Full text of Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis : Annual Report 2020 : The COVID-19 Economy: How the Pandemic Defined 2020 : Annual Report

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

ANNUAL
REPORT
2020

THE
COVID-19
ECONOMY:
ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

How the Pandemic
Defined 2020

Table of Contents
P R E S I D ENT’S M ESSA G E

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY:: ES S AYS

Introduction
4
Crises in Corporate Debt Markets: COVID-19 vs. the Global Financial Crisis

How Severe Was the Contraction in U.S. Employment?

An Uneven Crisis for Lower-Income Households

State and Local Governments Harness Federal Funding

International Trade of Essential Goods during COVID-19

Reopening the Economy by Realigning Private and Public Interests

O U R L E AD ER S . O U R A DV IS ER S .
.
25
Chair’s Message

Boards of Directors, Advisory Councils, Bank Officers

O U R P E O P LE. O U R WO R K .
41

PUBLISHED APRIL 7, 2021
Our financial statements are available online. To read them, go to the website for the annual report,
stlouisfed.org/annual-report/2020, and click on the Financial Statements button in the navigation bar.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

P R ES ID EN T’ S MES S A G E

Reflections on the
Pandemic at the
One-Year Mark
James Bullard is the president and CEO of
the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

ver the past year, countries across the world have
been navigating the ravages and uncertainties
brought on by COVID-19. Ultimately, the pandemic is
a global health crisis and human tragedy. But the virus
and efforts to contain its spread have also caused an
unprecedented shock for many economies.
In the U.S., these effects have been widespread, and
although the pandemic began more than a year ago,
they continue today—both from a health standpoint
and an economic standpoint.

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

REDUCTIO N IN ECONOMIC ACT IVIT Y

Unlike the 2007-09 financial crisis and many previous
economic shocks that were driven by underlying
problems in the economy, the current shock to the
economy was directly related to the actions needed to
contain the virus and invest in public health. Prior to
the pandemic, U.S. labor markets were strong—with the
unemployment rate at 50-year lows in early 2020—and
real gross domestic product (GDP) had increased by
2.2% in 2019.
In early spring of 2020, authorities in many locales
issued orders that curtailed certain forms of economic
and social activity, particularly nonessential services,
sporting events, concerts and other large gatherings. At
the same time, many people limited their shopping and
travel voluntarily, and many firms limited production
or asked their employees to work remotely. These efforts
were intended to contain the pandemic and prevent the
health care system from being overwhelmed, but they
also caused a sharp reduction in economic activity.1

R E SP O NSE S F R O M P O L IC YM A K E R S
The fast-moving nature of the pandemic caused
policymakers on both the monetary policy side and the
fiscal policy side to act swiftly.2 Indeed, U.S. monetary
and fiscal policies during the crisis have been significant
and exceptionally effective.
Monetary Policy
One of the Federal Reserve’s immediate actions was
to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to
near zero in mid-March. The Fed subsequently
provided liquidity to financial markets through a
variety of emergency funding programs supported by
the U.S. Treasury.
These programs—authorized under Section 13(3)
of the Federal Reserve Act—helped the U.S. avoid an
incipient financial crisis during the March-April time
frame that could have occurred on top of a health
crisis. Financial stress, as measured by the St. Louis
Fed Financial Stress Index, rose dramatically in
March but declined to pre-pandemic levels over
subsequent months.
Fiscal Policy
The health crisis has had uneven effects across the
economy, with some businesses—like those in the
leisure and hospitality sector—being hit especially hard.
Consequently, some workers have been more adversely
affected by the crisis than others.
The fiscal policy response aimed at providing
pandemic relief to these businesses and workers has
been large. While this process has been understandably

uneven, the spirit of the intervention has been to keep
disrupted firms and households whole and help them
to sustain their incomes to pay their bills. This policy
has been so successful that personal income did not fall
as it usually does during a recession; instead, the fiscal
response drove personal income to an all-time high in
the second quarter of 2020.
R E AL- TIME DATA
As policymakers were considering possible responses
to the pandemic, large swings in key economic
indicators posed a challenge. For example, the
unemployment rate increased by more than
10 percentage points in one month—from 4.4% in
March to 14.8% in April. Similarly, second-quarter real
GDP decreased by 31.4% at an annual rate (a postWorld War II record low), while third-quarter real GDP
increased by 33.4% at an annual rate (a post-World War II
record high).
Timely insights from our various contacts throughout
the Eighth Federal Reserve District—including our
boards of directors and advisory council members—
have been especially helpful in taking the pulse of the
economy in real time.

M A NA G ING T H E C OV ID - 1 9 R ISK
Throughout 2020, many businesses and households
adapted to the new mortality risk posed by COVID-19.
At the St. Louis Fed, our leaders have worked to keep
employees safe while also meeting business goals.
We adapted by having mostly remote work, while
maintaining support for and the safety of essential
on-site employees who process currency for
redistribution into communities and who guard our
vaults 24/7. Our organization has demonstrated
resilience, agility and innovation in getting our work
done and continuing to serve the public’s interest.
At the time of this writing, the pandemic is ongoing,
but the arrival of vaccines suggests the health crisis will
wane. Of course, no one knows how the pandemic will
end, and a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding
the health crisis and the economy.
In looking ahead, the St. Louis Fed—through its
Research Division, now led by Carlos Garriga—will
continue producing high-quality academic research and
policy analysis to help solve the economic challenges
presented by the pandemic and beyond.

CUTTING - E D G E R ESEARCH
James Bullard
President and CEO
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ENDNOTES
1 See my On the Economy blog post “Expected U.S. Macroeconomic
Performance during the Pandemic Adjustment Period,” from
March 23, 2020.
2 For more discussion, see my Regional Economist article “Monetary Policy
and Fiscal Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis,” from Nov. 10, 2020.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Analyses from St. Louis Fed economists have also
helped identify real-time economic trends during this
pandemic period. Our Research Division ramped up its
research and data analysis on the pandemic’s economic
impact and the policy responses. These efforts were
under the leadership of then-Research Director Chris
Waller, who became a member of the Fed’s Board of
Governors in December.
Our long-standing commitment to rigorous economic
research and data dissemination was tested and proven
during this crisis. As expected of a highly ranked research
institution, our economists proved even more prolific,
authoring new working papers and articles to help keep
the general public, analysts and policymakers alike
informed.
Our economists are a well-trained, diverse group
who work at the frontiers of economic research and
are equipped to study the types of issues that have
emerged during the pandemic. Their research has been
invaluable in informing my monetary policy views and
also in providing expert analyses to anyone who wants
to understand the pandemic’s economic impact. This
annual report describes some of these insights.

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

Introduction

By Kevin L. Kliesen and Christopher J. Neely

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Kevin L. Kliesen is a
business economist
and research officer
whose research
interests include
U.S. macroeconomic
performance, and
monetary and fiscal
policy analysis. He
joined the St. Louis
Fed in 1988.

Christopher J. Neely
is a vice president of
research. He conducts
empirical research in
international finance,
with an emphasis
on issues of market
efficiency. He joined the
St. Louis Fed in 1993.

n early January 2020, U.S. and world health organizations began to sound the alarm
about a novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. At the
time, there were few signs of the subsequent pandemic that was about to throttle the
world economy.
For example, the U.S. unemployment rate in January and February was effectively
at a 50-year low of 3.5%. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and other Fed
officials have pointed out, the strong job market was especially beneficial for lowincome workers.1 The consensus of economic forecasters—surveyed by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in early February—was that “the U.S. economy in
2020 looks stronger now than it did three months ago.”2
This optimism ended up being misplaced, though it shouldn’t be surprising, given
the impossibility of predicting pandemics.
COVID-19’S EFF E C T S O N T H E E C O NO M Y
The effects of the pandemic spread through the economy in late winter and early
spring. By the end of February, global stock markets had plunged; in March and
April, payroll employment likewise fell sharply. The National Bureau of Economic
Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee would later declare that the nation’s
record-long business expansion ended sometime in February.
The COVID-19 pandemic was the second major shock to throttle the nation’s
economy in the past dozen years. However, it was unique in that it resulted partially
from the policies enacted intentionally, albeit with the expectation they would
be temporary. These measures triggered massive job losses and the shuttering of
businesses—some briefly, some permanently.
With virus case counts and fatalities rising, federal COVID-19 guidelines issued
on March 16 urged the public to, among other things, work from home if possible,
avoid social gatherings of more than 10 people—including outside-the-home activity
(e.g., dining out)—and avoid discretionary travel.3 State and local governments
followed suit with various measures to curb the pandemic, including many that
reduced economic activity. In addition, many people voluntarily chose to avoid
restaurants, gyms and travel.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

These charts and others are available in FRED® (Federal Reserve
Economic Data), a database created and maintained by the St. Louis
Fed’s Research Division. (See Page 6.)

the rehiring of furloughed workers suggested that the worst
had passed.
The pace of U.S. economic activity continued to increase
over the last three months of the year, although a resurgence
of the virus during the fall of 2020 spurred some economists
to dramatically dial back their expectations for the economy’s
late 2020 and early 2021 performance.
To insure against the possibility of much weaker growth,
an additional fiscal support package totaling a little more
than $900 billion was signed into law in late December. This
fiscal package spurred many forecasters to expect positive real
GDP growth in the first quarter of 2021; prior to passage of

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Some 22 million jobs were lost in March and
April. To put this in perspective, the number
almost matched the total number of jobs the
U.S. gained over the previous 10 years. The
official unemployment rate more than tripled
to 14.8% in April (Figure 1), but this rate likely
significantly understated the true rate. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that
the official unemployment rate likely would
have peaked at about 20% if many survey
respondents had correctly classified themselves
as unemployed but on temporary layoff because
of COVID-19-related business closures.4
The decline in national output and income
was as staggering as the job losses: Real gross
domestic product (GDP) fell at a 5% annual
rate in the first quarter of 2020 and at an
unprecedented 31.4% rate in the second
quarter (Figure 2). The decline in real GDP
was worse in other countries. In the United
Kingdom, for example, real GDP fell at a
nearly 60% rate during the second quarter.
With the U.S. economy weakening at a rapid
pace, the Federal Open Market Committee cut
its federal funds rate target to zero and expanded
its purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed
securities. Meanwhile, the Board of Governors,
with the approval of the U.S. Treasury secretary,
restarted several special lending facilities from
the 2007-09 financial crisis and devised five
new facilities. Four pandemic-specific pieces
of legislation were signed into law during the
spring, including the CARES Act. The total
amount allocated by Congress exceeded
$2.7 trillion, including a little more than
$450 billion to fund the five new Federal
Reserve lending facilities.
Some weekly indicators suggest that the
economy bottomed out in late April/early May.
As the initial pandemic wave eased and social
distancing protocols were relaxed, key monthly
indicators—such as payroll employment,
personal consumption expenditures, new home
sales and industrial production—rose sharply
in May and continued to rise during summer.
Real GDP rose at an unprecedented 33.4%
annual rate in the third quarter, erasing much of
the declines of the previous two quarters. Large
increases in expenditures and production and

the legislation, some forecasters had expected negative
growth in the first quarter.5
The pandemic-spawned economic contraction and
recovery is one for the record books. Economists have
begun to focus on the potential longer-run effects of the
pandemic, and three questions stand out:
1. Will the large number of bankruptcies,
permanent business closures and the possible
erosion of job skills due to long-term spells of
unemployment (all of which contribute to what
economists call “economic scarring”6) lower
long-term GDP growth?
2. Will the shift to e-commerce and a corresponding
greater propensity to work from home
permanently reduce the number of retail
establishments and lower the demand for
commercial office space?
3. Will global supply chains need to be reconfigured
to mitigate future disruptions to the production
and distribution process for manufacturers?
S T. LOUIS FE D PA NDEM IC RESEARCH
To better understand how the pandemic and the
various policy responses to it have affected the U.S.
economy, the St. Louis Fed’s Research Division
undertook a remarkable amount of research and analysis
on the pandemic economy. From mid-March through
December 2020, our economists produced scores of
articles, blog posts and working papers on pandemicrelated topics. In addition, they maintained and
updated various data series related to the pandemic
on our websites.

The essays contained in this report describe a portion
of our pandemic-focused work in 2020—highlighting
the effects of the pandemic on financial and labor
markets, fiscal policy, international trade and designing
policies to address pandemics with the lowest economic
costs.
EXPLORE OUR COVID-19 ONLINE RESOURCES
• St. Louis Fed COVID-19 Resource Page and Statement
from President Bullard
• St. Louis Fed Research Division COVID-19 Page
• FRED COVID-19 Economic and Financial Data Tracking
Dashboards
• FRASER COVID-19 Timeline
To access these resources and more, go to
stlouisfed.org/annual-report/2020.

ENDNOTES
1 See Powell’s Aug. 27, 2020, speech, “New Economic Challenges and the
Fed’s Monetary Policy Review.”
2 See the Philadelphia Fed’s “First Quarter 2020 Survey of Professional
Forecasters,” released Feb. 14, 2020.
3 FRASER’s Timeline of Events Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic contains
links to announcements such as this one. Visit fraser.stlouisfed.org to see more.
4 The BLS offers a more detailed explanation on its webpage discussing
frequently asked questions about the impact of the pandemic on the
April 2020 employment situation.
5 The consensus of professional forecasters in early 2021 was that the
development and distribution of vaccines would help trigger a vibrant
rebound in economic activity over the final six to nine months of 2021,
perhaps extending into 2022.
6 For more about economic scarring, see Julian Kozlowski’s 2020 Economic
Synopses article “COVID-19: Scarring Body and Mind.”

Bringing Data to the Public Since 1991

he St. Louis Fed’s FRED® (short for Federal Reserve Economic Data) is a public
database that houses nearly 800,000 economic data series from regional,

national and international sources worldwide.

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Millions of users—from high school students to Nobel Prize winners—turn to

FRED for their data questions. FRED’s relevance as a data aggregator has only

YEARS

grown during the COVID-19 pandemic as researchers and the larger public
attempt to quantify the pandemic’s effects on the economy and their daily lives.
FRED’s tools make it easy for users to find, download, graph and share needed
information—in the format they need it in. Series are updated continuously and can
be accessed via desktop or smartphone using the FRED App. Data enthusiasts can
also try GeoFRED® (for geographical maps of data found in FRED) and ALFRED®
(for vintage, or unrevised, data). Start at fred.stlouisfed.org.

SINCE 1991

Transitioning Leadership, Maintaining Strong Research
CHRISTOPHER WALLER:
A DECADE OF LEADING THE ST. LOUIS
FED’S RESEARCH DIVISION

fter more than a decade serving as the St. Louis Fed’s
research director, Chris Waller was confirmed by the U.S.

Senate as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System and was officially sworn into his role in
December 2020. Waller is the second St. Louis Fed economist
to be elevated to the Board, following Susan Bies, who served
as a Fed governor from 2001 to 2007.
Following a distinguished career in academia, Waller joined

certain segments of society in hopes that policy could be

the St. Louis Fed in 2009. He is a highly respected scholar,

directed to those most impacted,” Waller noted. “This rigor

professor and expert in central banking and monetary policy.

in macroeconomic research and real-time data analysis

In 2020, he directed the Research Division’s intensive study of

underscores the St. Louis Fed tradition of being a pioneer

the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when

on the frontier of macroeconomic research. It’s a tradition

very little was known about the virus.

that I carried on during my tenure as research director and

“Given the significant challenges the pandemic imposed
on the global macroeconomy, we began an intensive effort

makes me proud to be a St. Louis Fed alum.”
Waller’s impact on the St. Louis Fed was indelible, and his

at the St. Louis Fed to research all aspects of this health

colleagues expect he will have a positive and lasting influence

shock to better understand the differing outcomes on

in his term on the Board of Governors.

MEET THE ST. LOUIS FED’S NEW
RESEARCH DIRECTOR: CARLOS GARRIGA

arlos Garriga succeeded Chris Waller as research director
of the St. Louis Fed, continuing its tradition of world-class

thought leadership in economic research. Garriga oversees a
department within the St. Louis Fed that ranks among the top
of all research institutions in central banking and academic
research worldwide.
Garriga joined the St. Louis Fed in 2007 and advises Bank
President Jim Bullard on monetary policy issues. Garriga’s
research focuses on macroeconomics and housing, household

the Bank to do work that can help address the economic

finance, monetary economics and asset pricing, and public

challenges of the day. In fact, this report highlights our

economics. His work has been widely published in leading

economists’ groundbreaking study of the emerging pandemic

economic academic journals.

on the U.S. and world economies.”
Garriga, who previously was an assistant professor of
economics at Florida State University and the Universitat de

the economics profession,” Garriga said. “The diversity of

Barcelona in Spain, is eager to continue the Research Division’s

experience among our research staff, including the depth and

investigations and de novo research into the effects of

breadth of research coverage and innovative thinking, allows

COVID-19 on the nation’s economy.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

“I’m honored to carry on the St. Louis Fed tradition in
using academic-style research to help shape the debate in

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

Crises in Corporate Debt Markets:
COVID-19 vs. the Global Financial Crisis

By Miguel Faria-e-Castro and Julian Kozlowski

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Miguel Faria-e-Castro
is an economist with
research interests in
fiscal and monetary
policy and banking and
financial institutions.
He joined the St. Louis
Fed in 2017.

Julian Kozlowski is
an economist whose
research focuses on
macroeconomics and
finance. He joined the
St. Louis Fed in 2018.

n response to the pandemic in early 2020, the Federal Reserve returned to the
toolkit it used during the global financial crisis of 2007-09 (GFC) and created
facilities to purchase asset-backed and other types of securities, such as corporate
debt, to ensure credit markets would continue to function.
Corporate debt, especially in the form of bonds, constitutes a major source
of financing for nonfinancial companies. Bonds comprised almost 60% of total
nonfinancial corporate debt at the end of 2019.1
Corporate bond prices provide us with a window into the connection between
financial market conditions and the larger economy: They measure the perceived risk
that firms might default on their obligations; and in the secondary market, changes in
these prices reflect changes in perceptions of that default risk (among other factors).
T HE T WO CRISE S WE R E SIM IL A R IN T H E E A R LY STA G E S
The financial volatility caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was similar
in many ways to the volatility during the GFC. One indicator of that volatility is
corporate credit spreads, which measure the difference between yields in corporate
bonds and yields on similar (but safer) U.S. government securities.
Figure 1 compares the evolution in the median of credit spreads around the peak
of financial market turmoil during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 and
during the GFC. The figure plots the credit spreads minus their value at time “0,” the
beginning of increases in financial market volatility, which allows the comparison of
the evolution of credit spreads in the crises. The vertical lines in the figure show the
timing of Fed announcements about interventions.
HOW T HE T WO C R ISE S D IF F E R E D
The increase in corporate credit spreads was qualitatively and quantitatively similar
in the two crises. But swifter Fed action in 2020 may have helped curb financial
market volatility even more than in 2008, as shown by the steeper downturn of the
orange line in Figure 1.
However, there may be more to the story than the timing and size of the policy
responses, such as the difference in the underlying shocks driving the two crises. For

The first economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed
itself in forward-looking financial markets, as stock prices plunged,
uncertainty skyrocketed, trading sometimes froze up, and investors
sought refuge in safer assets. Miguel Faria-e-Castro and Julian
Kozlowski describe how such short but sharp financial turmoil played
out in corporate bond markets, comparing conditions to those of the
2007-09 financial crisis.

FIGURE 1

SOURCES: FINRA’s TRACE, Mergent
FISD and authors’ calculations.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

example, the most affected sectors in each of the crises were different: The fall in
employment and rise in borrowing costs was very large in the construction sector
during the GFC, while the leisure and hospitality sector was the most affected
sector during the pandemic in 2020. The two crises have also differed in the
types of perceived risk, as reflected in the movements of credit spreads.
Figure 2 on Page 10 shows the distribution of corporate credit spreads,
from the least-risky bonds (with lower spreads, the 10th percentile) to the
most-risky bonds (with higher spreads, the 95th percentile).
The movements in the median spreads were relatively similar during the two
crises, as we can see from the dashed-teal line (50th percentile), but the GFC
featured much larger increases of the top percentiles: The relative sizes of the
movements, shown by the dashed and dotted green lines, were almost three
times larger.

NOTES: Time “0” marks the
beginning of the increase in volatility
in financial markets for the COVID-19
crisis (Feb. 28, 2020) and the GFC
(Sept. 15, 2008). Vertical lines mark
the timing of the Fed’s intervention
in corporate credit markets. The
first vertical line identifies the
announcement of Primary and
Secondary Market Corporate
Credit Facilities (March 23, 2020)
during the pandemic. The second
and third vertical lines identify the
announcement of QE1, the initial
round of quantitative easing,
(Nov. 25, 2008) and of the Term
Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility
(March 3, 2009), respectively, during
the GFC. The y-axis shows credit
spreads in basis-point differences
from time 0. (A basis point is onehundredth of 1 percentage point.)

FIGURE 2

SOURCES: FINRA’s TRACE, Mergent
FISD and authors’ calculations.
NOTES: The figure shows the
distribution of corporate credit spreads
for the 10th, 50th, 90th and 95th
percentiles. Spreads in the higher
percentiles reflect higher-risk bonds.

We split the variation in credit spreads before and during each crisis into
three components: differences between sectors, between firms in the same
sector, and within firms (i.e., in the spreads of bonds issued by the same firm).
We find that differences between firms were more relevant in the GFC, but
that differences between bonds issued by the same firm were more relevant in
2020. This suggests that markets were more concerned about a firm’s solvency
during the GFC (as a firm’s solvency risk should equally affect all its bonds),
while funding and liquidity factors were more relevant in 2020.
Indeed, firms with solvency concerns had larger increases in credit spreads
during the GFC. But the relevant dynamic in 2020 was that better liquidity
meant smaller increases in credit spreads.
While the two crises have many similarities, the divergent paths of financial
market indicators such as average corporate credit spreads may reflect the
different policy responses and the different underlying aggregate shocks.
Mahdi Ebsim, a research associate at the St. Louis Fed, contributed to this article.

ENDNOTE
1 This percentage is from the tables of Financial Accounts of the United States produced by the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors. It can alternatively be accessed using FRED.

R E L AT E D R E S O U R C E S

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

• “Corporate Bond Spreads and the Pandemic,” On the Economy blog, April 9, 2020

• “Corporate Bond Spreads and the Pandemic II: Heterogeneity across Sectors,” On the Economy
blog, April 14, 2020
• “Corporate Bond Spreads and the Pandemic III: Variance across Sectors and Firms,” On the
Economy blog, May 11, 2020
• “Corporate Bond Spreads and the Pandemic IV: Liquidity Buffers,” On the Economy blog,
June 12, 2020

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

How Severe Was
the Contraction in
U.S. Employment?

If the economic impact of COVID-19 first manifested
in financial markets, it came home to many
Americans through the sharpest and greatest rise
in unemployment since the Great Depression.
Maximiliano Dvorkin and Amanda Michaud review
this labor market upheaval with a focus on uneven
effects across sectors, noting that the leisure and
hospitality sector saw some of the worst losses.

By Maximiliano Dvorkin and Amanda Michaud

T
Maximiliano Dvorkin is a senior
economist whose research
focuses on labor reallocation
and the effect of different
economic forces on workers’
employment and occupational
decisions. He joined the
St. Louis Fed in 2014.

SEVERIT Y O F E M P L OYM E NT L O SSE S
Figure 1 on Page 12 compares the contraction in employment by sector
during the Great Recession with the contraction during the first two months
of the pandemic. During these two months, employment in the leisure and
hospitality sector contracted by around 50%, with a contraction of over
20% in the other services sector, which includes repair and maintenance
and personal services, such as beauty shops. During the Great Recession,
the largest drop in employment (in construction and durable goods
manufacturing) was around 20%.
Figure 2 on the next page helps us understand these differences by
showing a potential relationship between the contraction in employment
and the ability of workers to work from home. Those sectors with more
options to work from home, such as financial activities, had a milder drop
in employment. The opposite was true in sectors with fewer options to work
from home, such as leisure and hospitality.
EFFECT S NOT F E LT E Q UA L LY B Y WO R K E R S
The pandemic has also affected individuals’ availability to participate in
the labor market. The labor force participation rate of prime-age workers

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Amanda M. Michaud is a
senior economist whose
research interests include
macroeconomics, labor
economics and international
macroeconomics. She joined
the St. Louis Fed in 2020 and
was also named to the White
House Council of Economic
Advisers.

he Federal Reserve carefully monitors the evolution of labor markets as
it strives to fulfill its mandate of maximum employment. Early in the
COVID-19 pandemic, from February to April 2020, the number of employed
people in the U.S. fell by 25 million, a 16% decline. In the Great Recession of
2007-09, employment fell by 8.5 million, close to 6%, but it took 18 months
for it to decrease that much.
Some of the unprecedented effects of the pandemic stem from the nature of
the shock: Social distancing measures and other restrictions on daily activities
in 2020 had a direct impact on many sectors and businesses, particularly those
that require close physical contact with customers.

FIGURE 1

SOURCES: Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ Current Employment
Statistics survey and authors’
calculations.
NOTES: For the Great
Recession, the percent change
represents the sector’s
contraction from December
2007 to June 2009; for the
pandemic, the percent change
represents the contraction from
February to April 2020.

FIGURE 2

SOURCES: Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ Current Employment
Statistics survey and Job
Flexibilities and Work
Schedules, and authors’
calculations.

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

NOTES: The employment
contraction is the percent
change in the number of
employed people from
February to April 2020. The
share of employees able to
work from home is based on
averages from 2017-18. The
size of the bubble represents
the relative size of sector
employment.

(ages 25 to 54) declined from 82.9% to 79.8% from
February to April 2020. That amounts to 3.8 million
Americans who left the labor market, a figure six times
larger than during the Great Recession.1
Older individuals, married women and some minority
groups also reported much higher exit rates from the
labor force:2
• For workers over age 60, the rate nearly doubled
from the typical 6% per month to 11% in April.
• For prime-age married women, the rate doubled
from 3% to 6%.
• For prime-age Black males, the rate more than
doubled from 4% to 9%.
• For prime-age Hispanic women, exit rates more
than doubled from 5% to 12%.
M I TIG ATING THE IM PACT
This decline in available workers was historically large,
but government programs mitigated the impact on
households and the economy. In March, unemployment
insurance benefits were increased and offered to workers
not covered by state benefits.
While time spent working for pay fell during the
early months of the pandemic, additional work was
done at home through child care, cooking and related
activities, which has important economic value. Recent
research co-authored by St. Louis Fed Research Officer
Oksana Leukhina estimated that the value of such
home production rose by $30.8 billion during April,
which is 10.5% of the fall in the value of paid work
during that month.3

Employment recovered at an extraordinary pace
after April 2020, with large gains in the sectors that
were deeply affected early on. A speedy recovery has
the potential to mitigate scarring effects associated
with temporary declines in employment and to aid
in reclaiming the historic employment gains among
minority groups. Yet, the strength of the continued
recovery ultimately rests on the ability of the U.S. to
check the pandemic.

ENDNOTES
1 These figures on participation rates by age and race are authors’
calculations using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population
Survey (seasonally adjusted and noninstitutional population).
2 The exit rate of the labor force is defined as the share of people in
one of the demographic groups that were part of the labor force in
one month and not in the labor force in the following month.
3 See Oksana Leukhina and Zhixiu Yu’s 2020 St. Louis Fed working
paper “Home Production and Leisure During the COVID-19
Recession.”

R E L AT E D R E S O U R C E S
• “The Decline of Employment During COVID-19: The Role of
Contact-Intensive Industries,” Economic Synopses, Sept. 10, 2020
• “Which Jobs Have Been Hit Hardest by COVID-19?”
Regional Economist, Aug. 17, 2020
• “The Recent COVID-19 Spike and the U.S. Employment Slowdown,”
On the Economy blog, Aug. 4, 2020
• “The Impact of COVID-19 on Labor Markets across the U.S.,”
On the Economy blog, April 13, 2020

Home Production Activity during the COVID-19 Shutdown
Published Sept. 30, 2020

examined the increase in home production, or homemaking activities,

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leukhina found that home production
activities such as child care and cooking increased nationwide from
February to April primarily because of jobs lost to the pandemic.
Read the article at stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

n a Regional Economist article, Research Officer Oksana Leukhina

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

An Uneven Crisis
for Lower-Income
Households

Effects of the labor market upheaval on
workers varied considerably across wages
and skill levels in 2020. Serdar Birinci and
YiLi Chien explain the notable impacts on
low-wage workers, who saw larger rises in
unemployment, sharper declines in hours
worked and slower recoveries.

By Serdar Birinci and YiLi Chien

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Serdar Birinci is an
economist whose
research interests
include macroeconomics and labor
economics. He joined
the St. Louis Fed
in 2019.

YiLi Chien is an
economist and
research officer. His
research focuses on
macroeconomics,
household finance
and asset pricing.
He joined the St. Louis
Fed in 2012.

conomists study individual earnings groups because, as one might expect,
changes in the economy have different effects on households, depending on
their income and wealth. The COVID-19 pandemic had disproportionate effects on
certain earnings groups in 2020, and in some cases these effects were severe.
A portion of our research on this topic, outlined here, looks at households’
different experiences with unemployment, reduced work hours and the ability to
respond to financial stress.
Figure 1 shows differences in unemployment (Panel A), with three important
findings:
• Even before the crisis, households with lower earnings had higher
unemployment rates. In January 2020, the lowest earnings quintile (Q1) had an
unemployment rate of 4.4%, while the highest earnings quintile (Q5) had an
unemployment rate of just 1.8%.
• Unemployment pressures in the early stages of the pandemic were much larger
for those in lower earnings groups: The unemployment rates for the lowest and
highest earnings groups increased by 19 percentage points and 3 percentage
points, respectively, from January to April 2020.
• The recovery of employment in 2020 was much slower for those with lower
earnings: By September, the unemployment rates of those in the top two groups
had already dropped to 5% or less, while those in the lowest quintile still had an
unemployment rate above 10%.
Even among workers still employed during the pandemic, those with lower
earnings experienced a larger drop in working hours. Panel B in Figure 1 plots the
percentage of employed workers in each earnings group who reported working less
than 75% of their usual hours: for example, those who usually work 40 hours per
week, but who worked less than 30 hours. Although the percentage of workers with
reduced hours was similar across earnings groups prior to the crisis, lower earnings
groups lost much more once the pandemic began.

FIGURE 1

SOURCES: IPUMS Current
Population Survey
(CPS) data and authors’
calculations.
NOTES: “Q” refers to
quintile, from lowest
earnings (Q1) to highest
earnings (Q5). Panel A
shows that the lowest
earners (those in Q1 and
Q2) saw a significant
spike in unemployment in
April 2020. Panel B shows
that lower earners also
experienced greater losses
in hours worked, with
nearly 15% of those in Q1
losing at least 25% of their
working hours in April.

These findings are especially alarming, since low-income households tend
to run deficits, meaning their spending exceeds their incomes. In addition,
they have less or even no savings to fall back on once they encounter a
financial hardship.
A LOOK AT F INANCIAL CHOICES FROM T HE PA ST
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors 2016 Survey of Consumer
Finances (SCF) provides supporting evidence of this dynamic. About 15% of
households ran income deficits in 2016. For the remaining 85%, the survey
asked how they would respond to a financial emergency, given the following
options:
Borrow from others
Spend from own savings
Postpone payments
Cut back spending

Figure 2 on Page 16 shows each earnings group’s responses to financial
strains—the share who resorted to income deficits for actual financial

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

•
•
•
•

FIGURE 2

SOURCES: Federal Reserve Board’s
2016 Survey of Consumer Finances
and authors’ calculations.
NOTES: “Q” refers to quintile, from
lowest earnings (Q1) to highest
earnings (Q5). The chart suggests
that higher-income earners (those
in Q4 and Q5) entered the COVID-19
crisis better able to weather financial
strains. In the 2016 SCF, a significant
percentage of both higher-income
quintiles reported that in a financial
emergency, they would fall back on
personal savings (62.4% and 75.6%,
respectively). In contrast, those in the
lowest earnings groups (Q1 and Q2)
would rely on borrowing (28.5% and
22.9%, respectively) and postponing
payments (13.5% for both quintiles)
more than all other earnings groups.

strains (green bar with dashed lines) and the shares who chose other survey
responses for hypothetical financial emergencies. Clearly, high-income groups
are much less likely to run a deficit: The fraction of top-quintile households
with income deficits was just 7.9%, compared with 24.6% of households in
the bottom quintile. In addition, in response to a financial emergency, only
24.7% of households in the bottom quintile would opt to use savings to
maintain spending, while 75.6% of those in the top quintile would do so.
In summary, households with lower earnings were disproportionately
affected by the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. They experienced higher
unemployment rates and reduced working hours. Based on 2016 survey data,
they also likely entered the crisis more financially vulnerable, with less or no
savings to hedge against unexpected income declines caused by the pandemic.
Aaron Amburgey and Julie Bennett, both research associates at the St. Louis Fed,
contributed to this article.
R E L AT E D R E S O U R C E S
• “Which Earnings Groups Have Been Most Affected by the COVID-19 Crisis?” Economic Synopses,
July 14, 2020
• “How Has the COVID-19 Recession Affected U.S. Labor across Occupations and Industries?”
On the Economy blog, Nov. 9, 2020

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

• “How Do People Handle Financial Emergencies?” On the Economy blog, March 11, 2019

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

State and Local
Governments Harness
Federal Funding

Many unemployed workers received
greater-than-normal unemployment
benefits in 2020. The money for those
benefits was part of the massive fiscal
policy response from the federal
government, which Bill Dupor and
Fernando Martin explain. Much of that
fiscal effort was funneled through state
and local governments.

By Bill Dupor and Fernando M. Martin

E
Bill Dupor is an
economist and assistant
vice president with
research interests in
fiscal policy and
dynamic economics.
He joined the St. Louis
Fed in 2013.

Fernando M. Martin
is an economist and
research officer whose
research focuses on
macroeconomics,

Three Key Rounds of Federal Spending Were Disbursed
for COVID-19 Relief in Early 2020
Billions of Dollars

2020

2021-30

TOTAL

Paycheck Protection Program

541

Unemployment Compensation Expansion

370

442

Recovery Rebates

272

281

Coronavirus Relief Fund

150

HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

135

225

Disaster Relief

111

Medicare Accelerated Payments

-46

Medicaid Financial Assistance to States

132

172

Increase in SNAP Beneficiaries and Average Benefits

138

228

1,777

440

2,217

Other Programs
TOTAL

SOURCE: Adapted from Congressional Budget Office, “An Update to the Budget Outlook:
2020 to 2030,” September 2020.
NOTES: The table gives the budget impact by fiscal year of the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act; the CARES Act; and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act. Medicaid financial assistance to states also included coverage continuity
for enrollees. HHS is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. SNAP is the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Federal fiscal year 2020 ended Sept. 30, 2020.
Sums are not exact because of rounding.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

monetary economics,
banking and public
finance. He joined the
St. Louis Fed in 2011.

arly in the pandemic, economists and policymakers recognized the need for a
quick and large government response.1 And, unlike the federal response to the
2007-09 recession, this federal response was indeed quick: Congress passed four
measures in March and April 2020, with a total budget impact of $2.4 trillion,
much of which was spent within the fiscal year.2 The largest of these measures was
the CARES Act. The following table provides a summary.

FEDERA L M O NE Y F L OWS TO STAT E A ND L O C A L G OV E R NM E NT S
The CARES Act provided over $300 billion to federal agencies, much
of which flowed through state and local governments. Funding to combat
COVID-19 came in the form of several specific federal grants-in-aid to state and
local governments. For example, $150 billion went directly to state and local
governments for COVID-19-related expenses through the Coronavirus Relief
Fund.3 States directed federal funding through their own distribution systems,
administering (among other programs) expanded unemployment benefits and
using additional Medicaid financial assistance (as shown in the table).
Although the CARES Act provided state and local governments with aid
to combat COVID-19, there was no general aid to patch state and local
government revenue shortfalls caused by the recession.4 In the second quarter
of 2020, combined state and local government taxes for property, sales and
gross receipts, and income taxes fell by 16.5% relative to the same quarter
of 2019.
STAT E A ND L O C A L C O F F E R S SAW INIT IA L B O O ST
The increase in grants-in-aid from the federal government actually boosted
total receipts. Combined with a slowdown in their expenditures, state and
local governments saw net savings during the second quarter of 2020. (See
accompanying figure.) Note, however, that these savings may not be sufficient
to cover expected losses in the remainder of the current fiscal year (which
ends in June 2021 in most jurisdictions). In addition, the fiscal burden of the
pandemic has varied greatly across states and municipalities.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis.

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

NOTE: Federal grants-in-aid
boosted state and local receipts
in the second quarter of 2020,
covering concurrent and potentially
future revenue shortfalls.

The CARES Act also authorized the Federal Reserve
and the U.S. Treasury to establish a Municipal Liquidity
Facility, among the other so-called 13(3) facilities. It
allowed large municipal authorities and governments
of states and larger cities to borrow directly from
the Federal Reserve. Unlike the Paycheck Protection
Program, however, the act required that these loans be
repaid. In the end, there was very little borrowing at this
facility, although some have argued that the program’s
existence helped stabilize private municipal markets.5
State and local governments closed 2020 facing an
uncertain financial outlook. The course of the virus
(with its associated monetary costs and impact on tax
receipts) and the extent of additional federal support will
play key roles in 2021. Given the large footprint these
governments and the programs they administer have on
the economy, this evolving situation merits continued
close monitoring.

ENDNOTES
1 See St. Louis Fed President James Bullard’s “Expected U.S. Macroeconomic
Performance during the Pandemic Adjustment Period,” On the Economy
blog, March 23, 2020; and Fernando M. Martin’s two-part series, “Economic
Realities and Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Economic
Synopses, March 30, 2020.
2 The U.S. government’s fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30 of the
subsequent year; it is designated by the year in which it ends. Budget figures
are taken from the Congressional Budget Office. See also Fernando M.
Martin’s “Financing the U.S. Response to COVID-19,” On the Economy blog,
Dec. 1, 2020.
3 See the U.S. Treasury Department’s “The CARES Act Provides Assistance for
State, Local, and Tribal Governments.”
4 A December 2020 study estimated that the combined shortfalls in state
and local government revenues would equal $300 billion from April 2020
through June 2021. That same month, the federal government enacted an
additional $900 billion fiscal package; it did not include general purpose aid
for state and local governments.
5 See testimony by Kent Hiteshew, a Federal Reserve official, before the
Congressional Oversight Commission, “Municipal Liquidity Facility,”
Sept. 17, 2020. For a more general overview, see Fernando M. Martin’s
“The Impact of the Fed’s Response to COVID-19 So Far,” On the Economy
blog, June 16, 2020.

R E L AT E D R E S O U R C E S
• “How Quickly Does Fiscal Policy Get Implemented?”
On the Economy blog, March 18, 2020

• “How COVID-19 Has Affected the Municipal Bond Market,”
Regional Economist, Oct. 22, 2020

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

• “Possible Fiscal Policies for Rare, Unanticipated, and Severe Viral
Outbreaks,” Economic Synopses, March 17, 2020

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

International Trade
of Essential Goods
during COVID-19

Most of the research on the economic effects
of COVID-19 has focused on financial and
labor markets, and fiscal and monetary policy.
Fernando Leibovici and Ana Maria Santacreu
tackle the less-studied issue of international
trade. They show that U.S. imports of medical
equipment rose sharply, expanding the U.S.
trade deficit and providing a new angle on
the old issue of the resilience of self-reliance
versus the efficiency of free trade.

By Fernando Leibovici and Ana Maria Santacreu

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Fernando Leibovici is
an economist whose
research focuses on
international trade,
international finance
and macroeconomics.
He joined the St. Louis
Fed in 2016.

Ana Maria Santacreu
is a senior economist
whose research
interests include
international trade,
macroeconomics,
economic growth and
international finance.
She joined the
St. Louis Fed in 2014.

ountries open to international trade, with production patterns determined by
comparative advantage, have gained vast benefits from access to world markets.
But the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 revealed tensions and some limitations
inherent in the design of international trade policy: Countries that relied heavily on
imports of critical medical goods—such as personal protective equipment—found
themselves at a distinct disadvantage when the pandemic created a sharp worldwide
increase in the demand for these goods.
International trade plays a key role in allowing countries to access essential medical
products. Their production is heavily concentrated in a few countries, and most
countries import them. The increase in the demand for these products along with the
slow increase in the supply led to worldwide shortages.
The accompanying figure shows that several countries resorted to trade policy to
mitigate these shortages. By March 2020, 58 countries had implemented export curbs
and 50 countries had liberalized their imports of these goods. While these policies
were largely temporary, several countries still had them in place at the end of 2020,
nine months into the pandemic.1
So, during a pandemic, should countries respond by introducing export curbs
and liberalizing their imports? Are there other policies that might be better suited to
improve an economy’s welfare once a pandemic has begun?
Our 2020 working paper, “International Trade of Essential Goods During a
Pandemic,” investigates the optimal trade policy response during a pandemic, in the
context of a dynamic model of international trade with essential and nonessential
sectors. We found that, just as observed during COVID-19, the optimal unilateral
trade policy is to simultaneously and temporarily raise export barriers while reducing
import barriers.
But the pandemic also raised several questions regarding the design of trade policy
during normal times, prior to a pandemic taking place:
• To what extent should countries implement trade policy differently for goods
that might prove essential during a pandemic?
• Should countries introduce import barriers or domestic subsidies to encourage
domestic production?

SOURCE: “International Trade of
Essential Goods During a Pandemic,”
a 2020 working paper by Fernando
Leibovici and Ana Maria Santacreu.
NOTES: Values for each month report
the number of countries with active
trade policy changes introduced
during COVID-19. At the peaks, 64
countries had implemented export
restrictions in April, and 61 had
liberalized imports in May.

• Should countries stockpile these goods to accumulate a sufficient
supply to ensure adequate access during a pandemic?
These considerations extend further than the ongoing pandemic, from
access to food to the production of raw material and intermediate inputs
that might be critical for important industries. We expect that future
discussions on the desirability of openness to international trade will
revolve around many of these issues.

R E L ATE D R E SO U RCE S
• “How Much Does the U.S. Rely
on Other Countries for Essential
Medical Equipment?” On the
Economy blog, April 8, 2020
• “Protectionism and Dependence
on Imports of Essential Medical
Equipment,” On the Economy blog,
April 10, 2020
• “International Trade Policy during
COVID-19,” Economic Synopses,
June 12, 2020

ENDNOTE
1 Data are from Global Trade Alert and include trade policies related to import liberalizations and export
restrictions for COVID-19 products, according to World Trade Organization information on COVID-19
and world trade.

• “The Dynamics of the U.S. Trade
Deficit during COVID-19: The
Role of Essential Medical Goods,”
Economic Synopses, Sept. 16, 2020

COVID-19 and U.S. Reliance on Medical Equipment Imports
Released May 13, 2020

uring a Timely Topics podcast, Economist Fernando Leibovici and Senior Economist Ana
Maria Santacreu discussed their Economic Synopses research into the role of essential

medical goods on the U.S. trade deficit. The economists’ analysis showed that because the U.S.
relied heavily on China and the European Union for its stocks of these medical products, supply
interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic caused shortages of this much-needed equipment in
the U.S. and also helped widen the U.S. trade deficit. Listen at stlouisfed.org/timely-topics.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

THE COVID-19 ECONOMY: E SSAYS

Reopening the Economy by Realigning
Private and Public Interests
By Carlos Garriga and Guillaume Vandenbroucke

T
Carlos Garriga is senior vice
president and director of
research. His current research
is in the areas of macroeconomics and housing, household
finance, monetary economics
and asset pricing, and public
economics. He has been with
the St. Louis Fed since 2007.

hroughout 2020, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
produced a large number of articles and blog posts related to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Bank’s attention to the pandemic is exemplified
by the topics covered in these publications and discussed in the pages of this
annual report.
Central bankers in general and the St. Louis Fed’s Research Division
economists in particular view the world through the lens of economics.
Economists will not end the pandemic. Health officials and medical
researchers are among those who will. But an economist’s perspective on the
pandemic can help with understanding its management—through the study
of individuals and how they react to incentives such as prices, policies and
risks, including health risks.
Some of the challenges posed by the pandemic are not new; they have
been familiar to economists at least since Scottish economist and philosopher
Adam Smith originated the invisible hand metaphor in 1776. Smith posited
that sometimes a person’s private, or individual, interest is beneficial to the
public interest, as if an “invisible hand” were aligning both. But what happens
when these interests are not aligned? The COVID-19 health crisis created a
challenge that is, essentially, a breakdown of this alignment.
INDIVIDUA L A ND P U B L IC INT E R E ST S

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

During a pandemic, individual behavior motivated by self-interest may

Guillaume Vandenbroucke
is an economist and research
officer whose research focuses
on the relationship between
economics and demographic
change. He joined the St. Louis
Fed in 2014.

not be beneficial to society. Someone who is asymptomatic may decide
not to practice social distancing, for instance. If that decision results in
infections, it imposes costs on society that the individual does not bear
directly. In economics, we call this a negative externality. An externality is a
cost or benefit imposed on someone or a group of people who had no say in
another person’s decision.
Private and public interests are at times misaligned, which is why
governments enact regulations—for example, against child labor, pollution

An important question is when and how to fully reopen the economy. Carlos
Garriga and Guillaume Vandenbroucke bring an economist’s viewpoint to the study
of this question. The fact that people do not necessarily consider how they might
spread COVID-19 infection to others is an “externality” that introduces a role for
government to regulate or coordinate actions. They lay out the balance between
benefits and risks of reopening.

system. But regulations are effective only if people’s
behavior aligns with those regulations. To realign
private and public interests, regulations intended to
limit the suffering caused by COVID-19 must be
counterbalanced with policies that limit the potential
suffering caused by the regulations.

R E L AT E D R E S O U R C E S
• “Responses of International Central Banks to the COVID-19 Crisis,”
Review, Oct. 22, 2020
• “Possible Fiscal Policies for Rare, Unanticipated, and Severe Viral
Outbreaks,” Economic Synopses, March 17, 2020
• “Should Social Distancing Be Mandatory during a Pandemic?”
Regional Economist, Dec. 30, 2020

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

and impaired driving. Some limits on certain
individual actions can benefit society as a whole.
Regulations on health-related behavior are less
common. In normal times, a worker with a cold might
choose to work a few hours in the office, which may
be beneficial for the worker and the firm but not for
co-workers. Government regulations don’t often play
much of a role here. But in a pandemic, of course,
the stakes are higher and the effects more immediate.
Regulations must scale up to the magnitude of the
problem: in this case, mask wearing, social distancing,
quarantines, and restrictions on travel and gatherings.
But what happens when regulations shift heavily
toward the public interest and limit or even thwart
private interests? Extreme misalignments can make
both public and private efforts much less effective.
To counter this, it’s necessary to keep people whole
during such times and thereby help to realign public
and private interests. This may take several forms:
for instance, unemployment insurance payments
for workers unable to work or economic relief funds
for disrupted businesses and their employees. Other
workers, especially in the health care sector, may work
longer hours and take on more risk than during normal
times. Making them whole may require some form of
extra compensation.
The COVID-19 pandemic may end as a result of
herd immunity—potentially from a combination
of vaccination efforts and post-infection immunity.
Until that time, effective regulations can serve to
reduce infections, deaths and strains on the health care

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

ANNUAL REPORT 2020

OUR LEADERS.
OUR ADVISERS.

C H A IR ’ S MES S A G E

Continuing to Serve
through the Most
Challenging Times

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Suzanne Sitherwood is the
president and CEO of Spire Inc.

n a year of unknowns, one thing is certain: Historians will
be studying 2020 for generations to come. The wide-ranging
effects of COVID-19 will ripple through the coming decades,
shaping our lives in new and unforeseen ways well into the future.
While no one has been more affected by the pandemic than
those who’ve experienced its direct effects—from becoming sick,
to dealing with the loss of a loved one or heroically working on
the front lines—as a society, we will forever be changed.
And, as we’ve seen, these fundamental changes are having shortand long-term economic impacts—which have been analyzed and
documented by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis.
For more than a half-century, the St. Louis Fed has staked a
claim as an economic research engine that, today, ranks among
the top research institutions worldwide. Knowing the importance
of this expertise as COVID-19 gripped the world last spring, we
shifted into high gear, and the Bank’s team of economists pivoted
to produce new research, policy analysis and public information
related to the pandemic.
And while this research is critical, it’s not all we did to address
the ongoing needs of our communities throughout the pandemic.
We also adapted so we could continue serving constituents in the
Eighth Federal Reserve District and beyond.
As the majority of employees shifted to working remotely, the
Bank continued its outreach efforts across its seven-state footprint.
From the Treasury and Supervision business areas supporting
federal COVID-19 relief payments, to the Bank’s buildings in

St. Louis and Memphis remaining open to process cash and keep
it recirculating throughout communities—we were here.
And behind the scenes, the board of directors and the Bank’s
advisory councils helped the Fed take a constant pulse of Main
Street businesses and organizations, ensuring they had what they
needed throughout the pandemic.
St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard frequently talks about the
organization’s resilience and innovation, which I’ve witnessed on
many occasions during my time on the board—never as much,
however, as in 2020.
While we all hope life will slowly return to normal, the St.
Louis Fed—led by Jim and First Vice President Kathy Paese—is
poised to continue leading the way in caring for its communities,
no matter what circumstances arise.
I’ve seen it firsthand. And as you read through this report,
I know you’ll see it too. We will always adapt so we can keep
honoring our mission to promote a healthy economy and
financial stability. This was true in 2020, and it will remain true
for centuries to come.

Suzanne Sitherwood
Chair of the Board of Directors
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

BOARD OF DIRE CTORS

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CHAIR

DEPUTY CHAIR

As required by the Federal
Reserve Act of 1913, each
Federal Reserve bank is
governed by a board of
directors comprising
three classes:

Suzanne Sitherwood

James M. McKelvey Jr.

President and CEO, Spire Inc.

Founder and CEO, Invisibly Inc.

St. Louis

Class C

St. Louis

Class C

Patricia L. Clarke

President, First National Bank
of Raymond
Raymond, Ill.
Class A

Class A: Elected by
district Fed member
banks to represent
member banks
Class B: Elected by
district Fed member
banks to represent the
public in the interests of
agriculture, commerce,
industry, services, labor
and consumers

R. Andrew Clyde
President and CEO,
Murphy USA Inc.
El Dorado, Ark.

Class B

Carolyn Chism Hardy

Alice K. Houston

CEO, Chism Hardy Investments LLC

CEO, HJI Supply Chain Solutions

Bartlett, Tenn.

Class C

Louisville, Ky.

Class B

Class C: Appointed by the
Federal Reserve Board of
Governors to represent
the public in the same
interests as Class B
directors

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Learn more about the
St. Louis Fed’s leadership
and oversight at
stlouisfed.org/about-us/
leadership-governance.

C. Mitchell Waycaster

Elizabeth G. McCoy

Penny Pennington

CEO, Planters Bank Inc.

Managing Partner, Edward Jones

Hopkinsville, Ky.

Class A

St. Louis

Class B

President and CEO, Renasant Bank
Tupelo, Miss.

Class A

BOARD OF DIRE CTORS

Little Rock Branch
CHAIR

Jamie J. Henry

Chris Hegi

Vickie D. Judy

Vincent Logan

Jeff Lynch

Millie A. Ward

Vice President, Finance, Emerging
Payments Walmart Inc.
Bentonville, Ark.

Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Investment Officer,
Native American Agriculture Fund
Fayetteville, Ark.

President and CEO,
First Financial Bank
El Dorado, Ark.

President and CEO,
Eagle Bank and Trust
Little Rock, Ark.

Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President, America’s Car-Mart Inc.
Rogers, Ark.

President, Stone Ward
Little Rock, Ark.

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
Robert A. Hopkins
Senior Vice President, Little Rock Branch
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

BOARD OF DIRE CTORS

Louisville Branch
CHAIR

Emerson M. Goodwin

Senior Vice President of Business
Development, KentuckyCare
Paducah, Ky.

Sadiqa N. Reynolds
President, Louisville Urban League
Louisville, Ky.

Tara E. Barney

Director, The New Washington
State Bank
Charlestown, Ind.

David E. Tatman

Blake B. Willoughby

Director of Engineering, Bendix
Spicer Foundation Brake LLC
Bowling Green, Ky.

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Nikki R. Lanier

Patrick J. Glotzbach

Co-CEO, Evansville Regional
Economic Partnership
Evansville, Ind.

Senior Vice President, Louisville Branch
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

President, First Breckinridge
Bancshares Inc.
Irvington, Ky.

Ben Reno-Weber
Director, Greater Louisville Project
Louisville, Ky.

BOARD OF DIRE CTORS

Memphis Branch
CHAIR

Kathy Buckman Gibson
President and CEO,
KBG Technologies
Memphis, Tenn.

Henry N. “Hank” Reichle Jr.
President and CEO, Staple Cotton
Cooperative Association (Staplcotn)
Greenwood, Miss.

R. Davy Carter

Beverly Crossen

Chairman and CEO,
First Citizens National Bank
Dyersburg, Tenn.

Regional President, Centennial Bank

Owner, FarmHouse Tupelo

Jonesboro, Ark.

Tupelo, Miss.

Eric D. Robertson

Michael Ugwueke

Jeff Agee

President, Community LIFT Corp.
Memphis, Tenn.

President and CEO, Methodist
Le Bonheur Healthcare
Memphis, Tenn.

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
Douglas G. Scarboro
Senior Vice President, Memphis Branch
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Industry Councils
Council members represent a wide range of Eighth District industries and businesses,
and report on economic conditions to help inform monetary policy deliberations.

AGRIBUSINESS COUNCIL

HEALTH CARE COUNCIL

Bruce L. Ahrendsen

Susan L. Lang

Rhamy Alejeal

Lisa M. Klesges

Professor, University of Arkansas,
Division of Agriculture and
Bumpers College
Fayetteville, Ark.

President, Bumper Crop Farm LLC
Somerville, Tenn.

Founder and CEO, People Processes
Memphis, Tenn.

Wade Litton

Carla Balch

Professor and Founding Dean
Emeritus, University of Memphis,
School of Public Health
Memphis, Tenn.

President and CEO, Wade Inc.
Greenwood, Miss.

Founder and CEO, Spesana Inc.

John Rodgers Brashier

Memphis, Tenn.

Leanne L. Lefler

James “Jim” McLaren

Mike Castellano

CEO, Strathkirn Inc.
Chesterfield, Mo.

CEO, Esse Health
St. Louis

Associate Professor, University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
College of Nursing
Little Rock, Ark.

Certified Crop Advisor,
Nutrien Ag Solutions
Lexington, Ind.

Kathleen Roberts

Zach Chandler

Brandy N. Kelly Pryor

Regional Vice President, CoBank
St. Louis

Ray Dillon

Shari Rogge-Fidler

Executive Vice President and Chief
Strategy Officer, Baptist Memorial
Health Care Corp.
Memphis, Tenn.

Vice President, Consolidated
Catfish Producers LLC
Isola, Miss.

Aaron Carroll

Former President and CEO,
Deltic Timber Corp.
Little Rock, Ark.

Cynthia Edwards
Deputy Secretary, Arkansas
Agriculture Department
Little Rock, Ark.

President and CEO,
Farm Foundation
Oak Brook, Ill.

Tania Seger
Vice President of Finance, North
American Commercial Operations,
Bayer Crop Science
St. Louis

Dana Huber
Vice President, Marketing/Public
Relations, Huber’s Orchard,
Winery & Vineyards, and
Starlight Distillery
Borden, Ind.

Robert “Bo” Ryall
Cynthia Crone
Research Faculty Member,
University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences, College of Public Health,
Department of Health Policy and
Management
Little Rock, Ark.

June McAllister Fowler
Richard C. Siemer
President, Siemer Milling Co.
Teutopolis, Ill.

Senior Vice President,
Communications and Marketing,
BJC HealthCare
St. Louis

Diana Han

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Jennifer H. James

Owner, H&J Land Co.
Newport, Ark.

Senior Director of Programs,
Humana Foundation
Louisville, Ky.

Vice President, Global Health,
Unilever
Louisville, Ky.

President and CEO, Arkansas
Hospital Association
Little Rock, Ark.

Alan Wheatley
President, Retail Segment, Humana
Louisville, Ky.

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL

Amy Berg

Larry K. Jensen

Scott A. Brockman

Stephanie Ivey

President, S.M. Wilson & Co.
St. Louis

President and CEO,
Cushman & Wakefield |
Commercial Advisors
Memphis, Tenn.

President and CEO, MemphisShelby County Airport Authority
Memphis, Tenn.

Director, Intermodal Freight
Transportation Institute,
University of Memphis
Memphis, Tenn.

William “Bill” Burns

Aaron S. Burkes

Broker/Owner, RE/MAX FIRST
Jeffersonville, Ind.

Greg M. Joslin

Andy Cates

Senior Broker, Colliers International
Arkansas
Little Rock, Ark.

CEO, Colliers InternationalMemphis
Memphis, Tenn.

John F. Eilermann Jr.
Chairman and CEO,
McBride & Son Homes
Chesterfield, Mo.

Lisa C. Ferrell
Founder, President and CEO,
North Bluffs Development Corp.
North Little Rock, Ark.

J.T. Ferstl
President, Ferstl Valuation Services
Little Rock, Ark.

David L. Hardy

CEO, Northwest Arkansas Regional
Airport Authority
Bentonville, Ark.

Condrad Daniels
Joshua Poag
President and CEO, Poag Shopping
Centers LLC
Memphis, Tenn.

President, HJI Supply Chain
Solutions
Louisville, Ky.

Bryan Day
Lester T. Sanders
President, Kentucky REALTORS®
Lexington, Ky.

Executive Director, Little Rock
Port Authority
Little Rock, Ark.

Madison C. Silvert

Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge

President, The Malcolm
Bryant Corp.
Owensboro, Ky.

Director of Airports, St. Louis
Lambert International Airport
St. Louis

William J. “Bill” Mines
Senior Vice President of Finance
and Strategy, Supply Chain,
Walmart U.S.
Bentonville, Ark.

Ron Tindall Jr.
President, Terminal Railroad
Association of St. Louis
St. Louis

John Waggoner
Vice Chairman, Hornblower Group
New Albany, Ind.

Zach Wagner
CEO, Gateway Truck &
Refrigeration
Collinsville, Ill.

Bertram C. “Bert” Hodge
General Manager, Heritage Ford
Corydon, Ind.

Managing Director, CBRE Inc.
Louisville, Ky.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Community Depository Institutions
Advisory Council
The members meet twice a year to advise the St. Louis Fed’s president on the credit, banking and economic conditions
facing their institutions and communities. The council’s chair also meets twice a year in Washington, D.C., with the
Federal Reserve chair and governors.

Margaret “Marnie” Oldner, Chair

Bill Schirmer

CEO, Stone Bank
Mountain View, Ark.

President and CEO, Evansville Teachers Federal Credit Union
Evansville, Ind.

Misty Borrowman

Robert S. Shaw Jr.

President and CEO, Bank of Hillsboro
Hillsboro, Ill.

Co-founder, CEO and Director, Paragon Bank
Memphis, Tenn.

Joseph T. “Joe” Henderson

Samuel T. Sicard

Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer,
Central Bancompany
Jefferson City, Mo.

President and CEO, First National Bank of Fort Smith
Fort Smith, Ark.

Scott E. Spencer
Robert “Bob” McKay
President and CEO, Together Credit Union
St. Louis

Vice Chairman, President and CEO, Sterling Bank
Poplar Bluff, Mo.

John Taylor
Charles “Chuck” Morgan Jr.
Chairman and CEO, Relyance Bank
Pine Bluff, Ark.

President and CEO, Limestone Bank
Louisville, Ky.

Kelley Workman
Bertram “Buddy” Mortimer

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

President and CEO, Bank of Kilmichael
Kilmichael, Miss.

President, Planters Bank Inc.
Hopkinsville, Ky.

Community Development
Advisory Council
The council keeps the St. Louis Fed’s president and staff informed about community development in the
Eighth District and suggests ways for the Bank to support local development efforts.

Adam Hall

Jessica Love

Vice President and Community and
Economic Development Manager, Fifth Third Bank
Louisville, Ky.

Executive Director, Prosperity Indiana
Indianapolis

Bridget McDermott Flood
Tracy Hall
President, Southwest Tennessee Community College
Memphis, Tenn.

Executive Director, Incarnate Word Foundation
St. Louis

Sara McGibany
Robyn Heidger
Senior Vice President, Enterprise Bank and Trust
Clayton, Mo.

Executive Director, Alton Main Street
Alton, Ill.

Karen Minkel
Mervin Jebaraj
Director, Center for Business and Economic Research,
Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Ark.

Christopher Jones
Executive Director, Arkansas Regional Innovation Hub,
Winrock International
Little Rock, Ark.

Steve Lockwood

Home Region Program Director, Walton Family Foundation
Bentonville, Ark.

Amy Shir
President and CEO, LHOME
Louisville, Ky.

Clifton Williams
Community Development Officer, Guaranty Bank and Trust Company
Belzoni, Miss.

Executive Director, Frayser Community Development Corp.
Memphis, Tenn.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Federal Advisory Council Representative
The council is composed of one representative from each of the 12 Federal Reserve districts. Members confer with
the Fed’s Board of Governors at least four times a year on economic and banking developments and make recommendations on Fed System activities.
D. Bryan Jordan
President and CEO, First Horizon Corp.
Memphis, Tenn.

Our Retirees
We express our gratitude to members of our boards of directors
and advisory councils who retired over the past year.

FROM THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

John N. Roberts III
Little Rock Branch

Keith Glover
Karama Neal

FROM THE COMMUNITY DEPOSITORY
INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Louisville Zone

Marvin Veatch
Memphis Zone

Roy Molitor “Mott” Ford Jr.

Memphis Branch

Michael E. Cary
David T. Cochran Jr.

FROM THE INDUSTRY COUNCILS

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Agribusiness

FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COUNCIL
St. Louis Zone

Rodney Crim

Henry N. “Hank” Reichle Jr.

Little Rock Zone

Health Care

Michael Holmes

Marta Loyd
Hillis Schild

Real Estate

Louisville Zone

Martin Edwards Jr.

Kevin Dunlap

Transportation

Memphis Zone

Michael D. Garriga

Timothy Lampkin

Bank Management Committee
James Bullard

Kathleen O. Paese

President and CEO

First Vice President
and COO

Karen L. Branding

Carlos Garriga

François G. Henriquez II

Senior Vice President,
Treasury Operations

Senior Vice President, External
Engagement and Corporate
Communications Division; and
Corporate Secretary

Senior Vice President and
Director of Research

Senior Vice President, People,
Strategy and Administration
Division; Chief Administrative
Officer; and General Counsel

Amy C. Hileman

Michael J. Kraus

Nikki R. Lanier

James A. Price

Senior Vice President,
Supervision Learning, Center
for Learning Innovation and
Shared Learning Services

Senior Vice President,
Information Technology
Division; and Chief
Information Officer

Senior Vice President,
Louisville Branch

Senior Vice President,
Internal Support, Payments
and SASTeC Division

Matthew W. Torbett

David C. Wheelock

Carl D. White II

Senior Vice President and
Treasury Relations and Support
Office Product Manager

Senior Vice President and
Special Policy Advisor to the
Bank President

Senior Vice President,
Supervision, Credit and
Learning Division

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Cassie R. Blackwell

Bank Officers
James Bullard*

Carl D. White II*

Douglas O. Nelson

President and CEO

Senior Vice President

Vice President

Kathleen O’Neill Paese*

Jonathan C. Basden

Arthur A. North II

First Vice President and COO

Group Vice President

Vice President

David Andolfatto

Timothy R. Heckler

Craig E. Schaefer

Senior Vice President

Group Vice President

Vice President

Cassie R. Blackwell*

Dawn R. Howell

Angela Schelker

Senior Vice President

Group Vice President

Vice President

Karen L. Branding*

Debra E. Johnson

Scott M. Trilling

Senior Vice President

Group Vice President

Vice President

Carlos Garriga*

Katrina L. Stierholz

James L. Warren

Senior Vice President

Group Vice President

Vice President

François G. Henriquez II*

Jane Anne Batjer

Jeffrey S. Wright

Senior Vice President

Vice President

Amy C. Hileman*

Alexander Baur

Nathan G. Zelinske

Senior Vice President

Vice President

Robert A. Hopkins

Heidi L. Beyer

Jennifer M. Beatty

Senior Vice President
and Regional Executive

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Adam L. Brown

Susan M. Black

Terri L. Kirchhofer

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Timothy C. Brown

Nicole K. Bommarito

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Senior Vice President

Michael J. Kraus*
Senior Vice President

Christopher D. Chalfant

Ray J. Boshara

Nikki R. Lanier*

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Senior Vice President
and Regional Executive

Nicholas J. Clark

April D. Buchanan

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Daniel P. Davis

Winchell S. Carroll Jr.

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

James W. Fuchs

Heather W. Dell

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Jennifer A. Haynes

Andrea E. Donsbach

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Jackie S. Martin

Jill S. Dorries

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

Christopher J. Neely

William D. Dupor

Vice President

Assistant Vice President

James A. Price*
Senior Vice President

B. Ravikumar
Senior Vice President

Douglas G. Scarboro
Senior Vice President
and Regional Executive

Matthew W. Torbett*
| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Senior Vice President

David C. Wheelock*
Senior Vice President

William R. Emmons

Jennifer L. Robinson

YiLi Chien

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Patricia M. Goessling

Lili Saint Christopher

Carrie M. Drake

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Anthony Grantham

Juan M. Sánchez

Richard T. Harper

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Stephen P. Greene

Philip G. Schlueter

Megan E. Kahlenberg

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Tamara S. Grimm

Debra M. Schultz

Kevin L. Kliesen

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Karen L. Harper

Amy B. Simpkins

Oksana M. Leukhina

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Kevin L. Henry

Scott B. Smith

Fernando M. Martin

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Edward A. Hoering V

Kristina L. Stierholz

Manila T. Mathema

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Douglas B. Kerr

Rebecca M. Stoltz

Alexander Monge-Naranjo

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Jeffrey J. Leaver

Mary C. Suiter

Deborah Radbill

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Tian Liu

Brenda Torres

Keith G. Taylor II

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Carolann M. Marker

Bryan B. Underwood

Guillaume A. Vandenbroucke

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Michael W. McCracken

Yi Wen

Assistant Vice President

Michael T. Milchanowski

Ranada Y. Williams

Assistant Vice President

Michael T. Owyang

Christian M. Zimmermann

Assistant Vice President

Christopher M. Pfeiffer

Jeffrey M. Zove

Assistant Vice President

Eric A. Reckamp

Subhayu Bandyopadhyay

Assistant Vice President

Officer

Daniel P. Riordan

Rajeev R. Bhaskar

Assistant Vice President

Officer

*Members of Management Committee

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

The Eighth Federal Reserve District
9I
2B

7G
12L

10J
8H

BOARD OF
GOVERNORS

11K

The Eighth Federal Reserve District is
composed o f four zones, each of which
is centered around one of the four
cities where our offices are located:

ST. LOUIS

Illinois

St. Louis (headquarters), Little Rock,

Indiana

Louisville and Memphis. Nearly

LOUISVILLE

15 million people live in the
Eighth Federal Reserve District.

Kentucky

Missouri
Arkansas

Tennessee

LITTLE ROCK

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

MEMPHIS

Mississippi

ANNUAL REPORT 2020

OUR PEOPLE.
OUR WORK.

Standing Together Against
Racism and Injustice
Statement from President Jim Bullard
and First VP Kathy Paese
he St. Louis Fed stands where east runs into west and north meets
south and where major cities are within reach of small towns and rural
communities. Our seven-state Federal Reserve District represents people
from every demographic group. Our role is to foster an economy that
works for everyone. We stand in opposition to economic inequities, racism,
violence and other injustices that tear apart our society. We will continue to
conduct meaningful research, convene conversations across industries and
pursue initiatives that advance equity, inclusion, economic mobility and
resilience for all. The pursuit of those aims is at the root of our ambition as
an institution and in the work we do alongside the communities we serve.

Supplier Diversity
Outreach
The Open Vault blog post “How
the Pandemic Affects MinorityOwned Small Businesses,”
authored by the Bank’s Supplier
Diversity team, covered how the
pandemic has disproportionately
affected minority entrepreneurs
and offered ideas for how
people can help.
The Bank celebrates and supports our LGBTQ+ employees and allies in June
and throughout the year. The St. Louis Fed is committed to being a workplace
where all employees can be their authentic selves ... and selfies.

EMBRACING DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION

100
—a perfect score earned for a fifth straight
year in the Human Rights Campaign’s Best
Places to Work Corporate Equality Index, a
national benchmarking tool for policies and
practices pertinent to LGBTQ+ employees.
The Bank’s Supplier Diversity team plans the next outreach event.

94%
of inner-city, majority-minority and all-girls high schools across the Eighth
District reached through the St. Louis Fed’s economic education resources.

31%
of the Bank’s workforce engaged in employee-led resource groups, which are
focused on African Americans, Asians, Latino/Hispanic Americans, women,
people with disabilities, military veterans and the LGBTQ+ community.

Bank employees attended a Minority Women in Business virtual event, cosponsored by the African American and women employee resource groups,
on the intersectionality of being minority women and breaking barriers.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

181

As part of the St. Louis Fed’s Native
American outreach initiative, our
Supplier Diversity and Economic
Education teams collaborated
with the Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco to provide the Native
American Contractors Association
(NACA) with an overview of
the Federal Reserve System’s
procurement procedures and bidding
opportunities—exploring how the
System can engage NACA members.

LEFT: Our Economy
Museum’s newest exhibit—
“Ancient and Unique
Money”—features currency
made of glass, porcelain
and even axes. Look for
more currency displays in
the museum’s expansion,
opening later in 2021.
RIGHT: Our 2020 intern
class represented
27 colleges/universities,
four high schools,
17 majors and seven states.

EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES THROUGH EDUCATION & OUTREACH

110,324

535,000+

bankers, regulators and other industry

rounds of the COVID-19 survey, Main

students reached through educators who

participants engaged in webinars and in-

Street Perspectives: How COVID-19

participated in St. Louis Fed economic

person information sessions held on timely

Is Affecting Low- to Moderate-Income

education programs.

financial and regulatory developments. This

Communities, conducted to help gauge the

outreach helped to facilitate the national

pandemic’s impact in the Eighth District.

distribution of COVID-19 relief payments.
This number may not include branch events such
as Bankers’ Breakfasts.

13,937
people signed up for 24 in-person and virtual
workshops, conferences and other events led
by the Bank’s Community Development
department to promote economic resilience
and mobility for low- to moderateincome and underserved households and
communities across the District.

$2.73 million
in grants, loans and investments—and 421
documented connections—committed to
date by funders participating in community
and economic development projects
| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

through the St. Louis Fed’s Investment

Connection program.

10,360

724,000+
active engagements in the Bank’s Econ
Lowdown economic education curriculum.

attendees at presentations requested

This represented a 35% increase, as our

through the St. Louis Fed’s public

online portal equipped teachers to share

speakers bureau.

economic and personal finance content
virtually throughout the pandemic.

6,576
attendees at St. Louis Fed public dialogue

2,000+

and outreach events held in person and

third- through eighth-

virtually in St. Louis, Little Rock, Louisville

grade students enrolled in

and Memphis.

our new Personal Finance
Virtual Summer Camp.

2,005
visitors welcomed to the St. Louis Fed’s

Economy Museum until it temporarily

new high school students from a diverse

closed on March 13 to help protect public

array of area schools appointed to the

health and safety.

St. Louis Fed’s student board of directors.

8,496

visits to the Economy Museum’s new

college and 4 high school students served

Virtual Experience page, at stlouisfed.org/

as interns for the Bank, with a record

inside-the-economy-museum.

9 college students returning to build on
previous internships.

2020 July Monthly State Retail Sales: Food and Beverage
Stores by State (Percent Change from Year Ago)

RIGHT: Economists B. Ravikumar (left)
and Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria of the
Research Division discuss their work.

PROVIDING THOUGHT LEADERSHIP THROUGH SCHOLARLY ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Top 3%

79,073

ranking for President James Bullard on RePEc in a number of

page views of the St. Louis Fed’s COVID-19 Research Resources page.

categories, including the h-index.
RePEc is Research Papers in Economics, at ideas.repec.org. The h-index, or
Hirsch index, is a compound measure of publications and citations used to
highlight research productivity.

51
new working papers authored by our economists to stimulate

#9
in research productivity among all central bank research
departments worldwide.
• #29 among all U.S. research institutions.

discussion and critical comment.

44
Economic Synopses articles on COVID-19 and other economic issues

• #41 among all research institutions worldwide.

of the day.

3.4 million

768,000

economic research items from around the world available to search
and download for free via IDEAS, including 10,000 new papers
related to COVID-19 posted to the site.
IDEAS is the world’s largest bibliographic database dedicated to economics.
This service, provided by RePEc, is hosted by the St. Louis Fed’s Research Division.

data series in FRED®, the St. Louis Fed’s free economic database.

134,292

page views for GeoFRED®, a tool that allows users to create,

customize and share geographical maps of data found in FRED.

page views of the St. Louis Fed’s research site by people in 193
United Nations countries.

586,118

items in FRASER®, the St. Louis Fed’s historical digital library,
with materials dating from 1791.

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

51 million

Kathy Paese, the Bank’s
new first vice president,
previously served as the
executive vice president
over the Treasury Division,
providing oversight and
direction to the Treasury
Relations and Support Office,
and 14 operational/technical
services the Eighth District
provides to the U.S. Treasury.

FOSTERING FINANCIAL STABILITY & SOUNDNESS

129
state member banks and 461 bank, financial, and savings and loan
holding companies supervised by the St. Louis Fed.

909 million
currency notes inspected.
• 838 million notes deemed fit for circulation.
• 71 million notes removed from circulation and shredded.

1,607
suspected counterfeit notes withdrawn from circulation.

$4.25 billion
in improper and stopped payments identified by the St. Louis Fed in
its role as fiscal agent to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and its
Do Not Pay program, helping federal agencies eliminate payment error,
waste, fraud and abuse. This total includes more than $3.6 billion
in improper payments identified after analysis of economic impact
payments issued as part of the CARES Act.

| A NN UA L REPO RT 2 02 0

Total is for the 2020 federal government fiscal year.

22,182
hours spent by internal auditors reviewing St. Louis Fed operations.
Does not include time spent on training, administrative work and special projects.

Educational Attainment of Immigrants at the National
and Eighth District Levels 12/22/20

SHARING TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT
THE ECONOMY & THE FED

1.193 million
page views of the On the Economy and Open Vault blogs, reflecting a
42.5% jump in readership fueled by content highlighting pandemicrelated research and everyday economics.

483,305
page views for Regional Economist, providing insights on economic
issues in today’s headlines—now in its 28th year of publication.

107

articles in the Bank’s Central Banker e-newsletter, sampling everything
from academic research to practical lessons on personal finance.

10,324
16,537

followers on Facebook.

followers on LinkedIn.

114,126

followers on Twitter.

10
boards and 57 Pins focusing on economic education materials
added to the St. Louis Fed’s newly launched social media
account, Pinterest.

446,580

page views for the FRED® Blog, which provides insight
and analysis on key data found in FRED.

23,597
downloads of episodes from our Timely Topics and
Women in Economics podcast series, including two
newly launched miniseries. The first explores COVID-19’s
impacts on local, national and global economies. The

Our Women in Economics podcast series highlights the studies
and careers of those making their marks in the field of economics.
The series has featured prominent women such as Fenaba R. Addo, Ph.D.,
associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

second, our Economic Equity miniseries, highlights
research, insights and experiences surrounding a more
inclusive, equitable economy.

Regional Executive
Douglas Scarboro
joined in the parade
for essential, on-site
staff at our
Memphis Branch.

DOI NG GOOD FOR THE SA KE OF GOOD

64,842

pounds of waste recycled and 77,064 pounds of waste
(including food) composted as a result of the Bank’s
Zero Waste initiative.
This figure is much lower than in 2019 due to the work-from-home
posture during the pandemic.

$226,432

in employee donations to the United Way of Greater
St. Louis.

$35,513

raised by employees to help support St. Louis area food
banks and other food programs for people in need.
Some of our essential, on-site employees enjoyed a parade for staff on July 7, 2020.

Recognizing the Significant Service of Our Executive Leader Retirees

Cletus C. Coughlin,

Michael D. Renfro,

David A. Sapenaro,

executive vice president:
31 years of service

senior vice president and chief
of staff: 33 years of service

senior vice president and general
auditor: 31 years of service

first vice president and COO:
35 years of service

ST LOU ISF ED.OR G |

Karl W. Ashman,