The Fed Is Killing Money Market Mutual Funds, On Purpose or Collateral Damage?

Repos and QE Q&A

Repos are a cash injection by the Fed to banks. The Fed gives cash to banks in return for collateral, typically short-term treasuries. The Fed’s QE program is accomplished by outright purchases (but that is effectively the same as short term repos continually applied).

Reverse repos are the opposite. It’s a cash drain from banks. Thus, the Fed has unwound over $1 trillion of its QE program

Cracks Emerge in the Fed’s Floor as Key Target Rate Slides

Bloomberg reports Cracks Emerge in the Fed’s Floor as Key Target Rate Slides

The effective fed funds rate, which the central bank is currently aiming to keep within a range of 0% to 0.25%, slipped by 1 basis point to 0.08% on Aug. 27, the Fed said Monday. That’s closed the gap to the offering yield on the Fed’s overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility, which is supposed to act like a floor for the front end, to just 3 basis points. 

Money-market rates have been under pressure all year as a result of the central bank’s long-standing asset purchases and drawdowns of the Treasury’s cash account, which is pushing reserves into the system.

At the same time, supply has been dwindling, especially as the Treasury cuts bill supply to create more borrowing room under the debt ceiling, leaving investors scrambling for places to park cash. Those that have access to the Fed’s so-called RRP facility have opted to leave money there, pushing balances to all-time highs in recent days. 

Fed’s Ability to Set Rates Floor Is Weakening on Cash Deluge

A week ago, Bloomberg reported Fed’s Ability to Set Rates Floor Is Weakening on Cash Deluge

The pressure pushing down overnight rates toward zero is proving a major headache for money-market funds. It hampers their ability to invest profitably, and can lead to further disruptions as they begin to waive fees to avoid passing on negative rates to shareholders. A number of firms including Vanguard Group shut down prime money-market funds last year after struggling to cover operating costs in the low-interest-rate environment.

Fed’s Balance Sheet

The recession ended in May. Yet for four months the Fed continues to add to its balance sheet (QE) at $120 billion a month.

This is despite the fact that markets are choking on excess liquidity. 

Free Money 

The Fed pays 0.15% interest on reserves. So banks are making out like bandits.  

However, only banks get that 0.15%. Money Market Mutual Funds don’t.

Breaking the Buck

To prevent breaking the buck (money markets charging interest on deposits), the Fed recently started paying 0.05% on Reverse Repos.

So while the Fed is doing $120 billion a month in QE, the lead chart shows how much it is taking back. 

And if the Fed did not pay interest on reserves to banks, it would be forced to take back nearly all of that $8.3 trillion balance sheet.

Will the Fed Balance Sheet Get Spent into Circulation Causing Inflation?

QE, fiscal spending, and stimulus all add to M2. But the QE portion of M2 is fake. QE is not spendable money, nor money that was ever spent, nor money that ever will be spent!

Since QE never enters the economy. M2 is overstated by the amount of QE. 

I covered the idea in detail in Will the Fed Balance Sheet Get Spent into Circulation Causing Inflation?

Smooth Functioning!?

The Fed has been pumping $120 billion a month into banks and has now taken back nearly a year’s worth of QE.

Nonetheless, New York Fed President John Williams said that the reverse repo system “was working really well,” and that there were “really, no concerns about that. We expected that to happen. It’s working exactly as designed.”

On Purpose or Collateral Damage?

This absurd situation has now gone on so long that questions abound.

  1. Is Williams a liar or does the Fed really believe it’s working well? 
  2. Working well for whom? 
  3. On purpose or collateral damage?

To answer question 2, it’s free money to banks but “a number of firms including Vanguard Group shut down prime money-market funds last year after struggling to cover operating costs in the low-interest-rate environment.”

Next consider question 3. 

The Fed is clearly struggling to not break the buck. Is this to avoid blame and Congressional inquiries if all the money markets shut down? 

Fine Line

Is the Fed walking a fine line of trying to escape blame while simultaneously hoping consumers pull cash and spend it (tired of collecting 0% on their money)?  

The problem with that question is simple: Someone must hold every dollar 100% of the time. 

Even if people spend money, those dollars have to sit somewhere. If the dollars don’t sit at Money Markets, they will sit as bank deposits instead, while collecting 0.15% interest instead of 0.05% interest.

Meanwhile, the Fed continues to add to its balance sheet while simultaneously subtracting from it. 

One Final Possibility

The Fed may know full well its distortions are not at all working well. If so, why does it do them? 

The Fed is a big believer in overshooting its inflation target. It may know full well QE is counterproductive to Money Markets but hopes to manage it.

Twisted Minds

The longer the Fed can keep this charade of QE and Negative QE going, the longer it can avoid hiking rates. 

This line of thinking suggests the Fed is doing this on purpose while simultaneously attempting to minimize collateral damage and avoid killing the money markets.

The Fed’s groupthink minds are so twisted it’s entirely possible they actually believe the setup is working well despite the distortions and the fact that QE has not increased bank lending. 

QE is Not Harmless

QE sponsors bubbles by artificially lowering interest rates, it’s free money to banks, distorts money markets, and central banks are addicted to it.

For discussion, please see The House of Lords is Concerned Over a Dangerous Addiction to QE.

And for a discussion of the monetary aspect of QE please see What is the Best Measure of Monetary Inflation?

Finally Here’s a Quick Check as to How the Fed’s Balance Sheet Helps Spur Lending

Here’s a hint: It doesn’t. 

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

20 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Everything The Fed does, has ever done and will ever do, are just simple obfuscations of the age old stealing from productive people, in order to hand the loot to connected, useless mediocrities-at-everythings and worse. It’s why central banking was created. The real differences between what the dimbulbs pretend are somehow meaningfully “different” “programs”, amount to less than obsessing over the specific caliber of handgun some random homicide was perpetrated with.
Governments, ruling classes and their dilettante offspring simply cannot cling to their privileges if rewards, hence control of resources, are awarded in proportion to productivity, usefulness, intelligence, insight nor anything else of the sort. So, as long as their underlings can be relied upon to be sufficiently stupid ad gullible to reliably fall for whatever harebrained indoctrination is being passed off as “education”, the mediocrities in charge simply self deal instead. While the indoctrinated morons uncritically regurgitate drivel about “monetary policy” and “saving the financial system” which they have told make them sound “smart.” Without understanding neither a lick of what they speak of, nor much of anything else.
furthermore, no mechanism for self dealing, has proven more powerful than debasement. It has, since The Fed’s inception, redistributed at least 95% of all purchasing power in the US. From those who produced, hence earned, it. To leeches who did not, but who were simply closer to The Fed; hence were handed the fruit of others’ labor in exchange for nothing. If you regard broader monetary measures, like outstanding credit, as the most relevant, the percent of resources which has been stolen, not earned, is more like 99.5% or above.
In either case, central banking has long since managed to render true, in America of all places, Proudhon’s once over-the-top-sounding, outrageous quip, that property is theft. By now it is. At least with 95% to 99.5%, and rising faster every year, accuracy. Thanks to debasement theft alone. Then add all the additional avenues of theft opened up to the loot recipients by supercharging their political influence by handing them ever greater chunks of what The Fed stole from other, more productive people.
The various names the yahoos at The Fed arbitrarily chooses for their silly theft schemes, are completely irrelevant. Not one single one of their programs have ever been, even conceptually, any different from pure redistribution. From productive people to connected leeches. Not one. Not ever. Pretending that have, serves no other purpose than keeping indoctrinated dunces busy rearranging deck chair on the Titanic.
Roger_Ramjet
Roger_Ramjet
4 years ago
A cynic would suggest that Powell doesn’t want to make any changes to the existing program until he is reappointed by Biden.  If he were to put sound monetary policy ahead of his desire to be reappointed, he may in fact not be reappointed.
Call me a cynic.
Dean2020
Dean2020
4 years ago
Not sure if anyone noticed but the spike in reverse repo market coincides with extreme tightening in mortgage lending of conforming loans. Is the Fed inadvertently popping the housing bubble? Lending standards are the highest they’ve been since immediately following the 2008 bubble.
People are focused on prices and missing the big picture. 
I think we may find out in the next 9 months. My guess is housing is peaking now, will level off for a while (until May) then have a nasty downturn. Curious to see how the Fed rescues the economy once again if this transpires. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Didn’t money market funds come into existence the first place in the 1970’s……largely due to the Fed driving interest rates through the roof?
They’ve been fairly worthless as an investment vehicle for many years now…..they’re just a place to temporarily park cash anymore…..so who cares if they shut down?  They probably should shut down, since there is no real return on them anymore.
Online brokerages have to have a cash account for you to get paid when you sell……but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them start charging  a fee for holding that money, if you leave it there for long.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Worthless “money” doesn’t earn interest.
Most people haven’t figured that out yet.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
4 years ago
Fiat Monetary System End-Game.
We will see all kinds of weird, insane shenanigans as they desperately attempt to keep their Frankenstein creation semi-animated.
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
The Fed’s groupthink minds are so twisted…”
It seems about everything is twisted so out of shape these days. The lowest interest rates in 5,000 years, for one.
That is about the length of civilization. Negative interest rates in Europe. “The Great Reset”
It is like Star Trek- going where no one has gone before.
Dean
Dean
4 years ago
Can someone please answer this question? it is really bothering me. Mish says that QE is not inflationary because it is “inter” bank. But 1) congress creates debt with bonds, the bonds are what the banks buy, and then what the Fed swaps for printed cash. But congress spent that debt into the real economy with programs like infrastructure and relief. i.e. unemployment, student loan / rent moratoriums, PPP, cares…  2) the QE money lowers interest rates which pumped up real assets, like housing, which people used through refi or home equality loans to buy things in the real economy, like cars and vacation. Both these example are how QE drives artificial demand and inflation in the real (non-inter bank) economy? 
Mish
Mish
4 years ago
Reply to  Dean
But 1) congress creates debt with bonds, the bonds are what the banks buy, and then what the Fed swaps for printed cash. 
That is spent money – not QE – The Fed is monetizing it and yes it is inflationary
Scooot
Scooot
4 years ago
Reply to  Mish
I was writing my reply as you posted. 
Mackkenzie
Mackkenzie
4 years ago
Reply to  Mish
No, quantitative easing is deflationary. It is pulling cash out of the economy and parking it in bank reserves, which do nothing (i.e. they don’t circulate, don’t increase lending, etc). The Federal Reserve pays banks in an asset swap called “bank reserves” in exchange for the bonds the banks buy on the Fed’s behalf. But these bank reserves the banks get are null, and sterilized from the broader economy.
Thus, the net effect of QE is that it sucks productive capital out of the economy. This is absolutely deflationary.
Scooot
Scooot
4 years ago
Reply to  Dean
I’ll try:) 
The Government does spend the proceeds of its bond issues as you say, and QE does lower bond yields and rates and encourage people to take on more debt for whatever reason. However the actual process of QE with regards to the Fed’s purchase of bonds and dollar proceeds is circular. The banks that sell the bonds to the Fed then place the proceeds of those sales with the Fed in the form of reserves. They don’t do this on a transactional basis but their overall excess cash position increases to the extent they have to. They tend to place this excess with the Fed via repo transactions because the rate is higher. Therefore the proceeds of QE never gets into the wider economy. You can get a good idea that this is the case by comparing the size of commercial banks deposits with the Fed and the Fed’s Bond holdings. I think that’s the gist of it anyway. 
EGW
EGW
4 years ago
Reply to  Dean
The government spends the QE money and it winds up being deposited in banks by businesses and people. Banks for the most part issue loans but if interest rates are rock bottom, everyone is already levered up in debt and banks have to maintain certain lending standards, then it’s difficult for banks to originate enough loans fast enough…hence we have the Federal reserve with their ONRRP facility to soak up the excess cash. If the Fed didn’t soak it up, the market would in theory lower interest rates to compete, possibly below the Fed Funds lower bound (or even negative interest rates). Real inflation would happen if the banks were able to originate loans with their excess cash (in fractional reserve banking this is how money is really created, deficit spending is just a blip in comparison).
Dean
Dean
4 years ago
Reply to  EGW
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful insights. I am trying to square Jeff Synder or Lacy Hunt with Prof. Hanke or Peter Schiff.  I enjoyed reading  your bank plumbing explanations. two quick others questions if you have the time: 1) what would the interest rates be doing now if fed wasn’t buying $120 billion each month (monetizing)?   2) could the congress / treasury be talking $5 trillion infrastructure if FED wasn’t monetizing?
Scooot
Scooot
4 years ago
Reply to  Dean
You can only generalise because everything is linked but here are my thoughts.
1 If the Fed wasn’t buying $120 billion each month other savers and institutions would own the Treasuries but I suspect at much higher yields. How much higher is anyone’s guess. Regarding the Corporate bonds they buy, spreads would be much wider and I suspect many wouldn’t have been issued. The Fed buys and holds but other market participants are prepared to sell so they’d be more liquidity and probably more volatility in bond prices. Which direction would yields be heading? The same as now but from a higher level in my opinion. Short term rates would be more or less the same because the Fed still sets the Fed funds rate, Therefore the yield curve would be steeper.
2. The Treasury could still raise $5 trillion but it would undoubtedly cost more. The USA is still triple A rated and without QE Treasuries would be more attractive against other currency Government bonds. Whether they’d like the rate is a different matter.
Dean
Dean
4 years ago
Reply to  Scooot
good stuff. Thanks
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
Everything works until it doesn’t.
JeffD
JeffD
4 years ago
Mackkenzie
Mackkenzie
4 years ago
Jeff Snider has pointed out that the falling yields may actually be due to a cash shortage, NOT a surplus. The on-going demand for on-the-run collateral in repo markets may be more to do with a global scramble for cash and equivalents than anything close to a cash surplus. The problem is that we can only observe what is happening within the US financial system. There are lots of foreign institutions that can’t take advantage of Fed facilities who have to resort to the open market.
Also, the fact that foreigners have been selling treasuries lately is a very deflationary sign. This typically happens when there is such a shortage of dollars that foreigners are selling treasuries to get them.
Pacioli
Pacioli
4 years ago
Reply to  Mackkenzie
I’m really glad someone is pointing this out. You’ve explained it much better than I’d be able to articulate. 
There are at least as many (long-term) deflationary forces brewing as inflationary, for those who care to look.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.