View original document

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

el ease on delivery
, March 28, 1969
ximately 2 P.M. - P.S.T.
P.M. - E.S.T.)


Remarks of

Board of Governors
of the
Federal Reserve System

At the
Annual Stockholders Meeting
of the
Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

Los Angeles, California
March 28, 1969


m e request of your President to speak today not about tomorrow
or next week, but instead about the longer run trends expected to affect
the mortgage and savings markets was most welcome.

Since so much of our

tire ic scent thinking and worrying over current decisions, an opportunity
to take a lenger look ahedd is a pleasing challenge.
I rust admit, too, that in many ways it is a safer task.

If I

predicted what was going to happen next week or next month, any errors
would be obvious and remembered.

Even if I am wrong on the prospects for

the next 10 years, at the least, raising some of the future's problems
and indicating ways in which they may be analyzed should be useful.

Let me briefly summarize the results of my crystal-balling.
--- There are no obvious reasons why, over the intermediate
and longer run periods, financial markets should not
return to a better state of balance than presently
exists. While continuation or speeding up of current
imbalances, high interest rates, and a rationing out
of the market of desirable borrowers certainly is a
possibility, such problems will continue only if we
fail to take the necessary steps to get us back on
the right path.

The key balancing force in the general economy— and
particularly in financial markets--will continue to be
the Government's surplus and deficit. Failure to con­
trol the Government's budget in a proper manner could
be extremely costly. Now more than ever it is vital
that we think in terms of a compensatory rather than
merely a balanced budget. As an example, a Federal
budget merely balanced for this calendar or next fis­
cal year in place of the large surplus needed to bring
demand and supply into balance might be very expensive
to the economy.




The demands on the mortgage and housing markets for the
next 10 years may prove to be a good deal lower than
many of the estimates I have seen. Whether we take
1963-65, last year, or the past six months as our basis
of comparison, I would expect the growth of housebuild­
ing and mortgage financing over the next decade to be
at a somewhat slower rate than that of the economy as
a whole.


Savings and loan associations and other financial in­
stitutions must become more innovative if they are to
olay as significant a role in the future as they have
in the oast. A failure to adoot new savings instruments
and new types of mortgages has increased the pressure
upon them from a changing environment. This has been
harmful under current circumstances. If the economy
fails to stabilize in the next year or two, this fail­
ure to change could cause them irreparable harm.
Continuity in Economic Affairs
Today, I could have given a very false sense of the exactness of

my predictions by handing out to each of you copies of some 50 tables with
more than 1000 time series which were coaxed out of the computer in prepa­
ration for my remarks.— '

I am not doing so because it would give a mis­

leading impression of scientific accuracy.

Instead I want to highlight

the analytical concepts which are the real basis for projections.
No matter how detailed, a projection is only the end product of
a vast number of assumptions.

I have assumed continuity in economic devel-

ocr°nts even while recognizing that possibilities exist for radical changes.
When we project recent trends as part of a unified accounting structure,
we can see what types of relationship exist.


Crucial parts can be picked

These tables were prepared by John Dawson and Bernard Freedman of
the Board's staff but the responsibility for the assumptions and analysis
is primarily my own.



out and examined individually and more logically.

We can recognize the

possible areas of imbalance and change needed to relieve strains and in­
sure orderly economic growth.
The assumptions built into my computer show a growth in the
gross national product through the next 10 years of about 100 per cent.
This doubling of the country's current dollar income assumes a continu­
ation of full employment and rapid growth, but a cutback in the rate of
price increases to approximately normal levels.
As I said at the start, the results also show no critical prob­
lems for the housing or mortgage markets.

The assumptions underlying

this result must be examined more carefully.
areas appear most important.

The movements within four

These include:


The relationships between the net savings and
investment of the major sectors of the economy.


Those between taxes and expenditures in the
Federal budget.


Developments in the housing and mortgage markets.


Changes in the credit and financial markets.
Savings and Investment

Major difficulties for financial markets would arise if the
desires to save and to spend moved rapidly away from each other.


in the rate of personal saving and shifts in the rate of business invest­
ment and desires for liquidity have been quite common.
many past economic fluctuations.

They have caused

Businesses may raise their investments



rapidly even as households attempt to save less.

Such opposing movements

tend to raise interest rates and to force a rationing of credit.


impact of such forces has frequently been reinforced when the Federal
Reserve simultaneously contracted the rate at which money and bank credit
could be created.
History and the logic of the underlying situation, however, make
it appear unlikely that excessive levels of investment will continue very

While short-run fluctuations in the desires to save and invest as

well as the rate of credit creation have been common, the amount of vari­
ation in the ratio of these series to the gross national product in
periods of full employment has not been great.
Several types of forces seem to push the rates of saving and
investment toward equilibrium.

When we examine the flow of funds, we

note how much of investment generates its own saving.

Business and house­

holds use fairly sizable internal funds to finance their own purchases.
As costs of externa] financing rise, more internal funds are used.


is simply one example of the fact that while prices and interest rates
may not be able to bring about a satisfactory balance in a short period
such as a year, they become far more effective over longer periods.
Similarly businesses may for a year or two rapidly raise their
investments compared to past periods and to the level of total output.
However, over an intermediate period, if the level of investment stays
above normal, unused capacity will bring the level of new investment down.
It is true that a return toward a previous equilibrium would not be



necessary if the ratio of capital to output shifted.

But it is difficult

to picture the amount of capital per unit of output changing rapidly
enough over the coming decade to cause a sharp increase in the ratio of
investment to the GNP.
To a certain extent, similar stability exists for household sav­
ings and investment.

No major shifts in personal savings have occurred.

Again the logic of the markets and of price and interest rate movements
is such that unless held back by institutional barriers, the type of im­
balances that can persist over one- or two-year periods seem far less
likely to obtain over the longer run.

While the possibilities obviously

exist for major changes, their occurrence appears unlikely.
It is true, of course, that we cannot expect each sector's sav­
ing to rise equally with its real investment.

It is reasonable, however,

to assume that with rapid growth the deficits of the business sectors
will rise and similarly the excess of saving over investment for house­
In the case of the deficits and surpluses of these sectors— as
well as of those in State and local investment and savings--much of the
pressure toward balance comes about through the rates and flows which occur
in financial markets.
short periods.

Again these can fluctuate widely from the norm in

To assume that they won't adjust back to equilibrium over

intermediate periods, however, must be to assume that the economy stops
them from arriving at a balanced position by maintaining institutional

In some ways the assumption that proper decisions will be


made to bring the flows back to equilibrium must be considered a goal of
economic policy as well as a statement of factual probability.
The Compensatory Budget
The other major sector affecting savings and investment flows
is the United States Government.

The amount of variation in the Govern­

ment's net savings (deficits and surpluses) has been very large compared
with that of other sectors.

In underemployment periods, government defi­

cits have helped to bring the economy back toward normal production.


contrast, in the past three years the high deficits have been a major
inflationary force.

On the other hand, in periods when the Government is

a net saver, it offsets some of the pressures arising from the private
economy's attempts to borrow and spend more than it saves.
Compensatory government surpluses or deficits would appear to
hold great promise as a means of assuring equilibrium in the total level
of saving and investment both over the immediate and intermediate term
Few economists doubt that the Government can halt inflation.
There has been less agreement over the likelihood that any administration
and Congress would be willing to run a large enough surplus to do the

The debate over whether budget policy should seek a balance (or zero

deficit and surplus) or should attempt to compensate for the disequilib­
rium in private spending and saving decisions probably has resulted in
some harm to the adoption of the best policy.

Stress on a balanced budget


probably tends to lead to inertia in periods such as the present when
large surpluses are required.
While it is still to early to predict because programs for the
war, for other military expenditures, and for the urban crisis are so in­
definite, we should not be surprised if the economy requires-much larger
government surpluses over the next few years than has been true in the
Part of this need for larger surpluses may arise because of
the greater importance of borrowings by the Federally sponsored agencies
such as the Home Loan Banks.

While it is important to the housing market

that these agencies be allowed comparatively unfettered entry to the cap­
ital markets, the increased borrowing by these agencies may be economi­
cally sound only if the official budget surplus expands at a rate equiv­
alent to the agencies' net borrowing.

If the sponsored agencies stimulate

private desires and ability to spend, an equivalent amount of saving will
have to be found somewhere.

Alterations in names and concepts do not

alter the underlying economic facts.
The Housing and Mortgage Markets
I have touched rapidly on some problems related to competing
uses of funds.

Now let me turn briefly to the housing and mortgage mar­

What are the major forces likely to influence the demand for

housing funds over the next 10 years?

Clearly, a most important factor was the determination by Congress
in the Housing Act of 1968 that substantially to meet our national housing
goal within the next decade would require

. .the construction or re­

habilitation of twenty-six million housing units, six million of these
for low and moderate income families."

The critical question is:

many housing starts should we expect if this goal is to be met?

The key

to this question, of course, is how many units will be met from rehabili­
tation and how many from non-standard construction--such as mobile homes-not reported in the housing starts statistics.
I have been caught too many times by changes in definitions and
concepts to try to quantify any figures exactly.

However, in the light

of the little we know about housing markets, I believe the goal to be a
logical one.

It appears likely that this goal can be met with fewer than

20 million public and private starts (as reported in the Census Housing
Starts Series) and fewer than 18 million new units requiring mortgages.
I would guess that if private housing starts, as now defined, averaged
15 per cent above the rate of the past six months, the over-all goal could
be met.

Clearly, in an economy as dynamic as ours and growing as rapidly

as it is, such an increase in production levels should not create any
major difficulties.
To translate this level of starts into the amount of additional
mortgage funds required, we must make additional assumptions about the
average amount of construction and land spending per new dwelling unit



and also about the amount of refinancing that will occur among existing
houses for rehabilitation and other purposes.
We all know that housing costs and prices have been rising
faster than other prices.

Therefore, it may come as something of a shock

to realize that such a relationship does not hold for the average amount
spent for the varying mix of new dwelling units.

In fact despite con­

siderable variation, for the past five years the average amount of con­
struction spending per new private dwelling unit has increased at exactly
the same rate as the general price index--2.6 per cent per year.
This reflects the fact that the percentage of new dwellings in
multi-family structures has been rising.

As one would expect with rising

prices of land, labor, and materials, and with changing population needs,
we have built a higher share of units in apartment structures and these
traditionally have had lower unit costs.

As a result of this, as well as

a regional shift in the mix of new starts, residential construction ex­
penditures have gone up less on average than the price increases for either
single houses or apartments might otherwise suggest.

While much of the

shift to apartments may already have occurred, it would not be surprising
if, as in recent years, the average amount spent for construction per new
dwelling does not rise much faster than the general price level.
As a corollary, these assumptions about starts and average
costs mean that the per cent of the GNP spent for housing construction
should not increase appreciably compared to recent years.

Housing as


10 -

a per cent of the GNP would probably remain well below the experience of
the 10 years ending in the middle of this past decade.
You are all only too aware of how critical the amount of money
lent on refinancing, whether at the time of a sale or to a current owner *
is for mortgage demand.

Because such refinancing was high, the 1963-65

period saw an unusually rapid increase in net mortgage debt compared
either to the level of construction or to net additions to mortgage port­
folios in other recent years.

Similarly, 1966 was unusually low.


searching for a logical base for comparison purposes, I have assumed
that the relationship of net mortgage financing to construction would be
similar to that of 1961-62 and that of the past two years.
On this assumption, while the increase in mortgage demand
would be great in the next decade it would not rise as fast as either
the GNP or personal disposable income.

In other words if the assumptions

hold, the share of income required to finance housebuilding (with related
sales of existing units) would be no higher than in the past decade.
This would be true even though by the end of the decade the total amount
of net mortgage lending would be 70 or 80 per cent above recent levels.
Credit and Financial Markets
Thus far we have seen that no critical problem appears on the
horizon with respect to longer run investment demands either for the
economy as a whole or for housing in particular.

The necessary total

level of savings also appears well within reach of a compensatory Federal


budget program.

11 -

However, one critical question remains:

Will the neces­

sary funds flow into financial institutions and from them into the mort­
gage markets?
While the demand for mortgages will grow somewhat slower than
the economy, there are dangers that growth in personal saving and par­
ticularly in the share of funds placed by households in financial insti­
tutions will slow up.

As a result one requirement for a sufficient sup­

ply of mortgage funds is that savings and loan associations hold their
present share in the general flow of financing or that there be a com­
plete change in mortgage lending procedures and relationships.
The obvious danger in assuming that S&L's will continue to
play as significant a role is that it is an unlikely outcome if prices
continue to increase rapidly.

When prices are rising, people are less

willing to maintain funds, particularly deposits, in financial institu­

They are more likely to trade the convenience and safety of

deposits for other assets which they believe will move with the price

They examine assets more carefully in an attempt to obtain the

highest real rate of return.
Such shifts have occurred in recent years as some of the tradi­
tional investors in debt instruments have transferred to the equity mar­

Pension, trust, and endowment funds, as well as insurance companies,

have all sought more action.

This has resulted in a sharp increase in

the desire for and in the price of equities and in a major shift in the
relative nominal yields between debts and equities.


12 -

Interestin g l y , however, the share of deposits in the total econ­
omy has not changed greatly.

While their share in the past three years

has been below the peaks in the early '60's, it has been well ahead of
the level reached in the late '501s -

It seems clear that deposits yield

considerable real returns over and above interest paid.
Still we all must feel a great deal of uneasiness as to whether
the flows of recent years are likely to remain a stable percentage of in­

Cl earlv many investors talk and act as if they doubted such future


Two important forces, however, suggest the possibility of a

viable balance over a period such as the one we are discussing,

(a) More

people who need money seek to obtain it through equities rather than
debts; and (b) there is some ratio of yields that makes debts as attrac­
tive as equities.
The percentage of business long-term funds raised through equi­
ties has increased rapidly.
more readily.

Stocks and convertible debentures are issued

More important to our current discussion, an increasing

share of mortgages on income property has equity features.
reduce the supply of debt issues.

These actions

They also decrease the burden on the

traditional mortgage market.
What ratio of yields between stocks and debts would be required
for stability is much harder to guess.
lytical problems.

Two obvious forces create ana­

Much of the desire for equities is probably based on

expectations developed as a result of the movement in past market prices
rather than in yields.

Expectations based on predictions of high rates


of change usually are thwarted.

There is a limit to rates of increase.

On the other hand, problems exist on the debt side.
of depositary institutions, lag behind current rates.

Yields, particularly
What level of

rates would be viable in an inflationary context is not at all clear.
Savings and Loans
I find such a lag in the adjustment of operations of savings
and loan associations relative to changes in the environment and it is
most worrisome.

In the past, I have frequently made clear my belief that

S&L's must work out ways to be more innovative.
important changes have been made.
is a continuing process.

I recognize that some

But adaption to changing surroundings

The problem now is to foresee the features

which may be significant in the environment of the 1970's and consciously
to plan the institutional changes that will be necessary.
The basic environmental problem of savings and loans is how to
get a better match between the length of their assets and liabilities.
S&L's primarily remain institutions which borrow short and lend long.
This is fine if:

(1) short-term rates are much lower than long; (2) the

economy is stable and interest rates are not fluctuating; or (3) margins
are large due to lack of competition.
All three of these conditions prevailed five years ago when I
last addressed this meeting.

I warned then that they could not be ex­

pected to continue as favorable and that those not planning for changes
were assuming large risks.

Unfortunately my predictions at that time

turned out to be only too true.


I see no reason now to expect that basic conditions with respect
to these forces will improve.

In addition, I emphasize today some addi­

tional features of the environment of the 1970's.

The industry will be

faced with increasingly sophisticated and equity-conscious savers.


also will be a greater variety of types of needs by potential borrowers.
Unless well-designed changes occur, we may find it difficult to raise the
money required to finance the homes we need after all.
I will not try this afternoon to specify the types of innova­
tions implied by these prospective changes because I have spoken on this
topic so often.

On the deposit or liability side, more progress toward

longer term liabilities is required.

Obvious possibilities are bonds

with longer terms or deposits paying higher rates on longer maturities.
To some, the guarantee of high rates makes such funds appear expensive.
They arrive at this judgment primarily because they neglect the cost of
risks in unbalanced portfolios.

They also may neglect the loss in housing

welfare if the associations grow too slowly.
On the asset side, new types and forms of mortgages are required.
S&L's made a tremendous innovation when they contributed the concept of
the fully amortized mortgage.

Now, however, we may be at a point where

still other types of mortgages are needed.

In the past, I have suggested

the advantages to both borrowers and lenders of variable interest rates.
I have also suggested that we ought to recognize that a mortgage contains
both a housing and a savings contract.

There are many different ways of

structuring the amount owners pay in contrast to those followed in current


amortization practice.

Different forms of payments would meet the needs

of separate groups far better than the single type which now predominates.
In the process of designing new mortgage types the returns to the bor­
rower and lender might be split into a more equitable form.
I must admit that I have not been able to make up my mind whether
to end this talk on an optimistic or pessimistic note.
years ago, the note was very pessimistic.

In my speech five

Since the projections were cor­

rect, I hope that the few who were willing to speak to me after that meet­
ing acted and profited from their willingness to listen.
Today perhaps I should be more optimistic.

I think it is clear

that there are no insurmountable basic long-run problems.

Future demands

and supply for funds appear to fall well within previous ranges.


goal of financing necessary housing construction is certainly attainable
without enormous new efforts.
If financing is to take place, however, without sharp altera­
tions in rates and periodic shortages or surpluses of funds, the Government,
the Federal Reserve, the Home Loan Banks, and you as individual savings
and loan managers will have to do a better job than has been accomplished
in the past few years.