Policy Research Working Paper 9236 Financing Firms in Hibernation during the COVID-19 Pandemic Tatiana Didier Federico Huneeus Mauricio Larrain Sergio L. Schmukler Development Economics Development Research Group & Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation Global Practice Office of the Global Director May 2020 Policy Research Working Paper 9236 Abstract The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic halted economic and long-term detrimental economic effects. Third, firms activity worldwide, hurting firms and pushing many of can benefit from “hibernation,” incurring the minimum them toward bankruptcy. This paper discusses four central bare expenses necessary to withstand the pandemic, while issues that have emerged in the academic and policy debates using credit if needed to remain alive until the crisis sub- related to firm financing during the downturn. First, the eco- dues. Fourth, the existing legal and regulatory infrastructure nomic crisis triggered by the pandemic is radically different is ill-equipped to deal with an exogenous systemic shock from past crises, with important consequences for optimal like a pandemic. Financial sector policies can help increase policy responses. Second, it is important to preserve firms’ the provision of credit, while posing difficult choices and relationships with key stakeholders (like workers, suppliers, trade-offs. customers, and creditors) to avoid inefficient bankruptcies This paper is a product of the Development Research Group, Development Economics and the Office of the Global Director, Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at tdidier@worldbank.org, federico.huneeus@yale.edu, mlarrain@cmfchile.cl, sschmukler@worldbank.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Financing Firms in Hibernation during the COVID-19 Pandemic∗ Tatiana Didier Federico Huneeus World Bank Yale University & Central Bank of Chile Mauricio Larrain Sergio L. Schmukler Financial Market Commission & PUC Chile World Bank Updated October 2020 Keywords: Cash crush, coronavirus, credit risk, financial policies, firm relation- ships JEL Codes: G21, G28, G32, G33, G38, I18 ∗ We received very useful comments from Alvaro Aguirre, Saki Bigio, Steen Byskov, Charlie Calomiris, Jos´ es Fernandez, Michael Fuchs, e Ignacio Cuesta, Augusto de la Torre, Marcela Eslava (discussant), Andr´ Alfonso Garc´ ıa Mora, Iftekhar Hasan (the Editor), Cristobal Huneeus, Alain Ize, Aart Kraay, Norman Loayza, Fernando Mendo, Gabriel Natividad (discussant), Ernesto Pasten, Rekha Reddy, three anony- mous referees, and participants at webinars organized by the Catholic University of Chile, Columbia Uni- versity, GRADE Peru, University Adolfo Iba˜ nez, University of Buenos Aires, University Sebelas Maret, and the World Bank in Kuala Lumpur and Washington, D.C. We thank Facundo Abraham, Rosario Cisternas Vial, Marta Guasch Rusi˜ nol, and Joaqu´ andez for able research assistance and Nancy ın Fern´ Morrison for helpful edits. A shorter version of this paper appeared as World Bank Research & Policy Brief No. 30. The World Bank Chile Research and Development Center, the Finance, Competition, and Innovation (FCI) group at the Malaysia Global Knowledge and Research Hub, the Knowledge for Change Program (KCP), and the Research Support Budget (RSB) provided financial support for this paper. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Central Bank of Chile, the Financial Market Commission of Chile, or the World Bank Group, its Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. E-mail addresses: tdidier@worldbank.org, federico.huneeus@yale.edu, mlarrain@cmfchile.cl, sschmukler@worldbank.org. 1. Introduction The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has imposed a heavy toll on economic activity worldwide. The shock has been sudden and concurrent across countries, and it has been characterized by significant uncertainty regarding its magnitude and duration. Because of the rapid transmission of the virus, people around the globe have simultaneously isolated following strict public health orders. Social distancing and other containment measures are emergency measures that save lives, but they have led to a synchronized collapse in economic activity worldwide. Major stock market indexes crashed at an unprecedented pace (Baker et al., 2020), erasing close to one third of their value in just a matter of weeks and hitting industries across the board, reflecting expected losses in the corporate sector. However, the rebound from this initial collapse has also been relatively swift in the wake of a strong policy response (Figure 1). For example, in the United States, stock prices for most industries recovered about two thirds of their value lost within six months of the initial collapse (Table 1). Policy makers around the world have rapidly deployed a wide arsenal of tools to cope with the inevitable economic recession and cushion the effects of the shock.1 Many of these policies have focused on helping firms manage the crisis (Ilzetzki, 2020). In Eu- rope, Germany’s bazooka program included e550 billion in new loans to firms through its state investment bank (Garicano, 2020), while in the U.K. and Switzerland the policies introduced enabled firms to obtain bridging loans (Eckert et al., 2020; Goodhart et al., 2020). At the union level, the European Central Bank launched early in March a program of private and public securities purchases, in addition to easing collateral eligibility rules and providing financial assistance to firms (Delatte and Guillaume, 2020). Moreover, the European Council approved in July a recovery plan which included both debt issuance and large-scale transfers (Blesse et al., 2020). Similarly, in the United States the Federal Reserve extended liquidity to firms through the purchase of financial securities in capital markets (De Vito and Gomez, 2020a). In emerging markets and developing countries, counter-cyclical monetary policy has been extensively used, with governments slashing policy rates and intervening in foreign exchange markets while trying to provide liquidity to firms (Gelos et al., 2020; Hofmann et al., 2020). For example, in Mexico, the Central Bank announced the purchase of corporate bonds in April (Hartley and Rebucci, 2020), while in Pakistan and Egypt the drop in the monetary policy rate was the largest in a sample of 85 nations which included both developed and developing countries (Benmelech and Tzur-Ilan, 2020). Economists have come up with additional policy proposals. Governments could be the backstop for absorbing losses (Beck, 2020), act as a payer of last resort (Saez and Zucman, 2020), adopt measures of social insurance as a way to mitigate the short-run negative ef- fects of the pandemic (Chetty et al., 2020), or support bridging the gap between pre- and post-pandemic economies (Hassler et al., 2020). Others have suggested shield packages aimed at supporting firms, especially those in financial distress (B´ enassy-Qu´ e et al., er´ 2020). Additional proposals include the provision of support to wage payments (Al- stadsæter et al., 2020), the need for “helicopter money” (Cukierman, 2020), restricting financial institution’s voluntary pay-outs (Beck et al., 2020), equity-like cash flow injec- 1 The continuously growing policy trackers compiled by the IMF, the World Bank, and Yale’s Program on Financial Stability, and discussed in places like Econfip, Elgin et al. (2020), and VoxEU provide just a glimpse of the many initiatives that have been implemented. 1 Figure 1: Magnitude of the COVID-19 Shock across Countries Note: This figure shows the performance of stock markets across countries. Panel (a) shows a comparison between the cumulative changes in the S&P 500 since February 24th, 2020 for the COVID-19 pandemic and since September 14th, 2008 for the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Panel (b) shows the cumulative changes in stock markets indexes across countries since February 24th, 2020. The dotted vertical line in each panel shows the day in which the Federal Reserve announced a set of measures to support the U.S. economy (March 23rd, 2020). For EuroNext 100 index, France, Netherlands, and Belgium are, respectively, the countries with the largest number of companies as of August 2020. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Refinitiv data. 2 Table 1: Decline in Stock Markets across Industries in the United States Note: This table shows stock market changes across industries in the United States, measured through iShares exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The changes in stock market prices are cumulative changes calculated over 28 and 120 days starting on February 24th, 2020 for the COVID-19 pandemic, and 120 days starting on September 12th, 2008 for the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). For the stock market performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, the first interval is measured up to day 28 to coincide with the Federal Reserve announcement of a set of measures to support the U.S. economy on March 23rd, 2020. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Refinitiv data. tions (Boot et al., 2020), a liquidity lifeline to cash-strapped firms (Brunnermeier et al., 2020), evergreening loans (Brunnermeier and Krishnamurthy, 2020), and preserving bank capital (Acharya and Steffen, 2020). As economic hardships caused by the pandemic have persisted over several months, economists have analyzed alternative lockdown strategies (Abel and Panageas, 2020), while emphasizing the need for liquidity to keep flowing to firms (Button et al., 2020). In this paper, we systematically discuss the academic and policy arguments related to the financing of firms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this discussion is to understand through a unified framework the optimal policy choices given the priorities and trade-offs that policy makers face when trying to save firms from collapsing, as well as the incentives such policies generate for firms and financial intermediaries. The discussion is centered along four main points. First, the economic crisis triggered by the spread of the COVID-19 is radically different from past economic and financial crises. Unlike previous crises, this time the shock did not originate in the financial sector and was not the result of financial intermediaries or companies behaving irresponsibly due to ex-ante moral hazard (Kaminsky and Reinhart, 1999; Reinhart and Rogoff, 2009). Moreover, the health emergency, which triggered the crisis, is transitory in nature. Although the timing of its resolution remains uncertain, the pandemic will get resolved eventually. That said, the shock could have permanent effects and could lead to profound changes in some economic activities. These particular features of the current crisis have important implications for the menu of tools available to policy makers. In a typical economic crisis, there is a problem in the financial sector that needs to be resolved. Thus, the optimal response generally is to quickly identify and isolate the part of the financial sector in trouble (e.g., insolvent banks, bankrupt companies, or 3 distressed corporate or sovereign debt markets). In many instances, this entails liquidat- ing firms in financial distress. In this way, the rest of the financial sector remains safe, and continues operating and financing the real sector (Laeven and Valencia, 2008, 2010; Calomiris et al., 2016). However, because the real and financial sectors were in relative good shape before the pandemic struck, activating the prevailing crisis-resolution mecha- nisms, which tend to punish firms and banks in trouble, might prove counterproductive. For example, requiring banks to increase loan-loss provisions or to reduce the credit score of firms hit by the COVID-19 shock could actually amplify the problem this time around, inefficiently pushing firms into bankruptcy. As a result, those firms negatively impacted during the pandemic but with otherwise good economic prospects would get hit not only by the pandemic itself, but also by these conventional actions designed to protect the financial sector. Second, supporting firms to maintain their organizational capital during the pandemic crisis can allow for a quicker economic recovery once an effective treatment or vaccine is developed. Firms have relationships with an array of key stakeholders, such as workers, suppliers, customers, and creditors. These relationships are costly and time-consuming to build, maintain, and adjust, and may embed significant organizational capital and skills externalities (Hamermesh and Pfann, 1996; Kahn and Wagner, 2020). The churning pro- cess of destroying these relationships between firms and stakeholders only to reconstruct them post-pandemic is far from efficient. Moreover, pushing otherwise viable firms into bankruptcy can trigger economy-wide magnification effects through, for example, a firm exit multiplier in which firm closures generate ripple effects by negatively impacting dif- ferent stakeholders. Hence, a transitory negative shock that destroys a significant mass of firms’ relationships can lead to long-term economic scarring and hysteresis effects, slowing down the economic recovery (Gourio and Rudanko, 2014; Huneeus, 2018; Gregory et al., 2020; Hassler et al., 2020). Third, we introduce the idea of “firm hibernation” as a way to avoid the economic costs of breaking firms’ valuable relationships with their stakeholders and bankruptcies. As a response to the COVID-19 shock, some initiatives have argued in favor of “freezing the economy” so it can resume later (Atlantic, 2020a,b; Wall Street Journal, 2020). But the term freeze is not clearly defined and can be somewhat misleading; it is not possible to completely stop the economy or firms in time as if they were frozen. Workers need basic income during the lockdown, some firms need to deliver essential products and ser- vices, and minimal maintenance and operations are required, leading to some expenses. A more appropriate term might be “hibernation.” This means using the minimum bare cash necessary for firms to withstand the pandemic lockdown and the social distancing measures. That cash is utilized to freeze firms’ relationships with their stakeholders, while adapting their activities, but not to freeze firms themselves. During the hibernation pe- riod, payments to different stakeholders would be adjusted downwards, such as workers’ wages or accounts payable, in a way that firms and their relationships can remain viable in the long run. Credit can help significantly in this period, providing the cash that firms may not have on hand. Even firms that have ceased operations during a lockdown will need financing to stay alive and remain ready to reopen when such lockdown eases (akin to the energy that animals need during their hibernation).2 2 Kahn and Wagner (2020) provide a theoretical framework to analyze the funding of temporary shut- downs in production. The optimal policy in their model requires promising attractive funding conditions 4 Fourth, despite the desirability for credit during the hibernation period, the existing legal and regulatory infrastructure (e.g., bankruptcy codes or crisis resolution mecha- nisms) is not designed to deal with an exogenous systemic shock such as the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed, the existing infrastructure of financial sectors could in fact am- plify the problem, as it tends to penalize firms that face difficulties, leading, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, to inefficient bankruptcies and excessive destruction of relation- ships. Hence, policy makers have been prompted to innovate and reassess their financial policy response while the health crisis gets resolved. This process has implied working with the financial sector to improve the likelihood that viable firms are not shut down, and are in fact assisted during the pandemic by a financial infrastructure that has been prepared to withstand other types of shocks. Various financial sector policies can help in the provision of credit, while posing different trade-offs. We group policies along two dimensions: those aimed at adapting the institutional framework to meet the challenges imposed by the pandemic shock, and those aimed at extending credit to firms. These policies have distinct implications for different firms, countries, and generations. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the nature of the COVID-19 crisis and how it differs from previous crises. Section 3 summarizes the value of saving firms and the challenges it may pose. Section 4 presents the idea of hibernation and how credit might help firms hibernate. Section 5 discusses the financing policy op- tions and their trade-offs. Section 6 concludes. 2. The Nature of the COVID-19 Crisis Past economic crises (such as the Debt Crisis of the 1980s, the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis, and the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis, GFC) originated in financial vulnera- bilities. Typically in past crises, financial intermediaries (such as banks) took on excessive risks, experienced losses, suffered runs on deposits, lost access to funding, and, in turn, stopped lending to the real sector. In other cases, debt markets froze as borrowers became unable to rollover existing liabilities, leading to increased fragility in the financial sector, which then got transmitted to the rest of the economy, generally causing a recession. In contrast, the root of the COVID-19 crisis lies outside the financial sector: a highly contagious virus transmitted from animals to humans. A few months after being spotted in Wuhan, China, the virus spread throughout populations across the world. The highly contagious nature of the virus has meant that many people have gotten sick at once, and a historically high percentage of those have required intensive care, rapidly overwhelming existing hospital capacity. To diminish the number of concurrently infected people and to accommodate proper hospital care for the sick, policy makers were forced to take a dismal policy decision: impose social distancing and other containment measures, such as lockdowns, to flatten the curve of infections and give health care systems a greater chance to treat the infected population. Cities have shut down, mandatory quarantines have been implemented, and borders have been closed. These measures have saved lives, but have severely affected economic activity, bringing it to a near halt at the onset of the to firms for when the pandemic is over so as to provide incentives for them to hang on (that is, neither to go out of business nor to return to full production immediately). 5 crisis and a sluggish recovery since then. The source of the crisis this time around is an exogenous health shock, and almost every aspect of the pandemic crisis has been surrounded by massive uncertainty. Uncer- tainty indicators have reached their highest values on record in reaction to the pandemic and its economic fallout (Ahir et al., 2019; Altig et al., 2020). More than six months since the onset of the pandemic, little is known about the disease itself. Uncertainties range from the infectiousness and long-term health effects of the COVID-19, to the effectiveness of containment measures, to the time needed to develop a vaccine (or treatment) and, even, to its efficacy. In addition to the uncertainty about COVID-19 itself, there is sig- nificant uncertainty about the short-run and long-run economic effects of the pandemic. In the short run, there are active debates, for example, about the magnitude of the pan- demic crisis, the speed of the eventual recovery, and the effectiveness of different policies. Considering a longer-term horizon, there are significant uncertainties about whether the pandemic will produce long-lasting changes in the nature of economic activity, prompting some industries to flourish and others to shrink. In fact, the pandemic has accelerated some changes that were already under way. Notably, the lockdown and other social dis- tancing measures have led to a surge in the use of digital technologies that promote remote communications and interactions. The COVID-19 crisis has also led to significant shifts in consumer spending and investment patterns. But it remains to be seen the extent to which these shifts in economic activity will persist in the post-pandemic world. Also, unlike previous crises, during the COVID-19 outbreak, economies have faced a combination of a supply shock (most immediately, employees could not go to work, impairing production, disrupting supply chains, and freezing investments) and a demand shock (notably, households and firms reduced their demand for certain goods and ser- vices), which have reinforced each other (Baqaee and Farhi, 2020; Eichenbaum et al., 2020; Guerrieri et al., 2020). The scope of the crisis is also more extensive than in past macro-financial crises. The COVID-19 shock has transmitted quickly within national bor- ders, affecting firms and industries across the board, as well as across borders, affecting countries around the world in a highly synchronized manner. The impact of these combined shocks on firms has been unprecedented. It has lead to a sudden collapse in corporate revenues; corporate cash flows have plummeted at an unparalleled scale and firms have struggled to survive as their working capital depleted. Historical data on the average number of days that firms can cover their operating ex- penses with their cash holdings illustrate the extent of the cash crunch that firms have faced with the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 2). The analysis indicates that cash avail- ability could help firms withstand the pandemic shock, but in some cases, the available cash would not be sufficient (Joseph et al., 2019; De Vito and Gomez, 2020b; Schivardi and Romano, 2020). For example, some of the industries that have been hit hard by the pandemic crisis, such as restaurants, retail stores, and service firms (e.g., hospitality and leisure) would last for only a few weeks if revenues ceased completely and expenses remained at the pre-pandemic levels. Thus, a firm’s ability to continue operating during the pandemic crisis depends not only on the magnitude of the decline of its revenues, but also on whether it could raise additional funding as well as on its ability to adjust expenses (such as payroll, supplier payments, and other overhead costs). 6 Figure 2: Days of Cash in Hand across Industries Multiline & specialty retail Restaurants Consumer staples Textiles, apparel, & luxury goods Auto & components Other transport Utilities Industrials Hotels, resorts, & cruise lines Other consumer discretionary Airlines Materials Information technology Communication services Health care Energy 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Number of days Note: This figure shows the number of days of operating expenses covered by cash held across U.S. listed firms. The figure shows 2000-2016 averages by industry. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Compustat data. The resilience of the corporate sector is also tightly linked to the duration of the pan- demic shock. The exogenous health emergency is transitory. Eventually a vaccine or an effective treatment will be developed, or the disease will run its course, and the source of the crisis will basically disappear. Nonetheless, the timeline for these exits from the pandemic are still unknown and hard to predict. Hence, the duration of the pandemic crisis remains a crucial source of uncertainty. The longer the pandemic lasts, the tougher it would be for firms to withstand the economic downturn, survive, and recover. To the extent that the shock does not persist for too long, a significant proportion of firms are likely to remain viable. That is, their net worth will still be positive as the economy returns to pre-pandemic levels. However, not all firms can survive a prolonged crisis, with extensive lockdowns and other containment measures. While industries themselves will weather the shock and survive (e.g., the restaurant or airline industries will not disap- pear), the same cannot be said about individual firms. Those that do survive might be severely impacted, possibly losing lines of business or customers, and may in fact need to transform themselves (or close) to thrive in the post-pandemic world. The heavy costs that the COVID-19 outbreak has imposed on the world economy have been born not only by firms themselves, but rather by all parties. In fact, the pandemic crisis has disturbed a wide range of economic relationships. Shock-hit firms have suffered a collapse in revenues. Shareholders of firms negatively affected by the pandemic have 7 lost a significant fraction of their stakes. Workers have been laid off or accepted wage cuts. Production chains have been disrupted, with many suppliers having postponed re- ceivables. Creditors have renegotiated debts. However, if firms start to default on their debts, they risk being pushed into bankruptcy. To avoid reaching this situation, credit in the form of rollover of payments coming due and new financing would help. Despite the desirability for more financial support to firms, existing crisis resolution mechanisms and bankruptcy codes, revised after previous financial crises, are not designed to provide such support to hard-hit firms amid an exogenous systemic shock such as the COVID-19 pandemic. They are focused on mitigating the spillovers of shocks that orig- inate from the financial sector and on preventing those shocks from materializing in the first place (such as deposit insurance, lender of last resort, and Basel III bank capital regulation). During past crises rooted in the financial sector, policy makers would step in, resolve the financial intermediaries or creditors in trouble (the “bad apples”), while shielding the rest of the system from a collapse. Once policy makers addressed the main problems in the financial sector, bank lending to the real sector resumed, and economic activity recovered. This time around, because the problem does not emanate from the financial sector or from a particular firm or industry, the solution is significantly more challenging. Pol- icy makers must be creative until the health crisis gets resolved, adopting policies that mitigate the shock and the impact of the containment measures on the real sector. This involves working with the financial sector, as well as with other stakeholders, to improve the likelihood that viable firms are not pushed into default and bankruptcy by a financial infrastructure and a legal and regulatory system that is not prepared to deal with a pan- demic. It also involves policies related to the financial sector itself, which has been affected by the shock, like all the other sectors in the economy, and which would naturally tend to contract lending in these circumstances. Because the financial sector plays a key inter- mediary role in channeling savings to productive activities, failure in this function could significantly aggravate the already sizable economic impact of the pandemic shock (Beck, 2020). Preserving the financial sector in good standing can avoid even greater damage to the overall economy. Although financing alone is not enough, a well-functioning financial sector can help firms stay alive and preserve their relationships. 3. The Value of Saving Relationships Firms depend on key and unique relationships with different stakeholders, such as work- ers, suppliers (of intermediate inputs, equipment, and commercial real estate), customers, and creditors. The relative importance of operational expenditures to these different stakeholders varies significantly across industries, depending on the nature of businesses activities (Figure 3). Firms generally spend resources in building the best relationships for their needs, which usually requires relationship-specific investments that involve the creation of knowledge and reputation. For example, firms must find the best workers, suppliers, and creditors that match their production processes. To do so, they must learn about workers’ skills and capabilities, develop methods to adapt specific intermediate inputs to production lines, 8 Figure 3: Payments to Key Stakeholders across Industries Real estate Energy Textiles, apparel, & luxury goods Financials Communication services Materials Auto & components Consumer staples Information technology Other consumer discretionary Industrials Hotels, resorts, & cruise lines Health care Multiline & specialty retail Other transport Airlines Restaurants 0 20 40 60 80 100 Labor expenses Accounts payable Interest payments Note: This figure shows the share of operating expenses owed to workers, suppliers, and creditors across U.S. listed firms. The figure shows 2000-2016 averages by industry. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Compustat data. and seek investors that might be better suited for their financing needs. Firms also have long-term relations with customers that have become loyal to their products and services. These relationships or matches, and the knowledge embedded in them, can be thought of as an important intangible asset or organizational capital of firms. Survey evidence for 500 large firms in ten emerging countries suggests that firms value these crucial relationships (Beck et al., 2020). The surveyed firms were negatively affected by the pandemic shock and their immediate response was to reduce investment while protecting their long-term relationships with stakeholders. Pushing viable firms into bankruptcy during the COVID-19 pandemic would mean that the different relationships would need to be reconstructed in the recovery follow- ing the crisis. This churning process of destroying and then recreating relationships and contracts is far from efficient. For instance, maintaining employment in firms during the temporary negative shock could enable firms to keep specific human capital within the firm and avoid the costly processes of separation and then of re-hiring and training when the crisis is over. For workers, it could preserve experience and specific human capital and prevent the long-term career costs of layoffs (Davis and Von Wachter, 2011). These ben- efits may be particularly large in emerging and developing economies, where formal firms (and jobs) account for a relatively small, laboriously-built fraction of the economy, but concentrate the bulk of society’s organizational capital (Alfaro et al., 2020). Nonetheless, 9 there are costs to keeping firms and their key relationships active: some firms might not be viable after the crisis, and preventing their closure early on during the crisis can lead to inefficiencies. Hence, there are trade-offs involved in designing policies to help keep firms alive and maintain their relationships. Research has argued that a transitory shock that destroys a significant mass of rela- tionships can lead to long-term scarring economic effects and a slow economic recovery. Predictions from a search-theoretic model for labor market dynamics show that the speed of the post-pandemic recovery would crucially depend on the extent to which relation- ships between firms and employees are maintained, suspended, or terminated (Gregory et al., 2020). An L-shaped recession would ensue if many workers go into unemployment without maintaining ties to their previous employer and if those workers cannot quickly find new, stable jobs. Moreover, financial constraints and bargaining frictions distort la- bor hoarding decisions when firms are hit by a temporary shock, leading to inefficiently low overall employment levels (Giupponi and Landais, 2020). Empirical evidence from the GFC suggests that keeping workers’ attachment to their previous employers, thus preserving the aggregate stock of firm-specific human capital, could avoid persistent mis- matches and preclude the temporary shock from becoming a prolonged stagnation (Fujita et al., 2020). Breaking firms’ relationships can trigger magnification effects within firms, which can justify a role for government intervention. One channel is an unemployment and asset price deflation “doom loop” working through credit market imperfections and a productivity-related channel (Cespedes et al., 2020).3 Specifically, weak aggregate de- mand triggered by the pandemic could lead to a destruction in workers-firms matches. If these broken relationships are numerous (e.g., layoffs beyond certain thresholds), they could lower firms’ expected productivity. This, in turn, could lower the collateral value of the firms, tightening financial constraints and limiting their borrowing capacity, which could further lower firms’ productivity. A number of recent theoretical studies emphasize that business closures since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic could trigger significant economy-wide amplification effects, which further justify policy interventions. One line of argument posits that the sup- ply shocks originated by lockdowns and other containment measures could get amplified through demand factors.4 A firm exit multiplier can trigger such amplification mechanism (Guerrieri et al., 2020). Specifically, business closures in the sectors most affected by the pandemic (such as those highly dependent on social interactions) could lead to reduced demand for businesses in less-affected sectors. In turn, some of those other businesses might become unable or unwilling to remain open. These additional closures could gen- erate a new endogenous supply shock that amplifies the initial exogenous shock, creating a multiplier effect that may be sufficiently strong to shut down most of the economy. The large supply shock could also endogenously reduce agents’ risk tolerance, lowering asset prices and reducing agents’ wealth, which, in turn, could induce a disproportionately large contraction in aggregate demand that exceeds the decline in supply (Caballero and Simsek, 2020). 3 See Fornaro and Wolf (2020) for a broader explanation of this vicious cycle. 4 Some studies examine the extent to which a decline in demand in some sectors can propagate to others (Bigio et al., 2020; Faria-e-Castro, 2020). 10 Other studies analyze the amplification effects of corporate bankruptcies working through the financial sector (Elenev et al., 2020; Segura and Villacorta, 2020). Specifically, the fall in firms’ revenue due to the pandemic could spur a wave of corporate defaults, which would involve a dead-weight loss to society that can be interpreted as the cost of breaking relationships with their stakeholders. These corporate defaults would translate into higher credit spreads, which would generate a decline in corporate investment. De- faults would also inflict losses on their lenders, especially banks. For some banks, the losses could be so severe that they could (optimally choose to) fail, potentially depressing credit even further, leading to further corporate sector distress, lowering further capital formation and output in future periods, thus prolonging the crisis. Hence, the pandemic could lead to a mutually reinforcing downward spiral of firm and financial sector distress working through the balance sheet linkages between firms and banks (or financial inter- mediaries more broadly). Firms’ bankruptcies and the implied destruction of relationships could also spillover through production networks, where non-linearities can amplify the effects of a negative shock by disrupting supply-chain networks (Baqaee and Farhi, 2020). For example, the sectors most affected by the lockdowns and other containment measures could become supply bottlenecks that drag other sectors down with them. This amplification mecha- nism is particularly important in the short run as firms might find it harder to substitute their production plans on short notice (Huneeus, 2018). The propagation of the pandemic shock can also take place through a trade linkage channel or global supply chains, where indirect effects on domestic GDP from trading partners affected by the pandemic can be non-trivial (Bonadio et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020). Similarly, the course of the pandemic abroad can also affect domestic sectors via international input-output linkages within an international production network, whereby lower external demand can amplify the do- mestic demand shocks (C ¸ akmakli et al., 2020). Although it may be inefficient to destroy the relationships between firms and their stakeholders, there is a trade-off between economic activity and disease transmission due to production externalities. That is, pushing firms to remain open and operating during the pandemic might generate negative externalities by facilitating the spread of the virus (Bethune and Korinek, 2020; Eichenbaum et al., 2020). Hence, unlike in ordinary crises and recessions, stimulating the economy to return to normal capacity might not be nec- essarily a desirable solution. 4. Credit to Maintain Relationships during Hibernation Some firms and countries have, in practice, implemented what we label hibernation. That means slowing the economy until the pandemic is brought under control, while using pol- icy interventions to compensate for some of the many losses that the economy needs to withstand. Hibernation entails using the minimum bare cash necessary to withstand the pandemic. This implies different thresholds for firms in different industries and countries. Some firms have been effectively shut down while the restrictions last (such as movie theaters and restaurants with no takeout or delivery options), whereas other firms have adapted and operated at a much-reduced capacity (such as airlines maintaining some 11 flights and retailers selling only online). Even the firms that have ceased operations dur- ing the lockdown would need some minimal funds to stay alive, keeping their human and physical capital ready to reopen when the lockdown passes. Therefore, the concept of hibernation is useful for firms with different degrees of reduction in their routine activities. Hibernation reduces the trade-off between keeping firms alive and spreading the virus. It maintains the contracts underlying firms’ relationships active, while diminishing the disease transmission. Because hibernation is intended to keep firms’ relationships with their stakeholders alive, firms can recover more quickly when the shock subdues, with no need to reconstruct all their relationships. Hibernation is not a simple solution, as the relationships between firms and their dif- ferent stakeholders, and the contracts that support them, might need to be renegotiated to somehow share the burden of the inactive period. Borrowing to maintain all preexisting contracts—assuming business as usual—could generate a high and perhaps unbearable debt burden on firms by the time the recovery starts. An ensuing debt overhang problem, with so-called “zombie firms,” could linger for years (Caballero et al., 2008). Therefore, hibernation allows firms to minimize the amount of debt they take to remain viable both during the pandemic, while economic activity is depressed, and after the pandemic sub- sides, as economic activity recovers and accumulated debts need to be repaid. Given the uncertainties about the duration and magnitude of the shock, a key ques- tion is the extent to which different stakeholders could absorb part of the losses associated with the hibernation phase. That is, firms could increase their likelihood of surviving the pandemic if they had some flexibility in negotiating payments to their different stake- holders, while using their cash and borrowing capacity to cover their reduced operational costs during the lockdown period. The relationships with the different stakeholders are tightly linked. For instance, the ability of firms to pay creditors depends on whether they have enough money left over after paying other stakeholders, especially while businesses are temporarily halted. The bargaining power of different stakeholders, reflected in the flexibility in their contracts, will ultimately determine which relationship firms adjust to weather the pandemic. For example, if part of a firm’s suppliers’ payments is variable, with room for adjustments, then suppliers could absorb a share of the costs of continuing the business. This, in turn, might allow the firm to fire fewer workers and also provide some slack to pay its creditors. Exploiting the flexibility of some relationships could help firms adjust their expenses, keep important relationships active, and reduce costly churning, while improving their prospects for the recovery. Creditors could provide a crucial margin of adjustment for firms, especially if they could offer extra financing that would allow firms to avoid breaking up their other rela- tionships. In addition to internal financing options, which are limited in the short term, firms could turn to external financing from banks (such as credit lines, term loans, and letters of credit) and capital markets (bonds and equities). Some firms could also benefit from trade credit from firms with spare cash. There are, however, three unique sets of challenges related to firm financing during the 12 pandemic shock that might justify a role for policy intervention. First, the private sector debt built up after the GFC means that many firms have entered the crisis with high levels of debt. There was around US$75 trillion of non-financial corporate debt outstanding in the world in September 2019 (IIF, 2020). Non-financial corporations in emerging markets alone will need to pay back or refinance more than US$700 billion during 2020, which does not include the new financing needs that arise as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Such high corporate indebtedness represents an important source of fragility and could impose significant constraints on firms’ ability to borrow, especially for emerging-economy firms with debts denominated in foreign currency, as many domestic currencies have plummeted. Second, firms might have a limited capacity to substitute across external financing sources during this crisis. During a typical financial crisis, if the banking sector shuts down and banks stop providing loans, some firms are able to substitute away from bank loans toward bond financing (Becker and Ivashina, 2014; Cortina et al., 2020). During the COVID-19 crisis, all markets across all countries have been simultaneously hit and financing from both banks and capital markets has dried up for many firms. Firms might have been left with no obvious source of financing, during a period in which access to finance might determine their own survival. Third, and perhaps most importantly, creditors in general and banks in particular have become reluctant to lend, unwilling to absorb the higher credit risk of firms. Amid widespread uncertainty regarding the magnitude and duration of the shock, creditors have faced challenges in evaluating the likelihood of firm survival, given that credit risk assess- ments under these circumstances have significant margins of error. Firms that can cut workers’ wages or renegotiate accounts payable with suppliers would pose a lower credit risk for creditors. Yet, the crucial challenge for creditors is that they have imperfect infor- mation about contract details (including their flexibility) between firms and their other stakeholders. Thus, they might cut financing across the board, both because of the higher credit risk and the increased risk aversion. Furthermore, there could be externalities. In- dividual creditors might not look beyond their immediate contractual requirements or narrow self-interest to fully understand the general feedback loop over time. Firms that are not able to obtain financing during the hibernation phase would have lower chances of survival. In turn, this could affect the likelihood of survival of other firms with which they have relationships, thus feeding the feedback loop. 5. Policy Interventions to Sustain Firm Financing Policy makers could play a useful role in stabilizing the economy by working with the fi- nancial sector to keep firms afloat. Government intervention could improve the likelihood that viable firms are not pushed into default and bankruptcy. Financial sector policies are complementary to other actions that firms undertake with both private and public stakeholders to adjust previous commitments in response to the pandemic shock. Since the pandemic struck, policy makers around the world have implemented a large number of policies. Several of those policies try to help firms manage their liabilities with different stakeholders, while improving their odds of survival. Whereas there is het- erogeneity across countries, the magnitude of different policies aimed at helping firms 13 manage their liabilities (“below-the-line” and contingent liabilities measures) is sizable when compared to direct transfers to both households and firms (Figure 4). Figure 4: Financial Policies to Support Firms and Direct Expenditures across Countries Note: This figure shows the size of policy measures (relative to GDP) announced by each country, distinguishing between those related to government revenues and expenditures (above-the-line), and loans, equity injections, and guarantees (below-the-line and contingent liabilities). Above-the-line policy measures are the ones that affect current fiscal budgets. Below-the-line and contingent liabilities measures are the ones that affect future fiscal budgets (i.e., they affect net assets of public coffers). Whereas above-the-line measures are related to households and firms, below-the-line measures and contingent liabilities are more commonly used to support firms. Source: IMF Fiscal Policy Database as of June 2020. In the rest of this section, we discuss different policy options available to policy makers along two broad dimensions. One set of policies relates to adaptations to the institutional framework to meet the challenges imposed by the pandemic shock. A second set of poli- cies is linked directly to the provision of credit to firms. In framing the discussion, we start with the idea that a key goal of public policy for the corporate sector is to ensure that credit flows to firms during the (full or partial) lockdown phase of the pandemic, especially to those firms facing severe cash shortfalls due to the collapse in their revenues. Attaining this goal means not only refinancing existing credit lines, but also extending new financing to existing and new clients, given that funding needs are likely to increase with the ensuing economic recession. In considering the policy options, it is important to take into account the trade-offs underlying the different alternatives that can foster firm financing, as well as the incen- tives they generate. The effectiveness and fiscal costs of the different paths adopted are 14 also relevant considerations. Not all governments have the fiscal or monetary space to implement the much-needed mitigating policies and might need to borrow from the inter- national community to do so. Furthermore, because payments to the different stakeholders are tightly connected with one another and jointly affect firms’ prospects, the various policies that governments implement need to be viewed as a package. For example, a government policy that pays a portion of wages for workers that stay at home reduces the need to finance firms to cover such costs. Coordination across policy makers—central banks, finance ministries, and regulators—is thus essential to ensure policy effectiveness during this crisis. 5.1. Adapting the Institutional Framework The financial sector is ill-equipped to cope with a shock like COVID-19 because they are geared toward detecting idiosyncratic risk when it arises. Legal and regulatory frame- works have been established to prevent shocks and allow a clear plan of action whenever shocks happen, with the goal of safeguarding the stability of the overall system. For ex- ample, when a firm fails to meet a payment, regulations require banks to increase loan-loss provisions to reflect the higher risk. In addition, the credit score of the firm is reduced. If failure to pay the debt persists, the firm may be pushed into bankruptcy. As a result, the existing infrastructure of financial sectors could actually amplify the problem this time around, leading to inefficient bankruptcies and excessive destruction of relationships. During the COVID-19 crisis, signaling firms in trouble could not be very informative or helpful given that most firms have suffered a sizable and unexpected negative external shock. To the extent that financial sector stability can be preserved, allowing forbearance and avoiding undue increases in borrowing costs might be needed. Otherwise, applying the standard procedures when firms cannot repay their liabilities would hurt those firms even more. Because unnecessarily liquidating firms will impose even larger costs to the economy in the longer term, policy makers around the world have started to adapt their legal and regulatory structures to the unique nature of the COVID-19 shock. Several of these policy measures are geared toward existing credit. For example, some countries have im- plemented repayment deferrals for existing bank loans for a number of months (e.g., six months). Some financial regulators have allowed banks to freeze loan-loss provisions if and when they postpone the loan of a client. Regulators have also allowed banks to freeze the credit classification of firms at their pre-shock status (e.g., December 2019). That is, as long as a loan was classified as performing before the pandemic hit, any renegotiation would not affect the firm’s credit score. Some existing work has also discussed how to avoid liquidations or how to deal with them more effectively when there is a systemic shock, such as the idea of a “super Chapter 11” for corporate debt restructurings (Miller and Stiglitz, 2010; Roukny et al., 2018). Such a procedure would override the normal restructuring processes in the midst of a crisis, providing quasi-automatic protection to debtors from debt increases due to a systemic shock. In addition, given the inefficiencies of court-supervised bankruptcy procedures, some have argued that government agencies must be prepared to lead the debt restruc- 15 turing process for the firms that receive bailouts (Becker et al., 2020). These agencies would prioritize out-of-court renegotiations whenever possible. This could include tem- porary nationalizations when needed, with tough conditions for existing shareholders to avoid further distortions. An important consideration of these measures is to determine which set of firms should receive forbearance. Some countries have implemented automatic postponement of loan repayments for all firms. Whereas universal application is easy to implement and pro- vides relief for all firms, increasing their likelihood of survival, it creates significant risks for the financial sector because it imposes no conditions on firms, such as having a good credit standing before the crisis. These types of measure might, in fact, encourage the survival of zombie firms by overriding banks’ ability to act on hard and soft information to determine firms’ prospects and ability to repay. They could also discourage new lend- ing by increasing the probability of further blanket forbearance measures (like a broad moratorium on payments to all creditors or automatic stays in bankruptcy procedures) if the pandemic crisis deepens further. In contrast, policies that allow for some screening of firms—drawing, for example, on good behavior before the crisis—would allow banks to distinguish between different credit risks. Such screening, however, could delay imple- mentation and it would not offer all existing firms the same chance of survival. In applying forbearance, regulators and creditors would also benefit from providing the right incentives, such that borrowers do not engage in ex-post moral hazard and fail to repay their loans. This is usually hard to achieve, but to the extent that regulators and creditors can use tools to penalize firms engaging in bad behavior, they might want to deploy them to save on future fiscal costs. It thus seems important to closely monitor the implementation of such measures and their potential impact to ensure the soundness of financial institutions, to preserve the stability of the financial sector, and to signal the exceptional nature of the changes while the COVID-19 crisis persists. The measures regarding renegotiation vis-` a-vis creditors could be complemented with measures to renegotiate contracts with other stakeholders, which would allow firms to re- duce their overall liabilities and gain flexibility to meet their preexisting commitments. To this aim, some governments have facilitated the deferral of tax payments (Demmou et al., 2020). Proposals to postpone payments of rents for workers could also be extended to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), so that evictions could be delayed, giving renters time to pay accumulated accrued rents (Sturzenegger, 2020). Another case could be labor laws and agreements, which bind firms’ obligations with workers. These renegotiations might give firms some flexibility regarding their obligations with workers, if they are forced to reduce operations or shutdown during the pandemic crisis. 5.2. Providing Credit to Firms Policy makers around the world have considered several options to enhance the pro- vision of credit to firms. We divide these policies into monetary and regulatory policies, on the one hand, and policies aiming to transfer risk to the government, on the other hand. These policies might have played a role in the flow of credit during the COVID-19 crisis, at least relative to previous crises. The evolution of commercial credit for a group 16 of six selected countries during the COVID-19 crisis and during previous economic crises (i.e., the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis, the dot-com bubble, the Euro crisis, and the GFC) suggests that the COVID-19 crisis is indeed different (Figure 5). The figure shows the growth of commercial credit for up to four months after the start of each crisis episode. Credit to firms in each of the selected countries increased during the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas during previous crises, corporate credit in these countries fell, sometimes sharply. This empirical result is consistent with the idea of firms needing credit to survive during the hibernation period. The support that governments have provided to encourage banks and financial markets to lend to firms during the pandemic might have helped in this regard. 5.2.1. Monetary and Regulatory Policies Central banks have quickly responded by lowering interest rates. However, standard monetary policy measures can have limited effects during the COVID-19 outbreak. In nor- mal times, monetary policy rate reductions by the central bank lower the cost of funding for firms, thereby increasing corporate investment. With pandemic-related containment measures in place, as well as the uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of the shock, corporate investment might not be responsive to lower interest rates. Moreover, in many countries, interest rates were already at low levels before the pandemic hit, reducing the space for further interest rate cuts. Some central banks have also extended liquidity lines to banks at a low cost, with in- centives to expand lending to the real economy. Nevertheless, unlike in a typical financial crisis, banks have generally not encountered major liquidity problems (Danielsson et al., 2020). Instead, they have had to deal with a discrete increase in the credit risk of firms, which depends on the magnitude and duration of the pandemic shock. In fact, the heavy draw down of credit lines by large firms early on during the pandemic shock might reflect that these firms anticipated a reduction in lending as the crisis progressed and credit risk rose (Ashworth and Goodhart, 2020; Li et al., 2020). In this context, liquidity policies would work only to the extent that banks pass through the higher liquidity from the central bank to firms. Likewise, some financial regulators have reduced Basel III capital requirements charged to banks, such as counter-cyclical capital buffers, conservation buffers, systemic risk buffers, and Pillar II charges. To be effective, banks would need incentives to convert the released capital into greater lending to firms in the context of increased credit risk. Those measures alone might not provide sufficient incentives for them to do so. In addi- tion, not all countries have implemented Basel III, and therefore not all of them have the space to reduce capital charges. 5.2.2. Transferring Credit Risk to the Government In a context of high uncertainty, with lenders generally retrenching, governments have stepped in and absorbed the increased credit risk, ensuring that firms have access to re- sources during the hibernation phase. In particular, the public sector is generally in a good position to offer credit guarantees when there is high risk aversion (Anginer et al., 2014). Among other things, governments have capitalized state-owned banks, scaled up 17 Figure 5: Evolution of Commercial Credit by Country during Different Crises Note: This figure shows for different crises episodes, the difference (in percentage points) in the 12-month change in commercial credit relative to the 12-month change in t=0. The figure is constructed for six countries. Period t=0 is the month before the first negative 12-month change in a country’s economic activity index. For each country, crises and t=0 are, respectively, defined as follow: (a) Colombia: AFC (Asian Financial Crisis) - June 1998. GFC (Global Financial Crisis) - October 2008. COVID-19 - February 2020. / (b) Chile: AFC - September 1998. GFC - October 2008. COVID-19 - February 2020. / (c) Italy: GFC - April 2008. Euro crisis - May 2011. COVID-19 - January 2020. / (d) Mexico: Dot-com bubble - April 2001. GFC - October 2008. COVID-19 - February 2020. / (e) United Kingdom: Dot-com bubble - January 2001. GFC - July 2008. COVID-19 - February 2020. / (f) United States: Dot-com bubble - March 2001. GFC - December 2007. COVID-19 - February 2020. For the United States, the scale of the y-axis is different from the other countries Source: Authors’ calculations based on each country’s credit registry data. 18 public credit guarantee programs (typically covering 70 to 90 percent of the loans), and supported large-scale purchases of portfolios of loans. The feasibility of rapid delivery of these different policy options varies across countries and depends on the institutional set- ting. For example, whereas some countries have sizable state-owned banks, others do not. Also, some countries have guarantee programs in place, whereas others do not. To the extent that new distribution channels may need to be created, challenges to implement this set of policies will arise (El-Erian, 2020). When considering policies addressed to transfer credit risk to the government, it is useful to distinguish between large corporations and SMEs. Whereas large firms use a combination of both bank credit and capital market financing, SMEs rely mostly on bank financing. Also, large firms have larger spillover effects and generate greater externalities in the economy than individual SMEs. The failure of a large corporation could lead to more workers being laid off, possibly affecting local labor markets; more suppliers being unpaid, possibly disrupting supply chains; fewer exports, possibly affecting the availabil- ity of foreign currency in the country; and default on large debts, possibly affecting the liquidity and solvency of its creditors. At the same time, precisely because of their size, larger firms also have stronger bargaining power relative to their stakeholders than SMEs, and might thus be better able to cope with the shock. To the extent that SMEs’ access to external finance occurs mostly through banks, channeling funds to large firms through the banking system may be inefficient, as it could crowd out SMEs from this funding source. Indeed, some governments have supported financing to large corporations through capital markets. For example, they have provided a transitory capital injection by purchasing corporate liabilities. That is, large firms is- sued securities, which could then be directly purchased by the government or the central bank. In this case, both convertible bonds and preferred equity allow the government to participate in the upside should the underlying firm succeed. Once the shock subdues, the government can exit such investments by selling the securities purchased to other investors in the market, recouping its initial investment. The conversion of bonds to equity also works as a threat to the firm, thereby reducing ex-post moral hazard. Because there are generally only a few large firms in each industry, governments can monitor them closely (and, in some cases, even regulate them) if and when funding is provided. Regarding SME financing, the capitalization of state-owned banks can help to the extent that they are well-managed and have explicit mandates to lend to SMEs. Some countries have also scaled up public credit guarantee programs, which are focused on the public provision of guarantees to loans made by banks to SMEs. Because these programs absorb part of firms’ credit risks (the government bears a significant fraction of the costs in case of default), they provide incentives for banks to lend to such firms. Other coun- tries with fairly well-developed capital markets have moved toward allowing the central bank or the government to engage in large-scale purchases of portfolios of SME loans. Under such arrangements, banks sell securities backed by those loans to the government (or the central bank). In case of default, the government bears the risk. Some central banks have even developed lending facilities to encourage investors to purchase securities collateralized by the portfolio of SME loans. Both securitization policies can potentially have a multiplier effect in the financing available to SMEs, if lenders were to use the cash obtained through those transactions to lend again to SMEs. The effectiveness of these 19 policies can be enhanced if they were to include both existing as well as new bank credit to SMEs. Some countries are also extending public credit guarantees to financing provided by non-bank financial institutions. This approach includes financing companies offering in- voice (factoring), leasing, and consumer financing. These policies allow credit to reach the micro firms, which in many countries typically do not have access to traditional bank financing. Because these firms are generally riskier than SMEs, the coverage of partial credit guarantee schemes tends to be higher for non-bank credit than for bank credit. 5.2.3. Policy Considerations Policies aimed at transferring credit risk to the government work best when they are designed in a way that minimize the cost to public coffers. Policy interventions would benefit from three characteristics. First, scale is crucial to allow for risk diversification, both across industries (some industries have been hit harder than others) and across firms within industries (not all firms in the same industry will go bankrupt because of the shock). To achieve this type of diversification across the economy, the public sector is in a unique position, which is difficult for individual private sector financial institutions (typically banks) to emulate. This diversification would also help the government cope with the inevitable fiscal cost of the crisis. Second, providing incentives for both creditors and debtors is also important. For ex- ample, public credit guarantee schemes could be partial, so that banks retain some “skin in the game” and have incentives to monitor and screen borrowers. Similarly, securitiza- tion policies could require that banks keep a fraction of the loan portfolio in their balance sheets. Regarding firms, the challenge is to avoid the ex-post moral hazard problem of firms not repaying their loans, which could turn out to be very costly for credit providers. This source of concern becomes more acute the longer the shock lasts. If the shock lasts for many months, firms might find it more efficient or profitable to declare bankruptcy (with all its costs of broken relationships) and avoid repaying their creditors, only to then “reproduce” the business with new credentials—like closing down one restaurant only to open another one next door shortly thereafter. However, it would be difficult for credi- tors under such systemic shock to disentangle whether firms defaulted strategically or not. Third, even when firms repay, there is a challenge in terms of providing incentives so that firms use the liquidity obtained by financing policies to keep relationships, instead of using it for other purposes. Firms might not internalize the social value of the knowledge embedded in their relationships with stakeholders and might be willing to destroy more connections than is socially optimal. This justifies a scope for policy making in terms of providing incentives so that firms internalize the social benefit of keeping relationships. The benefit of including those incentives has to be evaluated together with the costs of monitoring them. For example, several countries do not allow firms to distribute dividends when they receive public funds to endure this crisis, which is a low-monitoring- cost restriction. 20 6. Conclusions Because governments have limited resources, they need to prioritize which policies to pursue when trying to save firms from collapsing during the COVID-19 pandemic, at the same time that they evaluate their trade-offs. This is not easy to achieve given the urgency of the needs and the speed at which decisions must be made. At the same time, targeting support for firms might also be difficult because of limited (and lagged) infor- mation that the government has about firms’ needs. Thus, it is worth keeping several considerations in mind when designing different policy responses. For example, policy makers need to make decisions on how much to allocate to large firms versus SMEs, to firms that have relationships that are more difficult to reconstruct, or to firms that would be more disruptive for value chains if they were to go bankrupt. They might even be pushed to decide whether some essential industries (such as basic infrastructure, health, and education) or industries hit hardest by the shock (such as travel, tourism, and other services) are worth assisting over others. Furthermore, policy makers need to determine how much they condition the assistance on keeping certain relationships over others. For example, governments are usually keen on forcing firms to keep workers on their payroll, while avoiding payments to shareholders. However, determining which relationships are more valuable than others for different firms is not trivial. Lastly, given the limited in- formation that the government has on firm performance and financing needs, trying to narrowly target support for firms might miss some firms that require support. Governments also need to think about how to allocate resources over time. Firms might be in hibernation and need funds for several months, using bridge financing to make it through the lockdown period. During this critical time, government assistance might be needed the most, as banks and investors face higher uncertainty about the length of the pandemic and the related probability of firm survival. Eventually, surviving firms will need additional lines of credit to restart or jump-start their operations when they stop hibernating. Private lenders might be more willing to lend at that stage when un- certainty has diminished and they would be in a better position to assess firms’ prospects and credit risks. In addition, governments need to consider the accumulation of liabilities that can oc- cur during the pandemic. Although the short-term needs generated by the pandemic can be pressing, the large packages of financial aid provided by governments around the world can pile up to already high debt-to-GDP ratios. High levels of public debt could lead to new financial crises, especially if the cost of borrowing increases. The risk is especially higher for countries with more limited fiscal capacity. Furthermore, the pandemic can generate lasting consequences on the financial sector, as losses in the corporate sector accumulate and credit granted during the pandemic becomes hard to service. This poten- tial problem in the financial sector might impose further fiscal needs if governments try to bail out the financial sector. These longer-term considerations are difficult to weigh in during times of stress and more urgent needs, but they inevitably become part of the debate as the demand for fiscal resources expand and the pandemic lingers. The upside is that some rescue packages might be less costly than what they appear ex-ante. As in the GFC, governments can exchange assistance for stakes in companies. If those companies do well after the crisis, governments can recoup some of the costs. Moreover, governments might benefit from more fiscal revenues if economies recover faster because of their help during the crisis. 21 When establishing financing programs to maximize the probability of firm survival, it is important to consider to what degree governments will play the role of “lender of last resort” versus “loss absorber of last resort.” While the health emergency is transitory, its economic consequences can be permanent. If the crisis inflicts adverse, persistent effects on the solvency of firms, it will require a significant reallocation of resources and reconfig- uration of enterprises, including the exit of unviable firms, and entry of new ones. Hence, where needed and feasible, the role of the state might have to migrate ex-post from lender of last resort (in the expectation that firms will repay) to loss absorber of last resort (as eventual defaults materialize). The role of the government intervention can be more easily justified on policy grounds when risk aversion is high (as reflected in high risk premiums), as opposed to credit risk being high. To the extent that governments are more risk neutral (because they can spread risk across the population and over time via the tax system), they can facilitate credit to encourage lending at lower risk premia to viable firms using different means. In this circumstance, governments can improve the social outcome without absorbing losses. When credit risk rises, the transfer of credit risk to the government could still be socially justified, provided that the government has sufficient fiscal space (Anginer et al., 2014). The scope for policy action implies stark differences between developed and developing countries (as well as among countries within each group and among rich and poor commu- nities within each country). The initial conditions vary considerably across countries and determine the set of policies that developing countries are able to implement, and at which cost (Hausmann and Schetter, 2020; Loayza and Pennings, 2020). Developing countries tend to have less monetary and fiscal space to deploy credit easing, wage subsidies, and domestic demand support. They also tend to have more informality, worse public health infrastructure, less ability for employees to work from home, less savings, and less state capacity to effectively deliver basic needs (Dingel and Neiman, 2020). Some developing countries can also be hit by lower commodity prices and less remittances income (Hevia and Neumeyer, 2020). Therefore, developing countries can suffer a larger shock and be less prepared to absorb the impact of the pandemic. Countries with underdeveloped financial markets, less fiscal slack, and more con- strained central banks will face greater challenges to channel credit to firms and avoid a breakup in their relationships. As central bank credibility rises, so does the willingness of savers and investors to park their funds in local currency during bad times, and the ability of the financial sector to grant credit to firms without generating currency mismatches. As fiscal viability rises, so does the government’s access to long-term finance in international markets at interest rates that are close to those paid by the U.S. Treasury. Although risk absorption of last resort interventions might be socially efficient given the exogenous cause of the crisis, there are very few governments in the world that can shoulder such costs without endangering central bank credibility and fiscal viability. Moreover, prompted to take action, some governments could seriously cripple their medium-term debt viability through well-intended efforts to cushion the economic consequences of the pandemic. With the rise in global risk, some developing countries have also faced a sudden stop in capital inflows, higher costs to issue new debt in capital markets, and sharp depreciations 22 of their domestic currencies. These significant macroeconomic challenges, combined with the large financing needs that arise from the pandemic shock, could heighten the risk of sovereign debt restructurings (Marchesi and Masi, 2020). In turn, debt crises could be followed by widespread turbulence in the corporate sector, especially in countries where firms entered the shock with high outstanding debt levels. The liquidity issues in de- veloping countries might thus rapidly turn into solvency problems—both at the firm and country levels. Multilateral policy action, involving international financial institutions and creditor countries, might help resolve problems that can become common across develop- ing countries and can help avoid procyclical (contractionary) policy measures that would make the crisis more severe. These measures could include more international financial assistance to developing countries and facilities to restructure existing debts (Adam et al., 2020; Bolton et al., 2020; Stiglitz and Rashid, 2020). Despite their inherent challenges, some mitigating factors are present in the case of certain developing countries. Many of them have banking systems that could be used to channel credit to firms and the tools to assist banks if they face funding difficulties at a later stage. Moreover, the fact that developing countries generally have more in- formal firms and younger populations might help them maintain some activities during the pandemic and reestablish relationships faster once the lockdown measures are eased. These informal firms might be better targeted through programs that assist households, which can use some forms of personal loans. Furthermore, pressure from households and firms with fewer resources to withstand a prolonged hibernation could make their social distancing state shorter, triggering higher rates of infection but keeping some economic activity alive. Lastly, in designing policies for both developed and developing countries, it is use- ful to acknowledge the transfers that policy actions produce across different agents of the economy (Kaplan et al., 2020). The lockdown policies will tend to protect the more vulnerable older generation, while restricting the economic activities of the younger gen- eration, which has a lower risk of becoming seriously ill. This effectively induces transfers from the young to the old, given that some of the costs of such policies will not neces- sarily be recovered (Pastor, 2020). Policies to keep firms alive, however, do not produce the same type of intergenerational transfers. Whereas they will be paid mostly by the young, that same generation will also benefit the most from keeping firms alive during the pandemic. Within the young generation, the socialization of losses still entails transfers. Those that have the resources to survive the lockdown without public assistance will in effect subsidize those that receive such help. 23 References Abel, A. and S. Panageas (2020). Optimal management of a pandemic in the short run and the long run. NBER Working Paper 27742, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Acharya, V. and S. Steffen (2020). “Stress tests” for banks as liquidity insurers in a time of COVID. VoxEU.org, March 22. Adam, C., M. Henstridge, and S. Lee (2020). After the lockdown: macroeconomic adjust- ment to the COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36. Ahir, H., N. Bloom, and D. Furceri (2019). The World Uncertainty Index. Stanford mimeo. Alfaro, L., O. Becerra, and M. Eslava (2020). EMEs and COVID-19: shutting down in a world of informal and tiny firms. NBER Working Paper 27360, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Alstadsæter, A., J. B. Bjørkheim, W. Kopczuk, and A. Økland (2020). Norwegian and U.S. policies alleviate business vulnerability due to the COVID-19 shock equally well. NBER Working Paper 27637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Altig, D., S. R. Baker, J. M. Barrero, N. Bloom, P. Bunn, S. Chen, S. J. Davis, J. Leather, B. H. Meyer, E. Mihaylov, P. Mizen, N. B. Parker, T. Renault, P. Smietanka, and G. Thwaites (2020). Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. NBER Working Paper 27418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Anginer, D., A. de la Torre, and A. Ize (2014). Risk-bearing by the state: when is it good policy? Journal of Financial Stability 10, 76–86. Ashworth, J. and C. Goodhart (2020). Coronavirus panic fuels a surge in cash demand. CEPR Discussion Paper 14910. Atlantic (2020a). Denmark’s idea could help the world avoid a great depression. The Atlantic, March 21. Atlantic (2020b). Do more–fast. Don’t wait. The Atlantic, March 24. Baker, S., N. Bloom, S. Davis, K. Kost, M. Sammon, and T. Viratyosin (2020). The unprecedented stock market impact of COVID-19. Review of Asset Pricing Studies, forthcoming. Baqaee, D. and E. Farhi (2020). Nonlinear production networks with an application to the COVID-19 crisis. NBER Working Paper 27281, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Beck, T. (2020). Finance in times of COVID-19: what next? In Mitigating the Covid Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever It Takes, edited by R. Baldwin and B.W. di Mauro, VOXEu.org Book. 24 Beck, T., B. Flynn, and M. Homanen (2020). COVID-19 in emerging markets: firm- survey evidence. Covid Economics, Vetted and Real-Time Papers 38, July. Beck, T., F. Mazzaferro, R. Portes, J. Quin, and C. Schett (2020). Preserving capital in the financial sector to weather the storm. VoxEU.org, June 23. Becker, B., U. Hege, and P. Mella-Barral (2020). Corporate debt burdens threaten eco- nomic recovery after COVID-19: planning for debt restructuring should start now. VoxEU.org, March 21. Becker, B. and V. Ivashina (2014). Cyclicality of credit supply: firm level evidence. Journal of Monetary Economics 62, 76 – 93. enassy-Qu´ B´ e, A., A. Boot, A. Fat´ er´ as, M. Fratzscher, C. Fuest, F. Giavazzi, R. Marimon, P. Martin, J. Pisani-Ferry, L. Reichlin, D. Schoenmaker, P. Teles, and B. W. di Mauro (2020). A proposal for a COVID credit line. VoxEU.org, March 21. Benmelech, E. and N. Tzur-Ilan (2020). The determinants of fiscal and monetary poli- cies during the COVID-19 crisis. NBER Working Paper 27461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Bethune, Z. and A. Korinek (2020). COVID-19 infection externalities: trading off lives vs. livelihoods. CEPR Discussion Paper 14596. Bigio, S., M. Zhang, and E. Zilberman (2020). Transfers vs credit policy: macroeconomic policy trade-offs during COVID-19. NBER Working Paper 27118, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Blesse, S., M. Bordignon, P. C. Boyer, P. Carapella, F. Heinemann, E. Janeba, and A. Raj (2020). The future of the European project: survey results from members of national parliaments in France, Italy and Germany. CEPR Discussion Paper 15021. Bolton, P., L. Buchheit, P.-O. Gourinchas, M. Gulati, C.-T. Hsieh, U. Panizza, and B. Weder di Mauro (2020). Necessity is the mother of invention: how to implement a comprehensive debt standstill for COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries. VoxEU.org, April 21. Bonadio, B., Z. Huo, A. Levchenko, and N. Pandalai-Nayar (2020). Global supply chains in the pandemic. NBER Working Paper 27224, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Boot, A., E. Carletti, H.-H. Kotz, J. P. Krahnen, L. Pelizzon, and R. Subrahmanyam (2020). Corona and financial stability 4.0: implementing a European Pandemic Equity Fund. VoxEU.org, April 25. Brunnermeier, M. and A. Krishnamurthy (2020). Stick, carrot, and evergreen loans: a policy proposal to save small and medium-sized firms. Pro-Market Blog, University of Chicago Booth School Business and Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (Econfip). Brunnermeier, M., J.-P. Landau, M. Pagano, and R. Reis (2020). Throwing a COVID-19 liquidity life-line. Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (Econfip). 25 Button, R., M. Rojicek, M. Waldron, and D. Walker (2020). Financing larger U.K. companies through COVID-19. VoxEU.org, September 7. Caballero, R. and A. Simsek (2020). A model of asset price spirals and aggregate demand amplification of a COVID-19 shock. NBER Working Paper 27044, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Caballero, R. J., T. Hoshi, and A. K. Kashyap (2008). Zombie lending and depressed restructuring in Japan. American Economic Review 98 (5), 1943–77. Calomiris, C. W., M. Flandreau, and L. Laeven (2016). Political foundations of the lender of last resort: a global historical narrative. Journal of Financial Intermediation 28, 48 – 65. C ¨ ¸ akmakli, C., S. Demiralp, S. Kalemli-Ozcan, S. Yesiltas, and M. A. Yildirim (2020). COVID-19 and emerging markets: an epidemiological model with international pro- duction networks and capital flows. CEPR Discussion Paper 15154. Cespedes, L. F., R. Chang, and A. Velasco (2020). The macroeconomics of a pandemic: a minimalist model. NBER Working Paper 27228, National Bureau of Economic Re- search, Cambridge, MA. Chetty, R., J. Friedman, N. Hendren, M. Stepner, and The Opportunity Insights Team (2020). How did COVID-19 and stabilization policies affect spending and employment? A new real-time economic tracker based on private sector data. NBER Working Paper 27431, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Cortina, J. J., T. Didier, and S. Schmukler (2020). Global corporate debt during crises: implications of switching borrowing across markets. World Bank Policy Research Work- ing Paper 9142. Cukierman, A. (2020). COVID-19, helicopter money, and the fiscal-monetary nexus. CEPR Discussion Paper 14734. Danielsson, J., R. Macrae, D. Vayanos, and J.-P. Zigrand (2020). The coronavirus crisis is no 2008. VoxEU.org, March 26. Davis, S. J. and T. Von Wachter (2011). Recessions and the costs of job loss. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 42 (2 (Fall)), 1–72. De Vito, A. and J. Gomez (2020a). COVID-19: Preventing a corporate cash crunch among listed firms. VoxEU.org, March 29. De Vito, A. and J. P. Gomez (2020b). Estimating the COVID-19 cash crunch: global evidence and policy. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 39 (2), 1–14. Delatte, A. and A. Guillaume (2020). COVID-19: a new challenge for the euro area. CEPR Discussion Paper 14848. Demmou, L., G. Franco, and S. Calligaris (2020). Corporate sector vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 outbreak: assessment and policy responses. VoxEU.org, May 23. Dingel, J. I. and B. Neiman (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Publi Economics 189. 26 Eckert, F., H. Mikosch, and M. Stotz (2020). The corona crisis and corporate bankruptcies: evidence from Switzerland. VoxEU.org, August 31. Eichenbaum, M., S. Rebelo, and M. Trabandt (2020). The macroeconomics of epidemics. NBER Working Paper 26882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. El-Erian, M. (2020). Race between economics and COVID-19. Project Syndicate, March 26. Elenev, V., T. Landvoigt, and S. Van Nieuwerburgh (2020). Can the COVID bailouts save the economy? CEPR Discussion Paper 14714. Elgin, C., G. Basbug, and A. Yalaman (2020). Economic policy responses to a pandemic: developing the COVID-19 economic stimulus index. VoxEU.org, May 7. Faria-e-Castro, M. (2020). Fiscal policy during a pandemic. FRB St. Louis Working Paper 2020-006E. Fornaro, L. and M. Wolf (2020). COVID-19 coronavirus and macroeconomic policy. CEPR Discussion Paper 14529. Fujita, S., G. Moscarini, and F. Postel-Vinay (2020). The labour market policy response to COVID-19 must save aggregate matching capital. VoxEU.org, March 30. Garicano, L. (2020). The COVID-19 bazooka for jobs in Europe. In Mitigating the Covid Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever It Takes, edited by R. Baldwin and B.W. di Mauro, VOXEu.org Book. Gelos, G., U. Rawat, and H. Ye (2020). COVID-19 in emerging markets: escaping the monetary policy procyclicality trap. VoxEU.org, August 20. Giupponi, G. and C. Landais (2020). Subsidizing labor hoarding in recessions: the em- ployment and welfare effects of short time work. CEPR Discussion Paper 13310. Goodhart, C., D. Tsomocos, and X. Wang (2020). Support for small businesses amid COVID-19. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2020-044/IV. Gourio, F. and L. Rudanko (2014). Customer capital. The Review of Economic Stud- ies 81 (3), 1102–1136. Gregory, V., G. Menzio, and D. Wiczer (2020). Pandemic recession: L- or V-shaped? Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 40 (1). Guerrieri, V., G. Lorenzoni, L. Straub, and I. Werning (2020). Macroeconomic impli- cations of COVID-19: can negative supply shocks cause demand shortages? NBER Working Paper 26918, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Hamermesh, D. S. and G. A. Pfann (1996). Adjustment costs in factor demand. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (3), 1264–1292. Hartley, J. S. and A. Rebucci (2020). An event study of COVID-19 Central Bank quantitative easing in advanced and emerging economies. NBER Working Paper 27339, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 27 Hassler, J., P. Krusell, M. Ravn, and K. Storesletten (2020). Economic policy under the pandemic: a European perspective. VoxEU.org, July 7. Hausmann, R. and U. Schetter (2020). Horrible trade-offs in a pandemic: analysis and policy implications. Center for International Development Faculty Working Paper 382. Hevia and Neumeyer (2020). A perfect storm: COVID-19 in emerging economies. VoxEU.org, April 21. Hofmann, B., I. Shim, and H. Song Shin (2020). Original sin redux and policy responses in emerging market economies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In COVID-19 in Developing Economies, edited by S. Djankov and U. Panizza, VOXEu.org Book. Huneeus, F. (2018). Production network dynamics and the propagation of shocks. Work- ing Paper. IIF (2020). Global debt monitor data. Institute for International Finance, January. Ilzetzki, E. (2020). COVID-19: the economic policy response. VoxEU.org, March 28. Joseph, A., C. Kneer, N. V. Horen, and J. Saleheen (2019). All you need is cash: corporate cash holdings and investment after the financial crisis. CEPR Discussion Paper 14199 and Bank of England SWP No. 843. Kahn, C. and W. Wagner (2020). Liquidity provision during a pandemic. CEPR Discus- sion Paper 14701. Kaminsky, G. L. and C. M. Reinhart (1999). The twin crises: the causes of banking and balance-of-payments problems. American Economic Review 89 (3), 473–500. Kaplan, G., B. Moll, and G. L. Violante (2020). The great lockdown and the big stimulus: tracing the pandemic possibility frontier for the U.S. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2020-119. Laeven, L. and F. Valencia (2008). Systemic banking crises: a new database. IMF Working Paper 08/224. Laeven, L. and F. Valencia (2010). Resolution of banking crises; the good, the bad, and the ugly. IMF Working Paper 10/146. Li, L., P. Strahan, and S. Zhang (2020). Banks as lenders of first resort: evidence from the COVID-19 crisis. NBER Working Paper 27256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Loayza, N. and S. Pennings (2020). Macroeconomic policy in the time of COVID-19: a primer for developing countries. Research and Policy Brief No. 28. World Bank, Washington, DC. Ma, C., J. Rogers, and S. Zhou (2020). Modern pandemics: recession and recovery. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers 1295. Marchesi, S. and T. Masi (2020). Debt restructuring in the time of COVID-19: private and official agreements. VoxEU.org, May 4. 28 Miller, M. and J. Stiglitz (2010). Leverage and asset bubbles: averting armageddon with chapter 11? Economic Journal 120 (544). Pastor, L. (2020). Will COVID-19 be followed by inflation? An inter-generational transfer perspective. VoxEU.org, June 12. Reinhart, C. and K. Rogoff (2009). This time is different: eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton University Press. Roukny, T., S. Battiston, and J. Stiglitz (2018). Interconnectedness as a source of uncer- tainty in systemic risk. Journal of Financial Stability 35, 93–106. Saez, E. and G. Zucman (2020). Jobs aren’t being destroyed this fast elsewhere. Why is that? The New York Times, March 30. Schivardi, F. and G. Romano (2020). Liquidity crisis: keeping firms afloat during COVID- 19. VoxEU.org, July 18. Segura, A. and A. Villacorta (2020). Policies to support firms in a lockdown: a pecking order. CEPR Discussion Paper 14838. Stiglitz, J. and H. Rashid (2020). How to prevent the looming sovereign debt crisis. VoxEU.org, August 3. Sturzenegger, F. (2020). Thoughts from a total lockdown in Argentina. VoxEU.org, April 9. Wall Street Journal (2020). Europe opts for economic freeze to fight coronavirus, as U.S. debate continues. The Wall Street Journal, March 26. 29