FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Excess Reserves’ Category

Is The Federal Reserve Insolvent?

Submitted by Tyler Durden

With Geoffrey Batt

The ongoing troubles at the GSEs are no secret: it is public knowledge that Fannie had a 5.38% delinquency rate at December, while Freddie just passed the 4% threshold in January; both continue to rise rapidly each month. The fact that the mortgage-bond spread has just hit a record tight is merely an ongoing artifact of the Fed’s endless meddling in the mortgage market, with the sole purpose of keeping rates artificially low, and preventing banks from being forced to take massive writedowns on their entire loan book. This is all well known. What, however, seems to have escaped public attention is what the impact of these delinquencies is on the one largest holder of Mortgage Backed Securities, the Federal Reserve. What also seems to have escaped the public is that the Fed is now the world’s largest bank, with total assets near $2.3 trillion. We provide a weekly update of the Fed’s balance sheet and while we briefly note the liability side, our, and everyone else’s, attention, is traditionally focused on the asset side. Yet a more detailed look at the liability side reveals something very troubling, specifically that the Fed’s capital, i.e. equity buffer, which as of most recently was $53.3 billion (a comparable metric for plain vanilla banks is their equity buffer, or Tier 1 Capital, or however the FASB wants to define it on any given day when it is covering up massive capital shortfalls) is in fact negligible and could well be substantially negative, if the Fed were to account for the rapidly rising level of delinquencies in its one largest asset holdings: the $1.027 trillion in settled MBS. And while there is no possibility of a run on the Fed, the reality is that the Fed now likely runs with a negative real capital balance, meaning that the US Federal Reserve is now essentially insolvent.

First, we present the Fed’s assets broken down by key segments. The chart below shows the most recently disclosed asset holdings as per the H.4.1 statement. Of the $2.3 trillion in assets, the vast majority, or $1 trillion is held in MBS. As pointed out previously, this is only the settled amount – in reality the Fed has already purchased $1.22 trillion in MBS, which will settle over time. In practice, this merely means that the potential for asset impairment at the Fed is even greater by about 20%.The chart also shows what happens to MBS holdings if haircuts of 5%, 10% and 15% are applied.

Like any balance sheet, where there are assets, there are liabilities, and some version of capital/equity. The Fed’s liabilities are two principal components: currency in circulation, which has been at about $900 billion for an extended period of time, and the much more relevant recently line item called “Bank Deposits”, which has been popularized as Reserves with Federal Reserve Banks (or excess reserves). The Reserve line has increased from essentially nothing to nearly $1.3 trillion in the span of a few months. Furthermore, as more and more MBS purchased are settled, the excess reserve line will soon reach at least $1.6 trillion, if not more, if indeed Q.E. 2 is launched at some point in the future. The persistent discussions of potential inflation center precisely on the interplay between the green and blue blocks in the chart below: as long as the Currency in Circulation is flat, and Bank Deposits keep rising, the probability of inflation is slim to none. In essence, excess reserves exist only due to the Taylor rule implied negative Fed Funds rate. Should there be a material shift from green to blue, or from excess reserves to currency in circulation, that is when the hyperinflationary threat becomes all too real, as suddenly far too much money will chase a fixed amount of assets. This is also where the discussion about all the various mechanisms that the Fed has at its disposal to moderate tightening comes into play, whether it involves selling of assets, increase of the rate on reserves, or some combination inbetween (we point readers to yesterday’s paper from the Minneapolis Fed which discusses these options, and the caveats associated with each). While the asset reallocation debate is very interesting, it is not the topic of this discussion.

The one item on the balance sheet that is often ignored, is the Fed’s “Equity”, or as it is defined, “Capital.” As previously pointed out, this line item is currently $53.3 billion. It is shown graphically in the leftmost column of the chart below, which depicts actual Fed liabilities. Where the interesting part comes in, is when one analyzes what happens to the Fed’s capital when the abovementioned MBS haircuts are applied.

A 5% realized haircut on MBS alone would result in a complete elimination of the Fed’s capital balance. Applying a 10% or even 15% haircut, results in a capital deficiency of $50 billion and $100 billion respectively. This deficiency will grow as more and more MBS are settled, and as the serious delinquency rate on MBS keeps increasing (no danger in this moderating any time soon). 

Now in an environment, such as the one we live in today, when mark-to-myth is the new normal, and when banks are encouraged to come up with creative ways to indicate that their Residential and Commercial Loan portfolios are worth par (despite recent disclosures by the FDIC), to assume that the Fed would do something that lowly depositor banks are told not to do, would be folly. Yet, for those who prefer to live away from Never Never land, and brave this thing called reality, just what will happen if and when the Fed finally does disclose that it is, for all intents and purposes, insolvent?

The pragmatics among you will say: this is irrelevant, the Fed can just print more money and fill in any capital hole. Well, yes and no. As an increase in cash would have to be offset by a comparable increase in some asset, it is not that simple. For a refined analysis of what would happen in that moment of clarity when the world realizes the world’s biggest bank is broke, we turn to a presentation by Chris Sims, given before Princeton University, titled “Fiscal/Monetary Coordination When The Anchor Cable Has Snapped.” We encourage all readers to read this powerpoint cover to cover, as it discusses precisely the issues were are faced with today: namely a monetary policy that has run amok, seignorage, exploding excess reserves, the impact of these on “power money”, and, in general, a Fed balance sheet that is increasingly reminiscent of a drunk, rapid and schizophrenic bull in a China store.

Among other relevant things we note that as the author points-out that “Interest bearing deposits at the Fed do not (yet) count against the Federal debt ceiling” and “if substantial interest is paid on reserves, they could constitute a major leak in the US system for legislative control of debt creation or they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, which has implications for inflation control” – the consequences here are material – with a $1 trillion plus in vacuum interest-collecting paper which in all other world would be counted toward the debt ceiling, the US debt subject to limit would increase from the $12.5 trillion currently to about $13.7 trillion. Add in $6 trillion from the GSEs and America is already at the dreaded $20 trillion threshold. And furthermore, what happens to the interest payments by the Fed should rates go up to 100 bps, 200 bps? On $1.6 trillion in excess reserves this is a material amount that would reinforce inflation in a circular loop, further justifying why the Fed is mortally worried about a rise in rates.

As for the topic at hand, we turn to pp 23-24 of the presentation:

• Central bank operations generate fluctuating levels of net earnings (seigniorage), most of which are turned over to the Treasury as revenue
• Central bank balance sheets sometimes go into the red. The Treasury may then recapitalize it by creating, and giving to the central bank, new government debt
• [The Fed's] Independence meant that the legislature and the Treasury did not complain [much] about seignorage fluctuations or about the effect of interest rate changes on the Treasury’s interest expense
• Fed can always “print money” to pay its bills.
• There is no possibility of a run on the Fed, since its liabilities make no conversion promise.
• A commitment to a path for inflation or the price level makes the balance sheet matter.
• Without Treasury backing, the Fed must rely on seigniorage to raise revenues, and that can conflict with inflation-control goals.

So here is the crux of the issue: the only way to deal with a mark-to-market of the Fed currently is to embrace monetization. It is no longer a question of semantics, of who promised what: it is the only mechanical way by which the Fed can dig itself out of a capital deficiency. With GSE delinquencies exploding, and with the Fed (and Congress) singlehandedly facilitating imprudent lender policy by allowing ever more borrowers to become deliquent without consequences, the MBS delinquency rate will likely hit 10% over the next 6-12 months. At that moment, someone will ask the Fed: “what is the true basis of your capital account?” And when the Fed is forced to justify a valid response, is when monetizaton will begin.

Since the market deals in expectation absolutes, all it would take for rates to breach the inflection point black swan and commence going up, is the mere possibility of open monetization.

What we hope to show with this exercise is that no course of action, even the one currently employed by the Fed, can continue in perpetuity: you can’t have infinitely low housing rates in an environment of exploding delinquencies, as even more MBS are onboarded on the taxpayer’s balance sheet. The reality is that inflationary conerns will come to a fore, and have a material impact on rates, the second all these speculations are voiced in a more reputable arena. At that point the game will be up; the Fed’s attempt to continue the status quo will be over, and the relentless rise up in rates will begin, culminating with the long-awaited Minsky moment.

As for the timing of this development? We will join the Bob Janjuah camp on this one. While few have the guts to take the money printer head on, doing so early is certainly suicidal. Yet with each passing day, all those who are fully aware that the Fed’s course is one of self-destruction, grow bolder, until finally one day a new class of investors – the Fed vigilantes will emerge, looking for cheap opportunities to make a killing (think ABX) on the other side of the “Fed trade”, which ultimately will lead to a systemic catharsis of unprecedented proportions.

At that point neither gold, nor lead will be in any way useful. Beta and gamma radiation will make sure of that.

Submitted by James Bianco of Bianco Research

•    The Wall Street Journal – Fed Proposes Tool to Drain Extra Cash
The Federal Reserve on Monday proposed selling interest-bearing term deposits to banks, a move the U.S. central bank would make when it decides to drain some of the liquidity it pumped into the economy during the financial crisis. The new facility is intended to help ensure that the Fed can implement an exit strategy before a banking system awash with Fed money triggers inflation. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has described term deposits as “roughly analogous to the certificates of deposit that banks offer to their customers.” Under the plan, the Fed would issue the term deposits to banks, potentially at several maturities up to one year. That would encourage banks to park reserves at the Fed rather than lending them out, taking money out of the lending stream.The central bank said the proposal “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term.” “The Federal Reserve has addressed the financial market turmoil of the past two years in part by greatly expanding its balance sheet and by supplying an unprecedented volume of reserves to the banking system,” it said. “Term deposits could be part of the Federal Reserve’s tool kit to drain reserves, if necessary, and thus support the implementation of monetary policy.” Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, said “it’s another step forward in the exit-strategy infrastructure, but it’s been well flagged in advance, so it’s not a surprise.” When Fed officials decide to tighten credit, they would likely use the term-deposits program ahead of — or in conjunction with — adjusting their traditional policy lever, the target for the federal funds interest rate at which banks lend to each other overnight. The Fed also said Monday that its balance sheet rose slightly to $2.2 trillion in the week ending Dec. 23. The Fed’s total portfolio of loans and securities has more than doubled since the beginning of the financial crisis. As part of its efforts to fight the downturn, the central bank is buying $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, a program it says will end in March. The Fed now holds $910.43 billion in mortgage-backed securities, it said Monday.

•    Bloomberg.com – Fed Proposes Term-Deposit Program to Drain Reserves
The Federal Reserve today proposed a program to sell term deposits to banks to help mop up some of the $1 trillion in excess reserves in the U.S. banking system.  The plan, subject to a 30-day comment period, “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term,” the central bank said in a statement released in Washington. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is preparing tools and strategies to shrink or neutralize the inflationary impact from the biggest monetary expansion in U.S. history. Central bankers are also conducting tests of reverse repurchase agreements and discussing the possibility of asset sales. Term deposits may help the central bank “assert operational control over the federal funds rate” once officials decide to lift the overnight bank lending rate from the current range of zero to 0.25 percent, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. Excess cash “would be locked up” rather than put downward pressure on the federal funds rate, he said.The Fed won’t begin raising interest rates until the third quarter of 2010, according to the median estimate of 62 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News in the first week of December.

•    The Financial Times – Fed to offer term deposits to banks
The US Federal Reserve plans to offer term deposits to banks as part of its “exit strategy” from the exceptionally loose monetary policy used to fight the recession. In a consultation paper released on Monday the Fed said it planned to change its rules so that it could pay interest on money locked up at the central bank for a defined period. The Fed added that the well-flagged rule change – designed to allow it more influence over the $1,100bn in excess reserves held by banks – was part of “prudent planning. . . and has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term”. It is one of a number of measures that has been outlined over the past few months by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, as an option to drain liquidity from the financial system in a manner that protects the economic recovery while heading off the threat of inflation.

•    The Federal Reserve – Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Board is requesting public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, to authorize the establishment of term deposits. Term deposits are intended to facilitate the conduct of monetary policy by providing a tool for managing the aggregate quantity of reserve balances. Institutions eligible to receive earnings on their balances in accounts at Federal Reserve Banks (”eligible institutions”) could hold term deposits and receive earnings at a rate that would not exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Term deposits would be separate and distinct from those maintained in an institution’s master account at a Reserve Bank (”master account”) as well as from those maintained in an excess balance account. Term deposits would not satisfy required reserve balances or contractual clearing balances and would not be available to clear payments or to cover daylight or overnight overdrafts. The proposal also would make minor amendments to the posting rules for intraday debits and credits to master accounts as set forth in the Board’s Policy on Payment System Risk to address transactions associated with term deposits.

Comment

We believe the proposal of this new tool signals the Federal Reserve is still flailing around trying to look busy so everyone is assured they have a plan.  The fact is they have no plan and are still throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. From the November 4 FOMC minutes:

Participants expressed a range of views about how the Committee might use its various tools in combination to foster most effectively its dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. As part of the Committee’s strategy for eventual exit from the period of extraordinary policy accommodation, several participants thought that asset sales could be a useful tool to reduce the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and lower the level of reserve balances, either prior to or concurrently with increasing the policy rate. In their view, such sales would help reinforce the effectiveness of paying interest on excess reserves as an instrument for firming policy at the appropriate time and would help quicken the restoration of a balance sheet composition in which Treasury securities were the predominant asset. Other participants had reservations about asset sales–especially in advance of a decision to raise policy interest rates–and noted that such sales might elicit sharp increases in longer-term interest rates that could undermine attainment of the Committee’s goals. Furthermore, they believed that other reserve management tools such as reverse RPs and term deposits would likely be sufficient to implement an appropriate exit strategy and that assets could be allowed to run off over time, reflecting prepayments and the maturation of issues. Participants agreed to continue to evaluate various potential policy-implementation tools and the possible combinations and sequences in which they might be used. They also agreed that it would be important to develop communication approaches for clearly explaining to the public the use of these tools and the Committee’s exit strategy more broadly.

The Federal Reserve first hinted at term deposits almost two months ago, although exactly what they were talking about was left vague until now.

Remember that the Federal Reserve has to withdraw over a trillion dollars of excess liquidity.  The easiest way to do this is to sell hundreds of billions of MBS, Treasuries and agencies.   As the bold highlighted passage above implies, they are scared to death of doing this, so they propose complicated schemes to withdraw liquidity like reverse repos and now term deposits.

We have argued that these schemes will not work.  They cannot be done in the sizes necessary or enough to even matter.  The Federal Reserve could possibly drain tens of billions of dollars via these schemes, but collectively that will amount to a rounding error when the goal is to withdraw over a trillion in excess reserves.

The Federal Reserve does not want to admit defeat, so they continue pursuing these strategies that will not make a difference.  We believe they also do it to “look busy” as they are taking measurements and notes as to how to withdraw all the liquidity they have pumped in.  They think this will give the market comfort that someone is on the case and that inflation expectations will not get out of control.  The market is not buying this.  Inflation expectations, s measured by TIPS inflation breakeven rates, are going vertical.

Reinvestment Risk

As to term deposits, the Federal Reserve is proposing an illiquid short term instrument for banks to invest in.  Banks would buy these instruments and “lock up” the excess reserves they now have.  This would have the same effect as draining excess reverses.  The maturities of these instruments would be as long as one year.

It is unclear if there will be a secondary market for these instruments, and if so, how liquid it will be.
Without a secondary market, buyers of these instruments face huge reinvestment risk.  The future course of short term interest rates is arguably to the most uncertain it has been in decades.  Will the Federal Reserve stay near zero until 2012 or will they be forced to raise rates in the first half of 2010?  Given all this uncertainty, who wants to lock up money in something that cannot be sold before maturity?  This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s statement that the “maximum-allowable rate for each auction of term deposits would be no higher than the general level of short- term interest rates.”

The general level of short-term interest rates is set on known instruments that have generations of history and active secondary markets.  If the Federal Reserve wants to introduce a new, and wholly unknown instrument with an uncertain secondary market and offer no interest rate premium, then we cannot see how this will work beyond a token amount after some arm twisting to get them sold.  The Federal Reserve will have to offer a premium for uncertainty and illiquidy to make this fly in any major way, something they said they will not do.

Complicated Is Simple

The Federal Reserve owns 80% of AIG.  With each passing day it looks like the Federal Reserve is adopting AIG Financial Product’s business practices.  That is, when faced with a financial problem, they create complicated tools (like CDS).  When critics says these new products will not work, tell them they do not know what they are talking about and create even more complicated tools to dazzle everyone.  Once the tools are so complicated that no one understands them, you will be hailed as an expert with no peer.  You might even be named TIME’s Person of the Year.

Could the next black/green/dark gray swan be so obvious that it has avoided everyone? Well, except for the deputy governor of the Bank of China, who just gave the world a startling reminder of economics 101, when he said that it is “getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because
the US’s shrinking current-account gap is reducing the supply of dollars
overseas.” Oops.

The funny thing about natural (and economic) systems: they can only be pushed so far before they snap back to default state. With the entire world embarking on an unprecedented spree of domestic bubble blowing to mask the collapse in global GDP, everyone forgot to trade. Zero Hedge has long emphasized that the drop in world trade can only sustain for so long before it brings the current destabilized system back to some form of equilibrium. Because with every country intent on merely printing more of its own currency, whether it is to build bridges or to make the stock of electronic book fads trade at 100x earnings, said countries ran out of non-domestic cash. Alas, this is most critical for the United States, now that Treasury monetization is over, as the US needs to constantly find foreign buyers of its debt to fund unsustainable deficits. Foreign buyers who have US dollars. And according to Shanghai Daily, this could be a big, big problem.

Here is what the BOC’s Zhu Min said earlier:

“The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their
holdings of Treasuries,” Zhu said, according to an audio recording of
his remarks. “Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible.”

“The
US current account deficit is falling as residents’ savings increase,
so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer
dollars to the rest of the world,” he added. “The world does not have
so much money to buy more US Treasuries.”

In a nutshell, in printing trillions of assorted securities, the Treasury has soaked up the world’s dollars, which due to US banks not lending, is sitting and collecting dust in the form of bank excess reserves. These excess reserves can not be used to buy Treasuries and MBS as that would be literal monetization (as opposed to the figurative one which is what QE has been). And the world is running out of dollars with which to buy Treasuries.

Does this mean that the “world” will be forced to buy dollars, and thus spike the value of the greenback? Not necessarily:

In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic
audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall
in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to
finance its deficit spending.

Ratigan cuts to the chase, bypassing the hollow rhetoric by Administration propaganda queen Christina Romer, who can’t beat enough drums on today’s pathologically ludicrous BLS numbers, yet is completely unwilling to discuss how the White House will proceed to recoup any of the taxpayer-subsidized windfalls at Wall Street firms. Any considerations of windfall tax, be they in the form of a Tobin tax, now openly supported by such people as Warren Buffett and John Bogle, or directly imposed, seems to not be on the White House’s agenda currently or any time in the future. How is it so difficult for Obama to understand that Main Street is demanding some quid-pro-quo of firms like Goldman, whose employees are covertly purchasing Ferraris even as excess bank reserves hit another all time record yesterday, and instead of lending money out the banks continue to collect a risk-free 0.25% on these excess reserves, thereby once again picking taxpayers’ pockets.

Yes, we all know they need the cash as they are well aware their balance sheets are in much more deplorable conditions than loose FASB regulations force them to disclose. However, the animosity is growing, and more and more the anger directed at Wall Street is becoming anchored at Obama and his Robert Rubin (i.e., Goldman Sachs) cronies, who despite their assumed ideological adherence, are seeminly much more pro-Wall Street than even previous Republican administrations. This will be a heated issue for the President, especially once details of individual Wall Street record bonuses become all too public.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy