events happening. it will be available to watch afterward. you can find thus and if you have any parts you want to relive. so, again, thank you guys so much, and on behalf of vromans book store. >> now once booktv, more television for serious readers. good morning, glenn hutchins here. welcome to this i hope to prove to be a fascinating and insightful situation with benazir benber unanimous key. when the financial crisis hit in 2008, and ben bernanke was fed chair there was no playbook so he had to create one from scratch. a few of us expected his successors would need to refer to it so soon, but farm for all of us he left a copy for jay

powell to consult. recommend people on the call if they're interested, there's very good book called "firefighterring" a summary or the crisis and first responders which gets into n deeply into the individual program. i recommend everybody have a look at over. ben among other things is a distinguished economic historian, well suited to put this horrible event we're experiencing now in context for us. he'll give us a sense today about what will demeanor how deep this recession will be, perhaps how long it will last, how effective the fiscal and monetary policy response has been and perhaps what is likely to come, and whether the covid-19 recession will leave long-lasting scars on the u.s. and the global economy. so i'll turn this over right now to ben for his remarks, after which david will pose some questions and then after that some instructions on how the audience members can ask their

own questions so many, ben, over to you and thank you for doing this. >> thank you, glen. thank you, everyone for joining us this afternoon. seems like a long time ago but in january and february we had a very strong economy with 3.5% unemployment rate. hopeful that the strength of the economy will provide a little bit of momentum, a little reserve to help us get through this very tough period. what has happened is that the world has been hit by the covid-19 virus. the virus itself is doing great damage, but from economic perspective the fact that nonessential businesses are being shut down globally, having an enormous effect on economic activity, people are not shop, people are not working, people are not going to school and we'll see those -- the effects of that in the data very soon. you need to keep the dat in perspective. if gdp in the second quarter is, say 10% lower than the first

quarter, we are report on an annual basis, multiplied by four, very possible we'll see gdp numbers of the second quarter of -- a magnitude of minus 38% or greater. likewise, unemployment is hard to measure in the short term. people who are furloughed, are they unemployed? be coming back? and the near term we'll see dramatic number but i think we won't know for a while how serious and how deep this phenomenon is going be. clearly people have made comparisons he great depression. it's not a very good comparison. the depression was 12 years long, came from financial crisis, came from man-made errors and decisions. this is more like a natural disaster and the response is more like emergency relief than it is a typical stimulus or anti recessionary response.

in terms of how bad this will be and the imprint on the u.s. economy is the duration, the long longer last i do see businesses will fail financially, close their doors, the longer it lasts the more people will lose their jobs and lose their association with their former employers. the longer it lasts, the more disruption and the harder to come back so the duration is going to be critical. the most important determinant of the duration is the public health response. we are currently in shutdown because we're trying to, quote, bend the curve. we want to get the rate of new cases low enough that people can feel confident that the system can handle the cases. we want to add palliatives and medicines and treatment. we want to test and trace. we ultimately want to be able to feel that people can go back to

work safely. and that is going depend more than anything else on the public health response, and i think that's still a great deal of question how that's going to go. one scenario is that we partially open up the economy over the summer, and that perhaps in the fall there's more infection. we shut down parts of the economy again, so overall, it could be a very bad year for the u.s. economy, but again, the public health response and our ability to make sure that the hospitals have the equipment they need and the scientific establishment is putting all its resources into addressing this disease, will be the most important determinant of how long and how deep this downturn it. having said all that, there are other components to the response in which i'm more expert, let me talk about briefly the fiscal response and then spend most of my time on how the federal

reserve is responding to the crisis. fiscally, again, while we're not really talking about a stimulus package because people can't really go out and shop, but we're talking about emergency relief. we need to primarily in the fiscal package is make sure that people can survive this period without -- with very low income, that businesses losing revenue can pay their bills, pay the rent, pay utilities so when the all-clear is sounded or partially clear is sound they can open up again and we can restore economic activity. that's a big, big part besides the part of the fiscal program that addresses health needs, the biggest part of the c.a.r.e.s act, the $2.2 trillion fiscal program, is trying just to arrived life support for an economy that is going to be shut down for a while until we have a better grip on the disease. so, the money is going into

direct payments to individuals, to help them get through the period. i think the main issues there are logistical. getting the money to people fast enough? is it enough? probably be more coming later, but it's the right idea to try to help people get through this period. the other part is to help businesses survive this period. and that involves both some grants for large amount of money for the airline industry, for example, and also credit to help firms pay their bills and remain solvent so they can open up again when the health situation is better. so i think overall the fiscal policy response, which you think of as an emergency relief package or disaster relief, has been pretty good. there are some logistical issues in terms of getting the money out but it has the right shape. i do suspect there will be more coming later as we help the

economy get back to full employment. i would also add that this will probably be almost entirely debt financed which in this circumstance i think is probably appropriate, which is why we have the capacity to borrow too deal with these kinds of crises. let me talk no the remain fugue minutes but theford reserve which has been extraordinarily active and i want to commend jay powell and his colleagues for trying to be pro-active and addressing concern in the economy. the fed has done basically three types of things, and each of which has important role in supporting our financial system and our economy. the first is supporting market functioning and providing liquidity. this is what central banks were created for. this is what the fed was set unfour in 1913, and as you may know those listening may know that the fed has been dealing with issues going back into last

year when the repo markets were somewhat destabilized. the fed was putting liquidity in the system as early as last fall. but since then, with the pressures on financial markets coming from the uncertainty associated with the crisis, there's been a lot of destabilization, the fed is responded in a big way. it has been, for example, buying large amounts of treasuries and mortgage-backed securities to help restore good functioning in critical markets and continues to put cash into the system to try make the repo markets and money markets work better. it's opt if the discount window so banks are bar roar at 1% interest as they need liquid yesterday to make loans -- liquidity and the fed has been providing liquidity in the international system. so back in 2008, in the financial crisis, one of the

problems robbed the world was that so many financial transactions take place in dollars and the only source of dollars is the federal reserve, so in order to stabilize money markets around the world, the fed conducted what is called swap operations with 14 other central banks to provide them with dollars they could use in their economies to help stabilize theirs financial systems and that affected u.s. financial markets. the fed in this instance has also set up swap agreements with 14 central banks, the same ones. the fed will be acting as a lender of last resort in dollars not just to u.s. banks and financial institutions but essentially to the rest of the world. it's also set up a facility whereby other countries, besides the 14, can pledge the treasures they hold and get dollars, get cash, and again, provide liquidity as needed within their

own economies. the fed is acting very aggressively to make sure that there's enough cash, enough liquidity in the system. that's the first line. secondly, the fed has been aggressive on monetary policy. they lowered interest rates, as you'll know, over the summer last year. they cut rates three times as insurance and that seemed to be what the doctor ordered, so to speak, and the recession risk at the time fell and looked like the fed had achieved a soft lanning. now we have much different situation. the fed has cut rates down to minimal zero over 25 basis points we saul in the years of the financial crisis. it has issued four guidances saying basically we'll keep rates at zero until the economy is clearly become on track and in nation is moving back to 2%. i suspect it will be quite a while, and the asset purchases,

have already been undertaken, and that will move into quantitative easing, keeping rates low and easing after the cries, he health crisis, has begun to -- covers can borrow so they can continue to survive, but it's not really time yet to stimulate spending and get people to buy cars and houses. that hat to wait until the health situation is better. at that point monetary policy with approximately if normal function. finally and most innovatively, the fed has been intervening here, substantially in credit markets. so, credit market haven't been very disrupted by the cries birk the fact that people are so up

certain how long it will last, the cash flow implications and as the crisis began, many, many credit markets were disrupted, and the fed, as glenn said, borrowed from the fed's playbook from 2008, and then add quite a few innovations of its own. borrowing from the 2008 playbook, it's done really three things. first providing short term landing to corporations to finance materials and work capital. something we did in 2008. that's on the shelf. that is -- is already running. secondly, there's a money market liquidity fund we had in 2008. they brought up to allow money markets to sell their securities

and reduce pressure on theman markets. we have seen some run on the money market mutual funds and has been helping. this is something we did in 2008, the third facility we are planning to reintroduce yet, asset backed services lend facility is used to buy packages of credit, consumer credit, credit carded, auto loans, student loans and other types of credit to help make those markets more effective. so these announcements together with the treasury and mortgage backed securities have already improved credit market functioning consider blimp now, going beyond that, the fed is going to use its 13.3 emergency powers which we used in 2008 for the first time since the depression, the fed in general has very limited ability to buy assets and make loans, but under

emergency conditions, so-called unusual and exigent conditions and the fed can seen thely loan to everybody, the 13.3 power and based on that, they're adding a whole number of lend facilities that will try again to ensure that businesses can borrow cheaply and effectively in order to maintain their survival through this period. so, what is coming out, there's two corporate facilities, one that's going to lend directly to corporations, essentially making loans or buying bonds of corporations again to help them to survive the period, and there's a secondary facility that will buy existing bonds, trying to improve the functioning of the credit markets, and the corporate bonded markets and then thirdly,

an important and difficult one, departing quite substantially from past experience, the fed is also going to be introducing a so-called main street business lending program. now, main street is a little bit of a misnomer because it's really for middle sized firms, 500 to 10,000 employees, and what the fed well be doing and don't know the details yet but plumb my asking banks to make loans to mid-size firms and the fed will be providing cheap liquidity and perhaps providing protection against risks risk bs will be incentivized to make loans on good terms to the mid-size terms the smallest businesses are eligible for loans from the sba, the small business administration, that began this week, again, he issticks for important. they've been some snafus in terms of getting the money out. i hope that will get straightened out.

that's supposed to provide the sba's program is supposed to provide cash to smallest businesses on favorable terms and in fact those loans are at least partially forgivable if the companies, the small companies, maintain their payroll. the fed is helping there as well. it announced i think just today or yesterday, that it will buy sba loans from banks or provide a secondary market for the loans, making them more liquid and banks more willing to make the loans. the thing to emphasize here is that the fed -- what the fed can do is re-enforce the private credit markets. the private credit markets are dysfunctional because the the leverage because of unser it. the fed can come in and replace the markets to some extent or strengthen the markets and try to bring private lenders back into the markets. the testified does not give away money.

it -- the 13.3 requirements do require that the pay take collateral and intend to be repaid but in order to give the fed some protection, big chunk of the money in the fiscal program, $465 billion, essentially provides equity for the fed's lending programs so that if they do lose money, it will be covered by this -- by these treasury funded. so, again, there has been progress already. we have soon the credit markets improve. i think that the critical issue will be how quickly the public health situation improves and that will depend on the logistics of contributing equipment and -- distributing equipment and gear, beds, ventilators ventilators and the scientific effort we need to get control of this. finally, let me just point out, talking about the united states. this is particularly difficult situation because it is a global situation, almost every country

in the world is suffering from this pandemic. and almost all have chosen to significantly reduce economic activities, so this will be a global recession. the situation is being worsened by a strong dollar, by falling commodity prices, by capital outthes from this countries so we may well see eemergencying market crisis and globally and the united states. we have a hard road ahead but ail pretty pleased overall with the fiscal and monetary responses we have seen. we'll need more but at least those authorities have done what they can to help our economy stay functional until the public health situation gets better. so, david, i'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you much for that and people listening inment we have number of questions already but feel free add to the u.s. by emailing opens opens at brookings institute or twitter, #covid economy. i the fed has increased the balance sheet, approaching 6 trillion decide. twice the size when youlift thed in 2014. there is a limit to how much money the fed can create or reserves it can create to purchase u.s. treasuries and lend for all these emergency facilities? there is some limit to how much the treasure can borrow to finance this rescue. >> tech nick chick speak can they're not a limit to how big the fed's balance sheet can get. at 6 trillion this would be about 30% of are -- or less of u.s. gdp. in japan, the order or 90% of gdp the size of the

bank of japan's balance sheet. so could be bigger. muff of the increase is temporary, for example, a lot of the commercial paper facilities, those are short-term loans, and presumably has things normalize the loans will be paid back and question fed balance sheet will shrink. but i think the fed does have capacity to increase its balance sheet, and it appears willing to do so significantly. and i think that's a appropriate. i don't think there's any real danger from that. don't think, example, that inflation will be a risk. if anything disinflation, low inflation will bemer of a concern next year than too high inflation. as far as borrowing is concern, yes, the federal government is borrowing a lot. again as i mentioned, this is when that wereowing capacity is so valuable when you have a national emergency, which this

is. paying for this with taxes, would be counterproductive and would drops buying power at time when the economy needs buying power. i think it's -- the question of sustainability of the u.s. federal debt is a tough one. think there are long running issues clearly as the population ages, as costs of medical care go up. we see projections of the federal debt that are very disturbing over the next decade or two, and we need to think hard how we are going to get control of that trajectory, but i think that in the near term, dealing with a crisis of this magnitude that i think this is an appropriate approach, and i would just note, finally, that interest rates being almost zero, means that the interest burden associate evidence with the borrowing will be quite low, even though the number of dollars borrowed is high. >> i want to back up to that

inplaying point. some people look at what is going on, huge increase in the federal deficit, low interest rates, the fed creating a lot of reserves, and they think, surely this will create inflation, maybe more than we want you don't think that's the case, how come? >> well, if you look -- there are supply and demand elements of this crisis. the reply side, you're seeing, for example, some types of goods are in short supply. you're seeing some supply chains being disrupted so there are some supply side effects that will rates privates for certain goods and services. oval, though, think but what is happening to the demands for major industries, what is happening to the demand for airline seats, or restaurant meals. because people are staying home and because it will be a while before they are back to more

normal activity and when they come back to more normal activity they will have exhausted financial reserves presumably issue think spending will take a let so the net effect will be probably slightly disinflationary, what jail powell said in his press conference and he's right. one way to look is whats happening with commodities, oil prices for example, which have collapsed. i think overall, that monetary and fiscal stimulus will not sufficiently compensate to get us back quickly to full employment, and the risk will be that in the short-term, that influence will be a bet medical the fed's 2% target. they want to get back to 2% or slightly above. i think at this point inflation is at a high risk.

>> you're not an it path a sharp v-shaped recovery. >> i'm not. the reason is because of the apparent trajectory of the virus and the rates of infection and the like. i'm not a doctor but they tell us a vaccine is 18 months away. there are things we can do to open up the economy significantly perhaps, but i don't see the economy returning to a more normal state until there's much greater confidence, both among the average person and among acknowledge people and the level of governors and mayors that opening up the economy won't restart the crisis. so, it seems likely that the -- if we could shut off the epidemic, of course the economy would bounce back quickly but since we probably have to

restart activity fairly gradually and there may be subsequent periods of slower activity again, i don't think it's going be a rapid response. on the other hand i do want to draw the distinction between this and say, 12 year great depression, if all goes well in a year 0 two, we should be in a substantially better position. i hope that the time back to full employment will be significantly less even than the great recession proved to be. >> that raise an interesting. the recovery from the great recession was sluggish and painfully slow. are there lessons there that we should draw about either fiscal or monetary policy responses? >> well, i think on the margin beth fiscal and monetary policy could have been more aggressive in certain stages in that recovery, but it was very different kind of recession.

it was started, created, primarily by the combination of housing boom and bust, and a panic, and those things -- the first instance, as asset prices fell, house prices fell, made people feel poorer and then the credit crisis meant that there was tremendous disruption in credit markets as well. and so when you think about it is that recession is not just everyone stopping for a moment what they're doing and then going back to it; rather reinvestigation self-s disruption, people losing jobs separated from employers, companies closing, and depending on the -- how long and deep and severe that disruption is, the longer it takes to get back to a more normal situation. >> recall you saying when you were at the fed you thought fiscal policy had tighten too

soon and the period of the sequester hurt the economy and is that a risk this time? >> well, as i said a moment ago i think fiscal policy was not sufficiently aggressive and i think at times monetary policy could have been more aggressive. the initial 2009 fiscal program in retrospect and some people said at the time, was perhaps not adequately sized, begin the size of the problem, and and then there was a fairly quick response, not just in the out but globally, towards a more definite reduction and tighter fiscal policy starting as early as 2010 and the out, very significant tightening in 2013. so, yes, the fiscal policy was too tight at various stages to fully aid the recovery back to full employment. in this case, i think the

politics is a little different. the 2009 fiscal package was passed -- basically on party line vote. this one we just had was a more bipartisan, supported be the president and both parties. so i'm hopeful with a more bipartisan approach to what is again a -- at some level really a natural disaster. very big but in some ways similar to the hurricanes or the flooded or the other things we have dealt with in recent years and a bipartisan response to support those people affected might be -- lead to us a more robust fiscal response as the economy recovers. >> a number of people have asked about share buybacks which have been controversial and suggest a consequence of low interest rate

is share buybacked that are unproductive. do you have a view on that and also on the call for the big banks to stop paying dividends and suspending share buybacks. >> share buybacks and dividend payments not inherently bad things. they're the bank or the company taking its excess cash and saying we haven't gone any good use for this cash we'll give it to our shareholders and they can use it for their own consumption orite somewhere elves you want capital to be mole from companies who have extra cash and no good use to other uses in the economy where the cash can be better used. don't want to argue against buybacks and dividend payments in general inch the current situation the good news is that the banking system, unlike in 2008, is coming in pretty

strong, and that's going to be helpful for recovery. on the other hand, you want to -- the banking system to stay strong and i think very tough question whether the regulators ought to cut back on dividend payments. or tell them to stop making dividend payments. we didn't do that in 2008. in retrospect might have been a mistake because obviously in the end, many banks were short of capital, and putting out dividend reduces the amount of cap that. the argue. so i think there's a case for asking banks generally to be very cautious about dividend payouts and share buybacks. the argument the other direction is that you might give the impression that as policymakers when you tell the world we're telling the banks they can't by a dividends you might tell the world that you think the banks are in trouble which you may not

believe and i don't think is the case now. so there's a bit of signaling problem. but i think it's a complicated question. think the banks are pretty strong. much more capital today than in 2008 but die think some caution on dividend payments if it can beadmen way that doesn't hurt confidence in the banking sometime be worth discussing. >> one thing that its quite different between the 2009 and today is the congress back then appropriated a lot of money, went to the t.a.r.p., the troubled asset relief program run the treasury. the fed was involved but was not primary lay fed program. this time the congress has a lot of faith in the fed and have given the fed 450 billion doors to lend. what do you think bows this? they're talking about buying securities at the municipal bonds as wells a corporate --

lending against corporate death and so fort. i wonder whether you're comfortable with the use of the fed to lend almost everybody, to basically be deciding who gets credit and who doesn't, and whether you think this is an inappropriate role nor central bank? >> i think it's an appropriate role for the fed given the circumstances. i think it's -- glenn hutchins this morning had an oneat talk about the importance of governance and making sure there are clear rules and oversight in the lehning process. the fed under jay powell and previous chair is hope has established a good record of nonpartisan, and objective analysis. so the fed might -- the fed is, i think, a vehicle for providing government supported credit that will be based on objective

criteria and is less subject to partisan debate than maybe another type of approach might have. so, i don't think they should be a regular feature. obviously we want the private sector to be the source of credit are in almost all circumstances put in this case where -- but in this case where credit markets were clearly disrupted, the fed i think has an appropriate role to try to restore stability. the fed has a brad responsibility to maintain financial stability and i think it's doing a good job of that, and one sign of this is that we don't expect the feds' lending to crowd out all other lending in markets like the commercial paper market and the corporation perhaps boston market. we're already seeing normal private lending returning so the fed is acting more like backstop than the only lend lender and

the lender of last resource backstop role is appropriate. >> wi he have we learned anything but places in the financial system that were more fragile ormer vulnerable to shocks than we realized or hadn't done enough to shore up after the great recession? >> well i think one area that people were worried about in advance and my colleague at brookings, janet yellen, talked but this the leveraged lending, high yield, areas in the corporate credit markets that are stressed, and the fed anticipated that if a shock came from some other direction, that drove the economy into a slowdown, that some of these weaker credits might exacerbate the problem, and i think we're seeing some evidence of that. some surprising problems even in the treasury market which the fed has addressed by buying

treasuries, but broadly speaking, again, this is a situation very different from 2008. feels like 2008 because we're seeing the big moves in the stock market and lots of stress, but in this case, the shock is coming from outside the financial system. it's coming from of course the pandemic and the effects on economic activity. the financial system is strong, and will about a bulwark against this becoming a much worse crisis if the fed and the regulators do their jobs appropriately. >> do you think it's appropriate for the government to cake warrants oar equity interest in companies it helps to at a time like this? >> um, i would be -- it's so weird. there's lending and then there's also some grants going on, some -- where the government -- where the fiscal policy has included payments to industries,

which are where lending is not going to be sufficient. in that latter case where their grants, then may be various ways in which the grant can partly be paid back through warrants, for example. think it's a balancing act, and i'm not really closely enough involved that niece particular programs to give you a good judgment. you want obviously the tax fire be protect. you want to have a reasonable return, and remember, again, the fed lending is lending, not grants, not gifts. so you want a rome return and want a return that's going to not -- want the taxpayer to get their money back. orbited you don't want to impose so many conditions and complex requirements that it will make people unwilling to participate and he can second, make the paperwork burden so high it will

make the low logistical realm even worse. it's appropriate to requirements and obviously section of eligibility and need, but i think the main thing you want to do is keep those companies alive, so they can function again when the health crisis is over, and to try tone sure that as much as possible the taxpayers get their money back. >> you make a point several timed that keeping businesses intact so they can moricely restart when the virus receded is critical to how we come out of this thing. could you step back for a moment and -- this is speculation, i understand -- to think about ways in which the economy may be different coming out of this, either consumer business behavior, approach to

government. just to think about from the vantage point of history what will be we watching to see itself changes. >> the economists have a term called hi -- the idea is what you per steve to be temporary changes have permanent effects and there may be some history yisi in this crisis. some thing that happened in the course -- only a year or two, in the course of this recession, may have permanent effect on the economy. so one example would be small business. so, one concern that economists have had but the u.s. economy it's more concentrated and larger businesses have had more market share. it's small businesses are knocked out by this crisis, because we don't adequately keep them alive, then that could affect concentration in many

industries going forward. the form of work. having this conference remotely. people at brook examination all around the country are teleworking and learning how to work remotely. will this change our shopping, change our work habits? will this affect the way we interact with people? online rather than in person industry competition will be affected no doubt. i can't see as many people going on cruises, for example. there may be changes in the way that other travel industries operate; assure people butcast health. a lot of different dimensions

but i guess historical examples, back in 1917, flu pandemic, 1917-18, the asia flu, '50s, and -- permanent impact. i'm not expecting at this point a complete reshaping of u.s. economy but there will be some changes. we'll probably work on some dimensions and there will be some changes going forward. >> before this crisis -- [inaudible] -- savings glut and more savings and not enough invested to soak it up which is why global interest rates have been so low. which way do you think that balance will go? i can see -- i think think of it more than one way. may have very risk averse consumers, people may be willing to save more immigrant i can imagine a lot of people not being willing to invest. government borrowing will be

greater than before. how do you see that savings investment balance? what will you two-see? >> well, if you look at the experience of the great depression, people who surveyed the depression for many years were -- saved more and more cautious, so i think that some of those same factors will be there. if people think that, in turk they think that pandemics will happen every ten. >> tai they recall have more cautionary savings because they want to be prepared for those disruptions. expect to see more savings and more caution. which would probably a net lower interest rates. you're right about higher fiscal deficits, but larry summers and they argue inside a recent book he was paid for -- without the fiscal deficits interest rates

would be lower still but they've not been sufficient to raise interest rates up to -- pick historically more levels. >> a lot of people are scare. you're not allowed to go outside in many places, you watch if you have retirement savings, diminish. the unertty -- uncertainty but the future the knicks few months 0 year of the economy is very unsettling. what can you tell people to reassure them if you can about how we get through a period like this? >> well, it's going to be a very difficult period. a lot of uncertainty inherent in dealing with this illness. we don't understand it fully. a lot of people's financial resources will be tested because of movement inside the market and because they're trying to survive this period with low or reduced income. i don't want to any any way

diminish what is happening. it's tough and scary period with few precedents in history. history also suggests that we'll find solutions for this illness, whether they're logistical, whether they're scientific advances, whether they come from changes in how we work, so i think the u.s. economy will recover and will within a few years will show only modest marks of this experience. i think if we're patient in what we know we should be doing, that we'll come out okay on the other end. we'll learn some lessons out being better prepared for future crises and future shocks of this type. so i think with some patience,, and optimism we'll come out of

this okay, but i certainly understand and appreciate personal level the uncertainty that we're all facing over the next few months. >> i hope you're right that prediction. thank you very much for your time. and to people who are online, if you have questions that we didn't get to i apologize. if you send them to events at brooksings and there are questions we can answer we'll try to find our way to answer them. so again, thank you very much, ben. thank you. >> you're watching booktv on c-span, booktv, television for serious readers. >> i'm christina from book people and the event and marketing manager. want to welcome you for an e