Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

How Much Longer Will the Fed’s Huge Balance Sheet Represent Accommodative Policy?

On Friday, in his Jackson Hole Virtual speech Monetary Policy in the Time of Covid, Powell made statements on QE that caught my eye.

At the FOMC’s recent July meeting, I was of the view, as were most participants, that if the economy evolved broadly as anticipated, it could be appropriate to start reducing the pace of asset purchases this year.

We will be carefully assessing incoming data and the evolving risks. Even after our asset purchases end, our elevated holdings of longer-term securities will continue to support accommodative financial conditions.

For How Long?

Here’s a hint: QE is not money that was spent, is about to be spent, or ever will get spent. 

I discussed the QE misconception at length in Will the Fed Balance Sheet Get Spent into Circulation Causing Inflation?

The BIS is in agreement.

Unconventional Monetary Policies

The above image was taken from the BIS article Unconventional Monetary Policies

Key Points

  1. Reserves do not play into bank lending decisions
  2. The main constraint on expansion of credit is minimum capital requirements.
  3. There is nothing inherently inflationary about large reserves.

Point 3 is interesting. While the Fed is building its balance sheet it is fostering inflation by fostering asset bubbles.

Q: But what happens when the Fed stops?
A: Banks have large reserves that do not figure into lending decisions at all. 

Those reserves are not spendable. And banks conveniently sit back and collect free money on those reserves parked at the Fed. 

Reverse Repos

Already, the Fed is struggling. Powell never explained how its current balance sheet expansion accommodates anything given it is conducting $1.1 trillion reverse repos daily.

On August 20, I noted There is a Negative Demand for Deposits to the Tune of 1.1 Trillion Dollars

A quick check today shows reverse repos as of last Friday are still at $1.1 trillion.

This is accommodating no one other than free money to banks as interest on the money banks park back at the Fed. The Money Market Mutual funds are outright choking on the alleged accommodation.

Powell never explained this because there is no reasonable explanation.

Explaining Powell’s Hesitance to Set a Date

  • Traders will front-run the Fed if the Fed gives a date when it will reduce its balance sheet. The prior “Taper Tantrums” reflect that point.
  • Powell’s phrase “could be appropriate to start reducing the pace of asset purchases this year” was purposely noncommittal to avoid taper tantrums.

To answer the key question, the moment the Fed reduces its balance sheet and perhaps even the moment the Fed stops asset purchases, that huge multi-trillion QE stops being accommodative. 

Given reverse repos, one might make a case right now.

Taking Powell’s statements at face value, I doubt the Fed understands that point.

And if interest rates start to rise beyond what the Fed pegs, the Fed will have a hell of a time doing anything but expanding its balance sheet.

Here’s one final point. Powell was very careful in how he phrased things. He specifically stated “our elevated holdings of longer-term securities will continue to support accommodative financial conditions”.

Does that remind you of anything? It should. 

Think Japan. The Bank of Japan cornered nearly the entire Japanese bond market for a decade. What precisely did that accommodate?

Transitory Debate

Meanwhile, the debate over transitory is still ongoing. Much will depend on precisely what Congress does with $3.5 trillion in new spending and the energy tax the Progressives want.

Regardless, please note the Impact of the Fed’s Balance Sheet on the Economy is Transitory not permanent.

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.

18 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
KyleW
KyleW
4 years ago
If the Fed buys Treasury bonds, doesn’t that money go to the Federal government? Don’t they spend it?
RedQueenRace
RedQueenRace
4 years ago
Reply to  KyleW
The Fed is prohibited from buying from the Treasury.
But Mish is still incorrect.  I’ve pointed out why several times before. The Fed buys bonds from Primary Dealers, which are largely non-banks and who do not get all of their bonds from banks as they are mostly securities broker-dealers who have been granted permission to trade with the Fed.  They are not banks so deposit money is created  when the Fed buys from them and the security did not come from a bank.  It isn’t $ for $ (more reserves than deposit money is created) but it isn’t all reserves and it isn’t merely an asset swap as widely claimed.
Then we get to the aspect that you are asking about.  While the Fed does not buy directly from the Treasury and although they don’t buy all of their bonds from banks a significant amount of those securities sold to the Fed do come from banks.  Maybe even most of them but there is no way to know.
Having unloaded these bonds the banks are now free to buy more.  And they do.  During QE1-3 the banks were net buyers, not sellers, of Treasury securities.  And when banks buy assets deposit money is created.  Looking only at loan growth does not show the whole picture.
Basically the Fed ends up funding the government indirectly and money growth takes place even if all the bonds were bought from banks, which they aren’t.
amigator
amigator
4 years ago
Essentially forever there is no turning back now to prudent finances. So far no real penalty to their class so greed will push it to extremes.
There are all kind of reasons but top on my list is:
If they stop pensions have a long way to fall so they would just be bailing them out next.
Whatever they say is just fodder they will do what their shareholders need or want.
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
“There is nothing inherently inflationary about large reserves.”
There is nothing inflationary about printing 100 trillion dollars, then burying it in a hole in the ground.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
“QE is not money that was spent, is about to be spent, or ever will get spent.”
?
If the federal government runs a deficit by issuing bonds that are purchased via QE, how can that not contribute to money that will be spent? Does all money received via government invoices get stashed away and never gets spent?
If the bonds are purchased outside of QE, there’s argument for savings going from bond purchasers to invoice recipients, but QE is money created out of thin air.
Mish
Mish
4 years ago
Added some additional comments  in reference to Reverse Repos and an observation on Japan.
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Yes, but QE is not neutral
Those with collateral and access to credit can outbid the rest to hoard and monopolize income yielding assets, concentrating these in fewer hands.
Those who must finance from current income are outbid.
Scarce savings will yield very little income, since they compete with almost free credit to the speculating class.
Working people and retired people (who have saved up some of the value of their labor) are at a disadvantage.
Just imagine the dynamic of one person owning all the housing and everybody else forced to rent from him, as a thought experiment.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
It lowers the borrowing cost to zero. That drives down interests for the whole financial edifice. Junk bonds yield almost nothing. If you don’t want to put money into junk companies, you have only one option: stocks of profitable companies or real estate. Since the economy is in the suspended state of levitation, there is plenty of fiat to go around to buy assets.
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Sometimes we all feel like Nietzsche.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
How much longer ? I say the answer is until further notice. I expect various “one time events” to keep occurring and forcing the Fed, Treasury, Congress and whatever powers that be to keep being accommodative. This all started with the global financial crisis and never has really been normal policy since. The Fed has forced money into other assets by supporting the bond market. Anyone thinking we will somehow go back to normal life under the Fed is living in fantasy. They are now monetizing the federal debt and deficit and will continue to do so out of necessity (the mother of invention). This isn’t unlike what Japan did in the 1990s and after. We have entered the bizarro world permanently and there is no way back to the normal world we knew.
Jmurr
Jmurr
4 years ago
I agree. It’s like one hand can’t see what the other is doing. Yes, the Fed is buying treasuries that are then maintained on its balance sheet.  On the other hand, the Treasury is issuing bonds that would not be purchased if not for QE. Also, the treasuries that the Fed is buying are long-term which is in effect yield curve control. 
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
One time events like the S&P being 5% below the last top.
tbergerson
tbergerson
4 years ago
Much will depend on precisely what Congress does with $3.5 trillion in new spending and the energy tax the Progressives want.
That is the key point.  Though one wonders if in the end that would be inflationary or deflationary.  Lacy Hunt would probably say deflationary.  And I think that as long as China is allowed to remain in the WTO, and to have MFN status in the US and Europe, the overall backdrop is deflationary.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
So the banking cabal is gathering in Jackson Hole for their annual groupthink.
My god, don’t let the Yellowstone super volcano irrupt now.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
4 years ago
Mish, you correctly imply Federal deficits to be the primary long term inflationary driver.  However, QE enhances that dynamic.  Without QE (or purchase of US debt by foreigners and foreign central banks) , the Federal deficit would need to be funded by private purchases of US govt. bonds, notes and bills, with that savings offsetting the increased spending vs. production from the deficits.  QE negates this offset. 
Yooper
Yooper
4 years ago
So would it be safe to say that in order to slow inflation due to the crazy spending, the funds must be absorbed somewhere in “not spendable” reservoirs, whether it be at the Fed, with the big banks, or accumulated in the top 1%? I only ask because if I remember correctly, Mish defines inflation always as an increase in monetary supply, but what if that new money simply goes into larger balance sheets and places where the 99% of the common folk can’t spend it, spurring inflation? I understand there is a component to inflation wrt velocity, but if that’s near zero historically, and can’t go any lower, it’s got to flow somewhere out of reach of the larger economy, right? Wasn’t that the ultimate end result of the petro-dollar arrangement and the early days with pushing dollars to China?
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Yooper
The money is primarily going into two places. Those who invoice the government and those selling real estate. Most or all may end up at the big banks, but, safe to say, A lot of it gets spent.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
The Fed bad cops should be on TV with the “we definitely need to taper, and sooner rather than later” today sometime.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

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