A fascinating recent paper by Juan Montecino and Gerald
Epstein at the Institute for New Economic Thinking looks at who has been the
real beneficiary of the Federal Reserve's money printing mania since 2008.
As we are all aware, the
Federal Reserve has massively impacted the American economy through its LSAP or
Large Scale Asset Purchases program aka Quantitative
Easing. This long-term program began when the Fed announced QE 1 on November 25, 2008 once it became apparent
that their traditional tool of lowering interest rates was no longer effective
because interest rates were already at the zero lower boundary. At that
time, the Fed stated that it would buy up to $500 billion in agency
mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and $100 billion in government sponsored
enterprise (GSE) debt, starting on December 16, 2009. This amount was
increased on March 18, 2009 when the FOMC announced that it
would buy an additional $750 billion in agency MBS bringing the total to $1.25
trillion, another $100 trillion in GSE debt bringing the total to $200 billion
and $300 billion in longer-term Treasury securities. This was further
increased on November 3, 2010 when the Fed announced that
it would purchase $600 billion in longer-dated Treasury securities at a pace of
about $75 billion per month. The Federal Reserve further expanded its
Large Scale Asset Purchase program on September 13, 2012 when it announced that it
would continue to purchase up to $40 billion worth of agency MBS and $45
billion worth of longer-dated Treasuries on a monthly basis as previously
announced until the economy experienced "maximum employment and price
stability".
Here is what has happened to the Federal
Reserve's balance sheet since 2008:
Here is the current composition of the Fed's
balance sheet:
The Fed now owns $4.231
trillion worth of securities, including $2.460 trillion worth of U.S.
Treasuries and $1.734 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.
Now that we have that
background, let's look at the paper by Montecino and Epstein. The Federal
Reserve had to purchase all of these assets from someone, and, in the case of
the Fed's now ample inventory of mortgage-backed securities, the paper was sold
to the Fed by what are known as the "treatment banks" or
"counterparty banks". The paper answers the key question:
"What was the
impact of QE on the profitability of the banks involved in selling the assets
to the Federal Reserve?"
In other words, was the
Fed attempting to kickstart the economy or play to their main constituency,
America's banking sector?
The authors looked at
transactions-level data on LSAP purchases along with the income and balance
sheet data from 826 bank holding company regulatory filings over the period
from Q1 2008 to Q4 2009 (i.e. QE 1) which allows them to identify the
effect of the Federal Reserve's MBS purchases on bank profitability. Fortunately,
under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Fed is required to publish data on each
transaction carried out during the conduct of any program that impacts monetary
policy within two years of the transaction. Each transaction shows the
name of the counterparty (bank), the type of security, the amount bought or
sold and the price paid.
Here is a table showing
the data for each counterparty (in $ billions) for the time period as noted above:
One of the problems that
the authors ran into was the ownership structures of some of the foreign banks
since the ownership of those brokers or dealers was less clear because the
foreign-owned holding company may have been sold off or restructured. That said, of the original 16 counterparties in the table above,
there were six matches that enabled the authors to complete their
analysis.
After completing a rather
complex analysis that is well beyond the capabilities of mere mortals, the
authors found that profits for the banks that were counterparties to Federal
Reserve's Mortgage-Backed Securities were significantly and statistically
higher than for those banks that did not participate. These increased
profits likely occurred because of price increases on MBS as demand rose
because of the Fed's purchases. As well, the banks with large holdings
of MBS relative to their total assets prior to QE (what are known as the the
"exposure banks") also experienced significant increases in
profitability.
Here are some details of
their conclusions starting with the impact of QE 1 on LSAP counterparty banks
(i.e. the banks that sold MBS to the Federal Reserve):
1.) The profitability of
banks that were LSAP counterparties improved by 0.35 of a percentage point
relative to their non-counterparty peers and when compared to non-LSAP periods.
To help you put this into context, this is roughly proportional to the
median return on assets among the sample banks which tells us that the effects
were significant.
Here is what happened to
the impact of QE 1 on the non-counterparty banks (i.e. exposure banks) which held MBS in their asset
pool:
1.) Larger banks with an
MBS share that is roughly 24 percent of assets (i.e. banks with MBS holdings
that are in the 95th percentile) in 2008 experienced an increase in the return
on assets as large as 0.14 percentage points.
2.) Smaller banks or
banks with an MBS share that is roughly 7 percent of total assets (i.e. banks
with MBS holdings that are at the median) saw their return on assets increase
by only 0.04 percentage points.
Here is a quote from the
authors:
"Although our
results suggest that MBS purchases increased bank profits, we find only mixed
evidence that these were associated with increased lending. Our findings are
thus consistent with the hypothesis that the Federal Reserve undertook these
policies, at least in part, to increase the profitability of their main
constituency: the large banks."
While the Federal
Reserve's actions since 2008 may have prevented the economy from collapsing
completely, it has had other consequences. At the same time as these
actions have pushed up the prices of bonds and Treasuries and pushing down
yields, it has been quite successful at severely reducing interest earned on
more traditional fixed income investments for millions of American households.
Simultaneously, this analysis shows us that the Federal Reserve's
long-term monetary policy experiment has been successful at one additional
thing - redistributing wealth to the banking sector, particularly those that
either sold mortgage-backed securities to the Fed or
held them as a significant part of their assets. With the Fed's holdings of MBS now in excess of $1.73 trillion, the banking sector has benefitted even more than this analysis shows.
Lil Abner had "Gen Bullmouse" tell us that what was "good for me is good for the US". So now it is "what is good for Wall St banks is good for you".
ReplyDelete