Economy
Central Bank Digital Currency: It’s All About Control
At the end of the day, central bank digital currencies are all about control, not meeting consumer demand.
The People’s Bank of China was the first central bank to roll out a digital currency. The digital yuan recently got a boost when China’s biggest online retailer announced it has developed the first virtual platform to accept the Chinese digital currency.
Digital currency is nothing more than a virtual banknote or coin that exists in a digital wallet on your smartphone instead of a billfold or a purse. Digital currencies issued by central banks are backed by the state, just like traditional fiat currency.
China was the first to experiment with digital currencies, but other countries are interested in the idea. US officials have already toyed with the possibility of a digital dollar. A Democratic proposal for stimulus payments in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic featured digital currency deposited into digital wallets.
The powers that be will offer all kinds of reasons for moving to digital currency, but at the root of the movement is the “war on cash.” It creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending, and it would make it even easier for central banks to engage in manipulative monetary policy such as negative interest rates.
As economist Kristoffer Mousten Hansen explains. recent reports by the Bank for International Settlements and the European Central bank provide some fascinating insights into the theories and ideologies driving central bankers in their pursuit of central bank digital currencies.
The following article by Kristoffer Mousten Hansen was originally published by the Mises Wire. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.
Twenty-twenty is a year dominated by bad news. While governments around the world have imposed extremely destructive restrictions on economic life and promise a “Great Reset” that amounts to a great leap forward into the socialist future, central bankers have advanced plans for implementing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). These may arrive as early as next year. Yet what is the motivation behind this innovation? Reports recently published by the Bank for International Settlements and the European Central Bank provide part of the answer. These publications provide fascinating insight into the theories and ideologies driving central bankers in their pursuit of CBDCs.
Monetary Policy? Moi?
One perhaps surprising theme in both reports is the disavowal of any monetary policy behind plans for introducing CBDCs. The BIS report claims that “[m]onetary policy will not be the primary motivation for issuing CBDC” (p. 8) and the ECB report notes that a “possible role for the digital euro as a tool to strengthen monetary policy is not identified in this report” (p. 3). One might, first of all, suppose that introducing a new form of money would by definition amount to monetary policy, at least in a broad sense, and secondly perhaps find it a tiny bit weird that institutions dedicated to researching and implementing monetary policy would not have considered the potential effects of a new form of money in light of its effects on policy. But what is really striking is that both reports—and especially the one issued by the ECB—at great length detail the implications for monetary policy of CBDC. True, they say they don’t, but looking beyond the executive summary and paying attention to what is written in the report itself puts the lie to that claim.
In order to see this, we only need to look at the key features the central bankers identify as desirable in a CBDC: it should be interest bearing, and it should be possible to cap how much each individual can hold. Both measures are clearly aimed at supporting monetary policy. The cap on holdings forces people to spend their money, driving either price inflation or investment in financial assets, and by making the CBDC interest-bearing (or remunerated, in the language of the ECB) it becomes a tool for setting and passing on policy rate changes, including negative interest rates.
The ECB’s Report on a Digital Euro, in particular, goes on at great length about the need to limit or disincentivize “the large-scale use of a digital euro as an investment” (p. 28). The reasoning behind this position is crystal clear: since monetary policy has driven interest rates into negative territory, the ECB should not allow large-scale holding of digital euros, since investors would then, quite sensibly, chuck their holdings of negative-yielding bonds and seek a safe haven in digital euros—that is, if they can hold them at no cost. Similarly, the ECB is averse to letting people convert their bank deposits into digital euros (p. 16), which would reside in their individual wallets rather than in a bank account. Indeed, the horror of what the BIS and ECB reports call “financial disintermediation” looms large in the minds of central bankers: if people keep their money outside of banks, these will have less money to lend out, thereby increasing borrowing costs. In the words of the BIS report, they are concerned that
a widely available CBDC could make such events [i.e., bank runs] more frequent by enabling “digital runs” toward the central bank with unprecedented speed and scale. More generally, if banks begin to lose deposits to CBDC over time they may come to rely more on wholesale funding, and possibly restrict credit supply in the economy with potential impacts on economic growth. (p. 8)
Of course, Austrian economists since Ludwig von Mises understand that “financial disintermediation” can really be a blessing. In the context of digital euros, all it means is that people would hold the amount of cash they deemed desirable outside the banks. They would only make true savings deposits in banks, i.e., they would only surrender money that they did not want instant access to. Under such circumstances, banks would be incapable of expanding credit by issuing unbacked claims to money; they could only make loans out of the funds their customers had explicitly made available for that purpose. This would not only result in a leaner or sounder financial system, it would also avoid the problems of the perennially recurring business cycle. And contrary to what the central bankers fear, the supply of credit would not be restricted, it would simply be forced to correspond to the supply of real savings in the economy. This, unfortunately, is an understanding of economics completely alien to central bankers.
Negative Interest Rates
One aim in introducing CBDCs that is only hinted at is the possibility of imposing even lower negative interest rates. In recent years, monetary economists have increasingly discussed the problem of the “zero lower bound” on interest rates: the fact that it is impossible to set a negative interest since depositors in that case would simply shift into holding physical cash. When manipulating the interest rate is the main policy tool of central banks this is obviously a problem: How can they work their alchemy and secure an acceptable spread between the main policy rates and the market rate of interest when interest rates are already very low? Allowing for the cost of holding physical cash, –0.5 percent seems to be about as low as they can go.
With a centrally controlled digital currency, this problem would disappear. The central bank could set a limit on how much each person and company could hold cost-free, and above this limit, they would have to pay whatever negative interest rate (or “remuneration,” as the ECB insists on calling it) is consonant with central bank policy. In this way, holding cash would not obstruct monetary policy, as the cash holdings would be fully under the control of the central bank.
There is just one problem with using CBDC in this way: it only works if physical cash is outlawed. Otherwise, physical cash would still simply play the role it does today, i.e., as the most basic and least risky way of holding one’s wealth and of avoiding negative interest rates. The BIS report clearly identifies this problem (p. 8n7), as does the ECB (p. 12n18): a CBDC could help eliminate the zero lower bound on interest rates, but only if physical cash disappeared. So long as physical cash remains in use, the zero lower bound cannot be breached.
But the People Demand It!
However, people might of their own accord come to the rescue of the world’s central banks, sorely beset as they are by the zero lower bound. At least according to Benoît Coeuré, head of the BIS Innovation Hub (the group tasked with researching CBDC), plenty of people want a central bank digital currency. The ECB also sees the decline in the use of physical cash in favor of other means of payment as one of the main scenarios that would require the issue of a digital euro (p. 10).
Now, while some people might like CBDC, there is really no reason to believe, notwithstanding monsieur Coeuré’s anecdotal evidence, that there is widespread demand for central bank digital currency. The ECB admits as much when they write that physical cash is still the dominant means of payment in the euro area, accounting for over half the value of all payments at the retail level (p. 7). But Coeuré does not need to go far to see the continuing relevance of cash: in 2018 researchers at the BIS itself concluded that cash, far from declining in importance, was still the dominant form of payment. More recently, a study in the International Journal of Central Banking showed that cash usage is not only not declining, but even increasing in importance.
Be that as it may, the central bankers are certainly right that there is an increased demand for digital payment solutions and for cryptocurrencies. However, it is erroneous to conclude from this that therefore a central bank digital currency is demanded. Demand for a payment solution is not the same as demand for a new kind of money. It simply means that people demand payment services that allow them to more cheaply transact with each other. Such services are plentifully provided by companies such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, banks, and so on and so forth. There is no reason to believe that central banks need to provide this service nor that they could do it better than private companies and banks, and it is simply a mistake to equate demand for such services with demand for a money.
The mistake in the case of cryptocurrencies is even more egregious. When people hold bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, it is not because their heartfelt demand for a CBDC has to go unfulfilled and this is their closest alternative. On the contrary, people want to own bitcoin precisely so they can avoid the negative interests imposed on the established banking system and the risks of holding inflationary fiat money. Introducing a CBDC would not mitigate those risks, but rather add to them, as the central bank would assume total control of the money supply through it and the attendant abolition of physical cash. The felt need for inflation hedges and the desire to escape central bank control, including as it does negative interest rates and caps on how much cash one could hold, would only increase.
It’s All About Control
At the end of the day, central bank digital currencies are all about control, not meeting consumer demand. The ECB admits as much at several points in their report. Here is just one instance: If people are really demanding a digital euro, why would it have to be assigned legal tender status in order for it to be accepted, as the authors of the report clearly state would be necessary (p. 33)? The only scenario where introducing a CBDC makes sense is in order to phase out the use of physical cash in order to be able to impose whatever negative interest rate regime the central bankers in charge judge necessary. Helicopter money, restrictions on cash holding, and negative interest rates are all part of the bundle of desirable policies that can only—or most easily—be achieved with digital currencies fully controlled by the issuing central banks.
Ironically, far from buttressing the role of central banks and government fiat money, imposing a CBDC may have the completely opposite effect. Replacing physical cash with a CBDC would only strengthen the undesirable qualities of fiat money and further hamper a free market in money and financial services, increasing the demand for alternatives to government money, such as gold and bitcoin.
Economy
McMaken: The Fed’s Inflation Is Behind the Supply-Chain Mess
… the idea that supply chain problems are “driving inflation” gets the causation backward.
It seems supporters of the Biden Administration finally settled on a narrative they like for explaining away supply chain shortages.
Here’s the administration’s talking point: the US economy is rolling along so well that Americans are demanding huge amounts of goods. That’s overwhelming the supply chain and causing the back-ups roiling America’s ports and logistic infrastructure.
For example, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg this month declared “Demand is up … because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.”
Similarly, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters supply chain problems are occurring because “people have more money … their wages are up…“we’ve seen an economic recovery that is underway…”
This position has been mocked by a number of conservative politicians—including Senator Ted Cruz—and commentators who find this to be an absurd assumption.
Yet, the administrator’s defenders aren’t totally wrong. As Mihai Macovei showed earlier this month, the global volume of trade and shipping volume in 2021 have actually exceeded pre-pandemic numbers. For example, in the port of Los Angeles, “loaded imports” and “total imports” for the 2020-2021 fiscal year (ending June 30, 2021) were both up when compared to the same period of the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
In other words, it’s not as if nothing’s moving through these ports. In fact, more is moving through them than ever before. That suggests demand is indeed higher.
But why is it higher? It some ways, it’s true that, as Psaki says, people have more money.
But that’s where the veracity and usefulness of Biden’s defenders end in explaining the problem.
Much of the answer can be found in monetary inflation. Obviously, Joe Biden hasn’t “successfully guided the economy” through anything, but it is accurate to say that people have more money in a nominal sense. Wages are up nominally. After all, if we look at the immense amount of new money created over the past 18 months, we should absolutely expect people to have more money sloshing around. But this also means a lot more pressure on the logistical infrastructure as people buy up more consumer goods.
In other words, the idea that supply chain problems are “driving inflation” gets the causation backward. It’s money-supply inflation that’s causing much of the supply chain’s problems. Not the other way around.
After all, since February 2020, M2 has increased from $15.2 trillion to $20.9 trillion in September 2021. That’s an increase of 35 percent. Yes, some of that has been kept within the banking system through the Fed’s payment of interest on reserves, but a lot of it clearly has entered the “real economy” through stimulus payments, unemployment insurance, and federal deficit spending in general.
Originally, the public was saving a lot of that stimulus and bailout money, with the personal savings rate hitting historic highs of over 25 percent. But this past summer the savings rate collapsed again, and as of September is back under eight percent. The public is now flooding the economy with its former savings.
The American appetite for spending on consumer goods hasn’t gone away. Yet, there are many reasons to suspect this spending spree is unsupported by actual economic activity, and in a phenomenon of monetary inflation.
For example, today’s tsunami of spending raises questions when we consider there are still about five million fewer people working in the American economy than was the case in early 2020. That means fewer people being paid wages. Without monetary inflation, an economy with millions of fewer workers suggests there should be less spending.
Additionally, spending increases when the public suspects that inflation is going to increase. That is, if there is perception the value of money will decline, the demand for money will decline also. As Ludwig von Mises noted: “once public opinion is convinced … the prices of all commodities and services will not cease to rise, everybody becomes eager to buy as much as possible and to restrict his cash holding to a minimum size.”
That means more spending. This phenomenon is already clear in home prices and grocery prices. The public may suspect rising prices are here to stay. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index—a very limited measure of goods-price inflation—is nonetheless near a 35-year high. That means now’s a good time to spend.
With 2020’s panic-induced saving subsiding, people are now wondering if their savings produce any returns. But ordinary savers are surely now remembering that the interest returns from savings right now are next to nothing. Thanks to the central bank’s ultra-low interest rate policy, we live in a yield-starved world. That’s OK for hedge funders who can participate in carry trades and other high-yield forms of investment. But for regular people they’re stuck with interest rates that don’t keep up with price inflation. So it makes more sense to spend dollars rather than save them.
So, Biden’s people are correct in a certain sense that people have “more money” and that “demand is up.” With federal spending hitting historic highs—and half of it is deficit spending that’s being monetized—we should expect people to have “more money.” This is just what we would expect in an inflationary environment. We should expect demand for everything (but money) to be up.
The question, however, is how much of this windfall will continue in real, inflation-adjusted terms. It’s too early to tell, although we can also see that inflation-adjusted median earnings collapsed 6.3 percent, year over year, during the second quarter of 2021. We can see that real GDP growth has dramatically slowed.
But at least as far as the third quarter is concerned, it’s fairly clear the US was—and likely still is—in the midst of an inflationary boom. But how long will it last?
Economy
There Are Still Over 14 Million Americans On Some Form Of Government Dole
… we remind readers of the gaping chasm between those still claiming some form of pandemic-related unemployment benefit and the record number of job openings in America currently…
Initial jobless claims hovered at post-COVID-lockdown lows but were disappointing at 373k – well above the 200k-ish norms of pre-COVID
Source: Bloomberg
Notably, California and Virginia ‘estimated’ their jobless claims last week and Pennsylvania continues to swing wildly from week to week…
But, while the picture is improving overall, we should still remember that there are over 14 million Americans still on some of government dole…
Source: Bloomberg
We do note that 460k Americans dropped off the pandemic emergency aid rolls…
Finally, we remind readers of the gaping chasm between those still claiming some form of pandemic-related unemployment benefit and the record number of job openings in America currently…
Source: Bloomberg
Tick-tock on those benefits.
Economy
The Fed in a Box Part 2: They Cannot End Quantitative Easing
If inflation doesn’t slow in the coming months, the Fed may be forced to step in.
- If the Fed tapers QE, it may reveal waning appetite for long-term treasuries
- The Treasury may have used its cash balance reserve to anchor inflation expectations
- If inflation persists, the Fed may have to increase rather than decrease QE
Note: By definition, inflation is an expansion of the money supply. In this article, inflation will be used interchangeably with rising prices (usually as a result of money supply expansion)
Introduction
When the economy was shut down in March 2020, the government responded with massive fiscal and monetary support. The fiscal stimulus totaled $4T+ in relief packages. All of this spending was paid for with debt issued by the Treasury. The Treasury mostly issued short-term debt. With rates being held at zero by the Fed, and strong demand for short-term debt, it made sense to quickly raise cash using Treasury Bills as interest-free loans.
The Fed monetary policy was two fold, slash short-term rates to zero and inject $1.5 trillion into the long-term debt treasury market. The effect was to bring down interest rates across the entire yield curve. After the initial debt binge, QE went on auto-pilot, with the central bank buying about $80B a month in long-term debt (plus another $40B in Mortgage debt). Over the last year, the Treasury has continued to issue long-term debt, averaging more than the $80B the Fed has been buying. This has caused long-term rates to rise.
All of this fiscal and monetary stimulus is not without cost. Historically this type of activity almost always leads to higher inflation. The Fed may have recently indicated it wants higher inflation, but this is not true. This stance simply provides cover for them to not act in the face of rising prices. To actually fight inflation, the Fed would have to increase short-term rates above the rate of inflation. Part 1 of this series went into detail about how US short-term debt has doubled from $2.5T to $4.5T. This makes even small changes in short-term rates an immediate risk to the federal government, not to mention the much higher rates needed in a true inflation fight.
In theory, the Fed could leave short-term rates at 0% while ending QE and even shrinking its balance sheet. This would push long-term rates up to combat inflation. In the short/medium term the Treasury can mathematically handle higher long-term rates because it takes time for the higher rates to work their way through long-term debt. See the chart below that shows how the last tightening cycle worked its way through the average interest rate across debt instrument. Specifically, look at Notes compared to Bills. The average weighted interest rate on Bills moved very quickly where the rate on Notes barely had time to increase before rates dropped again.
Source – Treasurydirect.gov
Although the Treasury could handle rising long-term rates (even if the economy and mortgage market cannot), the Fed has another problem. Rising long-term rates send an important message: rising inflation expectations. While inflation is first and foremost a result of monetary policy, higher inflation expectations quickly exacerbate the problem. This is why the Fed has been messaging they are OK with higher inflation and also why they have been pounding the table that inflation is transitory. They need to keep inflation expectations low! If inflation expectations were to rise, especially at this critical juncture, it would be game over for the Fed, as they would have to raise short-term rates (devastating the Treasury and economy) in order to save the dollar and squash inflation.
With the economy opening up in March of this year, things were getting very precarious as inflation was rapidly rising along with surging long-term rates. Remember that rising long-term rates indicate rising inflation expectations. This could cause transitory inflation to be much less transitory.
In summer 2020, the Treasury issued enough debt to build up a significant cash reserve. In response to rising long-term rates in Q1 2021, it appears the Treasury strategically used its cash reserves to slow down the issuance of long-term debt. With total short-term debt outstanding already so high, the cash balance gave the Treasury ammunition to decrease debt issuance just as a $1.9T stimulus bill was passed and inflation was set to explode higher. This would have been perfect timing to support the Feds narrative that inflation is transitory to keep expectations from snowballing out of control.
If inflation doesn’t slow in the coming months, the Fed may be forced to step in. With the Treasury poised to issue more debt, it can no longer rely on its one-time use of excess cash reserves. This will put more pressure on the Fed to clamp down long-term rates by increasing rather than decreasing QE. Yes, the Fed may decide to print more money (leading to higher prices) to fight rising inflation expectations (higher long-term interest rates).
Understanding recent fiscal and monetary maneuvers
Last year, when the pandemic hit, the US Government started spending trillions of dollars. Massive spending plans were approved in the name of stimulus and COVID relief. Because the government does not have much money on hand, and taxes cannot quickly be raised, the Treasury issued trillions in debt. The markets can easily absorb short-term US Treasury Bills, so when the Fed abruptly cut rates to 0%, the Treasury responded by issuing short-term debt to the tune of $2.4T from March to June 2020. See figure 1 below.
Source – Treasurydirect.gov
In tandem, the Fed bought up trillions of dollars in US Debt, but the Fed was buying on the long end of the curve while the Treasury was issuing debt on the short end. This caused long-term rates to collapse. The Fed purchased enough long-term debt to absorb more than a year’s worth of long-term debt issuance. The chart below shows how the month over month and cumulative change in the Feds balance sheet compared to the Treasury Debt Issuance of long-term notes and bonds.
Source – Treasurydirect.gov
This action by the Fed had a massive impact on long-term rates. The chart below shows the difference between the two bars above, specifically the difference in Fed Buying and Treasury issuance of long-term debt for each individual month since Jan 2020. These values are not cumulative. The right Y-Axis shows the month-end interest rate of the 10-year bond. Looking at this chart shows something extremely clear: When the Fed buying exceeds debt issuance, rates are flat or falling; however when long-term debt issuance surpasses the Fed’s buying, rates rise.
Source – Treasurydirect.gov
The impact of the Fed can first be seen as interest rates fell from 1.5% to .6% during the initial buying spree. After the initial burst, the Fed put QE on auto-pilot, buying “only” $80B a month in long-term Treasuries. However, because the Treasury was issuing more than $80B a month as depicted by the positive bars starting in June 2020, interest rates started rising.
This trend started to accelerate in November of 2020, as long-term debt issuance was outpacing Fed Buying by around $200B. Things really started to escalate in the first quarter of 2021 as Treasury Debt issuance surpassed Fed buying by $286B in March right as interest rates were crossing above 1.7%.
Then, suddenly, long-term debt issuance started falling in April and was almost even with Fed buying in May. This consequently led to a fall in long-term rates, which are now hovering back around 1.5%. How did this happen just as Biden was pushing through a $1.9 stimulus package? Unlike 2020, when short-term debt issuance was used to plug the gap, Figure 1 above shows that short-term debt issuance was actually turning negative (blue bars).
What gives?
One look at the Treasury Cash Balance sheet in the chart below tells almost the entire story. This was first highlighted by a SchiffGold article published June 16. The chart below shows a massive surge in cash reserves by the treasury last year. Since March of this year, the cash balance has plummeted by over $1T.
Source – Treasurydirect.gov
Inflation Expectations
Why such a massive and sudden drawdown in the cash balance? In truth, there could be lots of reasons, but it does seem extremely sudden. One would think the Treasury, led by Yellen, would be very deliberate and thoughtful about how to use up $1T+ in dry powder. For the past 3 months, the Fed has been shouting from the rooftops that inflation is transitory. At the June FOMC press conference, Powell stood up and explained how long-term inflation expectations remain well-anchored. A proxy for inflation expectations is long-term interest rates.
Had interest rates continued to rise similar to the recent trajectory (climbing from .8% in Nov to 1.7% in March), this would have been a difficult narrative to push. The Fed needs inflation expectations to remain in check or else inflation will be anything but transitory. Thus, the perfect time for the Treasury to pause issuance of long-term debt would be April-June 2021 just as the economy is re-opening and the Fed is forecasting inflation to be at its worst before coming back down.
While this is speculation, it would be a very strategic move from both Powell and Yellen. Regardless of the intention though, the problem is that the Treasury has now spent its large cash balance. It could return to the short-term debt market, but the outstanding balance is still sitting above $4T (see part 1). It needs to be converting that short-term debt to long-term debt while long-term interest rates are still low and the Fed is still buying. But the Fed is simply not buying enough at $80B to convert all that debt!
If inflation persists beyond a few months, then interest rates are going to rise in a hurry as the market demands higher rates. Adding fuel to the fire will be the Treasury debt issuance overwhelming the $80B Fed buying as it did from November to March.
Then what?
Who is absorbing the long-term debt to keep interest rates from returning to the upward trajectory from Aug 2020 – Mar 2021?
International creditors have had little appetite for US Debt lately. The chart below shows the total outstanding debt held by foreign governments. In the past 15 months, while the Treasury has issued over $4T in new debt, the net amount bought by foreign governments is close to zero.
Source – https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
To zoom into the exact amount of change since the massive debt issuance, see the chart below. In total, foreign creditors have absorbed $120 billion of $6T+ or less than 2% of total issuance!
Source – https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
How are rates going to stay low if the Fed keeps the treasury buying cap at $80B? The Treasury will have to issue more than $80B in long-term debt to continue funding all the massive spending. If inflation expectations stay low, maybe the market will have enough firepower to ingest some of the new debt, but not all of it. With the Fed planning to begin tapering at the end of the year, someone will need to fill the $80 billion void. This does not even take into account the possibility of shrinking the Fed balance sheet, which should be considered impossible at this point.
The chart of the international holders above brings to mind the image of the Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. With 10-year interest rates hovering near 1.5%, one could argue there is strong demand for long-term Treasury debt. Unfortunately, foreign creditors have turned off their debt purchases. It took decades for them to accumulate ~$7T in Treasury debt. The Fed alone has accumulated more than half that (~$4.5T) over the last decade. The Fed is making the market seem strong, but as shown above, there might be nothing but air if they were to exit the market. With a thumb on the scale, no one is getting an accurate reading of true demand for US long-term debt.
Source – Warner Brothers
What about short-term debt markets?
As highlighted several times, the demand for short-term debt seems to remain very strong. This makes sense as T-Bills mature in less than a year, so these investments are perceived as nearly risk-free. In fact, it could be argued that the recent Treasury Bill issuance hiatus (Figure 1 – blue bars turning negative) could be causing stress in the Reverse Repo market. The chart below shows the current Reverse Repo market. Based on past quarter-end data, it’s very possible that Reverse Repos could exceed $1.5T by this coming Wednesday, June 30, before coming back down.
Source – https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRPONTSYD
Many articles have been written to explain this phenomenon, without providing exact clarity on what’s actually going on. The current understanding seems to be that the banks are awash with cash – so much cash, they are hitting the limits in terms of how much cash they can hold on balance overnight. This is cash that should be invested on behalf of money market funds. But with so much cash in the system, if it were to all be invested in short-term debt instruments, it could drive rates negative. To avoid negative rates, the Fed is lending banks assets on its balance sheet overnight in exchange for cash. It is critical to avoid negative rates to insure money market funds never experience a loss and result in breaking the buck.
Maybe this is a leap too far, but it seems another solution to the Fed reverse repurchase activity could be for the Treasury to issue more short-term debt. So, why has the Treasury been drawing down its cash balance and letting short-term debt mature when there seems to be strong demand in the market? The Treasury must recognize the risk of having too much debt in short-term instruments and is trying to lengthen the duration of its debt outstanding. Unfortunately, this abundance of cash in the repo market is in search of low-risk short-term debt so will not provide demand for long-term debt.
If this is the case, it has created quite the pickle for the Treasury. By issuing too much short-term debt, the Treasury is by default putting pressure on the Fed to not raise short-term interest rates. However, by issuing too much long-term debt, the Treasury is by default putting pressure on the Fed to maintain or even increase quantitative easing. To reiterate, this is why it is imperative the market believes inflation is transitory. The Treasury cannot stop issuing debt, which leaves the Fed unable to raise rates or taper QE without wreaking havoc in the bond market. Additionally, if the Fed has to fight inflation, then it’s not just the Treasury facing its Wiley Coyote moment, but the entire US economy.
Wrapping up
With the economy reopening, the Treasury deployed its cash balance at the most opportune time, unless of course inflation numbers continue to increase (which based on all the data, anecdotal evidence, and liquidity in the repo market seems like a strong possibility). Unfortunately for the Fed, the Treasury will have to begin re-issuing debt again. Will it lean towards short-term debt hoping the Fed keeps interest rates low, or long-term debt hoping the Fed will expand QE?
But Fed may be constrained either way because it has its own problem. Powell must be praying that inflation readings come in low AND job numbers disappoint. If both don’t occur, then tough questions will be asked to justify more stimulus. Yellen and Powell may be best buds, but simple coordination will not be enough. They will need magic and luck to keep the course steady heading into 2H 2021 and 2022.
If the Fed is lucky enough to get low inflation readings out of its rigged CPI, it may provide cover to begin tapering. Rising long-term rates won’t have the same compounding effect on inflation expectations in a “low” inflation environment. Unfortunately, long-term rates will not be tenable over the medium term as the government has to finance more and more debt. As the market this year has indicated, when issuance surpasses Fed buying, rates have gone up. So what happens to rates when the Fed leaves the market entirely? Presumably, they go up a lot. How high will the Fed let rates go before re-entering?
Just because something is inevitable (US Debt spiral) does not make it imminent; however, the next six months of data may shine a bright light on all the irresponsibility over the last 12 years if inflation proves not so transitory. Chances are, the only thing transitory will be “talking about talking about” tapering.
US Debt interactive charts and graphs can always be found on the Exploring Finance dashboard: https://exploringfinance.shinyapps.io/USDebt/
Join the community.
McMaken: The Fed’s Inflation Is Behind the Supply-Chain Mess
‘White People, You Are The Problem’: AT&T’s Internal ‘Racial Reeducation Program’ Leaked
Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery
New York facing streets without cops because of COVID vaccine mandate
The Establishment Is Hiding Mass Resistance To Vaccine Mandates With The “Striketober” Farce
