• 2 days U.S. On Track To Unseat Saudi Arabia As No.2 Oil Producer In the World
  • 2 days Senior Interior Dept. Official Says Florida Still On Trump’s Draft Drilling Plan
  • 2 days Schlumberger Optimistic In 2018 For Oilfield Services Businesses
  • 3 days Only 1/3 Of Oil Patch Jobs To Return To Canada After Downturn Ends
  • 3 days Statoil, YPF Finalize Joint Vaca Muerta Development Deal
  • 3 days TransCanada Boasts Long-Term Commitments For Keystone XL
  • 3 days Nigeria Files Suit Against JP Morgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 3 days Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 3 days Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 3 days Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 4 days Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 4 days OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 4 days Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 4 days Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 4 days Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 5 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 5 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 5 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 5 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 5 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 5 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 5 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 5 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 5 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 5 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 5 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 6 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 6 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 6 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 6 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 6 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 6 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 6 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 7 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 7 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 7 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 7 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 7 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 9 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 9 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
Alt Text

How To Spot Top E&P Stocks In 2018

As sentiment in oil markets…

Alt Text

World Bank To Cut Off Oil & Gas Funding

In accordance with the Paris…

Alt Text

The Best Places In The World To Mine Bitcoin

As Chinese bitcoin miners face…

Ed Dolan

Ed Dolan

Edwin G. Dolan holds a Ph.D. in economics from Yale University. Early in his career, he was a member of the economics faculty at Dartmouth…

More Info

Can the Fed Survive After QE3?

Can the Fed Survive After QE3?

Each time the Fed undertakes a new program of quantitative easing, questions arise about the possible impact on its solvency. I addressed that concern in November 2010, at the time QE2 was announced. Here is an updated version of that post that looks at the solvency issue in the context of QE3.

The Fed’s new program of quantitative easing, QE3, once again raises an old question: Can central banks go broke? Conventional analysis, aptly summarized by Willem Buiter in a 2008 report, says “Never–Well, hardly ever.” The Fed is most assuredly not going to suffer a run or become unable to meet its obligations, but under some scenarios, keeping it from going going broke could raise difficult political issues and perhaps even threaten its independence.

We can start by noting that the Fed, like most central central banks, is rather thinly capitalized. As of September 2012, it had capital of some $55 billion, about 1.9 percent of its assets of $2,825 billion. By comparison, the consolidated balance sheet for all commercial banks showed assets that exceeded liabilities by 11.5 percent. If the Fed were a commercial bank, it would not be insolvent, but it would be on the watch list.

Of course, the Fed is not a commercial bank. The unique nature of its assets and liabilities allows it to operate safely with just a sliver of capital. Normally, the Fed’s assets have consisted largely of short-term Treasury securities, which are as close to risk-free as you can get. As for liabilities, as recently as the end of 2007, 90% of them consisted of Federal Reserve currency. Currency is a truly marvelous kind of liability, since it is neither interest-bearing nor redeemable. Together, those assets and liabilities generate a healthy net interest income, most of which it turns back to the Treasury. With a balance sheet like that, who needs capital?

Since 2008, however, things have changed a bit. First, the nature of its assets has changed. Treasury securities now account for only 58 percent of the Fed’s assets. As of September, it held some $843 billion in mortgage-backed securities (30 percent of assets), and it is committed to buying $40 billion more each month under QE3. Those securities are neither very liquid nor risk-free. In addition, under QE3, the Fed will continue to lengthen the maturity of its Treasury portfolio. On balance, these activities create a growing exposure to market risk in the event of a rise in interest rates.

RELATED: The Real Reason Behind Oil Price Rises - An Interview with James Hamilton

On the liability side, nonredeemable monetary liabilities still predominate, but the composition of the monetary base has changed. More than half of the base (as opposed to less than 10% five years ago) now consists of reserve deposits of commercial banks. Reserves are no longer interest free. While the rate paid on reserve deposits is now just 0.25%, that could increase.

Under QE3, the Fed is committed to continue increasing the size of its balance sheet until the employment situation begins to improve. That is unlikely to happen while inflation remains below its 2 percent target, as it has recently, and the Fed has left open the possibility that inflation will be allowed to rise above the target temporarily. At that point, the Fed will begin to execute its “exit strategy” from its current highly accommodative policy. The exit strategy could very possibly put strains on its income statement and balance sheet.

One element of the exit strategy could be to raise the interest on reserve deposits in order to discourage banks from using those reserves as a basis for making new loans. Doing so would raise the Fed’s interest expense. At the same time, the Fed could begin selling off the securities it has acquired under successive waves of quantitative easing. If market interest rates are higher by then, as they very likely would be, the Fed would have to sell them at a loss compared to their purchase price. Under those circumstances, the Fed’s capital could rather rapidly fall toward zero. What then?

First, it should be made clear that even if the Fed slipped into balance-sheet insolvency (negative capital), that would not bring about equitable insolvency (inability to meet financial obligations as they fall due). Because of the nonredeemable character of its monetary liabilities, and because both its liabilities and assets are denominated in dollars, any kind of run on the Fed is absolutely impossible. The Fed’s net interest income is currently more than $50 billion per year. Even if that were much reduced, it would easily be able to meet its operating expenses many times over. Still, a position of negative capital would be uncomfortable even if the Fed were able to keep up with its current obligations. Recapitalization would clearly be desirable. But just how could it be accomplished?

RELATED: Why North American Gas Prices Are So High

Recapitalization would be complicated by the odd legal status of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks as joint-stock entities that are “owned” by private commercial banks, yet are in every functional sense a part of the federal government. The only conceivable entity that could recapitalize the Fed is the Treasury, but this would be no ordinary capital injection. For commercial banks, a capital injection means a swap of good assets for equity, but the Federal Reserve Banks could not just issue new common or preferred shares to the Treasury, at least not without a revision of their charters. Instead, a recapitalization would have to take the form of an outright grant, in which the Fed transferred tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in newly issued bonds to the Fed completely gratis. It is hard to see how that could be done without an act of Congress–and would Congress in its current mood approve this mother of all bailouts?

Let me emphasize this: The Fed is NOT a private corporation in any ordinary sense of the word. If the Treasury were to gift the Fed with a $100 billion capital grant, that would NOT amount to putting it in the pockets of the Rothschilds, whatever you might read to the contrary on the internet. But who could guarantee that all those paranoid myths about the Fed would not be raised in Congressional debate or on talk radio? Who could guarantee quick passage of the Treasury Asset Recapitalization Package of 20**, or whatever they might call it. Whatever the name, it would be called TARP II and it would be controversial. It would be so controversial that in return for passage, Congress might insist on new audit or oversight authority, something already high on the agenda of certain members.

So, what is the bottom line? Could the Fed go broke if QE3 creates a bond bubble that suddenly bursts in a surge of inflationary expectations? Theoretically, yes, at least in the balance sheet sense. Presumably, it could not become insolvent in the equitable sense. In the end, no one can rule out the emergence of a situation from which the Fed could be extracted only at the cost of a high degree of political discomfort and perhaps a loss of independence.

By. Ed Dolan




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • A. Raiser on September 24 2012 said:
    I don't care what you say.. In fact Fed is injecting money to the banks meanwhile people suffer and employment contracts. The money has no intrinsic value unless it is backed by confidence and people's work and now its being given by billions to those parasites banks to inflate prices worldwide and restructure their balance sheets. I say its a fake.. its fraud and robbery at the cost of the suffering of millions.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News