerging technologies, industry consolidation, changes in the legal environment, and the ever-increasing need for information security. The Federal Reserve System’s approach to supervision is founded on the principles of risk-focused supervision. This approach balances the need to continuously evaluate and assess the effectiveness of enterprisewide risk-management systems with the requirement to conduct adequate transaction testing. The Supervision and Regulation function applies these principles inwardly as well in developing risk-focused supervisors and examiners. Through its Risk Committee, supervision and regulation staff monitor emerging trends in the financial services and legal environment to direct resources to areas of highest risk. Throughout 2002, staff worked to improve their processes for assessing operations risk and corporate governance procedures at Fourth District institutions, as well as the effectiveness of its risk-based examination procedures. The Bank regards communication, outreach programs, and training for bankers and the public as a fundamental part of its responsibility. In conjunction with the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions, the Bank developed a series of tailored programs to educate the board members and senior management of Fourth District financial institutions. The programs, which deal with topics such as corporate governance, auditing practices, risk management, liquidity, and current legislation, cover timely issues faced by the banking industry and foster more meaningful, open communications with bankers. Supervision and Regulation staff delivered 15 presentations throughout the Fourth District in 2002, and more are planned for 2003. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is a strong advocate for fair lending, community economic development, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND and equal access to credit. To support these goals, the Bank’s community affairs staff advised community- 36 based organizations on strengthening their capacity to work with financial services providers and improving affordable housing and microenterprise opportunities in low- and moderate-income communities. The Bank hosted a series of regulatory roundtable discussions on new provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, and it organized two major conferences, which together reached more than 700 community development practitioners. Additionally, the community affairs function conducted research and published reports on rural economic development, predatory lending, and access to credit and capital in low- and moderateincome communities. FOURTH DISTRICT OPERATING STATISTICS 2002 2001 Volume Currency processed Savings bonds issued PAYMENTS SERVICES 1,585,299 1,111,922,668 9,981,873 Value Volume 1,493,551 1,538,948 $ 14,539,956,399 1,092,064,249 $ $ 1,787,393,659 9,852,923 Value $ 1,447,973 $ 14,179,668,069 $ 1,772,809,623 The current financial services landscape is characterized by increased competition, rapid change, and technological innovation. As customers demand new, more efficient payment mechanisms and move away from traditional paper-based payments, the Federal Reserve has adapted by developing more sophisticated electronic payments services and by increasing its use of Web-based communications and business processes. Despite these challenges, in 2002 the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland continued its tradition of strong performance combined with responsive and innovative solutions to marketplace and customer needs. Like most of the 12 Reserve Banks, the Cleveland Bank faced significant challenges in the financial performance of its check processing function in 2002. As a result of declining check volumes, unexpectedly low interest rates, and costs associated with the Check Modernization initiative, the Bank fell short of its local net revenue target in this area. However, through a collaborative effort among Bank employees to reduce operating and discretionary expenses, the Bank was able to minimize this shortfall by year-end. Nevertheless, total revenues earned from all of the Bank’s financial services exceeded its target by more than $1 million, and the Cleveland Bank continued to rank among the Federal Reserve System’s most efficient operations (measured by overall unit cost). In partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the Cleveland Bank’s Retail Payments Office continued to manage the System’s Check Modernization initiative. This four-part initiative standardizes check processing at all Reserve Bank offices nationwide, implements common software for processing and researching check adjustment cases, creates a national archive and retrieval system for check images, and delivers Web-based check services to customers. Two projects—Enterprise-Wide Adjustments and FedLine ® for the Web–Check Services—were completed and fully functional in 2002, and the two remaining projects— Check Standardization and FedImageSM Services—are poised for a successful finish in 2003. As part of the Check Modernization Project, several service enhancements were launched in 2002, including a national electronic archive of check adjustments information, large-image file delivery, and a customer gateway for accessing the FedImage Services archive. These innovations provide superior check services to meet the needs of financial institutions across the country. The Retail Payments Office also took a lead role in developing more centralized product and pricing strategies across the Reserve Banks, a reflection of the increasingly national banking environment. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT Commercial checks processed FedLine is a registered trademark of the Federal Reserve Banks. FedImage Services is a service mark of the Federal Reserve Banks. 37 The firm engaged by the Board of Governors for the audits of the individual and combined financial statements of the Reserve Banks for 2002 was PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC). Fees for these services totaled $1 million. In order to ensure auditor independence, the Board of Governors requires that PwC be independent in all matters relating to the audit. Specifically, PwC may not perform services for the Reserve Bank or others that would place it in a position of auditing its own work, making management decisions on behalf of the Reserve Banks, or in any other way impairing its audit independence. In 2002, the Bank engaged PwC for advisory services totaling $176,600 for services related to the national Check Modernization project. The Bank believes these advisory services do not directly affect the preparation of the financial statements audited by PwC and are not incompatible with the services provided by PwC as an independent auditor. The Bank implemented two innovative electronic payments services for the U.S. Treasury in 2002. Pay.gov uses state-of-the-art technologies to authorize and settle government payments over the Internet; by year-end, the service was serving 14 government agencies and had processed 155,000 ACH and wire transfer transactions totaling $3.6 billion. The Paper Check Conversion service, which electronically converts checks presented at the point of sale at government locations worldwide, was serving 25 agencies in 58 locations by the end of 2002, and it processed 163,000 transactions ($78 million). The Cleveland Bank is the System’s lead operating site for both initiatives. The Bank’s savings bond function is the largest of the five Federal Reserve processing sites as well as the most efficient, evidenced by its lowest unit cost in the System for 2002. In 2002, this function completed the programming phase for a new processing application that will improve the efficiency and flexibility of savings bond processing throughout the Federal Reserve System. The Fourth District’s cash function led the implementation of the Standard Cash Application—which automates cash accounting, control, and reporting functions nationwide—in 11 Federal Reserve System offices. The Cleveland Bank is also home to the application’s user support function. The Bank’s cash processing function achieved objectives for productivity and quality, operated within budget, and maintained a low unit FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND cost ranking within the System (third-lowest among Reserve Banks). 38 For a third year, the Cleveland Bank hosted a Payments Symposium, “Using New Technologies to Transform the Future of Payments.” During the program, which featured nationally recognized payments industry experts from the U.S. Treasury, the FBI, and the Federal Reserve System, discussion focused on banking industry trends, the evolution of the payments system, and new products and services that are changing the way financial institutions do business. More than 130 Fourth District financial industry presidents and chief executive officers attended the symposium. In 2002, the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland unveiled a new strategic vision: To create value for customers, stakeholders, and the Federal Reserve System by becoming a recognized leader in the evolution of central banking, the practice of banking supervision, and the development of retail payments systems. This vision will guide the Bank’s operations over the next three to five years and provides a common picture of its future. The Bank continues to employ the balanced scorecard in all functional areas to track performance against objectives. For a second consecutive year, the Bank achieved all key System quality measures and servicelevel objectives. The Cleveland Bank seeks to provide efficient and effective solutions to customers and to build valuable business partnerships. In 2002, the Bank worked to ensure a seamless transition to national service provision for its customers. To gauge its progress in meeting customer expectations, the Bank regularly surveys the financial institutions it serves. It exceeded aggressive targets for overall customer satisfaction and customers’ perception of the Bank as a valued business partner, as well as the provision of flexible financial services. In 2002, the Cleveland and St. Louis Reserve Banks joined forces in a business development merger, which combines the two Banks’ sales, sales support, product development, and customer communications functions. The partnership, overseen by a regional business development team, will allow each Bank to provide superior customer sales support at a lower cost and with fewer resources while maintaining growth in the financial services industry. The Bank launched a new public Web site in 2002—www.clevelandfed.org —with improved navigation, search tools, and content organization. The design of the site makes it easier for users to locate the latest economic and financial data, research papers and Bank publications, news releases, Bank-sponsored conferences and events, background information about the Cleveland Bank and the Federal Reserve System, and consumer and financial services information. 2002 ANNUAL REPORT QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS 39 Business Advisory Council FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND Community Bank Advisory Council 40 William E. Adams Robert A. Gray P. C. Miller Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Adams Manufacturing Corporation Portersville, Pennsylvania President Gray Printing Company Fostoria, Ohio President and Chief Executive Officer Duramax Marine LLC Hiram, Ohio Barbara A. Bissett D. Michael Hartley Cynthia Moore-Hardy President and Chief Executive Officer Bissett Steel Company Valley View, Ohio Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Standard Bent Glass Corporation Butler, Pennsylvania President and Chief Executive Officer Lake Hospital System Willoughby, Ohio R. Douglas Cowan R. Duane Hord Frederick D. Pond Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Davey Tree Expert Company Kent, Ohio President Hord Livestock Company, Inc. Bucyrus, Ohio President Ridge Tool Company, Inc. Elyria, Ohio Tanny Crane John M. Kahl C. David Snyder President and Chief Executive Officer Crane Plastics Company, LP Columbus, Ohio Chief Executive Officer Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc. Avon, Ohio Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Acero, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio Joseph A. Graviss James R. Leake President Graviss McDonalds Restaurants Versailles, Kentucky President and Chief Executive Officer James R. Leake & Son, Inc. Richmond, Kentucky Marlene K. Barkheimer G. Courtney Haning Dennis W. Rich President and Chief Executive Officer Farmers State Bank West Salem, Ohio Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Peoples National Bank New Lexington, Ohio President and Chief Executive Officer Eagle Bank Williamstown, Kentucky Dallas C. Hipple President and Chief Executive Officer Citizens National Bank of Bluffton Bluffton, Ohio Michael M. Cottle President and Chief Executive Officer First National Bank of Blanchester Blanchester, Ohio Luther Deaton, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Mars National Bank Mars, Pennsylvania Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Central Bank and Trust Company Lexington, Kentucky G. W. Holden Charles K. Graham Orval H. Homan President and Chief Executive Officer Progressive Bank, N.A. Wheeling, West Virginia Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Minster Bank Minster, Ohio Dorsey G. Hall, II Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Somerset National Bank Somerset, Kentucky President RFC Banking Company Findlay, Ohio Edward J. McKeon President and Chief Executive Officer Western Reserve Bank Medina, Ohio J. Michael Romey Jeffrey E. Smith President and Chief Executive Officer Ohio Valley Bank Company Gallipolis, Ohio Charles G. Urtin President and Chief Executive Officer Irwin Bank and Trust Company Irwin, Pennsylvania CLEVELAND 1455 East 6th Street Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 579-2000 C I N C I N N AT I 150 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4787 This annual report was prepared by the Corporate Communications and Community Affairs Department and the Research Department of the Federal PITTSBURGH Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 717 Grant Street For additional copies, contact the Corporate Communications and Community Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Affairs Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, P.O. Box 6387, (412) 261-7800 Cleveland, OH 44101, or call 1-800-543-3489 (OH, PA, WV) or 216-579-2001. COLUMBUS The annual report is also available electronically through the Cleveland Fed’s 965 Kingsmill Parkway home page, www.clevelandfed.org. Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 846-7494 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Manager, Communications Support: Patricia DeMaioribus Editor: Deborah Ring Zorska Design: Michael Galka Portrait Photography: Bill Pappas