Federal Reserve Report: No Need for QE3

I keep reading that some people want to have the Federal Reserve begin a new round of quantitative easing…QE3.

I see nothing in the financial figures that calls for more quantitative easing.

For one, there seems to be no pressure on interest rates.  Looking over the last 13-week period the yield on the 10-year US Treasury (constant maturity) has remained relatively constant.  The weekly average for the week of November 4, 2011 was 2.07 percent: for the week of January 27, 2012 the weekly average was 2.01.  And, the market yield on 10-year Treasuries has been below 2.00 percent all of this week.

The European sovereign debt situation has certainly contributed to this weakness in yields.  Hence, there does not seem to be any demand pressure on interest rates at this time.

Economic growth continues to be modest and consequently is not adding any demand pressure on rates.

The commercial banking system is quiet and even though bank closures average around 2 per week adjustments are being made smoothly and with little or no disruption to the industry. 

Excess reserves in the banking system have fluctuated around $1.5 trillion over the past three months indicating little or no pressure on the financial system on the loan demand front.  This, too, is consistent with the modest economic growth.

Overt Federal Reserve actions have been absent over the past 13-week period indicating that the Fed is allowing operating factors to work themselves out without undue disturbance to the monetary system. 

The big change on the Fed’s balance sheet has to do with the European debt crisis.  Central bank liquidity swaps have risen by a little more than $100 billion since November 2, 2011 as the Fed moved to assist central banks in Europe.  It appears as if part of this increase went to take pressure off the market for Reverse Repurchase agreements with foreign official and international accounts.  The account recording this activity fell by about $41.0 billion over the same time period.

This has resulted in a net increase of about $53 billion in Reserve Balances at Federal Reserve banks but this has had little or no immediate impact on the United States banking system.

Actually, Reserve Balances at Federal Reserve banks declined by $7.0 billion over the past four-week period.  The increase in central bank liquidity swaps was just about totally matched by the decline in reverse repos with foreign official and international accounts as other factors removed reserves.

In terms of Federal Reserve open market operations, the securities account at the Fed actually declined in both the latest 4-week and 13-week periods.  Securities bought outright dropped by a little more than $11.0 billion since November 2 and by a little more than $5.0 billion since January 4. 

Over the past 13 weeks, about $20.0 billion in federal agency issues and mortgage-backed securities ran off in the portfolio.  The Fed only replaced this runoff by a little more than $8.0 billion.  In the latest 4-week period, the runoff in securities was across the board.

The conclusion I draw from the latest Federal Reserve statistics is that the Fed has had a relatively peaceful 13 weeks.  Money continues to flow into the United States Treasury markets seeking a “safe haven” from what is going on in Europe.  This, along with the mediocre economic growth in the country, has taken pressure off the Fed to buy more securities in order to keep interest rates low.  The fact that the securities portfolio at the Fed has declined over the past 13 weeks indicates that the Federal Reserve is letting market forces keep interest rates low and, for a change, is staying out of the market. 

If these conditions continue, I see no justification for any talk about another round of quantitative easing.

The money stock numbers are continuing to maintain excessive growth rates.  The year-over-year rate of growth of the M1 measure of the money stock for the week ending January 24, 2012 is 18.7 percent; the M2 measure of the money stock is growing at 9.7 percent.

Over the past three years I have been arguing that the reason that these money stock growth rates are so high, given the fact that commercial banks did not seem to be lending and that the reserves being pumped into the system by the Fed were going into excess reserves, is that the dire economic conditions have caused individuals and businesses to move their funds from interest bearing assets to transaction assets like currency and demand deposits.  The very low interest rates on the interest bearing assets also contributed to this movement.

Now, however, it seems as this re-arrangement of liquid asset holdings has slowed down.  This is something I think we want to keep our eyes on, for it could be that households and businesses have done all they can do to “be liquid” in bad times.  Thus, we will either see a slow-down in money growth measures (the rates have dropped since the first of November from a 20.0 percent year-over-year rate of growth for M1 and a 10.0 percent rate for M2) or we will see spending starting to increase as these transactions accounts are being used to actually buy things.  It will be interesting to see what happens here.

If people and businesses do speed up their expenditures, this fact would be another reason why another round of quantitative easing would not be necessary.  The Fed would have done enough.   

Monetaray Policy in 2011: Looking Back

Total reserves in the banking system rose by almost 50 percent in 2011 to average around $1.6 trillion.  The increase during the year was slightly more than $511 billion. (Remember in August 2008 when total reserves in the banking system averaged less than $45 billion?)

Excess reserves in the banking system rose by about $490 billion from December 2010 to December 2011 to a total of about $1.5 trillion. (Remember in August 2008 when excess reserves in the banking system averaged less than $2 billion?)

The Federal Reserve continued to pump reserves into the banking system in 2011 and about 95% of the reserves going into the banking system went into excess reserves. 

Bank loans fell during the year by approximately $50 billion.  There was a pickup in business loans (commercial and industrial loans) of about $122 billion, but real estate loans (primarily commercial real estate loans) fell by $150 billion and consumer loans dropped by $22 billion. 

Note that the pickup in business loans was predominately located in the largest 25 domestically chartered banks in the United States.  The increase here was approximately $95 billion. 

One can conclude from this that the reserves that the Fed pumped into the banking system did not, on balance, go to support an increase in lending.

Yet, the growth rate in both measures of the money stock rose during the year.  For the M1 measure of the money stock, the year-over-year rate of increase rose from 7.5 percent in December 2010 to 19.1 percent in December 2011. (This is using the 13-week average of the measure.)  The year-over-year rate of growth of the M2 measure of the money stock rose from 3.3 percent in December 2010 to 9.8 percent in December 2011. (Again using the 13-week average.)

The increase was highlighted by a whopping 45% rise in demand deposits!

But, this increase in demand deposits did not come from an increase in bank lending because the bank lending that might have resulted in an increase in demand deposits and hence the M1 money stock actually declined!

The reason for the huge increase in demand deposits seems to be that people are moving assets from short-term investment vehicles to demand deposit accounts. 

For the past two years or so I have been arguing that this movement into demand deposits is coming for two reasons.  The first reason is that interest rates on short term investments are so low that people do not believe that it is worthwhile to keep their money in interest bearing assets rather than demand deposits. (For example, Federal Reserve data record a drop of almost $90 billion in Institutional Money Funds over the past year.)

The second reason is that many people are still is difficult financial condition.  Hence, they are keeping what funds they have in transaction-type accounts so as to pay for necessary living expenses.  Additional information that supports this argument is that the currency component of the money stock rose by more than 9 percent this last year.  This is, historically, an extremely high number.  People in tough economic situations also hold more cash.

The evidence from the banking system is not very encouraging with regards to a pickup in economic activity.

How did the Federal Reserve inject more than $500 billion reserves into the banking system this last year?

First, the Federal Reserve increased its holdings of securities by roughly $442 billion.  Actual acquisitions of Treasury securities amounted to about $640 billion but these purchases were offset by a $43 billion decrease in the Fed’s holdings of Federal Agency issues and a $154 decline in the Fed’s holdings of mortgage backed securities. 

One should also note that there was a net decrease in funds associated with the bailout actions of 2007 and 2008 of approximately $140 billion. Also, primary borrowings from the Fed’s discount window declined by $36 billion.  One generally assumes that these “operating” factors are offset by the Fed’s purchase of securities.  Thus the “net” addition of funds from the increase in the Fed’s outright holdings of securities totaled about $266 billion. 

Second, the United States Treasury also played a role in the increase in bank reserves.  At the end of 2010, the Treasury held almost $200 billion in something called the U. S. Treasury Supplementary Financing Account. (I have mentioned the use of this account many times in 2010…here is one post: http://seekingalpha.com/article/256497-qe2-watch-version-4-0-fed-is-tone-deaf-and-spaghetti-tossing.) These funds were injected into the banking system this past year…the full $200 billion of them.  This can be added to the $376 billion mentioned in the previous paragraph to account for $466 billion of reserves going into the banking system. 

Third, the currency being demanded by the public mentioned above is supplied to the public by the Federal Reserve “on demand”.  That is, the Federal Reserve generally replaces the currency flowing out of the banking system into general circulation, dollar for dollar.  This past year, currency in circulation rose by about $93 billion.  Thus the $466 billion of the previous paragraph drops to $373 billion.

Fourth, the Federal Reserve has “pumped” dollars into the European banking system due to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.  For example, Central bank liquidity swaps have increased by about $100 over the past year, most of the increase coming in the past six months.  This is not the only way the Fed influences what is going on internationally as the Fed holds other assets denominated in foreign currencies and also engages in reverse repurchase agreements with “foreign official and international accounts”.  If one roughly nets out the accounts associated with all of these type of transactions, we can say that the Fed roughly added another $104 billion to bank reserves which brings the total injection to $477 billion 

One final operating factor influences this total figure, payments into and out to the general account of the United States Treasury.  This fluctuates with tax payments and actual government expenditures.  The year-over-year drop in this account is about $28 billion and this brings the total increase in “reserve balances at Federal Reserve banks to $505 billion, which matches very closely with the $490 increase in excess reserves mentioned in the second paragraph of this post. (The difference is due to minor operating factors that we do not need to discuss.)

In summary, the Federal Reserve (and the U. S. Treasury) put a lot of reserves into the banking system this past year.  As usual, the Fed needs to take care of other operating factors that constantly impact the banking system, but in general, the injection of reserves came from the securities the Fed purchased as a part of the QE2, the dollars being advanced to European central banks to help relieve the pressures of the sovereign debt crisis, and the injection of funds into the banking system from the fiscal activities of the United States Treasury.

As of this time, the reserves going into the banking system have not been lent out…they are just sitting on the balance sheets of the commercial banks.  The extraordinary increase in the money stock measures are the result of the low interest rates that people can earn on their money balances and the need of people who are economically distressed to hole transaction accounts.

The efforts of the monetary authorities are not being felt, yet, by an increase in economic activity.

Recent Monetary Policy and the Growth of the M1 Money Stock

Since the end of June 2011, excess reserves held by commercial banks have declined by about $107 billion. (Remember in August 2008 when excess reserves in the banking system totaled only $2.0 billion…for the whole banking system!) For the two-week period ending November 30, 2011, excess reserves averaged almost $1.6 trillion.

Reserves balances held at Federal Reserve banks dropped by about $110 billion over the same period of time. On December 7, 2011, reserve balances were slightly under $1.6 trillion.

Excess reserves held by the banking system and reserve balances at the Federal Reserve tend to move in the same direction and in about the same magnitude.  The reason for focusing on reserve balances held at Federal Reserve banks is that this number comes from the Fed’s balance sheet and can be related the movements of line items that appear on the balance sheet.

This decline in reserve balances has not been overtly driven by Federal Reserve actions.  In fact, three factors have dominated this decline, and each of the three is independent of what the Federal Reserve might be overtly doing. 

The first two factors relate to components of the Federal Reserve’s portfolio of securities.  After the Fed’s holdings of U. S. Treasury securities, the largest part of the portfolio is made up of mortgage-backed securities.  From the end of June through the current banking week, the amount of mortgage-backed securities on the Fed’s balance sheet dropped by $82 billion and represented maturing securities. 

The Fed’s holdings of Federal Agency securities also feel by almost $11 billion during this same time period again from the run-off of maturing issues. 

The third factor that helped to decrease reserve balances was a $31 billion increase in currency in circulation outside the banking system.  That is, when currency is drawn out of the banks and moves into the hands of individuals, families, and businesses, bank reserves go down…unless these outflows are offset by other actions of the Federal Reserve. 

Just these three factors alone resulted in a $124 billion reduction in bank reserves.  Some open market operations as well as other operating factors offset this decline, but the net result, as mentioned above, was that overall excess reserves in the banking system decline by more about $110 billion over this time period.

While these excess reserves were declining, however, we observed during the same time period, a sizeable change in the speed at which the money stock was growing.  For example, in June, the year-over-year rate of growth of the M1 measure of the money stock was about 6 percent.  In July, the rate of growth increased to 16 percent, in August it was slightly more than 20 percent where it has stayed. 

The M2 measure of the money stock did not show such dramatic increases, since the M1 measure is a subset of the larger total, but it, too, increased during this time period.  In June, the year-over-year rate of growth of the M1 measure was about 6 percent.  In July the growth rate of this measure rose to 8 percent and then jumped to 10 percent in August where it has remained. 

In July and August, the banking system experienced huge gains in demand deposits while in June, July, and August savings deposits at depository institutions rose dramatically. 

These movements along with the continued strong demand for currency in circulation can still be used as evidence that the economy remains very weak.  The $31 billion increase of currency in circulation mentioned above has resulted in the currency component of the money stock measure showing a year-over-year rate of growth by the end of October of almost 9 percent, which is a very high figure historically.  

The movements taking place in the money stock figures point to the weak economy in two ways.  First, with people under-employed, with people trying to stay away from debt, and with businesses trying to build up large stashes of cash, the demand for currency and for transaction balances at financial institutions rises.  Weak economies cause economic units to keep more of their wealth in a form that is readily accessible and spendable.

The second piece of evidence, however, is the extremely low interest rates associated with the weak economy.  With interest rate so low, it just does not pay for people to keep funds in interest-bearing accounts. Over the past five months, savings deposits at financial institutions have dropped by almost $75 billion and funds kept in institutional money funds have dropped by $160 billion over the same time period.  A large portion of these funds has apparently gone into currency and transaction balances.   

People are still getting out of short-term assets and placing their funds, more and more, in transactions-type accounts.  This is a sign of the weak economy and not of economic growth or a successful monetary policy. 

This is “debt deflation” type of behavior. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/307261-debt-deflation-is-it-a-possibility) It is a type of behavior that the Federal Reserve has not yet been able to over come. And, having the Fed toss more “stuff” against the wall does not seem to be the policy to turn things around.

Federal Reserve officials keep talking about up the fact that they have not run out of things that they can do to continue to try and stimulate the economy.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that fewer and fewer people are listening to their pleading. 

With a banking system that is still much weaker than the authorities are willing to talk about; with a consumer sector and business sector that, for the most part, are still trying to reduce their debt load; and with a public sector that is sorely out-of-balance and doesn’t seem to know where it wants to go; people are confused and uncertain about their future and about what to do.  

In this kind of environment, people want to hold onto what they have and want to avoid as much risk as they can.  They don’t want to borrow if they don’t have to and they want their assets to be as liquid as possible.

This is what the Federal Reserve is facing. 

A Leading Indicator: Corporate Stock Buy-Backs

I must admit to being wrong.  I believed that the big cash buildup at corporations would be used to fuel a mergers and acquisitions binge.  I thought that the economic recovery was strong enough that the “better off” corporations would “pick off” all the low-hanging fruit offered by the companies that were not in a very good position coming out of the Great Recession. 

I argued that this behavior would not accelerate economic recovery because the restructuring taking place would result in consolidations and debt reductions that would just make industry more productive somewhere down the line but add very little to economic growth and lower unemployment in the present.

Merger activity has been fairly high this past year but not as great as I thought it would be.    

Where I was wrong…was in the strength of the recovery.  The economic recovery is not strong enough to propel the M&A binge I expected. 

So, what are the cash accumulations and the low borrowing rates leading to? 

Corporations buying back their own stock.

“US companies are on pace to announce buy-backs of more than $500 billion worth of shares this year, according to stock research firm Birinyi Associates, the third biggest year on record.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/546f97ec-1231-11e1-9d4d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fwprkyNi)

The message is that the economy is not recovering sufficiently to warrant more acquisitions and the stock markets have not been robust enough to provide higher valuations for market shares, so, the companies with the cash or with access to the cash are buying back their stock at prices they believe to be ridiculously low. 

This can have some consequences for firms.  For example, Safeway, Inc., sold $800 million in bonds last week and, the same day, management disclosed that it was buying back $1 billion worth of its own common shares. 

The rating agency, Fitch Ratings, immediately dropped the company’s credit rating by one notch to triple B minus. 

A similar thing happened to Amgen and Lowe’s.  Last month, Amgen sold $6 billion worth of bonds to buy back its stock early in November…and Moody’s Investors Service cut Amgen’s bond rating by one notch while Fitch cut its rating by two notches.  Lowe’s sold bonds in November to buy back stock, which resulted in downgrades by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. 

That is, the debt issue followed by the stock buy back increased the financial leverage of these companies and hence make their debt riskier.

Stock buy backs, however, do not increase economic growth!

What is happening?

Long-term interest rates in the United States are being kept down by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the flight of money from Europe seeking a “safe haven” in United State Treasury bonds.  The Fed wants to get the economy going again and has said it will keep rates at historically low levels for another two years or so.  And, “with corporate bonds benchmarked to US Treasuries, whose yields have fallen to historic lows amid strong demand for havens, borrowing costs fro investment grade companies have also fallen.”

So what do we have…low economic growth and credit growth that exceeds the “productive” needs of the corporations. 

In essence this is a picture of credit inflation.  To be sure, we are not seeing the creation of credit raising consumer or wholesale prices at this stage…but, when credit expansion exceeds the real growth rate of the economic sector that the funds are going into we get a “dislocation” that can lead to problems in the future.

That is why, to me, the acceleration of corporate stock buy-backs in this instance seems to me to be a leading indicator of dislocations in the economy that will have to be dealt with at a later time.

“Although bondholders generally do not like these transactions (issuing bonds to buy back stock) because of the risk they pose to companies’ credit ratings, most of the groups buying back shares this year with debt have not seen too much fall-out from the bond markets or from credit rating agencies.”

This is always the case.  Those that move first and move rapidly get the most benefits from their actions.  Only later, when many others attempt the same thing, do markets…and credit rating agencies…move more…or produce greater “fall-out.”

“The deals, then, are likely to continue so long as investors keep buying bonds and pressuring rates.”

And, as the Fed works to keep interest rates so low.

The concern about corporate stock buy-backs being a leading indicator?

If economic growth does not pick up a greater speed (http://seekingalpha.com/article/312223-the-focus-should-be-on-underemployment-not-unemployment) and if the Fed continues to maintain the excess reserves it has pumped into the banking system and keep interest as low as it has promised to do, then we need to be aware of where the dislocations are forming in the economy. 

And, be assured, if this credit inflation begins to show up in some places…it will also begin to show up in other places as time passes.  That is, fault lines are created in the economy much as Raghuram Rajan has described in his award winning book called “Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy.”  And, fault lines make everything more fragile.   

Post QE2 Federal Resserve Watch: Part 3

I didn’t post a “Post QE2 Federal Reserve Watch” last month because I was on vacation.  You have to go back to September 12 to get Part 2 of the “Post QE2” watch. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/292986-post-qe2-federal-reserve-watch-not-much-banking-system-activity)

Early in September, the excess reserves in the banking system totaled around $1,570 billion.  At the beginning of November, excess reserves were about $1,515 billion. 

A $55 billion drop in excess reserves might seem huge, especially when total excess reserves averaged around $2.0 billion, but in these days decreases or increases of this size don’t really seem to amount to a lot.

Federal Reserve policy for the past two years has basically been to throw all the “spaghetti” it can against the wall and see what sticks.  So far, very little of the “spaghetti” has stuck as total bank loans have not increased that much over the past year although business lending has picked up some at the larger banks (http://seekingalpha.com/article/303929-business-lending-is-increasing-especially-at-the-largest-u-s-banks)

On the money stock side, however, growth has picked up substantially over the past six months or so.  The M1 money stock growth (year-over-year) has risen from just over 10 percent six months ago to more than 20 percent in recent weeks.  

The growth rate of the non-M1 component of the M2 money stock measure also accelerated during this time period, more than doubling from around a 3 percent growth rate in early April to well more than 7 percent in late October. 

The reason for this acceleration seems to be a pick up in the movement from low interest bearing short-term assets like retail money funds and institutional money funds to bank deposits and a pick up in the demand for currency in circulation.  Movements of funds into currency holdings continue to rise at a rapid rate.

The movement of funds from other short-term, interest bearing accounts can be explained by the extraordinarily low interest rates being maintained by the Fed and because of the financial stress being felt by so many families and businesses who want to keep their funds in highly liquid form.  A number of large corporations are also holding onto large cash balances for purposes of acquisitions or their own stock repurchases. 

None of these actions contribute to bank loan growth or economic expansion.  All of these reasons are anticipatory of the need to have liquid assets “near-at-hand” in order to transact.  These are not signs of a real healthy economy.

As far as the banking sector is concerned, the increase in demand and time deposits has resulted in a need within banks to hold more required reserves.  Hence, over the past six months the required reserves of commercial banks have risen $4.5 billion to $96.4 billion from $91.9 billion in early September. 

   

Over the past six months, the required reserves at commercial banks have risen by just under $19 billion. 

This increase in required reserves seems to be the biggest operating factor that the Federal Reserve has had to deal with over the past six months.  Thus, although excess reserves at commercial banks have dropped over the past three months, they have risen over the past six months. 

The item on the Federal Reserve’s statement of “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions” (Fed release H.4.1) that is most closely associated with excess reserves in the banking system is called “Reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks.”  This figure has risen by about $46 billion from May 4, 2011 to November 2, 2011.  The increase came about through a rise of $102 billion in “Total factors supplying reserve funds” and a $56 billion increase in “Total factors, other than reserve balances, absorbing reserve balances.”  The $46 billion is the difference between these latter two amounts. 

The $102 billion increase in factors supplying reserve funds came primarily from Federal Reserve purchases of U. S. Treasury securities, which exceeded the run-off from the Fed’s portfolio of Federal Agency securities, Mortgage-backed securities and the decline in other operating factors that supply reserves to the banking system.

There are two interesting factors that absorbed bank reserves during this time period.  The first interesting factor is the rise in “Currency in Circulation”, which increased by roughly $33 billion from May 4 to November 3.  This movement is a drain on bank reserves and hence causes reserves at commercial banks to decline.   This increase is interesting because currency in circulation usually increases during the summer months due to vacations but decreases in the fall.  Over the past three months, from August 3 to November 3, currency in circulation actually increased by more than $15 billion.  This just adds strength to the argument made above for the increase in currency outstanding.

The other interesting factor is that the Fed’s reverse repurchase agreements to foreign official and international accounts increased by almost $68 billion over the past six months, by $56 billion over just the last three.  This increase also reduces bank reserves. 

Here the Federal Reserve is selling securities under an agreement to repurchase the securities at some stated future time period. These are international transactions and the Fed uses U. S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities as collateral in the transactions.  The timing of these transactions are interesting because of the events that have taken place in Europe of the last six months. 

My summary of these movements remains much the same as in previous months.  The Federal Reserve has done just about all it can at the present time to preserve the banking system and allow the FDIC to close as many banks as it has to without major disruption. 

The Fed has thrown just about everything it can into the financial system.  Given the economic weakness in the housing market, the desire of families and businesses to continue to reduce the financial leverage on their balance sheets, and the high level of underemployment in the economy, the demand for loans from commercial banks is very weak, so total bank loans are remaining relatively constant.  A further indication of weakness is the continued movement of wealth into currency holdings and bank deposits, a movement that has resulted in the rapid growth of the money stock measures.  Throwing more “spaghetti” against the wall at this time would not change the behavior of these people or businesses to any degree. 

The Fed may just have to wait until the deleveraging is completed before it sees people starting to borrow again or to hire new workers.  That is, unless the situation in Europe explodes and further ‘search and rescue” missions are needed to preserve western civilization.         

Post QE2 Federal Reserve Watch: Part 2

Excess reserves in the commercial banking system did not change much over the past quarter.  The two-week average for the banking week ending September 7, 2011 was $1, 569 billion.  At the start of August the total was $1,602 billion and at the start of June the total was $1,549 billion.  So roughly, excess reserves averaged around $1.6 billion over the past three months.

It’s kind of hard to appreciate the irony of saying excess reserves didn’t vary much over the past three months when in August 2008 the excess reserves in the whole banking system totaled only $2.0 billion. 

QE2 ended June 30.  So, we were not to expect the Federal Reserve to do too much to the banking system after this period of quantitative easing ended.  And, so far the Fed has done little or nothing.

This does not mean things were not happening in the commercial banking system. 

For example, the required reserves in the banking system rose by more than 20 percent from the banking week ending June 1 to the banking week ending September 7.  The rise was from about $76 billion to around $92 billion.  These are the reserves banks must legally keep on reserve to back up transaction and savings account balances.    

Most of the increase came in the last week of August and the first week in September when required reserves increased by more that $10 billion. 

The rise in required reserves came about due to a massive jump in the demand deposits held at commercial banks in August, which require the highest amount of reserves to be held by the banks! 

There also was a surge in savings deposits at commercial banks in August.  

The increases in demand deposits and savings deposits seemingly came about due to a large movement of funds from small savings accounts and institutional money funds. 

It was during this time that the Federal Reserve announced that it was going to keep short-term interest rates at very low levels for the next 24 months.  This announcement seems to have accelerated the movement out of short-term interest bearing assets to bank accounts…transaction accounts and savings accounts.  In a real sense the disintermediation continues. 

The point is that these movements on the part of wealth holders have influenced the money stock figures.  For example the year-over-year growth rate of the M1 money stock, the measure most affected by the shifts in money, the shifts toward demand deposits, has risen from about 12 percent at the end of May to just under 17 percent at the end of August. 

The M2 money stock measure has also risen but its growth rate remains under 50 percent of the growth rate of the M1 money stock.  Its rise has gone from about 5 percent to 8 percent over the same time frame. 

As I have pointed out for about two years now, the money stock measures appear to be growing because people are shifting out of short-term interest bearing assets because of the exceedingly low interest rates and are parking the funds in commercial banks in transaction balances and savings accounts. 

Some of this transfer is also occurring because people who are under-employed or having other financial difficulties want to keep their funds in accounts that can be accessed quickly to meet daily and weekly needs.      

The money stock growth is not occurring because the banking system in gearing up the lending machine and providing the loans needed for a more robust expansion of the economy.

I believe my interpretation of money stock growth is the correct one because this re-allocation of wealth balances from interest earning assets to transaction balances and other short-term bank assets has been taking place for two years or so and this movement has resulted in increasing growth rates for the money stock measures.  Yet, there has not been a real increase in bank lending during this time period and economic growth remains anemic with a stagnant labor market. 

Money stock growth is occurring but, one could say, for the wrong reasons.  The money stock measures are growing because people are protecting themselves and staying liquid while interest rates are so low.  This is not the behavior that drives the economy forward.  The money stock measures are not growing because of the monetary stimulus and this means that one cannot expect much economic growth from it.

The open market operations of the Federal Reserve have basically been operational over the past five weeks.  Federal Agency securities and Mortgage-backed securities continue to run off from the Fed’s portfolio and these run-offs have been replaced by US Treasury securities.  The off-set has been almost one-for-one, dollar-wise.

The interesting action on the Fed’s balance sheet has been a $34 billion increase in Reverse Repurchase Agreements with foreign official and international accounts.  Reverse repos take reserves out of the United States banking system.   In these cases, the Federal Reserve “sells” US Treasury securities under an agreement to buy them back at a later date. Over the past 14 weeks, reverse repos to foreign governments or their agencies rose by $43 billion.  One can only guess that these transactions have to do with the financial crisis that has been taking place in Europe.  More research needs to be done on this.

The net result of all this is that the Fed has done nothing overt since the end of second round of quantitative easing.  Economic activity continues to be stagnant and the under-employment situation does not improve.  Money stock measures continue to grow but for reasons not related to increases in bank lending and improving economic activity.  The question seems to be, where does the Federal Reserve go next?  Answers to this question are all over the board. 

Post QE2 Federal Reserve Watch: Part I

Should there be a QE3 or not?

This seems to be the debate now going on given the sluggish performance of the United States economy.  Not only have most of the recent statistical releases been relatively weak, the government also released revised figures for real growth during the two years of economic recovery since July 2009 that were revised downwards from the previously released mediocre data. 

There is no joy in Mudville. 

President Obama is talking up jobs and infrastructure investment and business innovation, but his “room to maneuver” given the debt wars going on is “little” or “none”.  And, the White House is not feeling really good going into the re-election season.

Only a small minority seems to be calling for substantial fiscal stimulus at this time and they do not even seem to be a part of the current discussions going on.  They are like “voices calling in the wilderness” but few are listening. 

Thus, attention is focusing once again on the Federal Reserve and its increasingly unpopular Chairman Ben Bernanke.  Mr. Bernanke seemed to be the savior of the financial system at one time but now seems to be talking about a different world than the one most people live within.  His efforts at stimulating economic growth have achieved very little with the exception of providing liquidity for world commodity markets and stock markets in emerging countries. 

Yet, people keep looking for more “guns” or “tools” to address the economic malaise that we are now going through.  The FED seems to be the only game in town.  So, are we going to get QE3?

QE2 ended on June 30, 2011.  In the first six months of 2011, the Fed caused Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks to increase by $642 billion reaching a total of $1.66 trillion on July 6.  (Just a note: on August 6, 2008, before the deluge, Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks totaled less than $4.0 billion.)

As we know, most of these reserve balances were held as excess reserves, the growth of bank lending in the United States over this time was non-existent.

In July, the Federal Reserve “backed off” from its program of aggressive security purchases with almost all purchases of United States Treasury issues going to offset the run-off of Federal Agency issues and Mortgage-backed securities from its portfolio during the month. 

The only real activity that took place at the Federal Reserve in July was “operating” transactions, basically balance shifting between Treasury accounts and commercial banks.  These “operating” transactions generally “netted” out close to zero and did not result in much change in reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks. 

So, we watch and wait and listen. 

Will the Federal Reserve do anything more?  And, if they plan to do anything…what will it be?

In my analysis, so much of the county has too much debt that people, businesses, and state and local governments are attempting to de-leverage their balance sheets.  Too many financial commitments have been made relative to cash flows that there is a substantial effort increase savings and re-structure balance sheets. 

This is why people, businesses, and governments are not borrowing…and are not spending. 

The efforts of the Fed to stimulate bank lending has failed to this point because the banking system is, itself, still retrenching, financial institutions are still going out-of-business in a steady stream, people aren’t borrowing to buy houses, small- and medium-sized businesses are not hiring and are not borrowing to expand their operations, and state and local governments are downsizing and trying to keep themselves solvent. 

The economy is not growing because too many are trying to get back on their feet, they are trying to keep from drowning, and adding on more spending and more debt is not on their agenda.

Here is where the paradox comes in.  The massive shift in the income/wealth distribution in the country has put a huge burden on the less wealthy while those with more wealth can continue on.  We hear that the “expensive” stores are doing very well…and the dollar stores are not doing all that well.  We hear that there is a pickup in the sales of the more expensive homes, yet sales in the rest of the market continue to decline.  And, so on and so on.

In such an environment of “debt deflation” for a large proportion of the population (see http://seekingalpha.com/article/279283-credit-inflation-or-debt-deflation) it is extremely difficult for the government’s economic policy to overcome the drag on spending created by the restructuring of balance sheets. 

Keynes interpreted such a situation as a “liquidity trap”, a situation where the central bank could not drive interest rates any lower because people would just as soon hold cash as hold interest-bearing debt. See David Wessel’s column in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576490491996443926.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj.

Wessel presents one case for getting out of this trap…a period of (hyper)inflation that would substantially lower real interest rates.  This, one could argue, is what the Fed (unsuccessfully) tried to do in QE2 and it is what would be the objective of following QE2 up with QE3.  But, the strength of QE3 would have to be great enough to get over the “debt deflation” efforts of the people, businesses, and governments that are trying to get their balance sheets back in order. 

Wessel writes, “Failure to arrive at the correct diagnosis, in economics as in medicine, prolongs the illness; so does refusing the remedies. There's a reason the Great Depression lasted for more than 10 years.”  But maybe the correct diagnosis is that the problem is not a liquidity problem but is a solvency problem.  And, the people of a society may take a long time to deleverage their balance sheets when it took fifty years of credit inflation to get them in their current position.
If this is true, having the central bank create a policy of (hyper)inflation will not really resolve the issue but only postpone it for another day…something politicians are very good at.
And, as we contemplate the possibility that the Fed will engage in another round of monetary easing, word comes that the European Central Bank (ECB) is going to engage in the purchase of the sovereign debt of several European nations so as to support eurozone commercial banks and the newly proposed severe budgetary policies of Italy and Spain.  The ECB announcement came after several European commercial banks wrote down the value of the Greek debt on their balance sheets everywhere from 21 percent to 50 percent. 
To the ECB, it seems, the situation in Europe is still a liquidity problem.  But, if this is the incorrect diagnosis, as it may be for the United States, the ECB may have the same success as the Fed’s QE2 had.  Keep watchin’.  

Federal Reserve Money Continues to go Off-Shore

Yesterday in my post I reviewed the consequences of QE2 on the Federal Reserve balance sheet. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/276674-qe2-watch-no-qe3-in-sight)

The bottom line: “The ‘net’ increase in securities held outright by the Federal Reserve has been $589 billion, pretty close to the $600 billion ‘net’ increase promised.

Reserve balances at Federal Reserve banks, a proxy for excess reserves in the banking system, have increased by $584 billion to $1,594 billion over this time period. Actual excess reserves in the banking system averaged $1,610 billion for the two-week period ending June 15, 2011.”

Cash assets (excess reserves) at commercial banks in the United States rose by about $800 billion from December 29, 2010 to June 15, 2011 and closed slightly below $1,870 billion on the latter date. 

Basically the Federal Reserve pumped all these reserves into the banking system and there they seemingly sit.  Yet, the amazing thing is that of the almost $800 billion increase in cash assets in American banks, almost 85 percent of the increase, or about $670 billion, ended up on the balance sheets of Foreign-related Institutions in the United States. 

And, what increased on the other side of the balance sheet?

Net deposits due to related foreign offices.  These balances rose by almost $500 billion since the end of last year. 

In essence, it appears as if much of the monetary stimulus generated by the Federal Reserve System went into the Eurodollar market.  This is all part of the “Carry Trade” as foreign branches of an American bank could borrow dollars from the “home” bank creating a Eurodollar deposit.  This Eurodollar deposit could be lent to foreign banks or investors and this would not change the immediate dollar holdings of the American bank.  This lending and borrowing in Eurodollar deposits could then multiply throughout the world.  And, the American bank might be the ‘foreign-related” institution mentioned above and included in the statistical reports.

Note that the original dollar deposit created by the Fed is still recorded as a deposit at one Federal Reserve bank no matter how much shifting around the borrowing and lending in the Eurodollar market occurs.    

Thus, it appears as if the Federal Reserve pumped one-half a trillion dollars off-shore since the end of 2010!

And, this is going to stimulate spending and getting the economy to grow faster?

Cash assets at the smaller banks remained relatively flat over the last six months…and over the last three months.  Thus, the reserves the Fed was pumping into the banking system were not going into the smaller banks. 

And, although the largest twenty-five banks in the country increased their cash assets by about $130 billion over the last six months, these banks have been reducing their cash balances (by a little more than $30 billion) over the last three months. 

What have the domestically chartered commercial banks been doing over the last six months?

Basically, the twenty-five largest domestically chartered commercial banks have been modestly increasing their loans to businesses, both in the three-month period and the six-month period.  Commercial and Industrial loans as well as commercial real estate loans have been increasing at the largest banks over the past three-month period. 

However, business loans continue to “tank” at the smaller banking institutions.  For example, Commercial and Industrial loans at the smaller institutions dropped by almost $5.0 billion from March 30 to June 15.  Commercial Real Estate loans took an even bigger hit of almost $35 billion. 

Also, at the smaller banks, residential mortgages continue to decline…by a little over $9.0 billion since March 30 and by almost $35 billion over the last six months. 

The real lending by commercial banks is not taking place in the United States.  The lending is taking place off-shore, underwritten by the Federal Reserve System and this is doing little or nothing to help the American economy grow. 

It does seem to help produce inflation elsewhere which gets translated back into the United States in the price of imports.

The Fed has not yet gotten bank lending going, it has not yet caused an increase in the money stock measures, and it has not yet stimulated the economy to any degree. 

The Fed may have helped the FDIC close banks in an orderly fashion and it may have helped raise the prices of commodities world-wide. 

For all the efforts exerted in QE2, the results are not very encouraging.

NOTE: As mentioned in my post yesterday, I will not be posting anything for about a week or so.