Reverse Repos Surge to Record $756 Billion, Taking Back Over 6 Months of QE

On Wednesday, the Fed announced it would continue its QE program to the tune of $120 billion a month even though banks are choking on the cash. 

In addition, the Fed boosted the Reverse Repo rate it pays and  hiked the interest it pays on excess reserves rate to 0.15% from 0.10%.

Those actions spiked demand for Reverse Repos to a record $756 billion as shown by the chart from Wolf Richter

Doing What It’s Supposed To

Similarly, the WSJ reports Fed Reverse Repos Surge to Record of $756 Billion After Rate Tweak

The reverse repo facility takes in cash primarily from money-market funds, as well as government-sponsored companies and banks. Until Wednesday, this facility offered a return of zero percent to eligible users, which the Fed moved up to 0.05%, while at the same time lifting another rate, called the interest on excess reserves rate, to 0.15% from 0.10%.

At his press conference after the Federal Reserve meeting on Wednesday, central bank leader Jerome Powell said “the reverse repo facility is doing what it’s supposed to do, which is to provide a floor under money-market rates and keep the federal-funds rate well within its—well within its range. So we’re not concerned” about the current level of usage.

At the same time, the Fed’s $120 billion in asset buying each month is creating an ever-rising amount of money that needs to be parked somewhere, and increasingly, that place is the Fed.

Free Money

The Fed Pumps $120 Billion a month to banks via QE.

Then the Fed mops up after itself by offering a now record $756 Billion in reverse repos effectively giving participants free money. 

In effect the Fed undid 6.3 months of QE.

Excess Reserves

The Fed stopped reporting on excess reserves as per this announcement on March 15, 2020.

The Board of Governors reduced reserve requirement ratios on net transaction accounts to 0 percent, effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions.

Interest on Excess Reserves

Despite the fact that there are no reserve requirements and the Fed stopped reporting excess reserves, on Wednesday the Fed hiked the interest rate it pays on excess reserves to 0.15% from 0.10%.

Total Reserves

There are no excess reserves or required reserves, only reserves. 

Working As Designed

The Fed crams money down banks throats then paying them interest when they send it right back. Banks also get interest on excess reserves even though there are no reserve requirements.

If this sounds totally preposterous you must be mistaken. Powell says it’s working as designed. 

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

40 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TCW
TCW
2 years ago
So .15% of 120 billion is 180 million.  This is probably a stupid question, but why doesn’t the fed just hand out the 180 million and tell them to enjoy it?  What’s the point of printing 120 billion to hand out and then taking it back?
Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
Reply to  TCW

They’re pumping in 120 billion by buying Treasuries & Mortgage backed securities, ie term bonds putting downwards pressure on term yields. Reverse Repos are very short term, so taking the dollars back via these puts upward pressure on short term rates. 

TCW
TCW
2 years ago
Reply to  Scooot
Thanks!
Roadrunner12
Roadrunner12
2 years ago
“This tidal wave of money threatened money market funds totalling over $4 trillion with negative rates, thereby “breaking the buck”, which is why the Fed has increased its outstanding reverse repos to $721bn.
Interest rates will have to increase far earlier than the Fed admits to stop foreigners dumping dollars, not just for commodities which have nearly doubled since March 2020, but for other currencies as well.”
The Bank of England may possibly be introducing negative rates later this year. What are the implications of negative rates for the dollar as the reserve currency and can we expect them? Would negative rates “break the buck”?
The Fed never raised rates for basically 8 years after the last recession and as stated, raising the rates will cause a lot of hurt. This article suggests the Fed will have to increase rates or foreigners will begin dumping dollars for other assets.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  Roadrunner12
Interest rates will have to increase far earlier than the Fed admits to stop foreigners dumping dollars, not just for commodities which have nearly doubled since March 2020, but for other currencies as well.”
Strongly disagree and usually do with that hyperinflationist author
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Roadrunner12
BOE introducing negative rates will drive the dollar higher imho…….all other things remaining equal…which they might not. The strength in US equity markets is part of the dollar’s strength….and that could change.
US rates have been higher than Europe for most of the 2010’s. It’s relative.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The dollar has been schooling me this week. But it’s a tricky one, the USD. I think this is a great analysis in the linked chart….and right now we’re right on the verge of a sustainable breakout……but we are not quite there. Uncle Buck always goes right up to the edge…..but does not always jump.
Cocoa
Cocoa
2 years ago
If the FED is a quasi private institution with banks as members, then this makes total sense. The banks cannot loan, nobody wants it, so they hand the money back to FED for some free money. Isn’t this essentially a negative interest rate? They are paying the banks to borrow!
RunnrDan
RunnrDan
2 years ago
Engineering slide needs to be corrected to reflect reality, as follows:
“As designed by engineering (because project was sold with no engineering budget)”
Mackkenzie
Mackkenzie
2 years ago
The explosion in RRP is more related to a collateral shortage than an over-abundance of bank reserves. Jeff Snider made an astute observation that the yields on 3, 4 and 8 month treasuries have remained BELOW the new RRP rate that the Fed set. If RRP usage was merely a factor of excess reserves there would be no reason for yields on short term treasuries to be lower than the Fed RRP rate.
The problem is that the Fed has sucked collateral out of the financial system with QE, which is gumming up the works.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
The FED has two mandates. Keep the federal debt from exploding because of high interest rates. Second, to keep the housing market from collapsing. The FED has to keep interest rates for US debt and mortgages low or else the economy collapses. Outside of QE, buying all the crap for a far higher price than any sane normal investor would pay, what else can they do?
Cocoa
Cocoa
2 years ago
The economist dogma suggests that if you make enough liquidity people will “borrow” it. That’s fine in a good economy but If you even have a hint that the market will go down or asset prices will go down then nobody is going to touch this garbage with a 10-ft pole unless you can get it for zero or negative and be indemnified to not pay it back. The Federal reserve wants to ram liquidity down the throats of borrowers like foie gras it ain’t working take it back they say!
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Cocoa
You can bring a horse to water………….
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
The S&P just broke trend. In a normal world that would mean stocks are apt to correct. I guess we’ll see. 
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Another Bullard market manipulation.
I remember when he manipulated the market up out of the 2014 August Swoon, with his shouldn’t taper comments to goose the market, only to say his comment was misunderstood when QE was taken over by Japan, months later as U.S. QE ended.
If one is misunderstood, one immediately corrects their comment. They don’t wait months, until some convenient event occurs, making their falsely claimed misunderstood comment, moot.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
 “Working As Designed”
I’d have to guess that is what Ponzi said of his scheme.
numike
numike
2 years ago
We’re Not In A Real Estate Bubble
It’s far worse than that link to medium.com
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  numike
I have been worried about corporations buying to rent for a while now.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  numike
Good article. We are entering the end game of capitalism: serfdom.All you guys that think you’re upper middle class are next.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Martin Armstrong notes it is socialism that is failing.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
Our socialist country where 1% own almost everything.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Disagree on the article being good. The author does not understand how leverage works for the buyer. I made a comment, but it went poof when I tried to make a slight correction. Not every real estate broker understands money. I’ll say it again, just in case.
“A mortgage is a death grip.

And it’s a raw deal, too: You put up real cash as a down payment, plus your house and your credit as collateral, and what does the bank do? It literally link to medium.com, which you then have to pay back, with interest and hard-earned real money. And if you miss just 3–6 payments in a row in a 25–40 year window, they take your house away, ruin your credit, and make you start again.”

No. It is NOT a raw deal.
You and the bank buy a house together. You put up 20% and the bank puts up 80%. They trust you enough because of your good credit to allow you to make a 5:1 leveraged investment using  mostly THEIR MONEY.
You get ALL  the rewards for any appreciation……and the bank only gets their interest. In an inflationary environment (which the banks are kind enough too try to guarantee for you…and they’re good at it) you will see your downpayment (your ONLY investment)  get MULTIPLIED while the bank merely gets the same old interest (assuming a fixed rate).
As time passes and the years go by, the way loans are amortized puts more and more equity each year on your side of the deal, which is more leverage for you.
What this is…is a wealth building machine for you.  Not every country in the world offers this kind of opportunity. Be glad it’s there and take advantage of it.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
 The article wasn’t very good but it did underline the fact that some very large financial entities have been buying housing to rent in a pretty massive scale. They can outbid and overpay individuals because their barrowing costs are close to zero thanks to the Fed. I don’t think that is very healthy from an economic point of view and I fear that when real interest rates rise, and they will, we might see a replay of the Saving and Loan Crisis of the late 1980’s. I am sure you remember it well as I do. When the rates rise they could end up on their hands a wasting asset with higher and higher carrying costs. You know what happens next. On the good side we might have a modern version of the Resolution Trust Corporation which took all the bad assets and sold them at incredibly bargain prices just to get them off their books. Some people made fortunes by finding gems in the trash.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
My office was in a RTC repo-ed property, and I’d have bought it in a heartbeat, but nobody would have lent me a dime to buy RE in 1988. I even had to buy an owner-financed house.
My little gem (relative term, it’s dumpy, but okay) was snapped up by an old guy with cash. He’s dead, and now I rent from some dude from Cali who buys old strip centers and Calfornicates them.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
That’s a good reason to have a lot of cash sometimes. Seriously the Resolution Trust Corporation was just about the last time that the government did the right thing in letting bad banks fail and threw the crooked bank executives in jail while protecting the depositors. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
They were horrible landlords. You do not want the government for a landlord.
RunnrDan
RunnrDan
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
“They trust you enough because of your good credit to allow you to make a 5:1 leveraged investment using  mostly THEIR MONEY.”
No, it really isn’t “their money”!  Thanks to fractional reserve money, banks print up the money and “loan it” to people.  The author is correct that the banks really didn’t risk anything.  Where the author is mistaken is the solution to preventing the housing bubble which is basically “everyone, be a little more thoughtful.”  Ain’t gonna work!  The following will:
1) Get the government out of the business of lending which includes shutting down every alphabet soup organization like Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae, FHA, etc. (including tax incentives too).
2) Make banks practice mark-to-market accounting and force them to sell assets on the courtyard steps when their books don’t comply.  Banks must FAIL when they make bad loans!!!
3) Prohibit foreign citizens from purchasing our real estate!  Just insane that a Chinese national who has been using slave labor to steal American jobs (facilitated by our ruling class) gets to take his profits and buy our land!  WTF!!!
The past 20+ years our country has turned real estate into an adult version of cabbage patch kids and now the adults are wondering why the kids are marching in the streets demanding socialism.  “What’s the problem?  Everything worked fine for me!”, says the artificially enriched boomer sitting on his “empire of dirt” while the kids are just scrapping by with gig jobs.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  RunnrDan
It’s been the same deal since 1975. It isn’t just the past 20 years. Only one thing has changed.
It’s all the liquidity now that’s pushing hedge funds into residential single-family RE. And everybody is looking for return, and Wall Street guys aren’t dumb. 
I might add that it isn’t just housing that is being distorted by Wall Street guys using their cheap money. It’s changing the way medical services are delivered. I will probably sell out my practice to some guy backed with corporate money or venture capital. They’re buying anything that looks like it might flow cash. Because bonds suck and stocks are too expensive and liable to crash anytime. 
Wall Street money has enabled the LBO specialists (like Mitt Romney for instance) to kill off a boatload of small public companies that employed many thousands of Americans…over the past 40 years. In my view that probably had as much to do with things being  so jacked up now as offshoring, but nobody much mentions it, because the average guy doesn’t know an LBO from Adam’s off ox.
if you have a problem with how money is created and what backs it, take it up with your elected representative. I have nothing to do with that. I will keep making money as long as it works for me. I think it’s absurd to invest (or refuse to invest) for ideological reasons. It’s simply cutting off one’s nose to spite your face.
I know, and can I prove with the math, that a house is still the best investment most people will ever make. As long as certain terrible markets are avoided.
I have kids.  I feel for the kids. The one of mine (so far) who needed and wanted a house was able to buy one, using a mortgage…..and her own cash DP…..the rest will figure out a way.
Without mortgages ONLY rich people would EVER own a house, or they’d live in hovels, like we used to see in Mexico.
I have no problem with banking being reformed. That’d be real great. But it isn’t likely, to my way of thinking. Don’t hold your breath.
RunnrDan
RunnrDan
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Interesting about your medical practice!  The name of the game (and a very old game at that!) is to leach onto something productive (i.e., that flows cash) and siphon some life off of it.
Agree pretty much with everything you wrote except for “Without mortgages ONLY rich people would EVER own a house, or they’d live in hovels, like we used to see in Mexico.” Remember, markets can only charge what people can afford and/or are willing to spend.  So, if most people can’t afford houses, then house prices would have to come down.  Same with higher education and healthcare.  None of these become “more affordable” because the government steps into the marketplace.  Nor does the quality of the product change because more green paper is printed for their purchase!  (Do you suddenly become a more adept doctor because your paycheck gets higher?)  All that changes/would change is the “demand on future productivity” represented by the price.  Technology continues apace.  We would not be living in hovels.  The free market would find a way!
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  numike
“A mortgage is a death grip.

And it’s a raw deal, too: You put up real cash as a down payment, plus your house and your credit as collateral, and what does the bank do? It literally link to medium.com, which you then have to pay back, with interest and hard-earned real money. And if you miss just 3–6 payments in a row in a 25–40 year window, they take your house away, ruin your credit, and make you start again.”

No…….no, no, no.
It’s more like this. You buy a house with ONLY a modest down payment. You maybe put down 20% and the bank puts down 80%. They’re trusting you enough because of your good credit score to be your  partner on an investment with 5:1 leverage.
You get ALL the price appreciation if there is any, and the bank only gets their promised P&I…..so they take most of the risk and you get nearly all the reward.
As the years pass your equity grows faster and faster as the amortization schedule makes your payment go increasingly to principal, resulting in even more favorable leverage for you.
In some parts of the world you have to have cash to build a house……i.e. to build WEALTH. So basically the mortgage syste we have  is a gift to anyone smart enough to use it. The author of that article might be doing great in RE, but he doesn’t understand leverage at all, apparently.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“The Fed is continuing QE to the tune of $120 billion a month but just took back over six months of it.”
Clown car brigade.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Perhaps the banks are hanging onto the cash because they are waiting for the Fed’s increased rates to come. Three percent or more risk-free return for a traditional banker is something to salivate over. Jamie Dimon said that they have lots of cash with few interesting projects  and they were worried about Fintech firms like Paypal eating their lunch. Looking at the situation from his angle means he doesn’t want to blow his cash. That situation can be generalized to the traditional bank sector. 
Curious-Cat
Curious-Cat
2 years ago
I’m not real sure of this, but I think 0.1% of the population is unable to spend their money fast enough to fuel our economy. 330,000 people can not stimulate the economy as much as 33,000,000 people regardless of the number of space ships, yachts, private jets or Maseratis they buy. Seems to me the billionaires need to be spending more.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Curious-Cat
That’s a very valid point. The real rich do not spend in proportion to their incomes or (more especially) their wealth. Absolutely true.
Jackula
Jackula
2 years ago
Reply to  Curious-Cat
Or we need to get money to those that do
Karlmarx
Karlmarx
2 years ago
Can somebody say fox in charge of the hen house?
rentrah
rentrah
2 years ago
My cat likes to eat Easter grass. And then when the Easter grass emerges from his hind end, he’ll eat it a second time. I don’t see the problem. Working as designed.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
I think small business would borrow more if we could get SBA money for actual capital improvements at the kind of rates that the EIDL bailouts were at. I think our COVID loan was at 2.99…..now even EIDL’s have been jacked up to 3.75%. It’s too high.
In fact, I think it was stupid that the bailout money specifically forbade spending money on equipment. It was obviously just intended to be a pass-through to try to meet the Fed mandate of full employment. They don’t give a rat’s *ss about Main Street.
I could easily justify spending a million bucks on my practice, but I won’t do it at some jacked up corporate bank rate like prime plus 2%…which is 5.25. Screw that.  If they want borrowing, they need to sweeten the deal.
PostCambrian
PostCambrian
2 years ago
I would be happy for the Fed to give me $120 billion dollars interest free so I can give it back to them at 0.05% interest.  Works out to $600 million per year. I can live on that.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  PostCambrian
Please factor in 0.15% on reserves – some of that repo money is money market funds that did not get interest at all, some from banks. I need to get a handle on who is using the facility and how much.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

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