You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

Fed Balance Sheet Hits Record $2.2 Trillion In Assets On $71 Billion Weekly Increase In MBS

Tyler Durden's picture




The Federal Reserve's balance sheet hit a new all time record of $2.19 Trillion in assets, after an unprecedented spike of over $70 billion in MBS purchases pushed the number over the previous record from late April.

  • Securities held outright: $1,774 billion (an increase of $96 billion MoM, resulting from $3 billion in new
    Treasury purchases, $79 billion increase in MBS and $19 billion in Agency Debt), or a massive $75 billion increase sequentially. To put this in perspective, the weekly change along is enough to finance 25 Cash For Clunkers programs. Yet this was money burned at the alter of low mortgage rates so that deadbeat homeowners who bought at the top of the speculative bubble mania don't ever have to rent, and actually live within their means.
  • Net borrowings: $218 billion. Total excess reserves declined marginally from $1.12 to $1.1 trillion. The Monetary base likewise dropped by the same amount to $1.99 trillion from $2 trillion.
  • Float,
    liquidity swaps, Maiden Lane and other assets: $199.5
    billion. In a surprising move, the Fed's CPFF program staged its first increase in total holdings week over week, from $14.4 billion to $15.1 billion, after dropping in a straight line from its peak in January at $350 billion. FX liquidity swaps declined by a "noise" amount to $28 billion,
    bringing these to another fresh 52 week low. Maiden Lane I and Maiden Lane II (Bear bailout special) were at $26.3 and $15.7 billion, while Tim Geithner's Goldman rescue package better known as Maiden Lane III came at $22.9 billion.

Foreign holdings increased by $16.7 billion to $2,932 billion. A way to visualize the disproportionate increase in foreign UST holdings versus Treasury holdings is presented by the chart below. While Total foreign holdings increased by $320 billion during the time QE was in process of accumulating Treasury purchases, the Fed acquired, as expected, $300 billion. The disproportionate increase in Foreign (and Total) versus Fed holdings can be seen on the chart below.

Another way of visualizing how the Fed accounted for almost half of all UST purchases since March is on the indexed chart below. While Foreign holdings increased by 12%, those of the Fed went up by a staggering 63%. With the Fed no longer purchasing (at least so the party line goes) any more Treasuries, the question of who will step in to fill the void is an festering one.




Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:35 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

so our currency is now over 50% backed by fannie/freddie MBS, and we wonder why gold is going to record highs?

no mystery to me.  none at all.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:58 | Link to Comment Cursive
Cursive's picture

The FR didn't/still doesn't have the authority to buy this crap.  I agree with you and am outraged that this private banking cartel is killing the middle class.  However, I would also ask you to consider that the FR is at the top of the central bank pyramid and, if and when those foreign swaps are unwound, we could see a return of the Almighty Dollar and every other asset class, gold included, crash.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:46 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

Yeah, the core of the balance sheet of the largest central bank of the world is based on an asset that doesn't have a true market value-- or a true market.

And there's a possiblity of even adding a $ trillion or more in additional MBS next year.

If so, the dollar is toast.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:40 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

Keep pushin Tyler, the waves are coming fast now.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:54 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I liken it more to the ocean going out, exposing the trash on the ocean floor, before the tsunami hits!   ...wave after gigantic wave.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:58 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

Like the visual.  I was thinking sand bar.  I like your's better.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:09 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Oh, just imagine if there were fully transparent Fed activities! 

There is no fan big enough to run all this crap through.

No wonder the Fed is struggling to stay opaque.

(What is that avatar anyhow?)

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:18 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

My avatar - Gerald Bull's creation.

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm

Brilliant man - not such good decisions.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:50 | Link to Comment lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

hmmm, wasn't the throttle on mbs purchases supposed to be decelerating?

and those purchases really seem to be helping; mortgage rates at a 6ms low, home buyer tax credit extension, yet mortgage application fell to a 12 year low. 

clearly that $70b was money very well spent.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:40 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

doesn't surprise me at all - the Fed's money printing has had the exact opposite effect as they thought - all they did was drive up commodities prices and throw a cog into any economic recovery, anything people "save" on lower mortgage rates they are losing due to the unemployment spurred on by higher energy prices.

we would be better off with $30 oil and 6% mortgage, vs $80 oil and 5% mortgages.

stupid.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:45 | Link to Comment Oso
Oso's picture

"we would be better off with $30 oil and 6% mortgage, vs $80 oil and 5% mortgages"

 

exactly. 

 

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:54 | Link to Comment reading
reading's picture

And don't forget since we don't really make anything here (let's not get too excited about exports getting us out of this) we'd also be paying less for everything we need at Walmart and Costco the new fave places to shop.  I really don't think I will every understand how any self-respecting banker can think devaluing our currency is a feel good moment...it makes me sick.  This whole thing is turning me into a raging capitalist and frankly I wouldn't have considered myself that 18 months ago -- fiscal responsibility yes, but now I seriously think they need to have the damn ink taken away as they are clearly getting high on the fumes over at the fed and treasury.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:19 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

yes, the trade deficit jumped last month.  isn't it supposed to shrink as our currency gets slaughtered?  oh, no, that's right, we import a shitload of oil.  which went up in USD because we have been slaughtering the currency.

oops.

the idea that debasing our currency will all of a sudden spur this manufacturing renaissance is ridiculous.  it would take years, or decades, what we have been destroying over decades.

The Fed's policies are a disaster, and are leading us into the greatest depression this country has ever seen.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:34 | Link to Comment Brett in Manhattan
Brett in Manhattan's picture

The flaw in the devalued currency = increased imports equation is that a steadily declining dollar will make foreign buyers continually put off their purchases with the expectation that they'll get stuff even cheaper down the road.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 01:31 | Link to Comment dumbquant
dumbquant's picture

its such an f'n cop out.  They are perverting, defiling, & disgracing any hard earned money that an average american worked hard & saved.  Our forefathers would be sick to their stomachs, & if their ghosts could visit us, it would be like the parents coming home early one weekend while the kids are having a party, & they would be furious.  Seriuosly, everyone agrees now that Greenspan was wrong to keep rates so low after the fact, & everything being done now is orders of magnitude worse.  They're betting rags like they're a full boat.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 08:50 | Link to Comment reading
reading's picture

What I find truly amazing is that no one has any accountability.  If you measure any of these bailout programs based on the merits of how we were told they were to be used they are a complete failure yet all we get is we need to spend more more -- give me a f-ing break.  Just stop spending money for 5 minutes and try to get our fiscal house in order.

TARP -- buy toxic assets...nothing there.  Banks still stuffed full of worthless toxic crap but hey the stock price is up so that must be good

Stimulus -- must do to make sure u/e peaks at 8%.  Without stimulus we're going to 10%.  Well nice spending of a trillion to make sure we go right over 10%.

This whole thing is ridiculous.  When is someone going to admit that at some point you have to force markets to heal or just abandon capitalism all together.  This hybrid is simply a disaster that is killing the real middle class.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 10:32 | Link to Comment dumbquant
dumbquant's picture

seriously, all these banks & their employees got rich spinning, churning, & moving these 'troubled' assets around the system, & they had to get relief or else small businesses would shut down b/c they cant get credit?  when was the last f'n time MS or GS issued a small business loan?  On another note 3 month yields go negative & equity mkt @ has had epic multiple expansion since March.  One of these mkts is wrong.  I'm guessing its not the fixed income mkt. 

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:03 | Link to Comment Brett in Manhattan
Brett in Manhattan's picture

These programs can be rationalized by saying that had we not done anything we would've spiralled into depression. This premise can't be proved false, therefore administration is protected from criticism.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:09 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:53 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

laugh or cry.

laugh or cry.

laugh or cry.

decisions.......

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:59 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

I choose - Cry.  You should too.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:44 | Link to Comment Oso
Oso's picture

hahahaha

 

i kind of do both simultaneously.  its what being strapped in a straight-jacket and locked in a looney-bin must feel like.

 

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 02:40 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

I just bottle it all up inside, keep it all packed down in there.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 08:39 | Link to Comment Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

I have become comfortably numb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkJNyQfAprY

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:03 | Link to Comment LittleSambo
LittleSambo's picture

Is there any legal limit to how far the Fed can expand its balance sheet?

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:17 | Link to Comment heatbarrier
heatbarrier's picture

Nov. 19, 2009,
Panel votes to audit the Fed; cap its spending at $4 trillion
Measure would audit the Fed's monetary policies such as interest rates

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panel-votes-to-audit-feds-balance-sheet...

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:40 | Link to Comment SayTabserb
SayTabserb's picture

Currently, I think sky's the limit. What I would be interested in is anyone's opinion on whether Sec. 14 of the 1913 Act in any way authorizes the purchase of mortgage-backed securities as one of the listed assets the Fed banks are allowed to deal in. 

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:27 | Link to Comment Brett in Manhattan
Brett in Manhattan's picture

Much like the codocil in the Faber College bylaws that allowed Dean Wormer unlimited power in times of emergency, the Fed has its own rule for moving the goalposts when things aren't going as planned.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:16 | Link to Comment SayTabserb
SayTabserb's picture

Festering, indeed. Obama's stated intention to work on lowering the deficit in 2010 may represent a case of making a virtue out of necessity. If the Fed bought 1/2 of the Treasury action since March (as it certainly appears to have done), then all these auctions coming up could get a little dicey if the "buyers" are not backstopped by the Fed rushing in a few days later to take the zero % scrip off their hands. This is going to get weird, I think.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:20 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

don't worry, the Fed will pressure the banks into buying the Treasuries, just like Argentina did in 2001.

same playbook, different country.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 08:34 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

agreed....that trillion in reserves on deposit at the Fed can buy some serious paper.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:34 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

Nikkei tankin again.

Thu, 11/19/2009 - 23:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:38 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

Govenorated, Pelosied, Calfornication...you decide.  I think every American should give UCLA $1....not!  Ask the illegals, maybe they can help.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:48 | Link to Comment SloSquez
SloSquez's picture

The cop in the bike hat code named, "Sebastian" is killing me.  LMAO.  Californians wouldn't know a riot if it hit them in the face.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:59 | Link to Comment IE
IE's picture

Please don't call the game in the first few innnings. I personally don't think this issue is an inflationary sign at all, in context.  I think this is more of a sign of emerging/growing scarcity ... which is actually a symptom of deflation.  The prices of luxury items (e.g. education) can actually increase for a while during times of deflation...as the prices are bid up by the fewer & fewer people who have currency ... until the luxury items are no longer available because there aren't enough people to justify the production.  In this case this will eventually result in a decrease in the demand & availability of education... or ... not inflationary at all.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:31 | Link to Comment SayTabserb
SayTabserb's picture

Well, you see - that's it right there. "Couple of years of suffering." No can do. Takes you right up to Nov. 2010. Not politically possible. So better to have two years of pretend followed by 10 or 20 years of collapse.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 00:49 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

feds a private bank. if they buy stuff they are not authorized to. then why would the american poeple be obligated to cover their losses. we play by the rules, you play by the rules. its a contract one side breaches, contract void

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 01:25 | Link to Comment Fritz
Fritz's picture

input = the Fed's grand experiment

output = Epic Fail

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 03:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 03:12 | Link to Comment send lawyers gu...
send lawyers guns and money's picture

Well, I for one am glad to have my FRNs backed by MBS.  After all, who wouldn't want their cocaine-laced $20's backed by foreclosed-on Miami condos?  Don Johnson, you ain't got nuthin' on me!

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 07:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 08:44 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 08:44 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:02 | Link to Comment snorkeler
snorkeler's picture

Try the Ukrainian Black version.  It seems to protect the best. Especially if you have piled on allot of debt.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:40 | Link to Comment Martijn
Martijn's picture

Alright guys,

The Fed's balance sheet has mainly increased on MBSs. That means it must have purchased those from the banks holding them. As at the same time we see interest on short term Tresuries turn negative, it seems to me that banks are using the cash they got for the MBSs to buy T-bills.

Seems like a clear case doesn't it?

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Brett in Manhattan
Brett in Manhattan's picture

No, the banks are just putting the money in "their" bank, the Fed, which is now paying interest on reserves.

The advantage of doing this is that when the Fed finally raises rates, the banks don't have to sell their treasuries at a loss.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Mark Beck
Mark Beck's picture

I think there may be some kind of reciprocal understanding, but it won't last at the current rates. If I was able to dump my bank bad debts on to the FED, I would take the money and look for better returns than Treasuries. I may devote some money towards Treasuries, just to keep the FED happy. But it would only be 10% or so. Also, I would be looking to divest out of US dollars, and buy something more liquid than 2 year notes to help weather future loan/credit losses. 

What happens when equities sell off, well you could see some capital move towards Treasuries. However, I would imagine the amounts would be less than we experienced last Fall and into Winter.

Mark Beck

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 10:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Mark Beck
Mark Beck's picture

So now we wait. Tick Tock, Tick Tock, what would Edgar think?

Who is that tapping at my chamber door? Only this and nothing more?

Eagerly I wished the morrow;--vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow--sorrow for the lost Lenore--
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore--
Nameless here for evermore. 

While congress was napping, and so gently you came rapping, nothing more, than the economy, lost like Lenore.  

----------

How much has the FED primed the Treasury purchase pipeline? When will the auction results show true US Treasury market conditions? We wait and wonder.

Will the FED step in with more Treasury purchases? I really would like to hear what the Administration thinks of an action such as this. Mr. President quick question, how is it possible to pay our debts with more debts? Why don't we cut government spending instead?

Mark Beck

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:52 | Link to Comment Steroid
Steroid's picture

"Let's back our money with MBS made of confiscated church properties"

Maximilien Robespierre, 1792

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:23 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!