The Fed decision markets need to pay more attention to | 市场需要更多地关注美联储的决策 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

The Fed decision markets need to pay more attention to
市场需要更多地关注美联储的决策

Central bank set to make a decision on whether to extend its latest emergency liquidity facility
美国央行将决定是否延长最新的紧急流动性安排。
00:00

The writer is managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics

One big market event for early 2024 will come when the US Federal Reserve makes a decision on whether to close its latest emergency liquidity facility on March 11 as a senior Fed official recently signalled it was likely to do so. 

Called the Bank Term Funding Program, the facility’s name conveys the usual blandness with which the Fed likes to brand the trillions it throws into the financial system. But the BTFP is anything but dull. Without it, all but the biggest US banks could find it even tougher to raise profitability this year; with it, they’ll find it still harder to lend into what the Fed, President Joe Biden, and pretty much everyone else hope will be a robust recovery.

The BTFP is just the latest of the many rescue facilities the Fed brought forth after recent crises, marshalling the new programme as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature bank failed and dozens of other regional banks experienced sudden deposit outflows for which many were woefully unprepared. 

Facing systemic-scale runs, the Fed, Treasury and FDIC backed uninsured deposits at the failed banks and, by inference, any to follow. This systemic-risk designation backing uninsured deposits was designed to comfort depositors, but even a bit of a run might still have been fatal for any bank with large unrealised losses in its securities portfolio. 

The BTFP thus provides funds on very generous terms to any bank that needs to liquidate its securities but doesn’t dare do so because it would be suddenly undercapitalised. To prevent this double-whammy, plentiful BTFP funding comes cheap, with a bank’s borrowing capacity based on par — not mark-to-market — valuations of pledged government securities. 

This facility poses many policy challenges, not least understanding why the Fed and other banking agencies allowed so many banks to be so fragile under such a thoroughly predictable stress scenario. 

This will be debated for months, if not years, but a critical market question needs to be answered now: what happens to banks facing significant profit squeezes if the central bank shutters the BTFP as it seems set to do? And, what then befalls the recovery?

Although it was created under the Fed’s “exigent and urgent” circumstances required for new support windows such as the BTFP, the funding programme is no longer a systemic-risk lifeline. Instead, it’s an arbitrage opportunity that gives banks the chance to sidestep the discount window, the lender-of-last-resort funding the Fed was created to provide when it was chartered in 1913. The Fed has recently pressed banks to ready themselves for discount-window use under stress regardless of whatever stigma it may still convey. But it is unlikely banks would broach this sensitive topic as long as the BTFP is open.

That’s because the BTFP charges banks less for funding — 4.89 per cent as of January 10 — compared with the discount window’s 5.5 per cent. Banks that borrow from the BTFP and place funds right back at the Fed as reserves each earn a 0.51 percentage point spread on the round trip, a welcome source of risk-free margin at a time when depositors are demanding more, lots more. It’s no wonder that, as of January 3, the BTFP’s outstanding loans stood at a record $141.2bn, but all this bank money parked at the Fed is bank money out of the US economy. 

Will the Fed continue to indulge the banks after March 11? Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice-chair for banking supervision, has indicated it is unlikely, saying this week it “really was established as an emergency programme”. An extension would also require approval from the US Treasury.

What then? The easy arbitrage profits will be cut, reducing capacity to lend. Many banks will still be sitting on unrealised losses on investment portfolios, a point of vulnerability in any renewed crisis.

The Fed didn’t want to throw regional banks a profit lifeline — as Barr suggests, it meant the BTFP only as a short-term, systemic backstop to prevent a regional bank crisis with systemic and macroeconomic consequences.

But if the Fed has to subsidise the profitability of banks, that seems both unnecessary and undesirable. As with so much of what the Fed has done in recent years, the BTFP had profound unintended consequences for market functioning. The Fed is right to want to close the window, but fingers will be slammed when it does.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

这次美国大选对美国企业意味着什么?

大选结果将对能源、汽车和制药等领域的企业产生重大影响。

德国的商业模式失败了吗?

德国三大主要产业同时陷入低迷,经济也停滞不前。政客们终于清醒过来了吗?

Lex专栏:马斯克利用美国大选出风头

这位亿万富翁的名字没有出现在选票上,但他已利用美国大选吸引了大家的注意力。

暴力是怎样逐渐成为美国大选主题的?

在充斥着“前所未有”的极端言论的竞选季之后,选民们笼罩在紧张氛围中。

英国新税制或使其成为新的“避税天堂”

顾问警告说,英国政府取代非居籍计划的建议将吸引那些寻求短期免税期的人士

Lex专栏:高端电动汽车有望助力小米登上领奖台

小米的新车型可能不是每个人的梦想之车,但这家公司在竞争中处于有利地位。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×