FED rezervleri konusu

Advantage was that the system allowed the Fed to conduct monetary policy “without needing to actively manage the supply of reserves…despite substantial changes in the level of reserves in the banking system and significant changes in money markets, regulations, and financial institutions’ business models.

Disadvantage was that the approach required the Fed to operate with a larger balance sheet.

In April 2008, when Federal Reserve staff first considered the possibility of operating policy with an abundant-reserve framework, staff estimated that the level of reserves that would be needed “…might be on the order of $35 billion but could be larger on some days.” [emphasis added][7] In March 2016, the New York Fed raised its assumption about the level of reserve balances needed in equilibrium to $100 billion.[8] In 2017, they raised it to $500 billion.[9] The current level of reserves, which is evidently too low to be abundant, is forty times the level initially estimated.

TTL TAYFASI

The Treasury historically held most of its cash at commercial banks and other depository institutions; however, mid-crisis, when bank deposit rates fell to near zero, the Treasury moved all of its cash to the Treasury’s general account at the New York Fed. Under the previous arrangement, the tax payments that flowed into the Treasury would have flowed back out to the banks, and some of those inflows could have funded increased repo lending by banks, making up for part of the lost funding from money funds. Moreover, not only do the tax payments not get recycled into the banking system, they now reduce banks’ reserve balances at the Fed directly. The Fed’s assets are fixed over the short term, so when one liability goes up (the Treasury’s deposit) another must fall (bank deposits).

https://bpi.com/fed-at-a-crossroad/