Rajesh P. Narayanan

Lousiana Bankers Association Professor of Finance Louisiana State University

  • Baton Rouge LA

Dr. Narayanan is an international expert in financial markets, banking, fintech and cryptocurrencies.

Contact

Louisiana State University

View more experts managed by Louisiana State University

View all Experts

Areas of Expertise

Banking
Fintech
Cryptocurrency
Financial Markets

Biography

Dr. Narayanan is a leading expert on banking and financial markets whose research and commentary regularly inform policy discussions at central banks and regulatory agencies worldwide. His work has been published in top-tier academic journals including the Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Financial Studies, and Journal of Money, Credit and Banking.

As a sought-after speaker and advisor, Dr. Narayanan has delivered executive briefings and conducted policy seminars across six countries—Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, India, Malaysia, and South Africa—working directly with senior executives and government technocrats on critical financial sector issues.

His analysis and insights are frequently featured in major national media including the Wall Street Journal, CNN/Money, Bloomberg, and Fortune, as well as regional outlets such as The Times-Picayune, The Advocate, Baton Rouge Business Report, WBRZ-TV, and WWL-Radio, where he provides expert commentary on market developments and banking policy.

Research Focus

Bank Mergers & Capital Markets

Dr. Narayanan’s current research focus is on the changing structure of the banking industry, the role of FinTech in the provision of financial services, and financial stability issues associated with digital assets like Stablecoins and Cryptocurrencies.

Spotlight

4 min

Op-Ed: Stablecoin 'rewards' are a risk to financial stability

Congress has long recognized that stablecoins should not function as unregulated bank deposits. The intent of the recently enacted GENIUS Act is clear: to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, maintaining a distinction between payment instruments and bank deposits which are not only used for payment purposes but also as a store value. Yet loopholes have already emerged. Some crypto exchanges and affiliated platforms now offer “rewards” to stablecoin holders that work much like interest, potentially undermining the stability of the traditional banking system and constraining credit in local communities. Terminology matters. Credit card rewards are funded by interchange fees and paid to encourage spending — you earn points for using your card. Stablecoin “rewards” are different. They’re funded by investing the reserves backing stablecoins, typically in Treasury bills or money market funds, and passing that interest income to holders. You earn returns for holding the stablecoin, not for using it. Economically, this is indistinguishable from a bank deposit paying interest. When a platform advertises “5% rewards” on stablecoin holdings, it’s generally backing those tokens with Treasuries yielding about 4.5%, then passing that yield to users. Whether labeled rewards, yield or dividends, the function is the same: interest on deposits. Banks perform a similar activity — taking deposits, investing in loans and paying depositors a return — but face far higher costs, including FDIC insurance, capital requirements and compliance obligations that stablecoin issuers largely avoid. This dynamic has a precedent. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Regulation Q capped bank deposit rates at 5.25% while inflation and Treasury yields soared above 15%. Money market funds filled the gap, offering market rates directly to consumers. Deposits fled smaller banks, which lost their funding base, while large money-center institutions gained reserves. The result was widespread disintermediation, the collapse of the savings and loan industry and the farm-credit crisis of the 1980s. Stablecoin “rewards” risk repeating that history. Just as money market funds exploited the gap between regulated deposit rates and market rates, stablecoin platforms exploit the difference between what banks can profitably pay and what lightly regulated issuers can offer by passing through Treasury yields with minimal overhead. Some ask why banks can’t just raise deposit rates. The answer lies in structure. Banks operate under a fundamentally different business model and cost framework. They pay FDIC premiums, maintain capital reserves and comply with extensive supervision — costs most stablecoin issuers don’t bear. Banks also use deposits to make loans, which requires holding capital against potential losses. Stablecoin issuers simply hold reserves in ultra-safe assets, allowing them to pass through nearly all the yield they earn. To match 5% “rewards,” banks would need to earn 6% to 7% on their loan portfolios — an unrealistic target in today’s environment, especially for smaller community banks. The consequence is not fair competition, but a structural disadvantage for regulated depository institutions. The Consumer Bankers Association warns this loophole could trigger a massive shift of deposits from community banks to global custodians. Citing Treasury Department estimates, the Association notes that as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits could migrate into stablecoins if yield programs remain permissible. Because the GENIUS Act’s prohibition applies narrowly to issuers, exchanges and intermediaries may still offer financial returns under alternate terminology. This opens the door to affiliate arrangements that replicate the essence of interest payments without legal accountability. Those reserves don’t stay in local economies. The largest stablecoin issuers hold funds at global custodians such as Bank of New York Mellon, in money market funds managed by firms like BlackRock or — if permitted — directly with the Federal Reserve. When a community-bank depositor moves $100,000 into stablecoins, that capital exits the local bank and concentrates at systemically important institutions. The community bank loses lending capacity; the megabank or the Fed gains reserves. The result is disintermediation with a concentrated risk profile reminiscent of the money-market fund crisis. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that community banks — responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide — could be among the most affected. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially relevant. If deposits migrate to unregulated digital assets, community-bank lending could tighten, particularly in rural parishes and underserved communities. Research from the Brookings Institution reinforces the need for regulatory parity. The label “rewards” doesn’t change the fact that these payments are economically interest. Allowing intermediaries to generate yield without deposit insurance or prudential oversight could recreate vulnerabilities similar to those seen during the 2008 money market fund crisis. To preserve financial stability, policymakers should move to close the stablecoin-interest loophole. Clarifying that the prohibition on interest applies to all entities— not just issuers — would uphold Congress’ intent. Regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and federal banking agencies could also treat “reward” programs as equivalent to deposit interest for supervisory purposes. Stablecoins offer genuine efficiencies in payments, but unchecked yield features risk turning them into unregulated banks. History shows what happens when regulatory arbitrage allows competitors to offer deposit-like products without oversight: deposit flight, institutional instability and capital flowing away from community lenders. Acting now could help sustain stability, protect depositors and preserve the credit channels that support community lending — especially in states like Louisiana, where community banks remain the backbone of Main Street.

Rajesh P. Narayanan

5 min

Beyond the Repo Headlines: What the Liquidity Signals are Really Saying

In late October and early November 2025, usage of the Federal Reserve's Standing Repo Facility (SRF) reached elevated levels exceeding $50 billion at month-end -the highest utilization since March 2020. Simultaneously, the Overnight Reverse Repo (ON RRP) facility has collapsed to approximately $24 billion, down from peak levels exceeding $2 trillion in 2023. This combination signals structural stress in U.S. money markets extending beyond seasonal factors. These two facilities serve opposite functions in the Fed's monetary policy framework. The SRF is an emergency lending facility where banks can borrow reserves overnight by pledging Treasury or agency securities as collateral, paying the SRF rate (currently 4.50%). It acts as a ceiling on overnight rates. The ON RRP works in reverse: money market funds and other institutions lend cash to the Fed overnight, earning the ON RRP rate (currently 4.30%). It provides a floor on rates. The depletion of ON RRP removes a critical shock absorber. When the facility held trillions in 2021-2023, it functioned as a deployable liquidity reservoir. During stress events, as repo rates in private markets rose above the ON RRP rate, money market funds would withdraw their cash from the Fed and deploy it into higher-yielding private repo markets. This automatic flow of liquidity would stabilize rates without Fed intervention. With ON RRP now depleted to $24 billion, this reservoir is empty. When liquidity shocks occur, there is no pool of cash to flow into stressed markets. Instead, all pressure falls directly on bank reserves, currently at approximately $2.8 trillion. The elevated SRF usage indicates that despite aggregate reserves appearing adequate, banks are unable to efficiently reallocate liquidity across the system. The core problem is that banks with surplus reserves face prohibitive costs to intermediating due to post-2008 regulations, particularly the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) and G-SIB capital surcharges. The SLR requires capital against all balance sheet assets, including reserves. For a large bank to lend $1 billion overnight, it expands its balance sheet by that amount, increasing SLR denominators and potentially triggering higher surcharge brackets. The capital costs of holding additional assets on the balance sheet often exceed repo market spreads, rendering arbitrage unviable. Banks with surplus reserves therefore park them at the Fed rather than lending to institutions that need them. Current conditions reveal that while dealer behavior around period-ends follows established patterns, the magnitude of rate effects has grown substantially. Recent Federal Reserve research documents that SOFR rose as much as 25 basis points above the ON RRP rate at recent quarter-ends, far exceeding the 5-10 basis point moves typical in 2017. The Fed's analysis attributes this to "growing tightness in the repo market and a diminishing elasticity of supply and demand" as reserves decline. Critically, the research shows that dealer quarter-end behavior -reducing triparty borrowing and shifting to central clearing -has remained "remarkably stable," yet rate impacts have intensified. This indicates the problem is not changing behavior but deteriorating underlying conditions. The pattern mirrors 2018-2019, when similar dynamics preceded the September 2019 crisis. Academic work from that episode documented that foreign banks reached minimum reserve levels while domestic G-SIBs maintained surpluses but declined to intermediate due to balance sheet constraints.¹ November 2025 differs critically from September 2019: the ON RRP buffer is now depleted. In 2021-2023, that buffer absorbed surpluses and prevented repo rate collapse. Its near-zero level means the system lacks this stabilizer precisely when QT has reduced reserves and Treasury issuance remains elevated. Additional liquidity pressure falls directly on reserves, leaving repo markets vulnerable to quarter-end dynamics, tax payments, or Treasury settlement volatility. Chairman Powell announced that QT will slow dramatically, with Treasury runoff ending while mortgage-backed securities continue maturing. However, this addresses only aggregate levels, not the structural issues driving period-end stress. The question remains whether current reserve levels are sufficient given elevated post-pandemic deposits, outstanding credit line commitments, tighter balance sheet constraints, and the expired Bank Term Funding Program. What do these signals indicate? Three interpretations emerge. The most likely is that quarterend and month-end rate effects will continue intensifying as reserves decline further, with the spread between SOFR and ON RRP at period-ends serving as a barometer of underlying tightness. Federal Reserve research suggests that as Treasury issuance continues and reserves decline, "the repo market is likely to tighten further and the effects of quarteror month-ends on repo rates may grow, providing another potential indicator that reserves are becoming less abundant." This would manifest as larger SRF usage at period-ends and persistent elevated Fed facility usage, though system functioning would remain generally stable between these events. A more adverse interpretation sees a triggering event during an already-stressed period-end causing broader repo market seizure, forcing the Fed to resume asset purchases and confirming that meaningful balance sheet normalization is impossible under current structures. An optimistic interpretation requires regulatory reform -SLR exemptions for reserves or changes to quarter-end reporting requirements -to reduce incentives for balance sheet window dressing, though this appears politically unlikely. For banks, the implication is that reserve buffers need to be higher than pre-2019 benchmarks, and the ratio of demandable claims to liquid assets requires closer monitoring. For investors, continued volatility in short-term interest rates should be expected, particularly around periodends. The Fed's weekly H.4.1 release tracking SRF and ON RRP levels provides leading indicators. Money market fund flows have outsized impact as their allocation decisions directly affect system liquidity buffers. The transformation underway represents a fundamental shift from bank-intermediated to partially Fed-intermediated money markets. Post-2008 regulations strengthened individual bank resilience but broke private intermediation chains. The central bank now serves as both lender and borrower of last resort, with private markets unable to efficiently connect flows. September 2019, March 2020, March 2023, and November 2025 episodes demonstrate a pattern: reserves appear adequate until buffers thin, after which modest events trigger outsized disruptions. 1. Bostrom, E., Bowman, D., Rose, A., and Xia, A. (2025), "What Happens on Quarter-Ends in the Repo Market," FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Copeland, A., Duffie, D., and Yang, Y. (2021), "Reserves Were Not So Ample After All," Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2. Du, W. (2022), "Bank Balance Sheet Constraints at the Center of Liquidity Problems," Jackson Hole Economic Symposium.

Rajesh P. Narayanan

2 min

20 Days Into the Government Shutdown: What’s the Impact on Your Wallet?

"Government shutdowns create a cascading financial impact that begins with federal workers but quickly spreads throughout the economy, with effects intensifying the longer the shutdown persists. Approximately 2 million federal civilian employees face direct financial disruption during shutdowns. Essential personnel in national security and public safety continue working without immediate pay, while non-essential workers are furloughed entirely. Although Congress typically authorizes back pay after shutdowns end, families must navigate weeks or months without regular income, forcing them to drain savings, incur debt, or miss critical payments like mortgages and utilities. Federal contractors face even greater uncertainty, as they often receive no compensation for shutdown periods, creating immediate cash flow crises for businesses of all sizes that depend on government work. The financial impact extends well beyond federal employees through several key transmission mechanisms. Reduced consumer spending from affected workers hits local businesses particularly hard, especially in areas with high concentrations of federal employment like Washington D.C. and military communities. Small businesses face additional challenges through delayed government contract payments and suspended access to Small Business Administration (SBA) loan processing. Critical financial services experience significant disruptions. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgage approvals slow or halt entirely, delaying home closings and affecting real estate markets. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may delay tax refunds and income verification services, further constraining household cash flow and complicating loan applications. Financial markets typically experience increased volatility during shutdown periods, as uncertainty about government stability affects investor confidence. Consumer confidence also tends to decline, particularly during prolonged shutdowns, leading to reduced spending that can amplify economic impacts. Credit rating agencies have historically warned that extended shutdowns could threaten the nation's credit rating, potentially raising borrowing costs across the economy. For most Americans whose income doesn't flow through federal channels, immediate wallet impact remains modest initially. However, the longer shutdowns persist, the more likely average citizens will experience effects through delayed services, financing complications, reduced economic confidence, and broader market softness. The cumulative impact grows exponentially with duration, making swift resolution critical for maintaining economic stability."

Rajesh P. Narayanan
Show More +

Answers

The Fed just cut interest rates—what does that really mean for consumers, from mortgages to credit cards to savings?
Rajesh P. Narayanan

When the Fed announces a rate cut, consumers often expect interest rates on the financial products they use to go down as well, but it isn’t always that straightforward. Savings:With deposit products, high-yield savings rates are the ones most likely to be affected. Many account holders may have already seen their rates go down in anticipation of this rate cut. Others may have to wait for their financial institutions to lower rates. Because the Fed is expected to continue cutting this year and throughout 2026, savings rates might continue to drop. Certificate of deposit (CD) rates are also likely to go down now that the Fed has cut rates, more so for short-term CDs compared to long-term CDs. So, locking in a CD rate now might be a good idea if you’re worried about future Fed cuts. Home Borrowing Costs:You should see an almost immediate drop in Home Equity Line of Credit (Heloc) rates because these rates are variable and tied to an index, often the prime rate. The prime rate follows the federal-funds rate, which means that when the Fed cuts rates, HELOC borrowers on both new and existing loans typically benefit. Home equity loan rates however may not see much of an impact as these rates are fixed and the rate cut has largely already been priced in. With long term mortgages, their rates are benchmarked to the yield on the 10-year Treasury rate. Historically, changes in the Fed’s benchmark rate (which is the short-term, overnight rate) are barely correlated with long-term mortgage rates. What we have actually seen since the Fed started lowering rates is that mortgage rates have moved in the opposite direction. This is because the 10-year Treasury yields have risen over concerns about the economy, expanding deficits and trade wars.Credit cards:With credit cards, the rates may come down a bit, but not much to make a difference because the rates are still at historic highs. The Fed tends to cut rates when it is concerned about the economy, which means borrowers may find it harder to repay, and banks price that risk in the way they price their credit cards.

Continue reading
With interest rates, inflation, and banking stability in the headlines, what signals should everyday people watch to understand where the financial system is headed?
Rajesh P. Narayanan

The financial system, which is comprised of financial institutions (banks) and financial markets, moves the savings in the economy to investments via credit and capital flows. Both credit and capital markets provide leading indicators of where the economy is headed. Banks create credit, and therefore people should look for signs that indicate when banks become more cautious about lending or when they see headlines about banks stress. This means that credit will become harder to get, which can slow the economy even if other indicators look healthy. They can also look for signs from the financial market. When the term spread, which is the difference between long and short- term rates is positive, it typically signals expectation of economic growth and higher future rates. When it is negative or inverted, it signals expectations of slower growth or even a recession as markets anticipate future rate cuts.

Continue reading

Education

Florida State University

Ph.D.

Finance

1996

Media Appearances

Research@Ourso: The Case of the Disappearing Bank Branches

Louisiana State University  online

2025-07-07

Following decades of consistent growth, the number of bank branches in the U.S. peaked in 2010 and has been declining ever since, a trend that accelerated dramatically after the COVID-19 pandemic. A new working paper with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) by Rajesh P. Narayanan, professor in the LSU Department of Finance, alongside co-authors Philip Strahan (Boston College) and Dimuthu Ratnadiwakara (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond), suggests that this decline is driven by technology, which has fundamentally altered the profitability of local bank branches by making customers more powerful and less loyal.

View More

What does a rate cut mean in the real world?

Talk 107.3 FM Baton Rouge  radio

2024-09-18

Dr. Rajesh Narayanan from LSU shared insights on the Federal Reserve’s anticipated rate cuts and their potential impacts on the economy. The Fed is primarily focused on two key indicators: inflation and unemployment. Currently, both metrics are trending favorably, with inflation dropping from around 9% post-pandemic to approximately 3-3.5%, and unemployment nearing the Fed’s target of around 2%.

View More

This week’s anticipated interest rate cut, explained

Greater Baton Rogue Business Report  online

2024-09-16

After months of speculation, it now seems exceedingly likely that the Federal Reserve will finally cut interest rates at its meeting on Wednesday. LSU finance professor Rajesh Narayanan tells D…

View More

Show All +

Articles

The Decline of Bank Branching

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper

2025

We study U.S. bank branch openings and closings from 2001 to 2023. Both are more common in areas with low deposit franchise value, a consequence of greater interest-rate sensitivity among financially sophisticated households with higher digital banking adoption. The effects are strongest for large banks. Lending plays a minimal role. Incumbents retain branches where depositors are less sensitive to rates because they can extract deposit spreads; entrants avoid such markets because sticky customers are difficult to attract. The pandemic accelerated closures by increasing digital reliance. Our findings highlight deposit franchise value as the primary driver of modern branch restructuring.

View more

The paradox of slave collateral

Explorations in Economic History

2025

As mobile financial assets, slaves have high liquidation value that makes them desirable as loan collateral. The mobility of slaves also makes them insecure collateral because borrowers could sell slaves to outside buyers or move them beyond the reach of creditors. We contend that creditors balanced the opposing forces of liquidity and security in deciding whether to extend credit against slave collateral. Using an original sample of New Orleans mortgage and sales records, we find that relatively few loans were backed with slave collateral and that slave buyers paid higher interest rates for their loans.

View more

Will Neural Scaling Laws Activate Jevons' Paradox in AI Labor Markets? A Time-Varying Elasticity of Substitution (VES) Analysis

arXiv preprint

2025

We develop a formal economic framework to analyze whether neural scaling laws in artificial intelligence will activate Jevons' Paradox in labor markets, potentially leading to increased AI adoption and human labor substitution. By using a time-varying elasticity of substitution (VES) approach, we establish analytical conditions under which AI systems transition from complementing to substituting for human labor. Our model formalizes four interconnected mechanisms: (1) exponential growth in computational capacity (C(t) = C(0) \cdot e^{g \cdot t}); (2) logarithmic scaling of AI capabilities with computation (\sigma(t) = \delta \cdot \ln(C(t)/C(0))); (3) declining AI prices (p_A(t) = p_A(0) \cdot e^{-d \cdot t}); and (4) a resulting compound effect parameter (\phi = \delta \cdot g) that governs market transformation dynamics.

Show All +

Social

Powered by