“THE LTRO DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. ALL THE MONEY WOUND UP AS DEPOSITS AT THE ECB” “QE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. ALL THE MONEY BECAME EXCESS RESERVES BACK AT THE FED.”
(Apologies in advance to all who have heard me give this one ten times before)

1. Central Banks, whenever they buy any asset (eg lend eg grow balance sheet) create new reserves.

2. Commercial banks and people do NOT have the capacity to destroy those reserves. Once the Fed or ECB wires the money or creates that asset line item on its spreadsheet, there is an equal and offsetting liability on its spreadsheet called reserves. This spreadsheet cannot be broken.

3. All that commercial banks can do is lending, which moves some of those reserves from ‘excess’ to ‘required’ but they are still there.

4. Commercial Banks make this lending decision based upon regulatory capital and profit motives, not based upon reserves. They have a ‘captive audience’ in their Central Banks, who MUST create the necessary reserves (a floored amount) to prevent interest rates from going to infinity.

5. When a Central Bank does a lot of Balance Sheet expansion in a short time, it’s going to wind up as deposits/excess NO MATTER WHAT. If the Fed does 1T of QE, Banks don’t suddenly ‘find’ the regulatory capital to make 10T of loans. And even if they did, there would be the SAME AMOUNT OF TOTAL RESERVES.

6. Bank lending to a 0% risk weighted sovereign actually does NOTHING to diminish excess reserves.

7. Simplified Illustration: ECB does a very large unsterilized LTRO. They take a lot of sov paper on balance sheet (temporarily), and they wire NEW FUNDS to thie member banks. Those member banks take some of the money and buy paper from the ITalian government. That government spends the money by wiring it to its pensioners. Those pensioners take it to buy food from the local grocer. The local grocer DEPOSITS IT IN HIS BANK. SOMEWHERE DOWN THE CHAIN the money winds up on deposit in some member bank, be the chain long or short. WHATEVER MONEY THE ECB CREATES WINDS UP ON DEPOSIT IN ITS MEMBER BANKS, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ‘USED’ TO BUY SOVEREIGN DEBT, ‘USED’ TO MAKE LOANS, OR NOT USED AT ALL.

8. Please. I never wish to read again that ‘Central Bank money went unused because it wound up as deposits.’ IT HAS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO. THE BANKING SYSTEM IS A CLOSED LOOP. With the possible exception of someone making a withdrawal, taking the paper, and making a bonfire (actually not feasible in the hundreds of billions anyway bec there are constraints)

9. And that is probably how Italy just managed to borrow at 1.64%
Good luck!

Central Banks ‘Printing Money Like Gangbusters’: Gross

By Margo D. Beller

Jan 11 (CNBC) — The world’s central banks are “printing money like gangbusters,” which could revive the threat of inflation , Pimco founder Bill Gross told CNBC Wednesday.

By putting “hundreds of billions” in currency in circulation, the central banks “can produce reflation—that’s why we’re seeing the pop in oil, gold” and other commodities, he said in a live interview.

At the same time, “there’s the potential for deflation if the private credit markets can’t produce some sort of confidence and solvency going forward,” Gross said. “So we’re at great risk here, not only in the U.S. but on a global basis.”

Gross has previously predicted a “paranormal” market in 2012 characterized by “credit and zero-bound interest rate risk” and fewer incentives for lenders to extend credit.

He said stock and bond investors must lower their expectations when it comes to returns, with 2 percent to 5 percent as good as they get this year.

He also told CNBC he expects the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates “exactly where it is at 25 basis points for the next three to four years.”

Gross’s Total Return Fund, the world’s largest bond fund, had over $10 billion in outflows in 2011, but Gross stressed the fund “started 2011 at $240 billion and ended it at $244 billion.”

He said he will run the Pimco Total Return Fund ETF , which starts March 1, the same way he runs the bond Total Return Fund, adding, “They’re twins.”

1. A full FICA suspension:

The suspension of FICA paid by employees restores spending which supports output and employment.
The suspension of FICA paid by business helps keep costs down which in a competitive environment lowers prices for consumers.

2. $150 billion one time distribution by the federal govt to the states on a per capita basis to get them over the hump.

3. An $8/hr federally funded transition job for anyone willing and able to work to assist in the transition from unemployment to private sector employment.

Call me an inflation hawk if you want. But when the fiscal drag is removed with the FICA suspension and funds for the states I see risk of what will be seen as ‘unwelcome inflation’ causing Congress to put on the brakes long before unemployment gets below 5% without the $8/hr transition job in place, even with the help of the FICA suspension in lowering costs for business.

It’s my take that in an expansion the ‘employed labor buffer stock’ created by the $8/hr job offer will prove a superior price anchor to the current practice of using the current unemployment based buffer stock as our price anchor.

The federal government caused this mess for allowing changing credit conditions to cause its resulting over taxation to unemploy a lot more people than the government wanted to employ. So now the corrective policy is to suspend the FICA taxes, give the states the one time assistance they need to get over the hump the federal government policy created, and provide the transition job to help get those people that federal policy is causing to be unemployed back into private sector employment in a more orderly, more ‘non inflationary’ manner.

I’ve noticed the criticism the $8/hr proposal- aka the ‘Job Guarantee’- has been getting in the blogosphere, and it continues to be the case that none of it seems logically consistent to me, as seen from an MMT perspective. It seems the critics haven’t fully grasped the ramifications of the recognition of the currency as a (simple) public monopoly as outlined in Full Employment AND Price Stability and the other mandatory readings.

So yes, we can simply restore aggregate demand with the FICA suspension and funds for the states, but if I were running things I’d include the $8 transition job to improve the odds of both higher levels of real output and lower ‘inflation pressures’.

Also, this is not to say that I don’t support the funding of public infrastructure (broadly defined) for public purpose. In fact, I see that as THE reason for government in the first place, and it should be determined and fully funded as needed. I call that the ‘right size’ government, and, in general, it’s not the place for cyclical adjustments.

4. An energy policy to help keep energy consumption down as we expand GDP, particularly with regard to crude oil products.

Here my presumption is there’s more to life than burning our way to prosperity, with ‘whoever burns the most fuel wins.’

Perhaps more important than what happens if these proposals are followed is what happens if they are not, which is more likely going to be the case.

First, given current credit conditions, world demand, and the 0 rate policy and QE, it looks to me like the current federal deficit isn’t going to be large enough to allow anything better than muddling through we’ve seen over the last few years.

Second, potential volatility is as high as it’s ever been. Europe could muddle through with the ECB doing what it takes at the last minute to prevent a collapse, or doing what it takes proactively, or it could miss a beat and let it all unravel. Oil prices could double near term if Iran cuts production faster than the Saudis can replace it, or prices could collapse in time as production comes online from Iraq, the US, and other places forcing the Saudis to cut to levels where they can’t cut any more, and lose control of prices on the downside.

In other words, the risk of disruption and the range of outcomes remains elevated.

That doesn’t make sense to me. I see the 20 billion euro/wk bond purchases as possibly being enough to stabilize things, but not this.

Here’s my take:

So even if a bank officer now wants to buy, say, Italian debt out to 3 years because he can get ECB funding for that term, he probably has to go to an investment committee, so it is unlikely to happen overnight.

And the investment committees go something like this.

Investment officer:

‘now that we can get 3 year term funding from the ECB, i recommend we add to our italian debt position and make a 3% spread, which is a 30% return on equity’

committee responses:

‘why does the availability of term funding alter our current policy of reducing holdings to reduce credit risk?
what are the regulatory limits?
will the regulators allow us to own more?
what about the risk of downgrade which could force a sale?
what about repo haircuts if prices fall?
what if it’s decided Italy is unsustainable and the euro ministers vote on private sector haircuts?
how will taking on this risk affect our ability to raise capital?’

etc.

While banks may indeed buy more euro member nation debt due to the availability of the new term funding, I don’t think that new funding is enough to cause them to make that decision.

I do think the term funding will be used by banks with problems obtaining term funding to lock in the term cost of funds.

No big deal, apart from the fact the Fed shouldn’t be allowed to lend on an unsecured basis like this without explicit approval of congress.

Lending unsecured on an unlimited basis has the potential to be highly inflationary.

With the currency a public monopoly, the price level is necessarily a function of prices paid at the point of govt spending and or collateral demanded when govt lends.

Allowing unlimited unsecured lending has the potential to vaporize the currency. And while in this case that kind of abuse isn’t likely, the potential is there.

No chance for anything constructive to come out of any of this.

And these masters of their money machines don’t even know how to inflate, as they all desperately try to inflate with their versions of quantitative easing, which, functionally, is just another demand draining tax.

*DJ Merkel, Obama Discussed How To Boost EFSF Firepower Without ECB
*DJ Obama To Merkel: We Are Totally Invested In Your Success – Source
*DJ Geithner, Schaeuble May Meet To Discuss IMF Role In Euro Crisis -Source

Posen Says G7 Central Banks Should Do More QE, Reuters Reports

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) — Bank of England policy maker Adam Posen said central banks in advanced economies should undertake more quantitative easing to aid the global recovery and make it easier for governments to fix their fiscal problems, Reuters reported.

“Additional monetary stimulus is the last line of defence for the advanced economies today,” he said, according to Reuters. Previous asset purchases by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve had a “positive significant impact.”

Posen also said advanced economies are not facing inflation dangers, Reuters reported, citing an article he wrote for the news agency.

CNBC: Central Banks Cannot Go Bust – But Can Cause Trouble

As previously discussed, since the S&P downgrade, the talk of the US becoming the next Greece has gone conspicuously quiet.

And, as suggested may happen, the anti deficit talk is shifting to inflation.

And that’s a much tougher sell in Congress. Especially with no forecast showing any inflation risk, including tips, and a Fed still fighting deflation.

*DJ Fed’s Plosser:We Will Continue To Support Dollar Funding Issues -CNBC

This means unlimited, unsecured, Fed $US loans to foreign central banks.

Hope they don’t game us this time…

He could just as easily deliver this one from the steps of the Fed in DC.
Congress should demand a statement of public purpose before endorsing any travel by its agents.

Next is what I expect from the speech.
The short answer is not much.

I don’t see more QE as the purpose of QE is to bring long rates down, and they are already down substantially. And the Fed now has sufficient evidence to confirm that long rates are mainly a function of expectations of future FOMC votes on rate settings.

To that point, when the Fed announced QE, and market participants believed it would spur growth, and therefore FOMC rate hikes somewhere down the road, long rates worked their way higher. And when the Fed ended QE, and market participants believed the economy would be slower to recover, long rates worked their way lower. Not to mention China hates QE and it still looks to me there’s an understanding in place where China allocates reserves to $US as long as the Fed doesn’t do any QE.

The Fed could cut it’s target Fed funds rate, the cost of funds for the banking system, down to 0 and lower that cost of funds by a few basis points. But those few basis points can hardly be expected to have much effect on anything.

It’s not the Fed has run out of bullets, it’s that the Fed has never had any bullets of any consequence.
And with the few it’s fired, it hasn’t realized the odds are the gun has been pointed backwards.
For example, it still looks to me lower rates, if anything, reduce aggregate demand via the interest income channels.

And QE isn’t much other than a tax on the economy, that also removes interest income.

So look for a forecast of modest GDP growth with downside risks, core inflation remaining reasonably firm even as unemployment remains far too high, all of which support continued Fed ‘accommodation’ at current levels.