July 9, 2019

The first rate-cut happened on May 1: Five measly basis points. That’s all. Here’s how it happened.

I had seen the balance sheet monthly cap rate go from $50 billion to $35 billion with the difference being picked up by Treasury holdings (while the mortgage holdings unwind rate remained constant). I glanced over the cut in the excess reserve interest rate. Such changes were announced in the implementation note, which is separate from the FOMC statement and, in that regard, it was easier to miss.

The excess reserve interest rate went from 2.40% to 2.35%: See the little dip in the blue line, below.

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

For most of the history of this great experiment in central banking called “quantitative easing,” the excess reserve interest rate was above the fed funds rate, by design. The reason for this slight advantage of the excess reserve interest rate over the fed funds rate is so that excess reserves do not multiply in the fed funds market the way they typically do when there is no interest on excess reserves paid. If a bank is making more money holding its excess reserves in their account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, why would it lend them in the fed funds market? Or so the theory went.

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Then, as the Federal Reserve began to unwind its balance sheet and hike the fed funds rate, it also hiked the excess reserve interest rate, but at a slightly slower rate to the point that they converged in 2018 and on May 1, 2019 the Fed cut the reserve rate to 2.35% but left the fed funds rate in the range of 2.25% to 2.50%. On a chart, one can see that the effective fed funds rate is slightly above the excess reserve rate.

This is a big deal. This basically means that the Fed is trying to resuscitate the credit multiplier in the U.S. fractional reserve banking system. They said so themselves in their implementation note on May 1:

“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to set the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances at 2.35 percent, effective May 2, 2019. Setting the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances 15 basis points below the top of the target range for the federal funds rate is intended to foster trading in the federal funds market at rates well within the FOMC’s target range.”

Valid Points from My Alert Readers

When I discussed similar issues a couple of months ago, I got several lengthy emails from a couple of banking professionals who explained to me that I “don’t understand” the fed funds market. While many of their points were technically correct, they did not necessarily contradict what I was saying.

If there were no credit multiplier effect, why did fed funds volumes go down so much when the excess reserve interest rate was above the fed funds rate for so long? (For more, see Bloomberg, December 11, 2018, “The Death of Fed Funds? As Market Dries Up, FOMC Asks What Next.”)

Some notable points from one of those emails are very interesting, though: “If the Fed were not paying interest on reserves, the Fed Funds rate under QE would be zero. All the excess reserves in the system would be offered at whatever bid they could find, but there would be no bids because with $3T of excess reserves in the system, all the banks already have more reserves than they are required to have and are not looking to borrow any more. They are looking to swap their reserves for bonds, which pay interest. While an individual bank can do that, banks in the aggregate cannot, and so excess reserves drive bond rates toward zero as well. And when bond rates are near zero, investors flee to stocks, and that is why the stock market has been supported by QE. (And why QT would be bad for stock prices. See October 2018, when Powell threatened to continue QT, and January 2019 when he took it back.)”

My alert reader continued: “The Fed Funds rate is equal to the interest on reserves rate because interest on reserves puts a floor under the Fed Funds rate. A bank receiving 2.4% on its reserves is not going to lend them for any less than 2.4%. That would be stupid. Nor is a bank going to borrow reserves (that pay 2.4%) at any higher interest rate. That is why the Fed Funds market has dried up.”

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

There is no disagreement that the above-described dynamics were designed to push asset prices higher and help not only the U.S. but the global economy that way. This is the equivalent of force-feeding credit on a system that was under pressure to deleverage under heavy debt burdens. Ben Bernanke stopped that deleveraging process. Current Fed Chair Jerome Powell is trying to normalize the way the U.S. banking system works, but he has hit some financial market turbulence, complicated by the occupant of the White House and global economic developments. Will he succeed in normalizing it? The jury is still out.

By the Fed’s own statements, the U.S. financial system has been changed for good. Excess reserves will now be a permanent monetary policy tool as well as interest on excess reserves. They remain part of the system and will be with us for as long as there is a Federal Reserve.

About The Author

Ivan Martchev

Ivan Martchev is an investment strategist with Navellier.  Previously, Ivan served as editorial director at InvestorPlace Media. Ivan was editor of Louis Rukeyser’s Mutual Funds and associate editor of Personal Finance. Ivan is also co-author of The Silk Road to Riches (Financial Times Press). The book provided analysis of geopolitical issues and investment strategy in natural resources and emerging markets with an emphasis on Asia. The book also correctly predicted the collapse in the U.S. real estate market, the rise of precious metals, and the resulting increased investor interest in emerging markets. Ivan’s commentaries have been published by MSNBC, The Motley Fool, MarketWatch, and others. All content of “Global Mail” represents the opinion of Ivan Martchev


Although information in these reports has been obtained from and is based upon sources that Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates constitute Navellier’s judgment as of the date the report was created and are subject to change without notice. These reports are for informational purposes only and are not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. Any decision to purchase securities mentioned in these reports must take into account existing public information on such securities or any registered prospectus.

Past performance is no indication of future results. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report.

Dividend payments are not guaranteed. The amount of a dividend payment, if any, can vary over time and issuers may reduce dividends paid on securities in the event of a recession or adverse event affecting a specific industry or issuer.

None of the stock information, data, and company information presented herein constitutes a recommendation by Navellier or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities. Any specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. The reader should not assume that investments in the securities identified and discussed were or will be profitable.

Information presented is general information that does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or needs, nor does it present a personalized recommendation to you. Individual stocks presented may not be suitable for you. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. Investment in fixed income securities has the potential for the investment return and principal value of an investment to fluctuate so that an investor’s holdings, when redeemed, may be worth less than their original cost.

One cannot invest directly in an index. Results presented include the reinvestment of all dividends and other earnings.

Past performance is no indication of future results.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations, you are informed that, to the extent this presentation includes any federal tax advice, the presentation is not intended or written by Navellier to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Navellier does not advise on any income tax requirements or issues. Use of any information presented by Navellier is for general information only and does not represent tax advice either express or implied. You are encouraged to seek professional tax advice for income tax questions and assistance.

IMPORTANT NEWSLETTER DISCLOSURE: The hypothetical performance results for investment newsletters that are authored or edited by Louis Navellier, including Louis Navellier’s Growth Investor, Louis Navellier’s Breakthrough Stocks, Louis Navellier’s Accelerated Profits, and Louis Navellier’s Platinum Club, are not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the newsletters’ reported hypothetical performances should be considered mere “paper” or proforma hypothetical performance results and are not actual performance of real world trades.  Navellier & Associates, Inc. does not have any relation to or affiliation with the owner of these newsletters. There are material differences between Navellier Investment Products’ portfolios and the InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletter portfolios authored by Louis Navellier. The InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletters contain hypothetical performance that do not include transaction costs, advisory fees, or other fees a client might incur if actual investments and trades were being made by an investor. As a result, newsletter performance should not be used to evaluate Navellier Investment services which are separate and different from the newsletters. The owner of the newsletters is InvestorPlace Media, LLC and any questions concerning the newsletters, including any newsletter advertising or hypothetical Newsletter performance claims, (which are calculated solely by Investor Place Media and not Navellier) should be referred to InvestorPlace Media, LLC at (800) 718-8289.

Please note that Navellier & Associates and the Navellier Private Client Group are managed completely independent of the newsletters owned and published by InvestorPlace Media, LLC and written and edited by Louis Navellier, and investment performance of the newsletters should in no way be considered indicative of potential future investment performance for any Navellier & Associates separately managed account portfolio. Potential investors should consult with their financial advisor before investing in any Navellier Investment Product.

Navellier claims compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). To receive a complete list and descriptions of Navellier’s composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS standards, please contact Navellier or click here. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report. Request here a list of recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. for the preceding twelve months, please contact Tim Hope at (775) 785-9416.

Marketmail Archives