Saturday, November 2, 2024

Abundant reserves enabled a soft landing


In the Old Days (pre-2009), when bank reserves paid no interest—they were considered a "dead" asset—banks held the minimum amount of reserves necessary to collateralize their deposits. When the Fed needed to bring inflation down (usually as the result of a prior mistake that allowed inflation to rise), the Fed restricted the supply of reserves in order to force their price (the cost of borrowing reserves) higher, and to slow the growth of the money supply and bank lending. Higher interest rates and a scarcity of money eventually did the job, but unfortunately, a recession typically followed, heralded by sharply rising credit spreads. 

Around the end of 2008, the height of the financial panic at the time, the Fed made a momentous decision: reserves would become an interest-bearing and default-free asset, and there would be plenty of them. The Fed would control short-term interest rates directly, without having to restrict the supply of reserves. The Fed would pay interest on reserves using funds it received on its holdings of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, which in turn were purchased by issuing reserves. Reserves effectively became T-bill substitutes, and as such, an ideal asset for the banking system.

At first, most analysts, myself included, feared that an abundance of reserves would result in a surge of lending and higher inflation. Fortunately, that didn't happen. In fact, for the next 11 years, inflation and interest rates would be low and relatively stable. In the first half of 2009 I stopped worrying about abundant reserves becoming inflationary, because I realized that banks had an almost insatiable appetite for holding reserves. The supply of reserves had exploded, but so had the demand to hold them. Thus, abundant reserves were not inflationary.

Then came Covid-19, and panicked politicians shut down the economy. To compensate for the loss of income which followed, Treasury sent roughly $6 trillion in checks to individuals and companies over the course of the next 18-20 months. Initially, most of the extra money sat idle in bank savings and deposit accounts. Then, in early 2021, as the economy began to get back on its feet, people began to spend the money, only to find that supply chains had been disrupted. Demand for goods and services soon outstripped supply, and inflation took off. If Milton Friedman had been alive at the time, he would have realized that his helicopter-drop-of-money analogy had become real: dumping trillions of extra dollars on the economy had ballooned the price level by 20-25%. In early 2021 I began forecasting a serious increase in inflation because I realized that the demand for all the extra money that had been created was beginning to decline.

To its everlasting regret, it took the Fed a year or so to figure out that rising prices were not in fact "transitory," but the real thing. So in March '22 they began the process of tightening by raising short-term interest rates. It wasn't easy to break the back of inflation, because the supply of money (M2) had surged by $6 trillion; they not only needed to reduce the money supply but to persuade (via higher interest rates) people to not spend the money so fast. Meanwhile, pundits and economists of every stripe predicted that, as it always had over the previous 50 years, a recession would inevitably follow the Fed's energetic monetary tightening. Very few, myself included, thought that a monetary tightening that occurred during a period of abundant reserves and ample liquidity would not result in a "hard landing."

To the great surprise of nearly everyone, we have experienced a "soft landing." The Fed has regained control of monetary conditions, inflation has come down to its target, and the economy has managed to grow at a decent rate throughout the tightening process. Abundant reserves arguably were the key. Thanks to abundant reserves, liquidity has been abundant in the financial markets as evidenced by low and relatively stable credit spreads. Financial markets were thus able to act as a shock absorber for the disruption to the economy caused by higher prices and higher interest rates.

Unfortunately, as Milton Friedman famously said, there is no free lunch. Supercharged federal spending has distorted the economy by not only causing inflation, but also by transferring trillions of dollars from the productive sector of the economy to consumers and enlarging the size of the government in the process. Pre-Covid, the federal deficit was almost $1 trillion per year. Currently, the deficit is running at almost a $2 trillion annual rate. Government payrolls have surged at a more than 2% annual rate since early 2023, even as private payroll growth has slowed from 4% in late 2022 to now only slightly more than 1%. Government spending has been the main source of economic growth in recent years, while business investment and manufacturing have been weak. This is not a prescription for solid growth in the years to come. Although real GDP growth in recent years has been about 2.2-2.4% annually, it is likely to slow down in the years to come unless policy shifts in favor of investment rather than transfer payments.

Chart #1

Chart #1 illustrates the gigantic increase in bank reserves that began in late 2008 when the Fed decided to make reserves abundant while also paying interest on reserves. Prior to that, reserves were a direct constraint on bank lending, since banks needed to hold reserves to collateralize their deposits, and reserves paid no interest. QE4 (aka massive Covid-related "stimulus") was the proximate cause of our destructive bout of inflation in recent years. Prior episodes of Quantitative Easing were not inflationary because they were neutralized by strong demand for cash and cash equivalents.

Chart #2

Chart #2 shows the difference between credit spreads on investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. This is an excellent measure of future economic health and financial market liquidity (higher spreads reflect concern about corporate profits and a general shortage of liquidity, while lower spreads reflect optimism about future economic growth and liquidity). Big spikes in credit spreads have reliably predicted recessions. Today, credit spreads are very low, and recession risk is also low—but that doesn't rule out sluggish growth.

Chart #3

Chart #3 shows the level of real economic growth (blue line) and different trend growth rates. The 3.1% annual trend line was in place from the mid-1950s through late 2007, while the 2.3% trend line began in mid-2009. If the economy had followed that 3.1% growth rate following the 2008-9 recession, it would be about 20% larger today.

Chart #4

Chart #4 shows the year over year change in the GDP deflator, the broadest measure of inflation. From a peak of almost 8% it is now only slightly above 2%. This confirms that the Fed has succeeded in controlling inflation. Unfortunately, the price level today is still almost 20% higher than it would have been if inflation had been instead averaged less than 2% per year, as it did in the decade leading up to Covid.

Chart #5

Chart #5 shows the 6-mo. annualized change in the Personal Consumption deflator and its core (ex-food and energy) version. By these measures inflation is also once again under control.

Chart #6

Chart #6 shows the three components of the Personal Consumption deflator. Service prices, dominated by shelter costs, are the only ones rising. Non durable goods prices are almost unchanged for the past two years, while durable goods prices have been declining for two years. Deflation in the durable goods sector has returned.

Chart #7

Chart #7 is a reminder that every recession prior to the Covid recession was the result of tight monetary policy. Monetary policy was tight because real interest rates were very high and the Treasury yield curve was inverted. Those two conditions have returned of late, but there is no recession in sight. What's different this time? Abundant reserves.

Chart #8

Chart #8 shows the ISM purchasing managers survey of the manufacturing sector. This has been notably weak since late 2022. That the economy has grown by almost 3% in the past year is due almost entirely to government spending and transfer payments. 

Chart #9

Chart #9 shows the monthly change in private sector payrolls over the past 3 years, as well as the rolling 6-mo average of same. In early 2022, payrolls were growing by about 600,000 per month; now they are growing by only 100,000 per month. (I assume the very low number for October to be the result of hurricanes, strikes, and random variations which can and do happen quite often.) While this is not necessarily a precursor of recession, slow jobs growth does point to a loss of vitality in the economy which could persist and/or worsen. We are not likely to see 3% GDP quarters on a sustained basis; be prepared for 2% or less. At least that will make it easier for the Fed to continue to cut interest rates.

19 comments:

nyleta said...

Pretty hard to drop the amount of reserves now that a bank run can happen in real time like in 2023. They need to be able to do an asset swap in practically real time to bail them out hence the reserves in place at all times if I understand the system properly.

Salmo Trutta said...

There's a word for it. It's called "Crowding Out".

Salmo Trutta said...

Soft landing? Just like 1966, the nonbanks outbid the banks for loan funds.

ebg investor said...

Thank you for the article. There is a typo, it is likely 2021 in “ In early 2001 I began …”

Scott Grannis said...

Thanks for the correction, now fixed.

Salmo Trutta said...

A decrease in the ratio of time to demand deposits raises R-gDp.

wkevinw said...

Reserves, Overnight Repos, and other banking plumbing.

I am definitely not a banker so do not understand how these facilities work, especially what the processes are that determine how they interact with Fed funds rates (QE, bond auctions...). The new administration needs to take some action that gets valuations of assets into more historically normal ranges, e.g. financial and real estate are too high based on history (relative to wages, and other prices). Reserves, repos, interest rates, etc., will all have to be coordinated.

Chairman Volcker took some very effective actions just prior to and in the early Pres. Reagan's first term that reset the economy and markets for decades of good performance. The current Fed and government officials obviously can't take exactly the same actions, but they should do something similar, and quickly, in order to wisely spend political capital.

Salmo Trutta said...

Volcker's reign is a myth. Monetarism has never been tried. Monetarism involves targeting total legal reserves and their reserve ratios.

Volcker tried to tell it right: Pg. 105 in “Keeping At It”: “We needed a new approach. To have more direct impact, we could strictly limit growth in the reserves that commercial bans held at the Federal Reserve against their deposits. That would effectively curb growth in deposits and the overall money supply. Put simply, we would control the quantity of money (the money supply) rather than the price of money (interest rates). “

But Volcker targeted nonborrowed reserves when total legal reserves exploded at a 17% annual rate after the DIDMCA (contrary to Dr. Richard G. Anderson’s reconstruction).

Adam said...

Hello,
Scott, any takes who will be a new president advisor on economy and trade?

wkevinw said...

Remembrance Day- UK and Europe

Still a very important observance. Solemn but with the beautiful red poppies.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/mar/05/how-we-made-tower-of-london-poppies-paul-cummins-tom-piper#img-1

Salmo Trutta said...

Abundant reserves! If the FED would tank reserves, inflation would follow.

McKibbinUSA said...

What can the US sell to pay off the national debt (e.g., gold, national parks, the west coast, etc.)?

Roy said...

Scott, is time for an Argentine update?

Benjamin Cole said...

Well, regardless of politics, I think the Trump win is a plus for business. He might even end a couple of wars. Time will tell.

cyclingscholar said...

Vast swatches of the american west are owned by agencies like the forest service, the BLM, etc. These could be privatized (awarded to US citizens in a lottery, for example) which would (1) increase the efficiency of how these lands are used, (2) put them in the tax rolls and off the spending side, (3) provide americans with a vast increase in land to use for farms, fields, and factories, (4) vastly increase the market for individuals and small firms that manage real estate.

WorthF said...

Scott - the abundant reserves and paying interest on reserves at the FED in effect means the FED (and the TREASURY/GOV spending) pays for the interest and pays for the consistent losses which the FED incurs by being the back-stop of the banking system with both their largest and their INTEREST payments. Like Wesbury, I would ask who is paying for the FED losses? We all know who is paying for the FED losses but we don't know how big the hazard of losses and where they will be when/if the FED ever backs away from their abundant reserves. If they don't back away from being the back-stop which also pays interest (which has NO market pricing and NO consequence for individuals making these decisions) the FED will take on more risk and they will spread them out to all the TAX-payers who are forced by government to borrow more to cover their losses.
Yes, there is no free lunch. The moral hazard has been taken on by the banks and given to the FED who quietly makes losses and gives those losses to the Treasury to turn into more PUBLIC debt.

WorthF said...

Wesbury tweet about Fed abundant reserves. Scott - I respect both you and Brian's perspective. Where would you differ from Wesbury?

"Congratulations to Scott Bessent…nominated by President Trump to serve as Treasury Secretary.
Back in October, on Bloomberg, he criticized Jerome Powell for his 50 basis point rate cut in the middle of a presidential election. He also said…”If you believe forward guidance is good, why can’t [we] give forward guidance on who the Fed chair is going to be?”
His idea: Create a “Shadow Federal Reserve Board Chair”.
I hope this “shadow chair” asks questions, or makes public some key things that the current Fed does not talk about, and the press won’t ask or report about.
In 2008, the Fed made one of the biggest changes in economic policy the US has seen since 1913 when the Fed was created.
The Fed shifted from a “scarce reserve” model to an “abundant reserve” model.
This, along with holding rates at zero for nine years out of the last 16, has created roughly $600 billion of losses on commercial bank books, and roughly $1 trillion in losses on the Fed’s books.
The Fed is paying private banks about $200 billion per year right now, and the Fed is losing roughly $100 billion per year.
How is the Fed paying its employees if it is losing money every day? The answer appears to be borrowing from the taxpayer with a sleight of hand accounting arrangement. As far as I know this was not authorized by Congress.
Do people know that the Treasury has a “slush fund” of about $850 billion in its Treasury General Account, held at the Fed? This Account for decades had only $5 billion in it, but the “abundant reserve” system led the Treasury and Fed to be more closely tied together than ever before. This account should not exist, in my opinion. It is a back door way of implementing Modern Monetary Theory.
There are so many things that markets, taxpayers and members of government should know about the Fed that are never talked about, or reported on.
A “Shadow Chair” could bring all this to light."

Scott Grannis said...

one difference between Brian and I: I pay a lot of attention to money demand, whereas Brian focuses mainly on money supply. I think the Fed's rate hikes have increased the demand for money, thus offsetting much or most of the huge increase in money supply. Falling inflation supports my view. I would also note that as the Fed lowers interest rates the yield curve is steepening and this in turn reduces the Fed's losses. (The Fed receives interest on its holdings of notes and bonds, and pays out interest based on the Fed funds rate. A steeper yield curve mitigates the cost of this strategy.)

WorthF said...

Thanks Scott. I appreciate your time.