Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interest income the Fed earns now, is from assets which were created in the past at lower interest rates, where what it's paying out to banks is in current higher interest rates. While this may seem like it could essentially result in QE, the Fed covers the difference via what's considered a deferred asset, which is something that goes away when the income balance changes in the future. It's kind of like paying a…
Thanks. I've heard of the deferred asset, kind of an IOU to itself. But that only changes, like you said, when the income balance changes. Similarly, we could say that QE is just deferred until the purchased assets are sold again in the future?
What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
141–150 of 151 posts
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#142I was hoping that the OP would address a related idea that I find rather weird: it’s sometimes said that “this excess liquidity has to go somewhere” and that “the excess liquidity has gone into [housing/stocks/commodities/other asset class]”. But I don’t get this: It might seem plausible that if stock prices go up they absorb liquidity from the system. But (ignoring new stock issues / newly build houses) in every tra…
Next, excess liquidity can disappear by market participants simply refusing to do trade (ie a drop in demand). For example, if I have a house, which many people would be willing to trade for me today, tomorrow they could all change their minds and wouldn't even trade me a spoonful of dirt for it. In which case, the liquidity of my house (easiness to trade it), dried up by simply a change in market demand.
Now here's the best part, while every transaction has a buyer and seller, every transaction has two supplies and two demands. For example, person A may be willing to trade his supply of cars, but demands X dollars in exchange for any one of them, and person B is willing to trade his supply of dollars, but demands a car of certain condition for them. In this case, there are two supplies (dollars, and cars) and two demands (again dollars, and a car of a certain condition). If the supplies of each participant, meets the demands of the opposing participant, the transaction happens, and the trade is settled between the two parties.
So to address your questions. It's entirely possible for something that was easy to trade (cash), was traded for [houses/stocks/commodities/etc], and afterwards, no one is willing to trade things anymore. Which includes people with houses who are not willing to trade them for cash, and people with cash no longer willing to trade them for houses. Liquidity disappeared simply by a change in market demand. But you're not necessarily wrong, as if demand doesn't change, then it doesn't really dry up.
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explaining the mechanics of central banks isn’t as informative as explaining through which specific channels this excess liquidity ends up in assets.
This is a very valid question. Up until 2018 or so the liquidity was provided to banks which in turn controlled how much money to loan out. Hence keeping the inflation in check and reducing their risks. however, due to COVID our governments directly handed money to general public through various bills and benefits. That liquidity found its way into other assets. The low mortgage rates pushed housing markets to new hi…
https://www.ft.com/content/b71f0c32-6cfb-11ea-89df-41bea0557...
The fed had a role in causing the rise in inflation as well:
https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-fed-bond-binge-predictably-stok...
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally had this happen. When I was growing up we didn't have much money, and I've always tried to be really frugal. I tend to agonize over minor necessary expenses like gloves or shoes. When I went from a couple hundred bucks in the bank to almost a million I felt strange. I tried to ignore those feelings, so I could live like a normal person. It only took me about a year to... I mean... Well... It goes pretty fas…
It's possible to avoid this by having separate buckets for consumption and savings. Hold your consumption bucket constant (some people call this "budgeting", but it could be done more informally), and all the excess cash you're making, by definition, will go into investments. Then you just have to learn how to invest prudently. :-) GP is talking about the investment side of this, where "investing prudently" usually m…
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What am I getting wrong? You are correct when taking the view of the financial sector as a whole - every asset purchase merely swaps who has the cash and who has the asset. You're not getting much of anything wrong, merely missing a behavioral trait of many market participants: they desire a fixed ratio between their various financial assets. An extreme example of this is an index fund, which has a formulaic relatio…
So let's say that the entire world is index funds (plus the stocks they own). An index fund has "too much cash", so they buy stocks. Some other index fund sees that the price is attractive, and sells, but then that fund has too much cash. But the funds each keep some amount (1%?) of their assets in cash. So isn't the net result that stock prices go up until the value of the stock is 99 times the amount of cash in the…
Index funds do not have opinions on the attractiveness of prices. What happens in this hypothetical when one index fund has a cash inflow is that it bids on all the assets it is "short" of, which increases the price until the other index funds have "too much" of the now-higher-priced asset and decide to sell.
But generally speaking yes, there's cash or cash-equivalent in the overall market's mix, and it stays relatively constant. When these cash assets get dumped onto balance sheets, other assets get bid up until their sizes are appropriate for the amount of cash around.
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let's say that the entire world is index funds (plus the stocks they own). An index fund has "too much cash", so they buy stocks. Some other index fund sees that the price is attractive, and sells, but then that fund has too much cash. But the funds each keep some amount (1%?) of their assets in cash. So isn't the net result that stock prices go up until the value of the stock is 99 times the amount of cash in the…
If you want a little more reading on the subject, there's a neat writeup here: https://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2013/08/the-great-rot... "(1) For every share of every asset in existence, someone must willingly hold that share at all times. If no one can be found who wants to hold a share, its market price will fall until someone is found. (2) The total “amount” or “supply” of a financial asset is the total mark…
Isn't this assuming 'mark to market' - the assumption that the entire supply of an asset class could be sold at the selling price of some (usually very small) fraction of the supply that has most recently been traded.
If my understanding is correct, this is the fallacy that has underpinned the inflated valuations of many crypto assets (SBF etc)
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree here. Some rich people make stupid decisions and get flushed out. It's very darwinistic. But in general rich people are rich BECAUSE they are good at thinking about being rich. Your point made sense until you mentioned wealth inequality-- but wealth inequality exists EXACTLY because rich people are good at thinking about being rich. These decisions may not be productive in terms of society -- but they genera…
I generally agree with you, and I could probably have chosen a better word than "stupid" (not a native speaker though). That's why I tried to clarify in my last sentence, that "stupid" in this context means that their decisions don't align with societies interests at large anymore. Kind of like "stupid" as in: a central planner would be stupid, if they applied those decisions when they actually had the goal of maximi…
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#148Here's a mental model I find helpful for understanding current circumstances: "Quantitative easing" means issuing new money -- a government obligation that pays no interest -- to purchase treasury (and agency) bonds -- government obligations that pay interest. Until very recently, for good reasons (a global financial crisis, a global pandemic), the Fed and other central banks around the world have been engaged in qua…
Except that the Fed is not giving "government-issued financial instruments" with QE. They are placing reserve credits in the banks' reserve accounts. Bank reserves cannot be used in the wider economy, but only with-in the Federal Reserve inter-bank settlement system.
Cullen Roche has a good series of articles on quantitative easying:
* https://www.pragcap.com/understanding-quantitative-easing/
> The result has been an unprecedented increase in private cash balances -- what many call "liquidity sloshing around."
In essence, QE is/was an asset swap: bonds for reserves. There was zero net change in the balance sheet: $100M of bonds was exchanged for $100M of reserves.
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2397992
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Quantitative easing" means issuing new money Issuing new reserves not new money. New money can then be issued by the counterparties of the Fed’s open market operations The counterparties are the “primary dealer” banks (theres around 30 of them), these are the banks whose reserve accounts at the fed get topped up in exchange for the assets the fed wishes to buy. This is the US model, the UK model is a bit simpler (…
Reserves are money -- they are the key component of the monetary base, included in all money aggregates. Yes, the Fed trades with the rest of the world only via its primary dealers. But note that these dealers are non-US-government entities (specifically, they're for-profit businesses, part of the private sector), or trade with the Fed acting as intermediaries for other non-US-government entities (businesses, individ…
Money exists on a spectrum. Reserves are money-like in some aspects, but so are bonds and equities, as is gold. These are all stores of value and media of exchange.
QE is creating new reserves (which is money-like) and buying other types of assets (which are money-like): basically an asset swap. The balance sheet often stays exactly the same.
Re: What does “excess liquidity sloshing around the financial system” mean?
#150Here's a mental model I find helpful for understanding current circumstances: "Quantitative easing" means issuing new money -- a government obligation that pays no interest -- to purchase treasury (and agency) bonds -- government obligations that pay interest. Until very recently, for good reasons (a global financial crisis, a global pandemic), the Fed and other central banks around the world have been engaged in qua…
> replacing government-issued financial instruments that pay interest (bonds) with government-issued financial instruments that pay no interest (money). Except that the Fed is not giving "government-issued financial instruments" with QE. They are placing reserve credits in the banks' reserve accounts. Bank reserves cannot be used in the wider economy, but only with-in the Federal Reserve inter-bank settlement system.…