Live data from Hacker News

The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

federalreserve.gov

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#11
Yikes, this is kind of scary. This could magnify the losses dramatically as lenders start to implode due to the cascade of defaults. If anything, they should increase the reserve requirements to prevent instability and encourage a flight from risky assets. Yes, this will make the stocks go down now, but it would probably result in fewer people getting laid off and going broke in the future.

I'd rather see highly leveraged companies go under quickly, rather than postponing it. A small bang now is less bad than a massive explosion later.

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#12

For net transaction accounts, i.e. “demand deposits, automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts, NOW accounts, share draft accounts, telephone or preauthorized transfer accounts, ineligible bankers acceptances, and obligations issued by affiliates maturing in seven days or less”. This isn’t a wholesale elimination of reserve requirements.

Perhaps you can explain why reducing all reserve requirements to 0% isn't a "wholesale elimination of reserve requirements".

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#13
I am no economist. What is being solved here? Allowing loans? Who will take out loans in the economy as it is?

I'd think a reserve at the banks is a good protection of solvency, and should be increased instead of decreased. Is my layman interpretation completely wrong? It feels like they ran out of bullets and have thrown the gun.

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#14
post #7

With the caveat that I’m by no means an economist... The table at the bottom puts this in context: reserve requirements, which have never been reduced by more than $2 billion across the economy in any year prior, are suddenly reduced by $200 billion - the entire regulatory program seems to have been unwound. Presumably this will give late banks desperately needed liquidity and ability to lend, but it also increases s…

If I understand it right this impacts the reserve kept for loans. It keeps banks from calling in loans for all sorts of businesses - particularly those that are owned by your neighbors and employ that vast majority of workers.

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#16

There's a point where: 1)traditional policy tools are ineffective because as rates get to zero, cutting them doesn't really provide any kind of incentive any more 2)interventions get more and more extreme and reach the point where they actually can increase panic rather than reduce it It's pretty clear we're well past #1 and could be at #2. The problem that policy-makers are facing here is the real economic impact of…

[deleted]

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#17

I am no economist. What is being solved here? Allowing loans? Who will take out loans in the economy as it is? I'd think a reserve at the banks is a good protection of solvency, and should be increased instead of decreased. Is my layman interpretation completely wrong? It feels like they ran out of bullets and have thrown the gun.

Typically, For every dollar a bank "keeps" in your bank account, they are allowed to loan out some fraction of the dollar. Let's say that this is usually 90 cents. The amount of cash your bank actually has on-hand is 10 cents. This process is known as fractional reserve banking. Now, with 0 reserve requirement, the bank can lend out the whole dollar.

Fractional reserve banking has produced a tremendous amount of wealth for the world over recent centuries. It encourages assets to be used in a productive manner rather than hoarded, which is essentially wasteful.

Typically, the loans get paid off to the bank over time, and the bank originates new loans to continue to make a profit. Currently, there are two systemic risks:

1. If borrowers begin to default, the bank still must cover its expenses. Under stressful circumstances, they would normally not be allowed to draw down their reserve to meet their expenses. This change allows this. Once the economy recovers, the reserve requirements will be reimposed.

2. It encourages banks to continue issuing new credit to borrowers. This keeps economic activity flowing and prevents a situation where borrowers have nowhere to turn to find money to keep their business afloat until profitable times return.

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#18
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So — checking accounts for businesses and consumers...? This does not sound great. Can somebody clarify as to how this is a sensible move at all / what the intention is?

They are trying to keep banks liquid to avoid a panic and closure. People are already starting to pull cash. This is a 9/11 like event, except the impacts are nationwide, not just in the NY Metro area. Companies and people are just going to stop paying bills. I'd guess you're looking at 2-4 million people out of work in the next week. The only saving grace is that this season is a low business period for retail and o…

[deleted]

Re: The Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26

#20

Yikes, this is kind of scary. This could magnify the losses dramatically as lenders start to implode due to the cascade of defaults. If anything, they should increase the reserve requirements to prevent instability and encourage a flight from risky assets. Yes, this will make the stocks go down now, but it would probably result in fewer people getting laid off and going broke in the future. I'd rather see highly leve…

It is bold of you to assume that there are any non-highly leveraged companies, or that their going under would not already cause a cascade of defaults.
Post reply on HN