Tag: Federal Reserve

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

Savings, Spending, and The Fed’s Challenge

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

Consumer Spending, While Draining Bank Accounts, Could Prolong Fed Tightening

Economics is a social science, and as such, it’s based largely on human behavior, with mathematical models then used to assess decisions and predict outcomes. The U.S. government published consumer savings rates during the first week of October. The results are in line with what economists would expect when the masses’ ability to live the same lifestyle as before is challenged by either high inflation, fewer jobs, or both. There is a delayed effect on consumers’ behavior in the face of higher prices, this is impacting debt levels and savings rates. Also, the upper echelons of earners are not as inclined to cut back, which could make the Fed’s job trickier.

One recognized principle of economics that has proven true throughout history is related to adding stimulus and taking stimulus away and changes in spending. When more money is put in the hands of the citizenry, whether by tax decreases, or direct stimulus checks, that money will be put to work (spent), fairly quickly. Especially by those whose lives would most be impacted, those with stricter budgets. When discretionary income decreases or prices rise, consumers don’t react as quickly. We can think of the reasons why in this way; one is that fixed costs can’t change as quickly if income goes down as they can if the ability to spend increases. The other reason is that we tend to adjust on the downside more slowly while still doing many things that we can not as easily afford to do.

Put another way, we accelerate spending quickly when money is more available than we brake when it becomes less available; in fact, households tend to take their foot off the accelerator, even if it keeps them spending at a pace that puts their household finances in jeopardy.

The Post-Covid Economy is Confounding

At the turn of the year, consumers were thought to have built up about $2.4 trillion of excess savings during the pandemic. Many economists argued the economy would be able to avoid a recession, even as the Fed aggressively raised interest rates. Many of these economists, joined by business owners and investors, are changing their odds of a soft landing; many are still expecting a quick rebound as consumers are believed to have exited the pandemic in strong financial shape.

New data about U.S. consumer savings, however, and a look at consumer finances suggest that they may be overestimating the long-term resilience of consumers.

Last week the FDIC shed some light on savings rates, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provided information on Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE).

Downward revisions to the savings rate indicated that households had used a much bigger proportion of pandemic savings than seen in previous data, and the starting point is now believed to have been smaller.

According to previous data, through July, households had spent about $270 billion, or 11% of peak excess savings of $2.4 trillion. The updated data show that the peak savings stock was $2.1 trillion. Also, about $630 billion, or 31%, has already been spent.

The  $1.4 trillion that is in savings is still no small amount of money. But, Nancy Lazar, chief global economist at Piper Sandler, told Barron’s that it’s not enough to prevent credit-card borrowing from ballooning and consumer delinquencies from climbing. Credit-card loans are now 6% above their pre-pandemic high. With rates climbing, 60% of revolving debt is extending out and being carried for one year or longer.

“Delinquency risk is rising, especially for low-end consumers who have exhausted their excess savings,” Lazar said.

Lazar told the journal that she calculates the composite 30-day delinquency rate across big financial institutions,  like American Express (AXP), and JPMorgan Chase (JPM), to have risen to 0.82% at the end of August from 0.78% a year earlier. More evidence comes from data from Kroll Bond Rating Agency that showed subprime auto-loan delinquencies are climbing higher, and even prime auto-loan delinquencies are moving up. And Affirm Holdings (ticker: AFRM), which is a buy-now and pay-later company, reported a 290% year-over-year increase in its provision for credit losses.

What Fed Governors Want

Is this “bad news” actually “good news” for stocks and bonds? If consumers have lower means than thought when the Fed began its tightening, this could give hope to those investors that are looking for the Fed to pivot back to an easier policy stance. But economics seldom plays out with just one or two inputs.

Another piece of information economists look at is the Labor Department’s Consumer Expenditure Survey data. Overall, 60% of consumption in the U.S. are from the top 40% of income earners. The lowest quintile, the lowest 20% of earners, those with less discretionary income, make up only 9% of consumption in the U.S.

So the Fed’s predicament has them needing to squelch the relatively high level of consumption of the top 40% that can still pay for the same lifestyle without reducing consumption, and at the same time not overly disrupt those that will feel the impact the most, the lowest 20% of earners in the country.

Take Away

It seems that in the broadest sense, the Fed has impacted consumption in the group that will impact consumption least. Those that would impact the pace of the economy and inflation most are not yet putting their wallets away.   This increases the degree of difficulty the Fed faces when working to bring inflation down to the 2% target.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.bea.gov/

https://www.bls.gov/cex/

https://www.kbra.com/sectors/public-finance/issuers

https://www.barrons.com/articles/consumer-savings-fed-problem-51665185301?mod=hp_LEAD_1

Do Low Mortgage Rate Homeowners Feel Handcuffed?

Posted on by aweinsoff@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Julie Weatherbee (Flickr)

Homeowners With Low Rates May Keep Inventories Low and Prices Stable

For many, the largest single asset they own is their home. While many investors are concerned about what rising interest rates may mean for investments in the stock market, homeowners are keenly aware that rates can directly impact home prices as most borrow to buy. The amount they can borrow is directly related to their cash flow, so the purchase price they can afford rises and falls with mortgage rates. This impacts demand and offer prices. But what does it do for the supply side of the pricing mechanism?

Rate Increases and Homes on the Market

Mortgage rates over the past year have risen from the low 3% range to the low 6% range for traditional 30-year loans. Typically the period in the rate cycle when mortgages begin to rise corresponds to a Fed tightening cycle, as it has in 2022. While rates were lower, buyers were able to afford “more house” and allowed sellers to push up asking prices – or in some cases, buyers would have had a bidding war driving up a home’s price.

As rates increase and it then costs borrowers more each month for the same price, buyers lessen. Home prices initially don’t decline as quickly as sellers would like as home sellers are stickier on the way down than they are on the way up. As with any investment, until you book your profit/loss, it’s just paper gains/losses. And homeowners don’t like to think of themselves as having “lost” thousands because their house once would have fetched more. So home buyers sit and wait, which in the past has caused inventories to increase. Eventually, there is capitulation among homeowners, and many houses hit the market with lower prices attached to them.

This has not happened yet during this rate cycle, and there is an underlying reason that may prevent it from happening. Existing homes are not entering the market as expected.

Homes for Sale are Scarce

The Wall Street Journal published an investigative piece on the real estate market and how Homeowners with low mortgage rates are stubbornly refusing to sell their homes because it would mean they’d have to borrow at much higher rates for wherever they may move. 

The Journal reported that housing inventories had risen somewhat from record lows earlier in 2022. But this is primarily because they aren’t selling as quickly. The number of newly listed homes from mid-August to mid-September fell 19% from the same weeks last year. This suggests that those that may have sold to move for any reason are staying put.

The explanation for this unexpected phenomenon is that most that have purchased or refinanced their homes in the past few years have historically low mortgage rates. Imagine having 2.75% locked in for 30 years and knowing that if you purchase the home in the next town with the extra bedroom, your rate will be 6.25%. Potential sellers are opting to make do.

Homes will always enter the market regardless of dynamics. People die, change jobs, get divorced, the kids move out, etc. But, if those who have the option not to move decide to stay in larger percentages than in the past, it could keep the inventory of homes for sale below normal levels. The low supply could keep home prices elevated.

Another option someone who would like to move has is to rent. Rents have been quite high; this would serve to reduce the upward pressure on tenants. It would also keep homes from entering the market, allowing them to retain values better than might be expected with higher mortgage rates.

The scarcity of homes on the market is one of the primary reasons home prices have retained their high levels, despite seven straight months of declining sales in a period when interest rates have roughly doubled since December.

Handcuffed by Low Rates

There is a term used on Wall Street for employees that feel they can’t leave their company because they have vesting interests worth too much. For example, my friend Katherine was granted stock options from her company, the ability to exercise the options vested over a few years. At any point, if she left to take another position, or as she told me she wanted to do, raise children, she would have been leaving a huge sum of future stock or cash behind. Homeowners with mortgages near 3% when rates are near 6% have found their situation similarly handcuffs them and drives greed-based behavior.

Today Millions of Americans are locked in historically low borrowing rates. As of July 31, nearly nine of every ten first-lien mortgages had an interest rate below 5%, and more than two-thirds had a rate below 4%, according to mortgage-data firm Black Knight Inc. About 83% of those mortgages are 30-year fixed rates.

Can it Last?

Homeowners looking for more space are now more likely to add on than they had been before. For those looking to scale down, they may find that it isn’t worth it. In an analysis of four major metro areas—Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington—Redfin found that homeowners with mortgage rates below 3.5% were less likely to list their homes for sale during August compared with homeowners with higher rates.

It is difficult to predict any market, and there is very little history to look back on when rates have been increased this quickly. Sam Khater, the chief economist for Freddie Mac, told the Wall Street Journal an analysis he did in 2016 of past periods of rising rates showed a decline in sales in which a buyers’ prior mortgage rate was more than 2% below their new mortgage rates. But there was no change if the difference between the rates was less than two percentage points. We are likely to retain more than a 2% margin for some time based on how low homeowners’ mortgages now are. Perhaps until many of the loans are paid off.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-years-of-low-mortgage-rates-home-sellers-are-scarce-11663810759?mod=hp_lead_pos3

https://www.blackknightinc.com/data-reports/?

The Markets Still Don’t Understand How the Current Tightening Cycle is Different

Posted on by cpatches
Source: Federal Reserve (Flickr)

The Hows and Whys of a Tightening Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve (the Fed) will be holding a two-day Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting next week that ends on September 21. After the FOMC meeting, it is the current practice for the Fed to announce what the target Fed Funds range will be. That is, make the public aware of what overnight bank loan rate the Federal Reserve will work to maintain through open market operations.

Open market operations is the Federal Reserve buying and selling securities on the open market. The purchases are restricted to debt or debt-backed securities so that interest rates are impacted. It’s through controlling interest rates that the Fed works to maintain a sound banking system, keep inflation under control, and help maximize employment. Purchasing securities through its account puts money into the economy, which lowers rates and helps stimulate economic activity. Selling securities takes cash out of circulation. This tightens money’s availability and can also be accomplished by letting the financial instrument mature and then not replacing them with an equal purchase.

Quantitative Easing

If the Federal Reserve hadn’t put money into the economy, they’d have nothing to sell or allow to mature (roll-off). With this in mind, the natural position of the Federal Reserve Bank is stimulative.

Currently, the Fed owns about a third of the U.S.Treasury and mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) that have been issued and are still outstanding. Much of these holdings are a result of its emergency asset-buying to prop up the U.S. economy during the Covid-19 efforts.

Two years of quantitative easing (QE) doubled the central bank’s holdings to $9 trillion. This amount approximates 40% of all the goods and services produced in the U.S. in a year (GDP). By putting so much money in the economy, the cost of the money went down (interest rates), and the excess money, without much of an increase in how many stocks, bonds, or houses there are, made it easier for people to bid prices up for investible assets. For non-investments, the combination of easy money while lockdowns slowed production became a recipe for inflation.

Inflation

Inflation is now a concern for the average household. The Fed, which is supposed to keep inflation slow and steady, needs to act, so they are changing the current mix. It is making these changes by taking out a key inflation ingredient, easy money. This same easy money has been a contributor to the ever-increasing market prices for stocks, bonds, and real estate.

The overnight lending rate the Fed is likely to alter next week is the policy that will create headlines. These headlines may cause kneejerk market reactions that are often short-lived. It is the extra trillions being methodically removed from the economy that will have a longer-term impact on markets. These don’t have much impact on overnight rates, their maturities average much longer, so they impact longer rates, and of course spendable and investible cash in circulation.

Quantitative Tightening

The central bank has only just started to shrink its holdings by letting no more than $30 billion of Treasuries and $17.5 billion of MBS, roll off (cash removed from circulation). They did this in July and again in August. The Fed then has plans to double the amount rolling off this month (most Treasuries mature on the 15th  and month-end).

This pace is more aggressive than last time the Fed experimented with shrinking its balance sheet.

Will this lower the value of stocks, crash the economy, and make our homes worth the same as 2019? A lot depends on market expectations, which the Fed also helps control. If the markets, which knows the money that was quickly put in over two years, is now coming back out at a measured pace, and trusts the Fed to not hit the brake pedal too hard, the means exist to succeed without being overly disruptive. If instead the forward-looking stock market believes it sees disaster, an outcome that feels like a disaster increases in likelihood. For bonds, if the Fed does it correctly, rates will rise, which makes bonds cheaper. You’d rather not hold a bond that has gotten cheaper for the same reason that you don’t want to hold a stock that has gotten cheaper. However, buying a cheaper bond means you earn a higher interest rate. This is attractive to conservative investors but also serves as an improved alternative for those deciding to invest in stocks or bonds.

Houses are regional, don’t trade on an exchange and unlike securities, are each unique. They are often purchased with a long-term mortgage. Higher interest rates increase payment costs on the same amount of principal. In order to keep those payments affordable, home purchasers may demand a lower price, thereby causing real estate values to decline.

Take Away

The Fed has told us to expect tightening. They were honest when they promised to ease more than two years ago; there is no reason not to plan for higher rates and tighter money. The overnight rate increases get most of the attention. Further, out on the yield curve, the way quantitative tightening plays out depends on trust in the Fed and a lot of currently unknowns.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.federalreserve.gov/