Category Archives: Federal Reserve Bank

Q & A on the Fed

Q: “What your thoughts are on how the FED is performing with the interest rates and do they understand the cycles and/or are they aware that there is so much they can control?”

Continue reading

Interest Rates and Central Banks

On February 13, 2024, we received a thoughtful response from Hanif Bayat to a comment that we made about the rise in real estate prices in Canada.

image

This response was preceded by the comment from Hanif Bayat, “Maybe Bank of Canada’s too many rate cuts in 2008, while Canadian home prices didn't crash unlike U.S.”

First and foremost, neither the Bank of Canada or the Federal Reserve of the United States have any say in the direction of interest rates.  Rate policy is dictated by the markets.  The only issue is how long before the central banks respond to the market rates.

We start with the longest running and continuously reported data series [a must for good analysis] on interest rates found at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED).

image

Using the “Monthly, Percent, Not Seasonally Adjusted” (TB3MS) data from January 1934 to January 2024, we can compare that to the “Interest Rates, Discount Rate for United States” (INTDSRUSM193N) data from 1950 to 2021. 

image

The “Interest Rates, Discount Rate for United States” is the actual Federal Reserve response to market rates. 

What you’ll notice between to the two data sets from 1950 and after is that the Federal Reserve never led the directions of interest rates from a prior peak or trough.

image

image

Pick your period and you’ll see the same outcome.  Let’s expand this concept beyond the limited period offered by FRED.

image

If the 90 year history of the data is consistent with the Federal Reserve Bank following the market then we can expand that to the period from 1915 to 1960 for a reasonable period of overlap to confirm the consistency of the claim [THE CLAIM: neither the Bank of Canada or the Federal Reserve of the United States have any say in the direction of interest rates.  Rate policy is dictated by the markets] and the data.

The claim of the Fed holding rates at any level “too long” or “too short” is nullified.  This extends to the Bank of Canada.  Why?

Image

Autonomy of interest rates is a nuanced topic.  However, when we zoom out, we can clearly see that the overall direction of interest rates, on a secular basis, between Canada and the U.S. are joined at the hip.  This confirms the words of Charles H. Dow (co-founder of the Wall Street Journal) in October 1, 1901:

image

For this reason, when we see that the Canadian rate environment following  the same secular trend as the U.S., then we don’t have to worry about whether or not Canada has any control over their rates.  For this reason, the Bank of Canada didn’t hold down rates artificially or too long.

Let’s solidify the idea that central banks have zero say over the secular trend in interest rates. Why? Because we haphazardly referred to the idea earlier but did not nail down the concept.

image

In the 1947 book titled “Cycles: The Science of Prediction”, Edward Dewey and Edwin Dakin present the idea that there would be a peak in inflation and interest rates in 1979.  This assessment is based on the cyclical pattern of rates from 1790 to 1947. In addition to the idea of a peak in 1979 that would be followed by a decline, Dewey had a low set at 2006.  Years of work with cycles has taught us that there will be slippage that pushes out any expected peak or trough. 

Most important to understand about Dewey’s work ( founder, Foundation for the Study of Cycles) is that it was premised on the data from 1790 and earlier.  For the Wholesale Prices from 1790 to 2000 above, the period in red indicates before the modern central bank.

Let’s reinforce the idea that central banks have little impact on the direction of interest rates.  The chart below was generously provided by @WinfieldSmart on Twitter from October 12, 2020. Our update to the chart was to simply indicate the period before the Federal Reserve in red.

image

As can be plainly seen, the direction of interest rates, on average, has been on a vigorous declining trend for the period in question.  That interest rates would possibly go to zero and stay there for an extended period of time should not surprise anyone.

Some have proposed that central bank policy is moving the needle for interest rates in the short term and therefore, they do have an impact on interest rates. More specifically, this claim is often associated with the concept of Quantitative Easing (QE) as a remedy for the housing crisis (GFC).  Let’s put that idea to rest with the following review of the data.

The concept of modern Quantitative Easing (QE) is thanks to the work of the Bank of Japan.  The perceived manipulation of markets with the uses of QE surely must have been the reason that interest rates were held down for so long, right?

image

In a piece by Henry McMillan and Jerome Baesel from 1988, they projected the direction of interest rates from near double digits rates to negative rates by 2008 to 2022.  Remember, this was before the implementation of QE in Japan and the U.S.

Nothing that central banks have done is out of line for what could have been expected from 1988 or 1310.  This brings us to the topic of home prices in Canada.  That will be our follow-up article in the commentary with Hanif Bayat. 

See also:

An Autopsy of the Glass-Steagall Act

As originally published on SeekingAlpha on March 31, 2009.

If the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 is the reason that we got into this financial mess, then the path to destruction began long before the intermingling of banks, brokerages, and insurances companies with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Republicans have justifiably accused the Democrats of the fall of the financial systems by allowing Democrat supported regulators to not do their respective jobs of regulating. Not to be outdone, the Democrats have accused the Republicans for the demise of the banking system through the effort to de-regulate. And in fact, this charge by the Democrats is also true. Acting in a bipartisan manner, the Democrats and Republicans have unanimously undermined the very system that they earlier created.

Now that we’re clear as to who is responsible for our current malaise, let’s look at the other parties that are vital to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. First and foremost is the Federal Reserve. Once the politicians set the ball in motion the Fed picked it up and started running. The Fed’s stance on the matter was, “if anyone is gonna change things it might as well be in our favor.” To preempt any discussion of the matter, the Federal Reserve drew up its own vision of the way things should be. But there were those who didn’t quit agree with this vision.

Along comes the FDIC with an alternate view of the way things should work. The FDIC says, “Why should the Fed write the rules but we have to insure the failures without any input?” This eventually turned into a turf war between regulatory agencies. The question wasn’t about the sensibility of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, instead the debate was about who was going to get the biggest piece of the regulatory pie.

Recognizing that the only debate regarding repealing Glass-Steagall was who gets the most regulatory power, the insurance, brokerage and banking industries decided to take action. Nothing puts the nail in the coffin more than ignoring the current law in anticipation of the expected change. The string of mergers that followed the Swiss Bank and Dillon, Read and Co. partnership in May of 1997 ensured that Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed.

Finally, the last participant in this process was the American public. The public lacked the understanding, or concern, that the repeal of such a law was holding back the flood that would eventually push our economy to the brink. Advocacy groups who routinely rail against the banks and the Federal Reserve had lost, in the eyes of the public, the credibility necessary to demonstrate why this time, as opposed to all the other times, things were different and we as the public needed to debate the issue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

Glass-Steagall is officially a relic of a bygone era. It seems that our politicians, both Democrat and Republican, will now have to create a new regulatory framework that will ensure their own viability as a going concern. All that is left is the turf war over who gets the 1% majority to run Congress and the White House. To bad the duopoly in government has a death grip on any and all competing ideas.

Timeline/Sources:

  • July 1983: Treasury Secretary presents to the President the proposed bank industry deregulation that includes “both bank and thrift holding companies to engage in a wide range of securities, insurance, and other financial activities.” Rosenstein, Jay. "Reagan hears Treasury's dereg plan; growing opposition causes delay action." American Banker (July 8, 1983)
  • July 11, 1983: President sends to Congress the Financial Institutions Deregulation Act. “Deregulation bill is sent to Congress: proposal would expand bank, thrift activities." American Banker (July 11, 1983)
  • January 17, 1984: Treasury Secretary feels that competitors to the banking industry are "…chipping away at [the system]. If that continues and banks aren't given the identical opportunities to other financial services companies, the banking system's base will simply erode and could collapse.” Ringer, Richard. "Regan says Bush panel to finish report this week. (Donald T. Regan; George Bush)." American Banker (Jan 17, 1984)
  • In February 1985: Acting general counsel Margery Waxman “recommends that Treasury Secretary James Baker add provisions empowering banks to underwrite mutual funds, and to allow bank holding companies to own securities brokerage houses, items missing from last year's [1984] Senate bill.” Naylor, Bartlett. "Will Baker, former bank attorney, fight hard for new banking laws?." American Banker (June 3, 1985)
  • November 5, 1985: “George Gould, nominated to be Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, seeks additional powers for banks to underwrite commercial paper and mutual funds.” Naylor, Bartlett. "Treasury to limit new bank powers quest, nominee says." American Banker (Nov 8, 1985)
  • August 14, 1992: “Banking lawyer Peter Wallison, former general counsel at the Treasury Dept, is promoting the same ideas for bank reform he touted in the early days of the Reagan administration. Wallison believes that restrictions on capital should be relaxed and banks allowed to diversify into markets more lucrative than loans. He says Congress is too focused on capital and has weakened good deregulation legislation promoted by the Bush Administration.”Cummins, Claudia. "Former Reagan official still fighting for banks." American Banker (August 14, 1992)
  • March 9, 1995: “Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently in favor of repealing the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibit affiliations between investment banking firms and member banks.” Isaac, William M. "Fed plan for securities powers isn't prudence but turf war. " American Banker. (March 9, 1995)
  • March 9, 1995: The proposal to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act was submitted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC said that it was in favor of repealing the provision that prohibited banks from affiliating with investment banks. Isaac, William M. "Fed plan for securities powers isn't prudence but turf war. " American Banker. (March 9, 1995)
  • May 16, 1997: Swiss Bank Corp. announces that it will buy investment bank Dillon, Read and Co. Ring, Niamh. "Swiss bank to acquire Dillon Read; fate of municipal division is unclear." The Bond Buyer (May 16, 1997)
  • June 9, 1997: BankAmerica acquires investment bank Robertson Stephens. Treaster, Joseph B. "BankAmerica to Buy Robertson, Stephens Investment Company." The New York Times (June 9, 1997)
  • July 7, 1997: NationsBank acquired investment bank Montgomery Securities. Haber, Carol. "Montgomery goes to NationsBank in rich and risky deal, some say." Electronic News (1991) 43.n2175 (July 7, 1997)
  • November 15, 1999: President repeals Glass-Steagall Act by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Iowa Republican Jim Leach “hailed the successful bipartisan effort after decades of failure.” Anason, Dean. "Clinton Enacts Glass-Steagall Repeal." American Banker 164.219 (Nov 15, 1999)

Deconstructing the “ End the Fed ‘Put’”

On January 31, 2023, Richard Bernstein penned a piece in the Financial Times titled “End The Fed ‘Put.’”  While eloquently written, there are points that require response which, if taken as a whole, negate the title and the claims that follow.  Below, our less than eloquent attempt on the subject of the "Fed Put.” Continue reading

Fed Balance Sheet Unwind and Market Rise

In the period from 2013 to 2019, the Federal Reserve was actively in the process of unwinding their balance sheet with what we can only imagine was their non-core “assets.” 

In the period from 2013 to 2019, counter to the claim that the Fed is THE reason the market has increased from the 2009 low, the stock market, as represented by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, increased +74.10%.

image

This assessment goes along with our prior work on this same topic making the point that the increase in interest rates would result in a stock market and gold price increase.

See Also:

2020 v. 2008: You Are Here

On March 23, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that they are standing ready to provide unlimited quantitative easing. Among the actions included in Fed’s announcement:

  • The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will purchase Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities
  • the FOMC will include purchases of agency commercial mortgage-backed securities in its agency mortgage-backed security purchases.
  • Supporting the flow of credit to employers, consumers, and businesses by establishing new programs that, taken together, will provide up to $300 billion in new financing.
  • Establishment of two facilities to support credit to large employers
  • Establishment of a third facility, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), to support the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.
  • expanding the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF)
  • Facilitating the flow of credit to municipalities by expanding the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF)
  • establishment of a Main Street Business Lending Program to support lending to eligible small-and-medium sized businesses

This action by the Federal Reserve seems eerily familiar to us.  Why?  Because March 2008 was the year many of these same programs were implemented by the Federal Reserve.

Below is a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average covering the 2007 to 2009 period when the Fed stepped in in a similar way.

image

The position of where you are can change very quickly based on the type of policy action taken.  The less policy action the faster the market gets closer to the “bottom.”

Interest Rate Monitor: October 2019

On November 21, 2015, we said the following:

“While a Fed rate increase is what everyone is waiting for, history suggests that Fed policy  (government regulated) follows short-term Treasuries (market driven).”

We made the commentary because we saw that the 3-month Treasury rate was advancing higher.

Since that time, we’ve watched as the Federal Reserve Bank continues to followed the short-term market rates both up and down.  After the November 21, 2015 posting, we saw, in December 15, 2015, the Federal Reserve increase the Fed Funds Rate for the first time since June 29, 2006.  Again, the Fed Funds Rate increase followed the action of 3-month Treasury.

As with the rate increases in the 3-month Treasury followed by the Fed Funds Rate shortly thereafter, so too did we see the Fed Funds Rate decline after the 3-month Treasury reversed to the downside.  As we said in our April 23, 2019 posting:

“If the current run of stability in rates is anything like the period of 2015 to 2016, we should see a sharp drop in rates…”

image

The chart above highlights the point of our April 23, 2019 claim relative to the actual rate activity that has followed.  Most important is the fact that Fed Funds Rate policy did not take place until four months after the peak in the 3-month Treasury.  Even after the rate decreased in July 2019, it was clear that the Fed would have to catch up for lost ground which is reflected in the September 18, 2019 rate cut.

Below are the targets that we have set for the 3-month Treasury which will be reflected, in direction only, with the Fed Funds Rate. Continue reading

Chart of the Day: Price Index 1290-1950

Below is a chart of the price index of Southern England from 1290 to 1950.  Highlighted in the chart is the formation of the Bank of England in 1694.

image

Additional reading: Interest Rate Policy: Bizarre to the Uninitiated

Chart of the Day: Campbell Red Lake Mines

Below is the annual 52-week low for Campbell Red Lake Mines (CRK) from 1960 to 1968.  We’ve also included the Effective Fed Funds Rate as a comparison to show how gold mining stocks perform against the backdrop of rising interest rates.

image

In this example, the Effective Fed Funds Rate increased from 1.98% to 6.02%.  Meanwhile, Campbell Red Lake Mines (CRK) had a 52-week low range from $9.63 to $24.00.

Quantitative Easing: Addition by Subtraction

What is Quantitative Easing?

“Quantitative easing (QE), also known as large-scale asset purchases, is an expansionary monetary policy whereby a central bank buys predetermined amounts of government bonds or other financial assets in order to stimulate the economy and increase liquidity. An unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative, and standard expansionary monetary policy has become ineffective (source).”

Does Quantitative Easing Work?

We don’t think quantitative easing works.  We think that if it works then there should be evidence to support this ideas, little or none exists.  Japan was the “first” country to implement the modern version of quantitative easing in 2001.  That didn’t result in the same outsized change in the Japanese stock market.

However, some people believe very strongly in the idea that central bank policy in the form of quantitative easing meaningfully affects the economy and liquidity.  Surprisingly, the believers are not just fans of central bank intervention but also critics of the existence of central banks. 

What Happens When Quantitative Easing Ends?

Fans of central bank intervention suggest that Quantitative Easing ends when the economy and liquidity has been “restored.”  The assumption is that everything is alright and the economy will chug along as it “should.”

Critics of central banks say the stock market and economy will suffer without quantitative easing.  The view is that, since the market increase was due solely to Federal Reserve “stimulus” then without the injections, interest rate will climb and the stock market should collapse.

While we’re not lined ups as fans of central bank intervention, we believe the critics, mentioned above, are also sorely mistaken in their theory.

A Picture Worth Considering

In an article titled “The Rise and (Eventual) Fall in the Fed’s Balance Sheet” there is a chart depicting the historical level of the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet relative to nominal GDP. The chart, as seen below, potentially implies that, the contraction of the Federal Reserve balance sheet could be the biggest and best thing for the economy and liquidity of the markets.

image

Interpretation

The last peak in the Federal Reserve balance sheet, relative to nominal GDP, was in the period from 1937-1940.  In that period (‘37-‘40), interest rates bottomed out and started a long march to peak in 1981.  Also in that time, from 1940 to 1981, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ranged from a low of 42.42 on April 28, 1942 to a high of 1,051.70 on January 11, 1973 (+2,379.25%).

Also worth noting is the minor decline in the Fed balance sheet relative to nominal GDP from 1917 to 1929.  In  that period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased from 69.29 on December 24, 1917 to 380.33 on August 30, 1929 (+448.89%).

The critics of punch bowl economics might be surprised when they find that the exact opposite is likely to happen when the Federal Reserve attempts to reduce their balance sheet AND interest rates increase.  History suggests that taking away the “punch bowl” actually improves conditions for greater market stability and liquidity, for a while at least.  Sometimes, less is more.

Interest Rates and the Dow

The secular trend for interest rates is clearly up after declining since April 1981.

image

There are “experts” on the topic of interest rates and the stock market claiming that the Federal Reserve policy of “artificially low” interest rates is the reason the stock market is up since the low of 2009 and as a supplemental proof of their lack of knowledge, the “experts” include the Dow increase from the 2001-2003 lows as the devil’s handiwork.  These same “experts” also claim that the stock market will crash if rates start to go up.

Yes, stocks can go down as a function of rising rates.  However, this needs to be put in context of the overall market.  As we start to emerge from a secular declining trend, from 1981 to 2008, to a secular rising trend, from 2008 to 2035,  the only comparisons of the current rising trend can only be done to the last secular rising trend from 1942 to 1981.

image

The “experts” claim this time is nothing like the postwar economy that led to the rate peak in 1981.  We’ll have to wait and see, for now the following data stands in opposition of the “experts.” Continue reading

Bull Market Ranking

For anyone who claims that the current bull market is a Federal Reserve induced binge based on manipulated monetary policy, this market still has to exceed the bull market that followed the decline of 1852 before the non-central bank era bull markets could be legitimately ignored.  For those willing to look at the history of stock market recoveries, we present the top ten market recoveries from 1835 to 2017.

Continue reading

Bull Market Ranking

For anyone who claims that the current bull market is a Federal Reserve induced binge based on manipulated interest rates, this market still needs to exceed the bull markets that followed the declines of 1835 & 1852, bringing the Dow Jones Industrial Average above the 24,768.

image

This market has a way to go in order to exceed bull markets that occurred when there was no Federal Reserve Bank.  The next stop for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, to beat the bull market that began in 1842 and culminated in a gain of +236% by 1852, is 21,673.

We could easily see new highs in the stock market, however, it ain’t because of the Fed.  More here.

The Economy Since the Crisis

A review of economic data encompassing the financial crisis to the present as presented on February 14, 2017, a must read.

image

Federal Reserve: A Bit Player

When talking to any number of clear headed and knowledgeable market analysts, it often shocks me at the confidence and certainty with which the Federal Reserve Bank is credited with the rebound of financials markets from 2009 to 2016.  It appears as though this assessment is guided by faith alone and yet there are numbers that seem to support the claim.  This article cannot dispel the religious reverence for the Federal Reserve’s apparent powers.  However, it is hoped that we can demonstrate that the Federal Reserve may be a bit player on a grand stage of market forces.

Continue reading