What are banks going to do with their 1+ trillion dollars in excess reserves?

If you follow the money, you know that banks (after bailouts, Fed purchases of toxic assets, guarantees, etc.) now have over $1 trillion in excess reserves per the Federal Reserve. Banks normally lend this money out and with over $1 trillion of reserves; they could create over $80 trillion in new credit. But is this a reality in today’s environment?

The housing problem is still not solved and will require banks to write off billions more in “bank assets.” They could loan this money to businesses, but few of them really want to take on additional loans with the economy in such bad shape. They could lend to consumers but they can’t afford more debt and their FICO scores have dropped making them less “qualified.” Anyway, consumers have decided to become more frugal.

If banks were to pump out trillions of dollars in new credit that went directly into the economy (to companies producing goods and services and consumers buying goods and services), it would certainly cause GDP to spike up and maybe we would be off to another bubble. But, adding that much credit into the economy would significantly reduce the value of the dollar and thereby cause serious inflation.

Yet, this is what a lot of people think will happen. The government continues to spend money hoping to fill the demand gap in the economy. The Federal Reserve keeps “printing money” for the government to spend; and at the same time, keeps interest rates low to encourage spending and to help prop up the housing market. Once everything becomes perfect again, the government can cut spending and the Federal Reserve can contract the money supply eliminating the threat of inflation. Bingo! Utopia.

Since we know this is a fairy tale, how about another alternative for all those “excess reserves” the bank has. What if this “excess” money in the banking system simply gets re-circulated. Banks could put all that money back into the financial system rather than back into the economy (the goods and service producing segments.) For example, they could buy assets like stocks, bonds, gold, real estate, etc. (GDP wouldn’t go up much.) They could buy these assets around the world (reducing the inflation potential here) and they could finance real things like factories, but overseas (Oh, darn, they couldn’t bring the profits home because of taxes.)

Is it possible? I don’t know. I am not a conspiracy theorist but we have to keep our critical thinking skills sharp and keep looking for possible alternative futures.

Bernanke Said What?

Since the housing market peaked and the financial crisis began, the government has spent:
$3.6 trillion (net after some repayments) on various stimulus programs,
$16.3 trillion in government guarantees to various financial institutions; plus
$7.2 trillion in federal government spending (the budget) trying to hold up the economy.

That’s a lot of money for a $14 trillion dollar economy. Yet the net result so far is an economy barely growing at 1.6 %, unemployment at 9.5% (or 17% depending on how you count unemployment,) a very troubled housing problem (inventories last month were at 12.5 months supply) and a financial system that can’t afford to lend (for fear of future defaults and/or the risk-free money they are getting because of Fed policy.) And this is only a few of our problems.

Now, last Thursday at the Jackson Hole Conference (isn’t that more expensive than Las Vegas,) we were told by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke that he has changed his mind and the economy may be showing down even more than he thought. Also, that the economy can not even handle the Fed keeping the interest and early payoff money the Fed is receiving from the bonds it purchased. That he is going to spend that money as fast has he receives it rather than shrink the Fed’s balance sheet. What a confidence builder. Plus, and this a big one, that the Fed is ready to print more money, in addition to what they have already done, to keep the economy going.

We have been debating how the Fed is gong to reduce its balance sheet. Now we learn that even the simplest reduction seems impossible. So get ready for Quantitative Easing, round 2.

As you know, critical thinkers have to look at all sides of the argument. Here is a summary of their analysis and proposals.

The Keynesians, economists like Paul Krugmanand and James Galbraith, want the government to significantly spend more money because we didn’t spend enough to begin with. They say the economy is not recovering at all. Federal Reserve policy has been “grossly inadequate”. The Fed should increase its balance sheet from $2 trillion to $4 or $6 trillion (would this cause a printing company bubble?) Most economists are Keynesians and they are putting a lot of pressure on Congress and the Federal Reserve to stimulate more and print more money. They, as always, are concerned only about the short-term.

The Keynesian-lite or Supply-side economists like Brian Wesbury or Larry Kudlow want additional tax cuts and more incentives for businesses to expand and hire employees. They say the economy is recovering, but very slowly. I am not sure they still believe in the V shaped recovery. They also claim that uncertainty, especially in tax policy, healthcare policy and undefined new financial regulations are some of the reasons the economy is not growing faster. They also believe tax cuts and incentives will result in more production which will keep inflation low. But, since a tax cut without an offsetting spending reduction is a stimulus, it would mean more borrowing, more quantitative easing. They too are only concerned about the short-term.


The Capitalists like Peter Schiff, Mark Faber and other Austrian economists want the government to get out of the way and let the economy heal itself. Sooner or later, we have to get to price equilibrium (in housing, wages, interest rates, etc.) They say the government has already spent far too much money. They believe that the free market, if left alone, will self-correct. That is how we get to the bottom. That is a recovery, getting rid of the excesses. All this government intervention is doing is delaying the recovery and laying a base for the next boom or bubble. The mal-investments caused by artificially low interest rates and the excessive expansion of money not only delays recovery but cause the next boom. For example, what is going to happen to wind power when the stimulus goes away? Or what’s going to happen to bond prices when inflation (caused by inflating the money supply) begins to rise rapidly?

We all see the economy through different lenses, but I am sure you will agree that most Americans think spending and then printing the money are out of control. Short-term and long-term. We may not be able to go from over indulgence to austerity in one step, but we sure need a plan and we sure need to get started.

Get Ready For the Next Big Stimulus Program

The government has been trying to hold housing prices up for two years without much success. Many “experts” agree that we will see another drop in housing prices due to high prices, lack of demand, unemployment, wages, etc. It has also been estimated that an additional 10% drop in prices is possible (which would get us to about the 50 year trend line) which would put a significant number of additional residential mortgages under water (negative equity). Being underwater is one of the major (if not main) reasons people walk away from their mortgage commitment. Plus, the economy is not helping and may be turning down again.

So with politician’s approval ratings extremely low and pressure from their economic advisors (Keynesian economists in both parties) to put more stimulus into the economy, it might happen soon. Evidently, the trillions spent so far haven’t been enough (for example, “The Third Depression” Paul Krugman in the NYTimes) to turn the economy around yet. Now add to this, the clamor (after financial reform?) to do something about Freddie Mack and Fannie Mea (FNF).

It would be a lot faster to “do something about housing” then turnaround the economy in the next three months. Some are now thinking that the government will begin a massive, new, program of mortgage modifications where FNF will offer low, permanent interest rates on reduced mortgage amounts. This may happen before the election. The money was allocated a year ago when FNF were given unlimited funding authority (at least up to $1 trillion) even though they had not used the $200 billion already allocated at that time. After all, they are owned by the government where spending has no limits. Also, the government does not have to go to Congress for this as it has already been “approved.”

If you are a Keynesian, this kind of spending and short-term fix makes sense. Spending is what you must do in a recession. If you are a capitalist, you understand that this will only add to our problems short- and long-term; prolong the recession; and increase inflation further.