HOME WORLD US COMPANIES TECH MARKETS CLIMATE OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS HTSI

HOME WORLD US COMPANIES TECH MARKETS CLIMATE OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS HTSI Digital Edition Portfolio Settings & Account

Unhedged Markets Added

QT is not nearly done

And more on consumer confidence

Share

Save

Jay Powell sees QT continuing for a while © FT montage/Bloomberg

Robert Armstrong and Ethan Wu YESTERDAY 8

Get ahead with daily markets updates. Join the FT's WhatsApp channel

This article is an on-site version of our Unhedged newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter
sent straight to your inbox every weekday

Good morning. It was a quiet day in both stock and bond markets yesterday.
Too quiet, as they say. Perhaps traders were holding their breath before today’s
inflation report, which many expect to come in a bit hot for methodological
reasons. Ready to exhale? Email us: robert.armstrong@ft.com and
ethan.wu@ft.com.

How far quantitative tightening can go

If the market is to be believed, the Fed’s rate increases are done, or very nearly
so. Is the other tool of US monetary tightening, quantitative tightening, also
near the end of its run?

The Fed has said in the past that interest rate and balance sheet policy should
work in unison, sending a single, clear message. But no longer. Here is Fed
chair Jay Powell in July:

Imagine it’s a world where things are OK, and it’s time to bring rates down
from what are restrictive levels to more normal levels. Normalisation, in the
case of the balance sheet, would be to reduce QT or to continue it, depending
on where you are in the cycle. So they are two independent things. Really, the
active tool of monetary policy is rates. But you can imagine circumstances in
which it would be appropriate to have [the two tools] working in what might
be seen to be different ways. But that wouldn’t be the case.

Powell sees QT continuing for a while, until the Fed’s balance sheet, at $7.9tn,
starts looking a bit more “normal” than it does now. But with the balance sheet
still $3.7tn bigger than in 2019, that would take years at the current pace
(surveys of traders point to 2025 as an expected end date). But can QT last that
long? News coverage inevitably features investors “bracing for turbulence”
from QT. Some on Wall Street warn that the Fed is approaching a level where
funding market dysfunction is possible.

It’s not a baseless fear. Remember how QT (more precisely called balance sheet
run-off) works. The Fed lets its Treasury holdings expire, without reinvesting
the proceeds. Then the Treasury department pays off the bond and the Fed
extinguishes that cash. The amount of liquidity in the financial system falls.
Right on schedule, balances at the reverse-repo window, the Fed’s bolt-hole for
investor cash with no better use, have declined rapidly this year:

This is only part of the picture, though. In contrast to falling RRP balances,
commercial banks’ reserves at the Fed have actually risen this year. This is
because RRP transactions (investor buys bonds from the Fed; gets cash)
depress reserves. To get a better handle on system liquidity, look more broadly.
The sum of bank reserves and RRP balances has declined, but more modestly:

How far could the light blue line — a proxy for total system liquidity — decline?
The answer is higher than zero. As we discussed with Bill Dudley last week, the
Fed wants to maintain an “ample reserves regime”, where the quantity of cash
is not a major constraint on the financial system.

The GFC marked the shift from a scarce-reserves to an ample-reserves world.

When the Fed flooded the market with liquidity via QE, it became unworkable
to manage prevailing interest rates through the old tool: the federal funds rate
as managed through the ad hoc buying and selling of Treasury securities. New
tools arose. Principally, these were interest paid on excess reserves (IOER) and
the RRP. Both are in effect floors on rates. The fed funds rate, meanwhile, has
been made obsolete and left in an “undead state”, as Joseph Wang writes in a
new post on his Fed Guy blog.

This all matters because it suggests that reserve levels cannot decline beyond a
certain point. An ample-reserves regime requires an ample level of reserves, so
the Fed’s balance sheet cannot return to any pre-GFC “normal”.

But it still has plenty of room to shrink. As Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan
said in a speech on Friday, the Fed’s goal now is moving from “abundant” to
merely “ample” reserves. The New York Fed’s rule of thumb is that a reserves
level equal to 8 per cent of nominal GDP is too little — the bottom range of
“ample”. (Wang explains that this is an imprecise estimate based on the level of
reserves during the 2019 repo meltdown.) The chart below shows how far we
are from breaching that threshold:

Wang, who worked at the New York Fed during the initial rollout of QT, says he
is unworried about funding markets breaking down anytime soon, given the
Fed’s liquidity facilities and the amount of cash lingering in the system.

What worries him more, though, is the Treasury market. This is the other half
of QT: the Fed not only sucks out cash, but ceases buying bonds. The problem
is that bond proceeds that would once have been reinvested by the Fed now
leave the financial system. The Treasury can no longer count on a certain
chunk of its outstanding bonds always being rolled over by the Fed; instead,
fresh private buyers must refinance them. Primary dealers expect this will add
something like $630bn to Treasury’s private financing needs in 2024, in
addition to the $1.8tn needed to finance US deficits.

Disorder in the Treasury market is the one thing that could stop QT’s orderly
march to an lower-but-still-ample-reserves world. (Ethan Wu)

Consumer confidence, redux

Yesterday we wrote a piece that should have been called “Could Democratic
partisans please, please stop moaning about unhappy consumers”. Most
Americans appear to think the economy is pretty bad, despite significant
inflation-adjusted growth and high employment. This is unfair to poor Joe,
says team Joe. But it just isn’t that surprising: a huge jump in prices like the
one we have seen in the past three years leaves people thinking the world has
gone crazy, and wondering what awful thing will happen next. A falling rate of
inflation, as opposed to falling prices, doesn’t solve the problem.

This view of things, which we hold strongly, is based in some part on armchair
psychology rather than rigorous empiricism. But as if to provide our view with
factual grounding, just as our newsletter was publishing the Financial Times
published the results of a poll it conducted with the University of Michigan’s
Ross School of Business, which found that only 14 per cent of voters think Joe
Biden has made them better off. The problem? Inflation, inflation, inflation:

Asked what was the source of their biggest financial stress, 82 per cent of
respondents said price increases. Three-quarters of respondents said rising
prices posed the most significant threat to the US economy in the next six
months.

“Every group — Democrats, Republicans and independents — list rising

prices as by far the biggest economic threat . . . and the biggest source of
financial stress,” said Erik Gordon, a professor at Michigan’s Ross School.
“That is bad news for Biden, and the more so considering how little he can do
to reverse the perception of prices before election day.”

It’s a pretty simple situation! But not completely simple, as Dec Mullarkey of
SLC Management pointed out to us. He notes that not all indicators of
consumer sentiment agree. Here is the University of Michigan survey of
consumers, which we discussed yesterday, and its rival, the Conference Board’s
consumer confidence index, over the past 30 years:

Coming apart

Conference Board consumer confidence index (right)

University of Michigan index of consumer sentiment (left)

150

100

100

80

50
60

Jan 94Jan 96 Jan 98 Jan 00Jan 02 Jan 04Jan 06Jan 08Jan 10Jan 12 Jan 14Jan 16Jan 18 Jan 20Jan 22 Jan 24

Source: Bloomberg

The two come apart, and they are about as far apart now as they ever get.
Here’s why. Both surveys ask five questions, two about the present and three
about the future. The results of the questions about the future render very
similar results. The questions about the present do not:

The 'current conditions' currents are conditional

Current conditions, Conference Board (right) Current conditions, UMich (left)

200

120

150
100

100
80

50
60

Jan 94Jan 96Jan 98Jan 00Jan 02Jan 04Jan 06Jan 08Jan 10Jan 12Jan 14Jan 16Jan 18Jan 20Jan 22Jan 24

Source: Bloomberg

The results are different because the questions are different. Here is what the
Michigan survey asks about present conditions:

We are interested in how people are getting along financially these days.
Would you say that you (and your family living there) are better off or worse
off financially than you were a year ago?

About the big things people buy for their homes — such as furniture, a
refrigerator, stove, television, and things like that. Generally speaking, do
you think now is a good or bad time for people to buy major household
items?

These questions, crucially, focus on what is going on within the household.

Today, they are asking about how the family is doing, and whether it is a good
time to buy something big, when the prices of everything are up by at least a
fifth versus a few years ago. The answers are predictable. The Conference
Board, by contrast, asks about business conditions outside the household:

How would you rate present business conditions in your area?

What would you say about available jobs in your area right now?

Looking outside the home, we think of streets and shops that are busy, and the
fact that most everyone is employed. And so the answers are more positive.

I think it is pretty clear how this will play out in the polling booth. But what
about in the stock market? How predictive are sentiment surveys? They are
coincident indicators, for the most part, and therefore only useful as part of a
larger set of indicators. Here is the year-over-year change in the Michigan
survey plotted against the change in the S&P 500. Can you discern a consistent
pattern of sentiment predicting market shifts?

Yeah, us neither.

One good read

Ridiculously expensive clothes.

FT Unhedged podcast
Can’t get enough of Unhedged? Listen to our
new podcast, hosted by Ethan Wu and Katie
Martin, for a 15-minute dive into the latest
markets news and financial headlines, twice a
week. Catch up on past editions of the
newsletter here.

Recommended newsletters for you

Swamp Notes — Expert insight on the intersection of money and power in US politics. Sign up
here
Chris Giles on Central Banks — Your essential guide to money, interest rates, inflation and what
central banks are thinking. Sign up here

Global Banking
Summit
London, UK & Online
27 November - 29 November 2023
Leadership strategies for the future of banking

Register now Presented by

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2023. All rights reserved. Reuse this content Comments

Latest on Markets

Fund management Federal Deposit Insurance Corp US inflation

Terry Smith’s pay drops to FDIC boss grilled after US stocks and bonds jump after
£31mn as flagship fund ‘horrendous’ harassment inflation falls to 3.2%
underperforms revelations UPDATED

NEW UPDATED

Lex BT Group Plc Wind power Wise Asset allocation

BT/pensions: less is more for Hedge funds profit from bets Wise pauses taking on Investors snap up bonds and
telecoms company’s obligation against troubled wind energy European business customers stocks in bet interest rates have
Premium stocks as it beefs up compliance peaked
3 HOURS AGO 3 HOURS AGO

Follow the topics in this article

The QE retreat Add to myFT

US economy Add to myFT

Markets Added

Federal Reserve Added

Unhedged Added

Comments

Signed in as Critical_Observer Edit

Support Legal & Privacy Services Tools Community & Events More from the FT Group

View Site Tips Terms & Conditions Share News Tips Securely Portfolio FT Community

Help Centre Privacy Policy Individual Subscriptions Today’s Newspaper (FT FT Live Events
Digital Edition)
Contact Us Cookie Policy Professional Subscriptions FT Forums
Alerts Hub
About Us Manage Cookies Republishing FT Board Director
Business School Rankings
Accessibility Copyright Executive Job Search Board Director Programme
Enterprise Tools
myFT Tour Slavery Statement & Policies Advertise with the FT
News feed
Careers Follow the FT on X
Feedback

Newsletters
FT Channels
Currency Converter
FT Schools

Markets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2023. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice.