Tag: Federal Reserve

Inflation Battle Goes On: Powell’s Reassuring Message from the Fed

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reiterated the central bank’s determination to bring down inflation in a speech today, even as he acknowledged potential economic risks from sustained high interest rates. His remarks underline the Fed’s unwavering focus on price stability despite emerging signs of an economic slowdown.

While noting welcome data showing inflation may be starting to cool, Powell stressed it was too early to determine a downward trend. He stated forcefully that inflation remains “too high”, requiring ongoing policy resolve from the Fed to return it to the 2% target.

Powell hinted the path to lower inflation likely entails a period of below-trend economic growth and softening labor market conditions. With jobless claims recently hitting a three-month low, the robust job market could exert persistent upward pressure on prices. Powell indicated weaker growth may be necessary to rebalance supply and demand and quell wage-driven inflation.

His remarks mirror other Fed officials who have suggested a growth sacrifice may be required to decisively curb inflation. The comments reflect Powell’s primary focus on price stability amid the worst outbreak of inflation in over 40 years. He admitted the path to lower inflation will likely prove bumpy and take time.

Powell stated the Fed will base policy moves on incoming data, risks, and the evolving outlook. But he stressed officials are united in their commitment to the inflation mandate. Additional evidence of strong economic growth or persistent labor market tightness could necessitate further rate hikes.

Markets widely expect the Fed to pause rate increases for now, after aggressively raising the federal funds rate this year from near zero to a current target range of 3.75%-4%. But Powell avoided any definitive signal on the future policy path. His remarks leave the door open to additional tightening if high inflation persists.

The speech underscores the Fed’s data-dependent approach while maintaining flexibility in either direction. Powell emphasized officials will proceed carefully in evaluating when to halt rate hikes and eventually ease monetary policy. The Fed faces heightened risks now of overtightening into a potential recession or undertightening if inflation remains stubbornly high.

After being accused of misreading rapidly rising inflation last year, Powell stressed the importance of policy consistency and avoiding premature pivots. A sustainable return to the 2% goal will require ongoing tight monetary policy for some time, even as economic headwinds strengthen.

Still, Powell acknowledged the uncertainties in the outlook given myriad economic crosscurrents. While rate hikes will continue slowing growth, easing supply chain strains and improving global trade could help counter those drags next year. And robust household savings could cushion consumer spending despite higher rates.

But Powell made clear the Fed will not declare victory prematurely given the persistence of inflation. Officials remain firmly committed to policy firming until convincing evidence demonstrates inflation moving down sustainably toward the target. Only then can the Fed safely conclude its aggressive tightening cycle.

For investors, Powell’s speech signals monetary policy will likely remain restrictive for some time, though the ultimate peak in rates remains uncertain. Markets should prepare for extended volatility as the Fed responds to evolving economic data. With risks tilted toward policy tightness, interest-sensitive assets could face ongoing pressure.

Investors Await Powell’s Speech for Cues on Future Rate Hikes

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to deliver a closely watched speech on Thursday before the Economic Club of New York that could offer critical guidance on the future path of monetary policy.

Markets are looking for clarity from Powell on how the Fed plans to balance improving inflation data against surging Treasury yields and risks of recession. His remarks come at a precarious time – inflation shows early signs of easing but remains well above the Fed’s 2% target, while rapidly rising interest rates threaten to slow economic growth.

Powell faces the tricky task of conveying that the Fed remains vigilant in combating inflation while avoiding cementing expectations for further aggressive rate hikes that could hammer markets.

“Powell has to present himself to investors as the dispassionate neutral leader and allow others to be more aggressive,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “They’re not going to declare victory, and that is one reason why Powell is going to continue to talk somewhat hawkish.”

Cues from within the Fed have been mixed recently. Several officials, including Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker, have advocated holding fire on rate hikes temporarily to evaluate incoming data. This “wait and see” approach comes after a torrent of large rate increases this year, with the Fed Funds rate now sitting at a 15-year high of 3.75%-4%.

But hawkish voices like New York Fed President John Williams insist the Fed must keep policy restrictive for some time to combat inflation. Markets hope Powell will provide definitive guidance on the prevailing consensus within the central bank.

Policymakers are navigating a complex environment. Inflation data has been gradually improving from 40-year highs earlier this year. But inflation expectations remain uncomfortably high, pointing to the need for further tightening.

“Powell has to present the recent inflation data as welcome news, but not evidence that the job is done,” said Ryan Sweet, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “The Fed still has more work to do.”

At the same time, the rapid rise in Treasury yields in recent weeks has already tightened financial conditions substantially. Another massive rate hike could be unnecessary overkill.

According to Krishna Guha of Evercore ISI, Powell will likely underscore “that the data has been coming in stronger than expected, but there has also been a big move in yields, which has tightened financial conditions, so no urgency for a policy response in November.”

Markets are currently pricing in a 65% chance that rates remain on hold at next month’s policy meeting. But there is still roughly a one-in-three chance of another 0.75 percentage point hike.

All eyes will be parsing Powell’s speech for any clues or direct guidance on the Fed’s next steps. While he is expected to avoid concrete commitments, his language choices will be dissected for shifts in tone or any hints at changes in thinking around the policy trajectory.

Powell’s remarks will also be scrutinized for takeaways on how long the Fed may need to keep rates elevated before ultimately cutting. Luke Tilley of Wilmington Trust expects Powell “to keep talking about staying vigilant” and the need for rates to remain higher for longer to ensure inflation comes down sustainably.

With growing recession fears on Main Street and Wall Street, Powell faces a defining moment to communicate a clear roadmap of where monetary policy is headed, while retaining flexibility. Walking this tightrope will be critical to shoring up the Fed’s credibility and avoiding unnecessary market turmoil.

All eyes are on the Fed chair tomorrow as investors and economists eagerly await guidance from the man himself holding the levers over the world’s most influential interest rate.

The FOMC Minutes Show Officials Divided on Need for More Rate Hikes

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The Federal Reserve released the full minutes from its pivotal September policy meeting on Wednesday, providing critical behind-the-scenes insight into how officials view the path ahead for monetary policy.

The minutes highlighted a growing divergence of opinions within the Fed over whether additional large interest rate hikes are advisable or if it’s time to ease off the brakes. This debate reflects the balancing act the central bank faces between taming still-high inflation and avoiding tipping the economy into recession.

No Agreement on Further Tightening

The September gathering concluded with the Fed voting to lift rates by 0.75 percentage point for the third straight meeting, taking the federal funds target range to 3-3.25%. This brought total rate increases to 300 basis points since March as the Fed plays catch up to curb demand and cool price pressures.

However, the minutes revealed central bankers were split regarding what comes next. They noted “many participants” judged another similar-sized hike would likely be appropriate at upcoming meetings. But “some participants” expressed reservations about further rate increases, instead preferring to monitor incoming data and exercise optionality.

Markets are currently pricing in an additional 75 basis point hike at the Fed’s December meeting, which would fulfill the desires of the hawkish camp. But nothing is guaranteed, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell emphasizing policy will be determined meeting-by-meeting based on the dataflow.

Concerns Over Slowing Growth, Jobs

According to the minutes, officials in favor of maintaining an aggressive policy stance cited inflation remaining well above the Fed’s 2% goal. The labor market also remains extremely tight, with 1.7 job openings for every unemployed person in August.

On the flip side, officials hesitant about more hikes mentioned that monetary policy already appears restrictive thanks to higher borrowing costs and diminished liquidity in markets. Some also voiced concerns over economic growth slowing more abruptly than anticipated along with rising joblessness.

The consumer price index rose 8.3% in August compared to a year ago, only slightly lower than July’s 40-year peak of 8.5%. However, the Fed pays close attention to the services and wage growth components which indicate whether inflation will be persistent.

Data Dependency is the Mantra

The minutes emphasized Fed officials have coalesced around being nimble and reacting to the data rather than sticking to a predefined rate hike plan. Members concurred they can “proceed carefully” and adjust policy moves depending on how inflation metrics evolve.

Markets and economists will closely monitor upcoming October and November inflation reports, including wage growth and inflation expectations, to determine if Fed policy is gaining traction. Moderating housing costs will be a key tell.

Officials also agreed rates should remain restrictive “for some time” until clear evidence emerges that inflation is on a sustainable path back to the 2% target. Markets are pricing in rate cuts in late 2023, but the Fed wants to avoid a premature policy reversal.

While Americans continue opening their wallets, officials observed many households now show signs of financial strain. Further Fed tightening could jeopardize growth and jobs, arguments made by dovish members.

All About Inflation

At the end of the day, the Fed’s policy decisions will come down to the inflation data. If price pressures continue slowly cooling, the case for further large hikes diminishes given the policy lags.

But if inflation remains sticky and elevated, particularly in the services sector or wage growth, hawks will maintain the pressure to keep raising rates aggressively. This uncertainty means volatility is likely in store for investors.

For now, the Fed is split between officials who want to maintain an aggressive tightening pace and those worried about going too far. With risks rising on both sides, Chairman Powell has his work cut out for him in charting the appropriate policy course.

Jobs Report Rockets Past Wall Street Estimates

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The September jobs report revealed the U.S. economy added 336,000 jobs last month, nearly double expectations. The data highlights the resilience of the labor market even as the Federal Reserve aggressively raises interest rates to cool demand.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had forecast 170,000 job additions for September. The actual gain of 336,000 jobs suggests the labor market remains strong despite broader economic headwinds.

The unemployment rate held steady at 3.8%, unchanged from August and still near historic lows. This shows employers continue hiring even amid rising recession concerns.

Wage growth moderated but still increased 0.3% month-over-month and 5.0% year-over-year. Slowing wage gains may reflect reduced leverage for workers as economic uncertainty increases.

The report reinforces the tight labor market conditions the Fed has been hoping to loosen with its restrictive policy. Rate hikes aim to reduce open jobs and slow wage growth to contain inflationary pressures.

Yet jobs growth keeps exceeding forecasts, defying expectations of a downshift. The Fed wants to see clear cooling before it eases up on rate hikes. This report suggests its work is far from done.

The September strength was broad-based across industries. Leisure and hospitality added 96,000 jobs, largely from bars and restaurants staffing back up. Government employment rose 73,000 while healthcare added 41,000 jobs.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via CNBC

Upward revisions to July and August payrolls also paint a robust picture. An additional 119,000 jobs were created in those months combined versus initial estimates.

Markets are now pricing in a reduced chance of another major Fed rate hike in November following the jobs data. However, resilient labor demand will keep pressure on the central bank to maintain its aggressive tightening campaign.

While the Fed has raised rates five times this year, the benchmark rate likely needs to go higher to materially impact hiring and wage trajectories. The latest jobs figures support this view.

Ongoing job market tightness suggests inflation could become entrenched at elevated levels without further policy action. Businesses continue competing for limited workers, fueling wage and price increases.

The strength also hints at economic momentum still left despite bearish recession calls. Job security remains solid for many Americans even as growth slows.

Of course, the labor market is not immune to broader strains. If consumer and business activity keep moderating, job cuts could still materialize faster than expected.

For now, the September report shows employers shaking off gloomier outlooks and still urgently working to add staff and retain workers. This resiliency poses a dilemma for the Fed as it charts the course of rate hikes ahead.

The unexpectedly strong September jobs data highlights the difficult balancing act the Fed faces curbing inflation without sparking undue economic damage. For policymakers, the report likely solidifies additional rate hikes are still needed for a soft landing.

Fed Keeping Rates Higher Despite Pausing Hikes For Now

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged on Wednesday but projected keeping them at historically high levels into 2024 and 2025 to ensure inflation continues falling from four-decade highs.

The Fed held its benchmark rate steady in a target range of 5.25-5.5% following four straight 0.75 percentage point hikes earlier this year. But officials forecast rates potentially peaking around 5.6% by year-end before only gradually declining to 5.1% in 2024 and 4.6% in 2025.

This extended timeframe for higher rates contrasts with prior projections for more significant cuts starting next year. The outlook underscores the Fed’s intent to keep monetary policy restrictive until inflation shows clearer and more persistent signs of cooling toward its 2% target.

“We still have some ways to go,” said Fed Chair Jerome Powell in a press conference, explaining why rates must remain elevated amid still-uncertain inflation risks. He noted the Fed has hiked rates to restrictive levels more rapidly than any period in modern history.

The Fed tweaked its economic forecasts slightly higher but remains cautious on additional tightening until more data arrives. The latest projections foresee economic growth slowing to 1.5% next year with unemployment ticking up to 4.1%.

Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, is expected to fall from 4.9% currently to 2.6% by late 2023. But officials emphasized inflation remains “elevated” and “unacceptably high” despite moderating from 40-year highs earlier this year.

Consumer prices rose 8.3% in August on an annual basis, down from the 9.1% peak in June but well above the Fed’s 2% comfort zone. Further cooling is needed before the Fed can declare victory in its battle against inflation.

The central bank is proceeding carefully, pausing rate hikes to assess the cumulative impact of its rapid tightening this year while weighing risks. Additional increases are likely but the Fed emphasized future moves are data-dependent.

“In coming months policy will depend on the incoming data and evolving outlook for the economy,” Powell said. “At some point it will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases” as the Fed approaches peak rates.

For now, the Fed appears poised to hold rates around current levels absent a dramatic deterioration in inflation. Keeping rates higher for longer indicates the Fed’s determination to avoid loosening prematurely before prices are fully under control.

Powell has reiterated the Fed is willing to overtighten to avoid mistakes of the 1970s and see inflation fully tamed. Officials continue weighing risks between high inflation and slower economic growth.

“Restoring price stability while achieving a relatively modest increase in unemployment and a soft landing will be challenging,” Powell conceded. “No one knows whether this process will lead to a recession.”

Nonetheless, the Fed chief expressed optimism that a severe downturn can still be avoided amid resilient household and business spending. The labor market also remains strong with unemployment at 3.7%.

But the housing market continues to soften under the weight of higher rates, a key channel through which Fed tightening slows the economy. And risks remain tilted to the downside until inflation demonstrably falls closer to target.

For markets, clarity that rates will stay elevated through 2024 reduces uncertainty. Stocks bounced around after the Fed’s announcement as investors processed the guidance. The path forward depends on incoming data, but the Fed appears determined to keep rates higher for longer.

High Gas Prices Return, Complicating Inflation Fight

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

Pain at the pump has made an unwelcome return, with gas prices rapidly rising across the United States. The national average recently climbed to $3.88 per gallon, while some states now face prices approaching or exceeding $6 per gallon.

In California, gas prices have spiked to $5.79 on average, up 31 cents in just the past week. It’s even worse in metro Los Angeles where prices hit $6.07, a 49 cent weekly jump. Besides California, drivers in 11 states now face average gas prices of $4 or more.

This resurgence complicates the Federal Reserve’s fight against high inflation. Oil prices are the key driver of retail gas costs. With oil climbing back to $90 per barrel, pushed up by supply cuts abroad, gas prices have followed.

West Texas Intermediate crude rose to $93.74 on Tuesday, its highest level in 10 months, before retreating below $91 on Wednesday. The international benchmark Brent crude hit highs above $96 per barrel. Goldman Sachs warned Brent could reach $107 if OPEC+ nations don’t unwind production cuts.

For consumers, higher gas prices add costs and sap purchasing power, especially for lower-income families. Drivers once again face pain filling up their tanks. Households paid an average of $445 a month on gas during the June peak when prices topped $5 a gallon. That figure dropped to $400 in September but is rising again.

Politically, high gas also causes headaches for the Biden administration. Midterm voters tend to blame whoever occupies the White House for pain at the pump, whether justified or not. President Biden has few tools to immediately lower prices set by global markets.

Take a look at other energy companies by taking a look at Noble Capital Markets Research Analyst Michael Heim’s coverage list.

However, economists say oil and gas prices must rise significantly further to seriously jeopardize the U.S. economy. Past recessions only followed massive oil price spikes of at least 100% within a year. Oil would need to double from current levels, to around $140 per barrel, to inevitably tip the economy into recession, according to analysis.

Nonetheless, the energy resurgence does present challenges for the Fed’s inflation fight. While core inflation has cooled lately, headline inflation has rebounded in part due to pricier gas. Consumer prices rose 0.1% in August, defying expectations of a drop, largely because of rising shelter and energy costs.

This complicates the Fed’s mission to cool inflation through interest rate hikes. Some economists believe the energy volatility will lead the Fed to pencil in an additional quarter-point rate hike this year to around 4.5%. However, a dramatic policy response is unlikely with oil still below $100 per barrel.

In fact, some argue the energy spike may even inadvertently help the Fed. By sapping consumer spending power, high gas prices could dampen demand and ease price pressures. If energy costs siphon purchases away from discretionary goods and services, it may allow inflation to fall without more aggressive Fed action.

Morgan Stanley analysis found past energy price shocks had a “small” impact on core inflation but took a “sizable bite out of” consumer spending. While bad for growth, this demand destruction could give the Fed space to cool inflation without triggering serious economic damage.

For now, energy volatility muddies the inflation outlook and complicates the Fed’s delicate task of engineering a soft landing. Gas prices swinging upward once again present both economic and political challenges. But unless oil spikes drastically higher, the energy complex likely won’t force the Fed’s hand. The central bank will keep rates elevated as long as underlying inflation remains stubbornly high.

U.S. National Debt Tops $33 Trillion

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The U.S. national debt surpassed $33 trillion for the first time ever this week, hitting $33.04 trillion according to the Treasury Department. This staggering sum exceeds the size of the entire U.S. economy and equals about $100,000 per citizen.

For investors, the ballooning national debt raises concerns about future tax hikes, inflation, and government spending cuts that could impact markets. While the debt level itself may seem abstract, its trajectory has real implications for portfolios.

Over 50% of the current national debt has accumulated since 2019. Massive pandemic stimulus programs, tax cuts, and a steep drop in tax revenues all blew up the deficit during Covid-19. Interest costs on the debt are also piling up.

Some level of deficit spending was needed to combat the economic crisis. But years of expanding deficits have brought total debt to the highest level since World War II as a share of GDP.

With debt now exceeding the size of the economy, there is greater risk of reduced economic output from crowd-out effects. High debt levels historically hamper GDP growth.

Economists worry that high debt will drive up borrowing costs for consumers and businesses as the government competes for limited capital. The Congressional Budget Office projects interest costs will soon become the largest government expenditure as rates rise.

Higher interest rates will consume more tax revenue just to pay interest, leaving less funding available for programs and services. Taxes may have to be raised to cover these costs.

Rising interest costs will also put more pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep rates low and monetize the debt through quantitative easing. This could further feed inflation.

If interest costs spiral, government debt could eventually reach unsustainable levels and require restructuring. But well before that, the debt overhang will influence policy and markets.

As debt concerns mount, investors may rotate to inflation hedges like gold and real estate. The likelihood of higher corporate and individual taxes could hit equity valuations and consumer spending.

But government spending cuts to social programs and defense would also ripple through the economy. Leaner budgets would provide fiscal headwinds reducing growth.

With debt limiting stimulus options, creative monetary policy would be needed in the next recession. More radical measures by the Fed could introduce volatility.

While the debt trajectory is troubling, a crisis is not imminent. Still, prudent investors should account for fiscal risks in their portfolio positioning and outlook. The ballooning national debt will shape policy and markets for years to come.

The Fed’s Tightrope Walk Between Inflation and Growth

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The Federal Reserve is stuck between a rock and a hard place as it aims to curb high inflation without inflicting too much damage on economic growth. This precarious balancing act has major implications for both average citizens struggling with rising prices and investors concerned about asset values.

For regular households, the current bout of high inflation straining budgets is public enemy number one. Prices are rising at 8.3% annually, squeezing wages that can’t keep pace. Everything from groceries to rent to healthcare is becoming less affordable. Meanwhile, rapid Fed rate hikes intended to tame inflation could go too far and tip the economy into recession, slowing the job market and risking higher unemployment.

However, new economic research suggests the Fed also needs to be cognizant of rate hikes’ impact on the supply side of the economy. Supply chain bottlenecks and constrained production have been key drivers of this inflationary episode. Aggressive Fed action that suddenly squelches demand could backfire by inhibiting business investment, innovation, and productivity growth necessary to expand supply capacity.

For example, sharply higher interest rates make financing more expensive, deterring business investment in new factories, equipment, and technologies. Tighter financial conditions also restrict lending to startups and venture capital for emerging technologies. All of this could restrict supply, keeping prices stubbornly high even in a weak economy.

This means the Fed has to walk a tightrope, moderating demand enough to curb inflation but not so much that supply takes a hit. The goal is to lower costs without forcing harsh rationing of demand through high unemployment. A delicate balance is required.

For investors, rapidly rising interest rates have already damaged asset prices, bringing an end to the long-running stock market boom. Higher rates make safe assets like bonds more appealing versus risky bets like stocks. And expectations for Fed hikes ahead impact share prices and other securities.

But stock markets could stabilize if the Fed manages to engineering the elusive “soft landing” – bringing down inflation while avoiding recession. The key is whether moderating demand while supporting supply expansion provides stable growth. However, uncertainty remains high on whether the Fed’s policies will thread this narrow needle.

Overall, the Fed’s inflation fight has immense stakes for Americans’ economic security and investors’ asset values. Walking the tightrope between high inflation and very slow growth won’t be easy. Aggressive action risks supply problems and recession, but moving too slowly could allow inflation to become entrenched. It’s a delicate dance with high stakes riding on success.

Do Regional Federal Reserve Branches Put Banks in Their Region at Risk?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

The Fed Is Losing Tens of Billions: How Are Individual Federal Reserve Banks Doing?

The Federal Reserve System as of the end of July 2023 has accumulated operating losses of $83 billion and, with proper, generally accepted accounting principles applied, its consolidated retained earnings are negative $76 billion, and its total capital negative $40 billion. But the System is made up of 12 individual Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). Each is a separate corporation with its own shareholders, board of directors, management and financial statements. The commercial banks that are the shareholders of the Fed actually own shares in the particular FRB of which they are a member, and receive dividends from that FRB. As the System in total puts up shockingly bad numbers, the financial situations of the individual FRBs are seldom, if ever, mentioned. In this article we explore how the individual FRBs are doing.

All 12 FRBs have net accumulated operating losses, but the individual FRB losses range from huge in New York and really big in Richmond and Chicago to almost breakeven in Atlanta. Seven FRBs have accumulated losses of more than $1 billion. The accumulated losses of each FRB as of July 26, 2023 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Accumulated Operating Losses of Individual Federal Reserve Banks

New York ($55.5 billion)

Richmond ($11.2 billion )

Chicago ( $6.6 billion )

San Francisco ( $2.6 billion )

Cleveland ( $2.5 billion )

Boston ( $1.6 billion )

Dallas ( $1.4 billion )

Philadelphia ($688 million)

Kansas City ($295 million )

Minneapolis ($151 million )

St. Louis ($109 million )

Atlanta ($ 13 million )

The FRBs are of very different sizes. The FRB of New York, for example, has total assets of about half of the entire Federal Reserve System. In other words, it is as big as the other 11 FRBs put together, by far first among equals. The smallest FRB, Minneapolis, has assets of less than 2% of New York. To adjust for the differences in size, Table 2 shows the accumulated losses as a percent of the total capital of each FRB, answering the question, “What percent of its capital has each FRB lost through July 2023?” There is wide variation among the FRBs. It can be seen that New York is also first, the booby prize, in this measure, while Chicago is a notable second, both having already lost more than three times their capital. Two additional FRBs have lost more than 100% of their capital, four others more than half their capital so far, and two nearly half. Two remain relatively untouched.

Table 2: Accumulated Losses as a Percent of Total Capital of Individual FRBs

New York 373%

Chicago 327%

Dallas 159%

Richmond 133%

Boston 87%

Kansas City 64%

Cleveland 56%

Minneapolis 56%

San Francisco 48%

Philadelphia 46%

St. Louis 11%

Atlanta 1%

Thanks to statutory formulas written by a Congress unable to imagine that the Federal Reserve could ever lose money, let alone lose massive amounts of money, the FRBs maintained only small amounts of retained earnings, only about 16% of their total capital. From the percentages in Table 2 compared to 16%, it may be readily observed that the losses have consumed far more than the retained earnings in all but two FRBs. The GAAP accounting principle to be applied is that operating losses are a subtraction from retained earnings. Unbelievably, the Federal Reserve claims that its losses are instead an intangible asset. But keeping books of the Federal Reserve properly, 10 of the FRBs now have negative retained earnings, so nothing left to pay out in dividends.

On orthodox principles, then, 10 of the 12 FRBs would not be paying dividends to their shareholders. But they continue to do so. Should they?

Much more striking than negative retained earnings is negative total capital. As stated above, properly accounted for, the Federal Reserve in the aggregate has negative capital of $40 billion as of July 2023. This capital deficit is growing at the rate of about $ 2 billion a week, or over $100 billion a year. The Fed urgently wants you to believe that its negative capital does not matter. Whether it does or what negative capital means to the credibility of a central bank can be debated, but the big negative number is there. It is unevenly divided among the individual FRBs, however.

With proper accounting, as is also apparent from Table 2, four of the FRBs already have negative total capital. Their negative capital in dollars shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Federal Reserve Banks with Negative Capital as of July 2023

New York ($40.7 billion)

Chicago ($ 4.6 billion )

Richmond ($ 2.8 billion )

Dallas ($514 million )

In these cases, we may even more pointedly ask: With negative capital, why are these banks paying dividends?

In six other FRBs, their already shrunken capital keeps on being depleted by continuing losses. At the current rate, they will have negative capital within a year, and in 2024 will face the same fundamental question.

What explains the notable differences among the various FRBs in the extent of their losses and the damage to their capital? The answer is the large difference in the advantage the various FRBs enjoy by issuing paper currency or dollar bills, formally called “Federal Reserve Notes.” Every dollar bill is issued by and is a liability of a particular FRB, and the FRBs differ widely in the proportion of their balance sheets funded by paper currency.

The zero-interest cost funding provided by Federal Reserve Notes reduces the need for interest-bearing funding. All FRBs are invested in billions of long-term fixed-rate bonds and mortgage securities yielding approximately 2%, while they all pay over 5% for their deposits and borrowed funds—a surefire formula for losing money. But they pay 5% on smaller amounts if they have more zero-cost paper money funding their bank. In general, more paper currency financing reduces an FRB’s operating loss, and a smaller proportion of Federal Reserve Notes in its balance sheet increases its loss. The wide range of Federal Reserve Notes as a percent of various FRBs’ total liabilities, a key factor in Atlanta’s small accumulated losses and New York’s huge ones, is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Federal Reserve Notes Outstanding as a Percent of Total Liabilities

Atlanta 64%

St. Louis 60%

Minneapolis 58%

Dallas 51%

Kansas City 50%

Boston 45%

Philadelphia 44%

San Francisco 39%

Cleveland 38%

Chicago 26%

Richmond 23%

New York 17%

The Federal Reserve System was originally conceived not as a unitary central bank, but as 12 regional reserve banks. It has evolved a long way toward being a unitary organization since then, but there are still 12 different banks, with different balance sheets, different shareholders, different losses, and different depletion or exhaustion of their capital. Should it make a difference to a member bank shareholder which particular FRB it owns stock in? The authors of the Federal Reserve Act thought so.

About the Author

Alex J. Pollock is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and is the co-author of Surprised Again! — The Covid Crisis and the New Market Bubble (2022). Previously he served as the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Financial Research in the U.S. Treasury Department (2019-2021), Distinguished Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute (2015-2019 and 2021), Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (2004-2015), and President and CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (1991-2004). He is the author of Finance and Philosophy—Why We’re Always Surprised (2018).

Federal Reserve Chairman Powell Reaffirms Commitment to Bring Inflation Down

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Federal Reserve (Flickr)

Ben and Jerry Discuss Interest Rates, Jobs and Inflation

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reiterated today that the Fed is committed to bringing inflation down to its 2% target. Speaking at the “Perspectives on Monetary Policy” panel at the Thomas Laubach Research Conference, Powell said that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates until inflation is under control. The current Fed Chair shared the stage with former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke; the two more or less agreed, with Bernanke seeming a bit less optimistic.

The Panel Discussion

Powell acknowledged that the Fed’s actions to raise interest rates will likely slow economic growth. However, he said that the Fed is confident that it can bring inflation down without causing a recession.

“We understand that high inflation imposes significant hardship, especially on those least able to afford the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation,” Powell said and then emphasized, “we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2% objective.”

Powell reassured that the Fed is closely monitoring the labor market. The event is attended by experts in the field of monetary policy, including economists, central bankers, and other policymakers. It provides an opportunity for experts to share their views on the current state of the economy and the challenges facing central banks. Powell told the attendees that the Fed is committed to keeping the labor market strong but that it will not hesitate to take further action if needed to bring inflation down.

“The labor market is very strong, and we want to see that continue,” Powell said. “But we will take the necessary steps to bring inflation down,” he cautioned.

Ben Bernanke, the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, also spoke at the conference warning that the Fed is facing a difficult challenge in trying to bring inflation down without causing a recession. Bernanke said that the Fed will need to be very careful.

“The Fed is in a difficult spot,” Bernanke said. “It needs to bring inflation down, but it also doesn’t want to cause a recession. It will need to be very careful in its actions.”

Bernanke said that the Federal Reserve is facing a “new normal” in terms of inflation. He said that the Fed will need to be more aggressive in its use of monetary policy to bring down the pace of price increases. The former Fed chair said, “The Fed is going to have to be more aggressive in its use of monetary policy than it has been in the past,” He cautioned. “It’s going to need to raise interest rates more than once this year.”

Bernanke explained to listeners, “the Fed is not trying to cause a recession. But it is willing to risk a recession if it is necessary to bring inflation down.”

The comments from Powell and Bernanke took away any question whether the Fed is committed to bringing inflation down. Most listeners came away from this feeling the Fed is likely to continue to raise interest rates and to shrink its balance sheet in an effort to cool the economy and bring inflation down. However, attendees were also assured the Fed is keenly aware of the risks of a recession and is trying to avoid it.

What Does This Mean for the Economy?

The comments from Ben Bernanke and Jerome Powell suggest that the Fed is prepared to take aggressive action to bring inflation down. This could lead to higher interest rates and slower economic growth. However, the Fed is acting in a way it hopes leads to bringing down inflation without negative growth or a recession.

The bond markets had been pricing in an easing late in the year. US Treasury rates rose as the panel discussion got underway; this suggests that the tenor of some of the comments were unexpected. It is still too early to say what the impact of the Fed’s actions will be on the economy. However, it is clear that the Fed is taking inflation seriously and is willing to take steps to bring it down.

The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)  meeting will be held on June 13-14, 2023. The FOMC is the policymaking body of the Federal Reserve System. It meets every six weeks to discuss and set monetary policy, including the target for Fed Funds.  

The next FOMC meeting is expected to be a critical one, as the committee will be making its decisions in the midst of sticky inflation, a troubled banking sector, and a slowing economy.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.c-span.org/video/?528202-1/federal-reserve-chair-participates-monetary-policy-conference

The Fed Pulled no Punches Criticizing Itself and SVB

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Alpha Photo (Flickr)

Silicon Valley Bank is Back in the News as the Fed Explains the Mess

Silicon Valley Bank’s management, the board of directors, and Federal Reserve supervisors all ignored banking basics. At least that is the determination of the Federal Reserve itself. The review and report of the situation, created by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, relieve fears that the broader U.S. banking system is fragile. But it does highlight other problems that may need to be addressed by those responsible for a sound U.S. banking system.

Silicon Valley Bank was considered the “go-to bank” for venture capital firms and technology start-ups. But it failed spectacularly in March which set off a crisis of confidence toward the banking industry. Federal regulators seized Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 after customers withdrew tens of billions of dollars in deposits in a matter of hours. The speed of withdrawals was attributed to high levels of communication through social media.

The opening paragraph of the introductory letter by the Federal Reserve in DC said:

“Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failed because of a textbook case of mismanagement by the bank. Its senior leadership failed to manage basic interest rate and liquidity risk. Its board of directors failed to oversee senior leadership and hold them accountable. And Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful action, as detailed in the report.”

The plain-spoken letter and more formal report was critical of all involved, including regulators who are supposed to be evaluating bank management and processes for adequacy.

The lengthy report has four key takeaways:

  • “Silicon Valley Bank’s board of directors and management failed to manage their risks.”

[Editor’s note] Banks present-value their assets (investments and loans) and their liabilities (deposits) then report valuations at regular Asset/Liabilty management meetings. When a depositor locks in a CD and rates rise, the value to the bank of that deposit rises as it is present valued to higher market rates. The same for loans, and the investment portfolio if it is designated marked-to-market. Proper interest rate risk management for banks is stress testing for risk and profitability if rates rise or fall.

  • “Supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity.”

[Editor’s note] Regulators don’t tell banks how to manage their business, but regulators are supposed to check that a suitable plan is in place, it was created by competent managers considering the bank’s complexities, and that it is being followed.

  • “When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough.”

  • “The board’s tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach.

[Editor’s note] SVB’s CEO lobbied for this roll back of Dodd Frank which set ratios and loosened the reigns on regulatory scrutiny of larger banks.

In its criticism of its own lack of oversight, the report stated “The Federal Reserve did not appreciate the seriousness of critical deficiencies in the firm’s governance, liquidity, and interest rate risk management. These judgments meant that Silicon Valley Bank remained well-rated, even as conditions deteriorated and significant risk to the firm’s safety and soundness emerged.”

The Fed also said, based on its report, it plans to reexamine how it regulates banks the size of SVB, which had more than $200 billion in assets when it failed.

The Fed’s release, which includes internal reports and Fed communications, is a rare look into how the central bank supervises individual banks as one of the nation’s bank regulators. Other regulators include the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Typically these processes are confidential and rarely seen by the public, but the Fed chose to release these reports to show how the bank was managed up to its failure.

It probably won’t be long before Silicon Valley Bank is used as a college case study in what not to do.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/svb-review-20230428.pdf

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20180706b.htm

Details of The New Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Issue Joint Statements on Silicon Valley Bank

In a joint statement released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, they announced actions they are now committed to taking to “protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in the banking system.” The actions are being taken to ensure that “the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.”

Specifically, the actions directly impact two banks, Silicon Valley Bank in California and Signature Bank in New York, but it was made clear that it could be extended to other institutions. The joint news release reads, “After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.

In a second release by the three agencies, details were uncovered as to how this was designed to not impact depositors, with losses being borne by stockholders and debtholders. The release reads as follows:

“The additional funding will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.

With approval of the Treasury Secretary, the Department of the Treasury will make available up to $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the BTFP. The Federal Reserve does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds.

After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary Yellen, after consultation with the President, approved actions to enable the FDIC to complete its resolutions of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in a manner that fully protects all depositors, both insured and uninsured. These actions will reduce stress across the financial system, support financial stability and minimize any impact on businesses, households, taxpayers, and the broader economy.

The Board is carefully monitoring developments in financial markets. The capital and liquidity positions of the U.S. banking system are strong and the U.S. financial system is resilient.”

Take Away

Confidence by depositors, investors, and all economic participants is important for those entrusted to keep the U.S. economy steady. The measures appear to strive for the markets to open on Monday with more calm than might otherwise have occurred.

While the sense of resolve of the steps explained in the two statements, both released at 6:15 ET Sunday evening is reminiscent of 2008, there is still no expectation that the problem is wider than a few institutions.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm

Three Regulators Provide Direction to Banks on Crypto

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: QuoteInspector.com (Flickr)

The Statement on Crypto Vulnerabilities by Regulators

A joint statement to banking organizations on “crypto-asset vulnerabilities” was just released by three bank regulatory agencies. Most banks in the U.S. fall under these three federal institutions overseeing them in a regulatory capacity. So when a statement regarding the health and stability of banks is made, it is often a joint statement from the three. At a minimum, statements include the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

About the Statement

Issued on February 23rd, the multiple agencies felt a need to highlight liquidity risks presented by some “sources of funding” from crypto-asset-related entities, and practices they should be using to manage the risks.

The regulators remind banks that they are neither prohibited nor discouraged from offering banking services to this class of customer, but if they do, much of the existing risk management principles should be applied.

Related Liquidity Risks

Highlighted in the statement by the three bank regulatory bodies are key liquidity risks associated with crypto asset participants and crypto-asset organizations involved in banking and what they should be aware of.

This includes some sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities that may pose heightened liquidity risks to those involved in banking due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows, including, for example:

  • Deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity that is for the benefit of thecrypto-asset-related entity’s customers. The stability of the deposits, according to the statement, may be driven by the behavior of the end customer or asset sector dynamics, and not solely by the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the banking organization’s direct counterparty. The concern is the stability of the deposits may be influenced by, for example, periods of stress, market volatility, and related vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, which may or may not be specific to the crypto-asset-related entity. Such deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid inflows as well as outflows when end customers react to crypto-asset-sector-related market events, media reports, and uncertainty. This uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-assetrelated entity.
  • Deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves. The stability of this type of  deposit may be linked to demand for stablecoins according to the agencies, along with the confidence of stablecoin holders in the coin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices. These deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.

More broadly, when a banking organization’s deposit funding base is concentrated in crypto-asset-related entities that are highly interconnected or share similar risk profiles, deposit fluctuations may also be correlated, and liquidity risk therefore may be further heightened, according to the statement.

Effective Risk Management Practices

In light of these hightened risks, agencies think it is critical for banks that use certain sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities, as described earlier, to actively monitor the liquidity risks inherent in these sources of funding and to establish and maintain effective risk management and controls commensurate with the level of liquidity risks from these funding sources. Effective practices for these banking organizations could include:

  • Understanding the direct and indirect drivers of the potential behavior of deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the extent to which those deposits are susceptible to unpredictible vulnerability.
  • Assessing potential concentration or interconnectedness across deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the associated liquidity risks.
  • Incorporating the liquidity risks or funding volatility associated with crypto-asset-related deposits into contingency funding planning, including liquidity stress testing and, as appropriate, other asset-liability governance and risk management processes.
  • Performing significant due diligence and monitoring of crypto-related-entities that establish deposit accounts, including assessing the representations made by those crypto-asset-related entities to their end customers about the accounts – if innaccurate they could lead to to unexpected or rapid outflows.

Additionally, banks and banking organizations are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  For FDIC insured institutions, this includes compliance with rules related to brokered deposits and Call Report filing requirements.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20230223a1.pdf