What the central bank giveth, only the central bank taketh away

When I first started working at a bank they told me to do liquidity forecasts for the money market desk. It was a relatively simple, yet educational exercise. I would look at a given month and put together a table of cash inflows to and outflows from the system. For example, when there would be a bond redemption or a coupon payment, it would mean an increase in liquidity. Conversely, if the finance ministry were to issue bonds, it would drain some money from the system. These were just daily moves in liquidity but they were absolutely key for the money market rates. Believe me, you don’t want to make a mistake when doing that…

But the thing is that this was just forecasting of changes in maturity of money in the system. After all, the mere fact that the finance ministry pays out a coupon doesn’t mean that there is more money in the system. The finance ministry cannot print money so they would simply move it from their account to the accounts of bond holders. On that day overnight rates would normally drop but the system would balance itself quite quickly.

Fast forward to more interesting (aka post-Lehman) times. The central banks around the world have been printing money at a spectacular pace and many agree (myself included) that quite a few of developed economies are in the liquidity trap. Naturally, the increase in central banks’ balance sheets has led to a significant build up in excess liquidity, which – as we know all too well – usually ends up back at the central bank’s deposit facility. This is beginning to raise concerns in both developed and emerging economies. Let me give you three examples from recent weeks in the European Union (in order of appearance):

  • Hungary’s central bank is planning to limit banks’ access to the two-week NBH bills (open market operations). More details can be found here. NBH Governor Matolcsy is quite angry that the central bank needs to pay banks for the liquidity they park in this facility. He is pointing in the direction of foreign banks (I explained the mechanism in the post entitled The Invisible Carry), but we can assume this will eventually be extended.
  • Last week, Mario Draghi said the central bank was open to negative rates on the deposit facility.
  • This week, Nationa Bank of Poland’s Governor Marek Belka said that banks had too easy lives because they were parking PLN140bn using weekly open market operations and earning the repo rate without any problems.

Many commentators and indeed the central bankers themselves have been mentioning that the idea behind those measures is to make the banks lend more. It is often claimed that the liquidity in the banking system should be helping the economy recover, instead of making banks money. But this is a very simplistic approach to how banks operate.

Let’s say that a banking system has excess liquidity of 1,000bn (never mind how it got to that state). This money is kept at the central bank in weekly open market operations and earns 0.05%. Let’s then assume that the central bank slashes this rate to -1%. What happens?

Some banks may conclude that using the central bank is not a very smart thing to do anymore and will go and buy, say, 3-month TBills. But who will they buy them from? Finance ministry? Ok, but then what will the finance ministry do with the money it gets from the bank? It will pay teachers’ salaries (among others, of course). What will the teachers do? They will keep it on their bank accounts, which means the money will have returned to the system and we’re back at square one, but with one happy finance minister who just sold some TBills.

Other banks will conclude that maybe they will take the money they’d normally put at the central bank, swap it into another currency, eg the USD and buy some USD-denominated assets with it. The price of USD in the swap market will increase (and the price of the local currency will decline) but ultimately the money won’t disappear and will return to the central bank. The process will, however, lower fx swap rates.

Perhaps there will be one bank whose CEO will feel patriotic and will want to lend money to “hard-working entrepreneurs up and down the country”. Why the decline of deposit rate by 105bp would persuade her to do that is beyond me, but we can make such an assumption. So if this bank lends some money for the new investment project, then the company in question will spend the money and the money will… come back to the system! At the end of the day, there will still be 1,000bn sitting with the central bank. Just at a different price.

I don’t question the fact that such a move will persuade banks to search for higher-yielding assets, ie loans but what I’m trying to explain is that the liquidity in the banking system is like a hot potato. The central bank controls how much money there is in the system (using various ways, eg printing money, changing the reserve requirement etc) and the market only needs to decide the price of this money. The only way that lowering rates to the negative territory impacts the amount of cash in the system is because the central bank will be returning 99% of the money placed in it back to banks. But then which of the major central banks could even contemplate shrinking its balance sheet at the time when the global economy remains exceptionally fragile?

What I think discussions like the ones taking place in Europe will lead to is significant re-pricing of interbank rates (BOR-OIS spreads could decline massively as banks start passing on the potato) and an increased demand for government or quasi-government bonds by banks’ assets and liabilities management desks (ALMs). Perhaps this is the point of the whole exercise. Then again, isn’t it yet another version of crowding out and actually forcing banks to play the carry in government bond markets? Hard to see how that should please politicians but perhaps this is the only path to rejuvenate the credit action. I really don’t like growth implications of such a process. Unless of course the ultimate beneficiaries, ie the governments, use the extra demand for their papers to increase public spending… But I will spare you, Dear Reader, yet another discussion about consequences of austerity. There’s this chap in the US who does that several times a day.

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “What the central bank giveth, only the central bank taketh away

  1. You say that FRA/Eonia spreads are likely to come lower should the ECB move to a negative depo rate because of a ‘hot potatoe’ effect, that is, banks would rather lend reserves to one another than keep them on deposit with the ECB. But surely if the ECB cuts the depo rate then eonia will also go negative thereby widening the spread?

    By the way, I really enjoy reading your blog.

    • Thanks for the comment. Quite possibly you are right. I’m assuming that the banks’ grab for assets would be a stronger factor than the simple adjustment of OIS but who’s to say it won’t be as you’re saying?

  2. Pingback: Eurozone crisis live: First Cyprus aid payment approved - Holtville Tribune

  3. I’m not an economics student, but genuinely curious so, please, don’t be harsh:

    In the USA, in the face of an inept congress and senate, does the FED have the power to create jobs?

    Or, more specifically, can they loan money to people (corporations) to create jobs?

    Instead of buying between 60-80 billion dollars a month worth of Mortgage Backed Securities, why can’t they buy 60-80 billion dollars a month of Bridges, Tunnels, Highways, and other Key Infrastructure.

    They can also spur on high-speed rail and insulate the entire north east while they are at it!

    It seems to me this would have a greater social benefit than pumping up Mortgage Backed Securities.

    I just don’t get it.

    I mean, if private investor’s thought the yield was good enough on MBS, they would buy it for themselves at the market clearing price.

    If the market doesn’t think (or trust) that MBS are a good product (investment vehicle) they will buy something else.

    Please explain a little to me.

    No rush to reply,

    • thanks for your question
      you are absolutely right – government investing and funding it via issuing bonds is probably the best way out of it all – krugman’s argument all along
      the problem though is that i can’t imagine how the republicans would agree to that!

  4. Pingback: No, Robert E. Hall, that’s not actually the only problem | Macro Exposure

  5. …..but then what will the finance ministry do with the money it gets from the bank? It will pay teachers’ salaries (among others, of course).

    The finance ministry does’nt need money from the bank to pay teachers. When they want to pay somebody they just give instruction to central bank to pay the check and issuing the bills is just monetary sterilization as well as when finance ministry get from us cash, this cash simply disappear

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s