Free Money! Is The Fed Paying Banks $22 Billion To Not Lend?

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Excess reserves of depository institutions peaked at $2.7 trillion in August of 2014. By December of 2016, excess reserves fell to $1.9 trillion but have since climbed back to $2.2 trillion.

On October 3, 2008, Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 allowed the Federal Reserve banks to begin paying interest on excess reserve balances (“IOER”) as well as required reserves. The Federal Reserve banks began doing so three days later.

As interest rates have risen, so has the free money to banks.

Excess Reserves

Interest Paid on Excess Reserves

At 1% interest, banks receive $22 billion in free money every year, nearly all of that goes to the largest banks.

Banks Paid $22 Billion to Not Lend?

Some argue that banks have an incentive to not lend, simply to collect interest.

Mathematically, it does not work that way. Excess reserves are a function of the Fed’s balance sheet and those reserves do not change whether a bank lends more or not.

A discussion of Interest on Excess Reserves and Cash “Parked” at the Fed on the New York Fed Liberty Street website explains.

Reserve balances that are in excess of requirements are frequently referred to as “idle” cash that banks choose to keep “parked” at the Fed. These comments are sensible at the level of an individual bank, which can clearly choose how much money to keep in its reserve account based on available lending opportunities and other factors. However, the total quantity of reserve balances doesn’t depend on these individual decisions. How can it be that what’s true for each individual bank is not true for the banking system as a whole?

 

The resolution to this apparent puzzle is that when one bank decides to hold a lower balance in its reserve account, the funds it sheds necessarily end up in the account of another bank, leaving the total unchanged.

 

In the aggregate, therefore, these balances do not represent “idle” funds that the banking system is unwilling to lend. In fact, the total quantity of reserve balances held by banks conveys no information about their lending activities – it simply reflects the Federal Reserve’s decisions on how many assets to acquire.

Lending Excess Reserves Is Impossible

The above Liberty Street explanation is precisely why the ECB’s negative interest rate policy cannot possibly work.

Bank loans do not change the total amount of excess reserves.

Nonsense from the Minneapolis Fed

Curiously, the Minneapolis Fed article Should We Worry About Excess Reserves? by consultant Christopher Phelan comes to the wrong conclusion.

Since each dollar of bank deposit requires approximately only 10 cents of required reserves at the Fed, then each dollar of excess reserves can be converted by banks into 10 dollars of deposits. That is, for every dollar in excess reserves, a bank can lend 10 dollars to businesses or households and still meet its required reserve ratio. And since a bank’s loan simply increases the dollar amount in the borrower’s account at that bank, these new loans are part of the economy’s total stock of liquidity. Thus, if every dollar of excess reserves were converted into new loans at a ratio of 10 to one, the $2.4 trillion in excess reserves would become $24 trillion in new loans, and M2 liquidity would rise from $12 trillion to $36 trillion, a tripling of M2.

 

Could this happen (and if so, why hasn’t it happened already)?

 

In a recent paper (Bassetto and Phelan 2015), Marco Bassetto and I provide a theoretical justification for why such a run on the Fed by banks could happen, but is not certain to happen, and we thereby furnish an explanation for why it has not happened yet. The idea is that paying interest on excess reserves sets up a game between banks that has multiple equilibria, meaning it can result in more than one stable outcome.

Nonsense from the Cleveland Fed

Ben Craig, senior economic advisor for the Cleveland Fed contributes to the mindless economic chatter in Excess Reserves: Oceans of Cash.

Since the financial crisis, American banks have increased their excess reserves, that is, the cash funds they hold over and above the Federal Reserve’s requirements. Excess reserves grew from $1.9 billion in August 2008 to $2.6 trillion in January 2015.

 

Why are U.S. banks holding the liquidity being pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve as excess reserves instead of making more loans? The answer to this question has implications for monetary policy and the real economy, but it is elusive because the current economic environment is complex and still new. However, a first step toward an answer is understanding why banks choose to hold excess reserves in the first place and how their choices have been affected by new Federal Reserve policies introduced in the wake of the financial crisis.

 

The increased demand for reserve assets has been matched by the Fed’s willingness to supply them.

 

The fact that banks are holding excess reserves in response to the risks and interest rates that they face suggests that the reserves are not likely to cause large, unexpected increases in their loan portfolios. However, it is not clear what banks are likely to do in the future when the perceived conditions change or which conditions are likely to bring about a massive change in their use of excess reserves. Recent history is not much help in determining the answer to this question because no balances this big have been seen in recent times.

Mathematical Nonsense

The above paragraphs are complete mathematical nonsense, yet the Minneapolis Fed and the Cleveland Fed published them.

The Cleveland Fed article went so far as to say “increased demand for reserve assets has been matched by the Fed’s willingness to supply them.”

There is no “demand” for excess reserves. Rather, the Fed has crammed excess reserves into the system and has decided to pay interest on them.

Conclusions

  1. Mathematically speaking, excess reserves cannot spur lending.
  2. Banks are not paid $22 billion to “not lend” $2.2 trillion as many contend.
  3. Banks are paid $22 billion because the Fed decided to do so.

Whether or not banks lend has nothing to do with interest on excess loans. Rather, the decision to pay interest on excess reserves is simply $22 billion in free money to banks every year, at taxpayer expense.

At best, paying interest on excess reserves was a purposeful backdoor bailout of insolvent banks.

The ECB arguably compounded European banks’ problems by forcing excess reserves into the system, then charging interest on them, weakening banks in the process.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Timmay's picture

"Nonsense" a good word to describe America today....

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

One word, "Duration Mismatch"

Print MOAR!

nuubee's picture

Suddenly all those flashy internet ads telling me "inflation is coming" look like prophecy.

max2205's picture

Eitherway fuck the Fed..  I ain't getting shit 

Uchtdorf's picture

OK, one last time, somebody please tell me who owns the Federal Reserve System. Was it:

A. The people

B. The government

C. The IMF

D. Some banks that need naming.

juggalo1's picture

Banks.  You can find a list of them in about 2 minutes on google.

cheka's picture

keep rising price inflation down.  there's plenty left for nyc to steal

JRobby's picture

April 18, 2017: Fed finally figures out that there has been too much irresponsible lending to the parties that will least help the economy.

(Laugh Track Deafening !!!!)

Here's to some of the great economic minds of our time! We are completely fucked. There is no road back without massive write downs.

And you know how "They" feel about write downs!

ndotken's picture

The article mixes up loans (which are assets) with deposits (which are liabilities).  The writer has no idea what he's talking about.

Dwain Dibley's picture

Banks do not 'loan' from deposits.  Banks do not 'loan' from reserves.  Banks do not 'loan' money, period.  There is no such thing as a 'supply of loanable funds'.  There is no such thing as a 'money multiplier'.  The Federal Reserve has no legal authority to create money.  The banks have no legal authority to create money.  The credit generated by the Fed and the banks is not money.  Crediting deposit accounts with the amounts, is not the same as payment.  

Reserve accounts held at the Fed are not legal tender FRNs, or 'cash', they are assets, primarily Treasuries, Agency Mortgage Backed Securities and Special Drawing Rights Certificates.  These securities, held as reserves, are what the FOMC manipulates to achieve their erroneously labeled 'Monetary Policy'.  The Fed's current balance of uncollateralized legal tender cash stands at $173-Billion.  As per Paragraph 1, Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed is barred from using the legal tender FRNs for any purpose other than supplying demand for the notes, which is driven by depositor demand.

Here are the 'Money Supply' facts: There is a total of $1.5-Trillion in U.S. legal tender dollars in circulation around the globe.  Of that, $280-Billion is in circulation within the U.S.  Of that, $74-Billion is held in bank vaults.  Of that $74-Billion, the Fed counts $64-Billion as 'Required Reserves' and $10-Billion as 'Excess Reserves'.  The 'required reserves' averages out to a 3% reserve ratio on demand deposits.

That $74-Billion held in bank vaults backs the $1.9-Trillion in credited demand deposit accounts.  It also backs the $9.3-Trillion in credited savings accounts.  It also backs all commercial credit transactions, from Main Street to Wall Street, and all points in between and beyond.  It also backs all U.S.G. payments.  And that, is the reality of Fractionally Reserved Banking.  It has absolutely nothing to do with a bank's ability to generate credit as 'loans', and everything to do with a bank's ability to cover credited deposit account withdrawals.

MONEY

JRobby's picture

DR - Loan Asset

   CR - Customer's DDA Account (net of fees!!!)

VOILA !!!!

CNONC's picture

I suggest you reread the article. He makes no such mistake. Loans and deposits are both liabilities and assets. It just depends on which side of the transaction you are on. The point is that excess reserves are liabilities of the Fed and, therefore, assets of the commercial banks. The commercial banks have simply traded assets with a fixed maturity (the bonds and mortgage backed securities) for assets with no maturity. That helps to fix the duration mismatch problem the banks tend to fall into (borrowing short and lending long)  Presumably, these excess reserves, while part of the monetary base, cannot become "money" and contribute to inflation since they must mathematically remain as somebody's excess reserves. However, they are part of the assets on the commercial banks balance sheets.  I wonder, sometimes, if, given a large enough series of bank failures, these excess reserves might not be "liquidated" through the bankruptcy process and then contribute to CPI inflation even as asset values deflate.  Talk about a doomsday scenario.

But, maybe that's why I don't keep my wealth in banks.  I'm safe whether I'm right or just nuts. 

Dwain Dibley's picture

I believe you're getting 'reserves' mixed up with Fed held securities obtained through its open market operations, which is the "asset swap" you're referencing.

When banks park assets at the Fed as 'reserves', they're not "trading assets" with the Fed by doing it.  They get nothing except the interest on the reserves.

Bank asset reserves held at the Fed do not add to the monetary base, unless or until they are used to buy legal tender FRNs from the Fed.  The Fed, in turn, uses them as collateral backing to get the legal tender FRNs from the Treasury.

CNONC's picture

When the Fed purchases securities on the open market from commercial banks, the bank's account at the Fed is credited with a dollar balance.  That balance, if left at the Fed, is the bank's "reserves."  By definition, the "monetary base" is the sum of commercial bank reserve balances held at the central bank and the currency in circulation.  Thus, if a bank sells the Fed a Treasury bond with a 7 year duration, it recieves a cash balance in its reserve account, which has no duration. In aggregate, all Fed asset purchases become deposits at commercial banks, and, all else being equal, become excess reserves even if the Fed's direct counterparty in an asset purchase is not a commercial bank.  Again, the Fed held securities are an asset on the Fed's balance sheet.  The offsetting liability is the reserve account balance of the commercial bank, so I am not mixing them up, they are two the two sides of the transaction.  In the end, the duration of the Fed's assets lengthens, while the duration of the commercial bank's assets shortens.

Since, by definition, the monetary base is composed of reserve account balances and currency in circulation, the question becomes, in a monetary sense, are excess reserves "money"?  We are pretty sure we know how the economy reacts when we add more "money" in the form of currency.  We get Zimbabwe.  We're not sure how these reserve balances affect the economy.  The Fed seems to think they are neutral, simply an artifact of open market operations.  Many people expected hyperinflation from QE, assuming that expanding the monetary base meant the same thing as "printing money."  They were wrong.  Those who expect inflation when the banks suddenly begin lending those reserves are also wrong.  But, you touch on the potential danger when you state that they do not add to the monetary base until they are used to buy legal tender.  Leave aside the definition of base money, if the reserves become "liquified," or turned into "FRNs" as you say, then inflation becomes possible.  And there is my idea of banks being resolved in bankruptcy as the means by which the excess reserves become "money."

Dwain Dibley's picture

Yes, you are mixing FOMC/open market operations and reserve balances together and treating them as if they're a single function.  They are not.  If you would look at the Fed's H.4.1 Report (Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions) you will note that the Reserves held at the Fed are as stated, primarily Treasuries, Agency Mortgage Backed Securities and Special Drawing Rights Certificates, not 'credited deposit accounts' as banks cannot acquire legal tender FRNs with 'bank credit', they have to use an asset and that's what the reserves held at the Fed are, the depositing bank's assets.  The reserve assets listed are the only collateral accepted by the Treasury for FRNs.  The Fed can only acquire FRNs from the Treasury upon posting collateral of equal value, and only to supply the bank demand for the notes, which is driven by deposit account holders, as per Section 16 of the FRA.

Neither the Fed or the banks possess the legal authority to create U.S. money/currency and there is no law that designates or even acknowledges their "credited accounting entries" as being a U.S. money/currency.  In other words, the asset-backed, debt-based private credit generated by the Fed and banks is not U.S. money/currency, it is a promise to pay U.S. legal tender money/currency.  Your credit is their debt.  

People are confusing a means of payment, the transfer of a debt obligation (credit), for the medium of exchange, what is owed as payment (an asset).  Checks as well as debit cards, credit cards, money orders, etc., are a means of payment, referred to as a generally accepted (institutional) arrangement or method that facilitates delivery of money from one to another.  Actual payment has not been made unless or until actual money proper has changed hands.  This necessarily implies that: 'Crediting your account with the amount' and 'Payment', are two different things.  Bank managed credit is the accounting for the legal tender money, the asset owed in payment.

The notion that we’re using ‘digital money’ or ‘digital currency’ or ‘digital dollars’ or 'credit dollars' or 'credit money' as a medium of exchange is nothing more than a trick of the mind, a figment of our overactive imaginations, a deception, it’s how we rationalize the transaction, and it's how the banksters get away with stealing our labor and wealth.

Your deposit accounts represent cash money earned by you and owed to you by the banks. The banks get the cash from the Fed by purchasing it with assets (reserves held at the Fed). The Fed gets the cash from the Treasury by first paying for the production of the cash notes then posting collateral (from the reserves held at the Fed) of equal value for the notes received (this regulates the Fed's access to the notes). The Fed is barred by law from using the cash notes for any other purposes other than issuing them in order to fill demand, which is driven by depositors. All profits obtained by the Fed's monetary activities and surrendered to the Treasury, are counted as seigniorage interest payments on the notes issued. In other words, the Fed is paying the Treasury interest on the notes it puts into circulation, and that interest is all of the Fed's profits minus dividend payments and expenses (this ensures that the U.S.G. retains ownership of the notes issued).  Legal Tender Status

CNONC's picture

The H.4.1 is the Fed's weekly recap of its balance sheet.  The first section, "factors supplying reserve funds," which includes treasuries, mortgage backed securities, gold, SDR's, etc. represents the ASSETS of the Fed, not the reserve assets of the depository institutions.  The second section, "factors absorbing reserve funds" represents the Fed's liabilities.  After accounting for relatively minor things like foreign bank deposits at the Fed, repo's and the like, what is left as the vast bulk of Fed liabilities are Cash in circulation, 1,540,054 million dollars, and RESERVE BALANCES WITH FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, 2,337,776 million dollars.  Add those two figures, plus the other minor amounts in section two, and they will equal the total in section 1, balancing the balance sheet.  Again, commercial bank reserves are held at the Fed as dollar denominated account balances, not as treasuries, agency securities, mortgage backed securities, gold, SDRs, etc.  Those things are the assets the Fed buys with on the open market with digital accounting entries, not FRNs.  Open market operations do not affect directly or significantly currency in circulation. 

Dwain Dibley's picture

A collum total of assets held does not make a new asset.  The Fed does not 'buy' reserve assets from banks.  The total of reserve assets held is entered into the Fedwire system, which is the Fed's interbank settlements system.  Fedwire is just an electronic accounting of the bank reserve assets held and is used as a means of shifting ownership of those reserve assets as interbank settlements.  These 'Fedwire Funds' do not have an existence outside the Fedwire system, in other words, banks cannot withdraw those 'electronic accounting entries' and use them anywhere else, all they can do is either take back their assets or exchange the assets for FRNs, which would deplete their Fedwire accounts.

Banks do not need anything from the Fed in order to generate credit, all they need are credit-able assets, either supplied by the 'borrower' or held outright (liquidity).

JRobby's picture

As with any multiple choice question, you can usually throw out 2 choices right off the bat. A & B are out.

NoDebt's picture

Hey, guess what?  You're going to be paid 0% on your bank savings account money for as long as you live.  And your children.  And your grandchildren.

There is absolutely NO NEED for banks to take in more deposits (in aggregate, across the entire banking system) with $2T of excess reserves laying around the joint.

 

Donald Trump's picture

Free Money? As we already know it, FREE is never free...it cmes with hidden agenda.

Take Healthcare for example...that free care comes with hidden experiments...where you are just a mere lab rat.

LAW: You Can Now Become the Subject of a Vaccination or Medication Experiment Without Your Consent

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-04-18/law-you-can-now-become-the-sub...


Doña K's picture

It is not legal for the fed to give money to the banks.

They are using this ploy to bypass the regulation. They are effectively giving them money.

Who has the cojones in the DOJ to call them on it? 

Get to work Mr. Sessions!

Heavy's picture

government's been captured by money

Dwain Dibley's picture

Technically, the Fed is not giving money to the banks, that would be a violation of Title 12 Section 411.

What the Fed can do is 'credit their accounts with the amounts', which they can then use as if it were money.

People are severely dumbed down to believe that "crediting deposit accounts with the amounts" is the same as payment.  

 

asteroids's picture

Folks the real number is the $2.7T in printed up funny money that's been holding up the markets.

Dwain Dibley's picture

There are only $1.5-Trillion in printed U.S. legal tender money in circulation around the globe.

$280-billion of that is in circulation within the U.S.

$71-billion of that is held in bank vaults.

That's all the money there is, everything else is either bank debt or asset values, not money.

toady's picture

"That's two words dude."

"SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNIE!"

Juliette's picture

Lunacy is a much better word.

Pairadimes's picture

I prefer to think of it as the largest crime in the history of humanity.

JRobby's picture

I like "Unprecedented Criminality" but that's 2 words.

PGR88's picture

Just another example of how the Federal Reserve, and our statist, centrally-planned, politicized monetary system benefits the oligarchy and the 0.1%

Osmium's picture

This explains why there is a bank on every corner.

11b40's picture

And they have the biggest, shiniest, most modern buildings on the most desirable pieces of property.

dogballs's picture

They also like their names on sports stadiums. Lots of advertising cash.

Consuelo's picture



  1. "Banks are paid $22 billion because the Fed decided to do so."

 

And den...?   The Fed doesn't just sling $hash at the banks for no reason...

 

Followed up somewhat reluctantly by this:

 

"At best, paying interest on excess reserves was a purposeful backdoor bailout of insolvent banks."

 

There is no 'mathematical nonsense' around the italicized words above - so why not just state the obvious right outta the chute...?  

 

MEFOBILLS's picture

At best, paying interest on excess reserves was a purposeful backdoor bailout of insolvent banks.

The FED paid interest on dollars as a sop to banks.  Fed was pulling TBills out of reserve loops with QE

 

Interest has always been paid on TBills stored in bank reserve loops.  TBills are debt instruments that demand interest as part of their design.

First rounds of QE were the buying of TBills.   The Fed cranks up their keyboard, creates new dollars, then buys TBills out of their private bank system.  It is actually a swap, where the word "buy" does not convey the real meaning.

Later QE rounds bought other paper like Mortgage Backed Securities.  After all, the 601 SPV's at Primary Dealer Banks created MBS, and FED is the backstop for private banking system.

Swapping implies it is like items.  In this case a new QE Dollar earns interest in the swap, the same as TBill.  A Tbill carried interest for the banker as a source of income.  Also, the Tbill is considered near money as it is liquid.  Even though the TBill is a debt instrument it can be converted to dollars quickly as it is backed by government.

So, in this way, when QE came into being, it deprived banks of TBill income stream, so the policy was changed to give banks intererest on dollars. QE credit keyboard, from FED, was aimed at bank reserve loops.  Banker reserves were a ratio of less TBills and more dollars.

An analogy would be to take money from your savings account and move it to your checking account.  Your overall wealth position did not change.   The buying of TBills in this way, removed them from banker reserve loops, and simultaneously bid market TBill price high.  The relation for TBills is: price high and interest rates low.  Price high and interest rate low.  Price high and interest rate low.   

QE then drove interest rates low in the hope that you the victim, would hypothecate yourself.  Some people call this the price of money.  But, it is not money , it is bank credit.  Go out and take out a new loan!

Bank credit has a time vector, and it demands to be paid back with interest, and on a schedule.  When principle is paid back, the former credit vanishes from existence.  This type of money has a lot of problems, as today's world amply demonstrates.

The 2008 collapse meant that people stopped taking out loans, which then caused credit supply to vanish.  Credit supply was draining as people paid down their former debts.  In order to lure you to take out a new loan, then interest rates were driven down with the QE gambit.

The FEDs balance sheet grew with now transferred debt instruments, and bank reserve loops grew with QE dollars.  These dollars are now paid interest.

The other piece of the gambit is to keep overnight rate from crossing zero bound.  That means banks don't offer their excess reserves on the overnight market to other banks, because they are being paid to hold dollar reserves.

Backdoor bailout may have been purposeful.. who knows?  But, Bernanke's  original aim was to force interest rates lower, to then hopefully stimulate new loan/debt activity.  (Keynes would not have approved - he advocated direct exogenous spending by Treasury in debt depression scenarios.)

Another factor for QE was to sweep bonds from secondary market.  There is a transmission path for QE from private banks, and I suspect it is primary dealers making loans to themselves to then buy the TBills.  Sweeping bonds out of secondary market means that government can then create new bonds to fill the hole.  Deficit spending then can be done cheaply.

Bank credit is a con and has been from the beginning.  Private corporate bank credit system should be flushed down the crapper where it belongs.

Money's true nature is law.

www.sovereignmoney.eu

 

wwxx's picture

"Backdoor bailout may have been purposeful.. who knows?  But, Bernanke's  original aim..."

 

hummmph, I think 'clean up money laundering' is on the roulette wheel of excuses.  I wonder what can be said of the money laundering clean-up, yanno since 2008?~~~~just curious if it has actually become vanquished, or simply moved from the savings accounts to the checking accounts?

 

wwxx

MEFOBILLS's picture

The 1% and .05% and smaller part of pyramid make money from money. Studies done on large corporations show that they are often owned by finance, or the boards are controlled by finance.

If you were a bank owner, and your reserves are making interest, even for dollars held - then that is pretty easy living.  Are you really having to work and labor?

wwxx's picture

 "Are you really having to work and labor?"

 

well, ya, that is all I know, work and labor and become old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VWAndy's picture

 Funny thing about that. All I ever wanted to do was build cool shit and be left alone to do it with whoever I felt like doing it with.

Farewellyou's picture

My humble comment o the 3 conclusions of Mish
    <1 Mathematically speaking, excess reserves cannot spur lending.>
Excess reserves are IOUs, not reserves at all.

    <2Banks are not paid $22 billion to “not lend” $2.2 trillion as many contend.>
    <3Banks are paid $22 billion because the Fed decided to do so.>
Nope, Banks are paid interest because they swapped their risky interest bearing assets with the FED for monetary IOUs, becoming savers with a CLAIM on risk free interest.

 Central bank reserves constitute true liquidity out of nothing, similar to currency. In an ideal sound banking world were fiat money were better than gold, reserves are lent from the central bank to commercial banks who show up with collateral in the form of sound debt assets. In this world, fractional banking is an iterative lending process to provide true liquidity out of nothing in advance (which is risky) of debt financed real capital building in very small steps (which is prudent), near shifting equilibrium.

 What is named “excess reserves” with interest on those “reserves” are in essence no reserves at all, they are no form of electronic currency (no electronic cash for bank transfer) and they are macro economically not liquid – they are IOUs issued by the central bank to commercials banks with the misnomer “reserves”.

“Excess Reserves” come about by QE, where commercial banks SOLD (removed from their balance sheet) much risky debt to the central bank in return for essentially IOUs at an account of the central bank. Banks insofar degenerated from being risk taking middlemen to risk adverse SAVERS that deserve interest on monetary IOUs, which the central bank pays out from its capital income which flows from the risky debt assets on its balance sheet.

The reason why IOUs are macro economically not liquidity is because monetary IOUs are a derivative claim on future cash flows. Monetary IOUs are a derivate of debt, therefore they are not cash. Only cash can be spent for real consumption today by Peter without balancing equal real disinvestment (paying back debt) today by Paul.

Muse minus Time's picture

Money won't matter soon...Divine Celestial Signs coming 9-20-23/2017 http://watchfortheday.org/thesign.html

JRobby's picture

Wasn't that supposed to happen in 2015, 9/21/2015?

3LockBox's picture

F'n liars and thieves.

RagaMuffin's picture

Mish lost me. If the FED crammed excess resreves into the system(ie the banks) and the banks had to deposit to the FED to get their piece of the 22bil what's the dif to the economy if the banks go with the "sure" 22 bil vs loans?

venturen's picture

what is even worse...is some of these banks are foreign

JRobby's picture

That, in my opinion is the dead giveaway on the whole stinking Fed mess. Foriegn infiltration of an entity that is in many ways more important and influential than GOVT.

 

VWAndy's picture

 What else did you expect from a bunch of thievin crackheads. They are all hooked on the fiat crack. If you were in their shoes you prolly would be too. Think about it. Aint no way they are going to stop hitting the fiat crack pipe. Without the fiat magic most all of them hang. The others get burned at the steak.

Conax's picture

They give themselves lavish welfare payments then strut around the room as though their business acumen brought them success.

It was chutzpah all along. 

LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, The Fed is a private bank that continues to give free money (NIRP/ZIRP) to the banking/finance sector of the economy via their "bought-and-paid-for" puppet in D.C.

So long as you accept that "money" in exchange for the prodicts of your labor, nothing changes.

Hence, The Fed continues to enable the theft of everyone's labor and assets for the benefit of a few.