excess reserves Archives - Page 2 of 2

February 16, 2014

Declining US commercial bank loans?

Sober Look highlights the sharply declining ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits.

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits

Its only when we examine the detail, however, that we note cash reserves have ballooned in the last 10 years. And most of those cash reserves are deposits at the Fed which now (post-GFC) earn interest. Adjust total deposits at commercial banks, for the excess reserves deposited back with the Fed, and the current ratio of 1:1 looks a lot healthier.

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits Adjusted for Excess Reserves

As I pointed out in November, most new money created by the Fed QE program is being deposited straight back with the Fed as excess reserves. We need to adjust bank deposits for this effect to obtain a true reflection of bank lending activity.

February 16, 2014

Declining US commercial bank loans?

Sober Look highlights the sharply declining ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits.

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits Adjusted for Excess Reserves

November 22, 2013

Why does QE taper spook the market if it will have no real impact?

Question received from CG about the impact of QE and Fed taper:

I’m not arguing against the data presented on the graph, but if true that most of the QE bond purchases are being parked by banks in interest-bearing, excess reserve deposits at the Fed, why do the markets get spooked every time there are whispers that the Fed is going to reduce QE?

The comment CG is referring to:

Currently, there is evidence of expansive monetary policy from the Fed, but the overall impact on the financial markets is muted. Most of the QE bond purchases are being parked by banks in interest-bearing, excess reserve deposits at the Fed. The chart below compares Fed balance sheet expansion (QE) to the increase in excess reserve deposits at the Fed.

A classic placebo effect, the Fed is well aware that the major benefit of their quantitative easing program is psychological: there is little monetary impact on the markets.

My answer:
The markets have no real reason to fear a QE taper. I think this is more psychological than physical. The current mind-set is:

If the Fed begins to taper, that marks the end of the bull market in bonds. Rising bond yields and higher long-term interest rates may slow industry investment and recovery of the housing market and this would be bad for the economy.

In other words, they still have a bearish outlook. At some point they will shift to the counter-argument:

QE taper and rising interest rates indicate Fed faith in the recovery and are a bullish sign for stocks. It also means the economy is reverting to a sustainable path.

The bottom-line is that markets are driven as much by emotion as by logic.

November 6, 2013

Is the market in a bubble?

As global growth recovers we expect equity markets to be buoyed by improvements in both earnings and dividends, with strong momentum over the quarter. There is much discussion in the media as to whether various markets are in a “bubble”. Little attention is devoted to the fact that bubbles can last for several years, and sometimes even decades. The main driver of both stock market bubbles and real estate bubbles is debt. Anna Schwartz, co-author with Milton Friedman of A Monetary History of the United States (1963) described the relationship to the Wall Street Journal:

If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates …..

Currently, there is evidence of expansive monetary policy from the Fed, but the overall impact on the financial markets is muted. Most of the QE bond purchases are being parked by banks in interest-bearing, excess reserve deposits at the Fed. The chart below compares Fed balance sheet expansion (QE) to the increase in excess reserve deposits at the Fed.

US Household Debt

A classic placebo effect, the Fed is well aware that the major benefit of their quantitative easing program is psychological: there is little monetary impact on the markets.

Corporate debt (green line below) is expanding rapidly as corporations take advantage of the opportunity to issue new debt at low interest rates, but household debt (red) is still shrinking.

US Household Debt

There are pockets of concern, like the rapid recovery in NYSE margin debt, but risk of a Dotcom-style stock market bubble or a 2002/2007 housing bubble is low while household debt contracts.

Australia

Australian personal debt (included with household debt in the US chart) and corporate debt growth are both close to zero. Household debt, while also low, appears to have bottomed. Resurgence above 10% would be cause for concern.

RBA Household Debt

September 23, 2013

Interest on Reserves, Settlement, and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy

Joshua R. Hendrickson suggests that paying interest on excess reserves at the Fed reduces the effectiveness of monetary policy. Money paid to purchase Treasuries finds its way back to the Fed in the form of excess reserves. Here is the abstract from his paper:

Over the last several years, the Federal Reserve has conducted a series of large scale asset purchases. The effectiveness of these purchases is dependent on the monetary transmission mechanism. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has argued that large scale assets purchase are effective because they induce portfolio reallocations that ultimately lead to changes in economic activity. Despite these claims, a large fraction of the expansion of the monetary base is held as excess reserves by commercial banks. Concurrent with the large scale asset purchases, the Federal Reserve began paying interest on reserves and enacted changes in its Payment System Risk policy that have effectively made reserves and interest-bearing assets perfect substitutes. This paper demonstrates that these policy changes have had statistically and economically significant effects on the demand for reserves and simply that the effectiveness of conventional monetary policy has been significantly weakened.

Read the entire paper at Interest on Reserves, Settlement, and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy |
Joshua R. Hendrickson.

June 3, 2013

Impact of QE (or lack thereof) is reflected by excess reserves

JKH at Monetary Realism writes:

….there is a systematic tendency in the blogosphere and elsewhere to misrepresent the impact of QE in a particular way in terms of the related macroeconomic flow of funds…… Most descriptions will erroneously treat the macro flow as if banks were the original portfolio source of the bonds that are being sold to the Fed, obtaining reserves in exchange. This is not the case. A cursory scan of Fed flow of funds statistics will confirm that commercial banks are relatively small holders of bonds in their portfolios, especially Treasury bonds. The vast proportion of bonds that are sold to the Fed in QE originate from non-bank portfolios……. Many descriptions of QE instead erroneously suggest the strong presence of a bank principal function in which bonds from bank portfolios are simply exchanged for reserves. In fact, for the most part, while the banking system has received reserve credit for bonds sold to the Fed, it has also passed on credits to the accounts of non-bank customers who have sold their bonds to the banks. This is integral to the overall QE flow of bonds.

There is a simpler explanation of what happens when the Fed purchases bonds under QE. Bank balance sheets expand as sellers deposit the sale proceeds with their bank. In addition to the deposit liability the bank also receives an asset, being a credit to its account with the Fed. Unless the bank is able to make better use of its asset by making loans to credit-worthy borrowers, the funds are likely to remain on deposit at the Fed as excess reserves — earning interest at 0.25% per year. Excess reserves on deposit at the Fed currently stand at close to $1.8 trillion, reflecting the dearth of (reasonably secure) lending/investment opportunities in the broader economy.

February 14, 2013

Cause of the 2007/8 crash and threatened double-dip in 2010

Here is the smoking gun. Note the sharp contraction in the US monetary base before the last two recessions and again in 2010. Monetary base (M0) is plotted net of excess bank reserves on deposit with the Fed, which are not in circulation. The Fed responded after the contraction had taken place, instead of anticipating it.

Monetary Base minus Excess Reserves

The long-term problem is that the monetary base should not be expanding at 10 percent a year. More like 3% to 5% — in line with real GDP growth.

October 17, 2011

Fed’s Kocherlakota on Why Balance Sheet Expansion Need Not Be Inflationary – Real Time Economics – WSJ

I’ve mentioned how the Federal Reserve has bought over $2 trillion of government securities. It has funded that purchase by tripling the amount of deposits held by banks with the Fed — what are called bank reserves.

……. Banks have few good lending opportunities, and so they’re not trying to attract deposits. As a result, they are keeping nearly $1.6 trillion of reserves at the Fed in excess of what they need to back their deposits.

…… Some observers are concerned that ……. the banks’ excess reserves will serve as kindling for an inflationary fire. This concern would have been entirely appropriate three years ago. But in October 2008, Congress granted the Federal Reserve the power to pay interest on bank reserves. Right now, that interest rate is 25 basis points, or 0.25%. By raising that rate judiciously, the Fed has the ability to deter banks from using their reserves to create money, and through this mechanism, the Fed can prevent inflation.

via Fed’s Kocherlakota on Why Balance Sheet Expansion Need Not Be Inflationary – Real Time Economics – WSJ.

Monetary expansion through further asset purchases by the Fed (quantitative easing) would be ineffective, simply boosting the level of excess reserves held by banks on deposit at the Fed. Monetary tightening would be more difficult, but could be achieved by raising the interest rate paid on excess reserves in order to discourage banks from using their excess reserves. That would raise the overnight rate (fed funds rate) in the market and restrict banks from expanding their balance sheets.