The missing piece so far is consumers. We’ve gotten a glimpse at how businesses are taking in the shock, both shocks, actually, in that corporations are battening down the liquidity hatches at all possible speed and excess. Not a good sign, especially as it provides some insight into why jobless claims (as the only employment data we have for beyond March) have kept up at a 2mm pace.
These are second order effects. In terms of consumer spending, it’s, as always, spend versus save. Are consumers going to change their behavior, too? If the propensity to spend was one level before March, will it be at a lesser rate once the non-economic dislocation passes by? If so, that will cause and amplify further not-short run economic damage.
That’s how exogenous shocks like COVID-19 become far more than the incidental damage they cause. The lingering demand destruction is brought about by changes in how everyone in it behaves – if there are any.
Right now, the mainstream assumption is for the biggest and best “V”; that once the economy reopens everything will go right back to the way it was before anyone had heard of the coronavirus. Furthermore, the government’s recklessness in fiscal as well as monetary matters is being viewed as more than sufficient insurance so as to make this likely.
Again, so far the business side isn’t on the government’s side (including Jay Powell).
The BEA today published its April estimates for personal income and spending – the consumer end of the economy. As with everything else to this point, the first step into the crisis has been a disaster though I’ll qualify this straight away by noting we shouldn’t put too much stock into this one month of data.
For one thing, April is completely out of the ordinary, a true outlier month especially for consumers if ever there was one.
Second, the government’s transfer payments had just started showing up. What these figures show is that Americans were finally getting paid on their unemployment claims as well as “helicopter” money though they didn’t spend much or any of it.
The difference between the surging orange line above (nominal personal income) compared to the falling red line (real income) just below it is all that “stimulus” money. And though it was pushed up by an unprecedented $2.1 trillion last month, that’s at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate.
In actual dollars, the monthly level for transfer payments was far less.
In fact, as you can see above, these preliminary assessments suggest spending was down way more than earned income fell. This pushed the personal savings rate to exactly one-third, or 33%; essentially meaningless.
To put this in perspective, the 7.2% year-over-year decline in non-transfer income was the largest on record for a series that dates back sixty years.
And what that series had already shown before March 2020 was a labor market being slowly squeezed by a globally synchronized downturn that had left the US economy in very susceptible shape long before the pandemic arrived. It’s been my view that this will make a difference going forward even as the reopening takes place.
These figures for April are dishearteningly consistent with this position, though, again, there’s no hard conclusions yet to be drawn from just this one month.
There's a key difference between aid and stimulus. I’m *very* much in favor of helping American workers and even doing so in this way; by all means, send out the $1,000 checks.— Jeffrey P. Snider (@JeffSnider_AIP) March 17, 2020
What I’m very much against is the idea that it will do much systemic good.https://t.co/9WEsjK8H96
It is possible perhaps likely that a lot of the “stimulus” money does end up being spent – if it hasn’t already been during the month of May. But then the question becomes one of lost income versus these transfer receipts. The size of the income hole compared to the government’s direct aid (it’s not stimulus) intending to redistribute money since the economy isn’t.
While we wait for more data over the coming months to confirm or deny this prospect, on just plain common-sense terms it’s hard to see how consumers (like businesses) aren’t going to be changed by what’s happened. In fact, it’s very likely why even the optimists aren’t really all the optimistic about the economy going forward.
The major econometric models might be giving “stimulus” too much credit, perhaps way too much, but even then they still end up with a situation that can’t be properly called a “V.” Why?
No one is downplaying the severity of the situation, even the worst offenders deserve some limited credit here. Where they’ve offended is in overplaying both the starting position and then their ability to limit the downside and pick everything back up on the other side. In between is not really the issue.
We’re only getting data on the first part of it, and already it’s enough to make you sick. They bungled 2008, badly. They botched everything about the last two years. And now the first steps into the current crisis couldn’t have gone worse.
It’s not conclusive by any means, but this is more preliminary evidence that 2020 isn’t going to be different this time. “L”, in other words. My “gap” calculations (below) are so far proving to be too generous.
Coronavirus dashboard for October 5: an autumn lull as COVID-19 evolves towards seasonal endemicity
– by New Deal democratBack in August I highlighted some epidemiological work by Trevor Bedford about what endemic COVID is likely to look like, based…
- by New Deal democrat
Back in August I highlighted some epidemiological work by Trevor Bedford about what endemic COVID is likely to look like, based on the rate of mutations and the period of time that previous infection makes a recovered person resistant to re-infection. Here’s his graph:
Gonorrhea became more drug resistant while attention was on COVID-19 – a molecular biologist explains the sexually transmitted superbug
The US currently has only one antibiotic available to treat gonorrhea – and it’s becoming less effective.
COVID-19 has rightfully dominated infectious disease news since 2020. However, that doesn’t mean other infectious diseases took a break. In fact, U.S. rates of infection by gonorrhea have risen during the pandemic.
Unlike COVID-19, which is a new virus, gonorrhea is an ancient disease. The first known reports of gonorrhea date from China in 2600 BC, and the disease has plagued humans ever since. Gonorrhea has long been one of the most commonly reported bacterial infections in the U.S.. It is caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which can infect mucous membranes in the genitals, rectum, throat and eyes.
Gonorrhea is typically transmitted by sexual contact. It is sometimes referred to as “the clap.”
Prior to the pandemic, there were around 1.6 million new gonorrhea infections each year. Over 50% of those cases involved strains of gonorrhea that had become unresponsive to treatment with at least one antibiotic.
In 2020, gonorrhea infections initially went down 30%, most likely due to pandemic lockdowns and social distancing. However, by the end of 2020 – the last year for which data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is available – reported infections were up 10% from 2019.
It is unclear why infections went up even though some social distancing measures were still in place. But the CDC notes that reduced access to health care may have led to longer infections and more opportunity to spread the disease, and sexual activity may have increased when initial shelter-in-place orders were lifted.
As a molecular biologist, I have been studying bacteria and working to develop new antibiotics to treat drug-resistant infections for 20 years. Over that time, I’ve seen the problem of antibiotic resistance take on new urgency.
Gonorrhea, in particular, is a major public health concern, but there are concrete steps that people can take to prevent it from getting worse, and new antibiotics and vaccines may improve care in the future.
How to recognize gonorrhea
Around half of gonorrhea infections are asymptomatic and can only be detected through screening. Infected people without symptoms can unknowingly spread gonorrhea to others.
Typical early signs of symptomatic gonorrhea include a painful or burning sensation when peeing, vaginal or penal discharge, or anal itching, bleeding or discharge. Left untreated, gonorrhea can cause blindness and infertility. Antibiotic treatment can cure most cases of gonorrhea as long as the infection is susceptible to at least one antibiotic.
There is currently only one recommended treatment for gonorrhea in the U.S. – an antibiotic called ceftriaxone – because the bacteria have become resistant to other antibiotics that were formerly effective against it. Seven different families of antibiotics have been used to treat gonorrhea in the past, but many strains are now resistant to one or more of these drugs.
Why gonorrhea is on the rise
A few factors have contributed to the increase in infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Early in the pandemic, most U.S. labs capable of testing for gonorrhea switched to testing for COVID-19. These labs have also been contending with the same shortages of staff and supplies that affect medical facilities across the country.
Many people have avoided clinics and hospitals during the pandemic, which has decreased opportunities to identify and treat gonorrhea infections before they spread. In fact, because of decreased screening over the past two and a half years, health care experts don’t know exactly how much antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea has spread.
Also, early in the pandemic, many doctors prescribed antibiotics to COVID-19 patients even though antibiotics do not work on viruses like SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Improper use of antibiotics can contribute to greater drug resistance, so it is reasonable to suspect that this has happened with gonorrhea.
Overuse of antibiotics
Even prior to the pandemic, resistance to antibiotic treatment for bacterial infections was a growing problem. In the U.S., antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea infections increased by over 70% from 2017-2019.
Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a specialist at picking up new genes from other pathogens and from “commensal,” or helpful, bacteria. These helpful bacteria can also become antibiotic-resistant, providing more opportunities for the gonorrhea bacterium to acquire resistant genes.
Strains resistant to ceftriaxone have been observed in other countries, including Japan, Thailand, Australia and the U.K., raising the possibility that some gonorrhea infections may soon be completely untreatable.
Steps toward prevention
Currently, changes in behavior are among the best ways to limit overall gonorrhea infections – particularly safer sexual behavior and condom use.
However, additional efforts are needed to delay or prevent an era of untreatable gonorrhea.
Scientists can create new antibiotics that are effective against resistant strains; however, decreased investment in this research and development over the past 30 years has slowed the introduction of new antibiotics to a trickle. No new drugs to treat gonorrhea have been introduced since 2019, although two are in the final stage of clinical trials.
Vaccination against gonorrhea isn’t possible presently, but it could be in the future. Vaccines effective against the meningitis bacterium, a close relative of gonorrhea, can sometimes also provide protection against gonorrhea. This suggests that a gonorrhea vaccine should be achievable.
The World Health Organization has begun an initiative to reduce gonorrhea worldwide by 90% before 2030. This initiative aims to promote safe sexual practices, increase access to high-quality health care for sexually transmitted diseases and expand testing so that asymptomatic infections can be treated before they spread. The initiative is also advocating for increased research into vaccines and new antibiotics to treat gonorrhea.
Setbacks in fighting drug-resistant gonorrhea during the COVID-19 pandemic make these actions even more urgent.
Kenneth Keiler receives funding from NIH.cdc disease control pandemic covid-19 vaccine treatment testing clinical trials spread social distancing japan bc china world health organization
Measuring the Ampleness of Reserves
Over the past fifteen years, reserves in the banking system have grown from tens of billions of dollars to several trillion dollars. This extraordinary…
Over the past fifteen years, reserves in the banking system have grown from tens of billions of dollars to several trillion dollars. This extraordinary rise poses a natural question: Are the rates paid in the market for reserves still sensitive to changes in the quantity of reserves when aggregate reserve holdings are so large? In today’s post, we answer this question by estimating the slope of the reserve demand curve from 2010 to 2022, when reserves ranged from $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
What Are Reserves? And Why Do They Matter?
Banks hold accounts at the Federal Reserve where they keep cash balances called “reserves.” Reserves meet banks’ various needs, including making payments to other financial institutions and meeting regulatory requirements. Over the past fifteen years, reserves have grown enormously, from tens of billions of dollars in 2007 to $3 trillion today. The chart below shows the evolution of reserves in the U.S. banking system as a share of banks’ total assets from January 2010 through September 2022. The supply of reserves depends importantly on the actions of the Federal Reserve, which can increase or decrease the quantity of reserves by changing its securities holdings, as it did in response to the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis.
Reserves Have Ranged from 8 to 19 Percent of Bank Assets from 2010 to 2022
Why does the quantity of reserves matter? Because the “price” at which banks trade their reserve balances, which in turn depends importantly on the total amount of reserves in the system, is the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate targeted by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) in the implementation of monetary policy. In 2022, the FOMC stated that “over time, the Committee intends to maintain securities holdings in amounts needed to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively in its ample reserves regime.” In this ample reserves regime, the Federal Reserve controls short-term interest rates mainly through the setting of administered rates, rather than by adjusting the supply of reserves each day as it did prior to 2008 (as discussed in this post). In today’s post, we describe a method to measure the sensitivity of interest rates to changes in the quantity of reserves that can serve as a useful indicator of whether the level of reserves is ample.
The Demand for Reserves Informs Us about Rate Sensitivity to Reserve Shocks
To assess whether the level of reserves is ample, one needs to first understand the demand for reserves. Banks borrow and lend in the market for reserves, typically overnight. The reserve demand curve describes the price at which these institutions are willing to trade their balances as a function of aggregate reserves. Its slope measures the price sensitivity to changes in the level of reserves. Importantly, banks earn interest on their reserve balances (IORB), set by the Federal Reserve. Because the IORB rate directly affects the willingness of banks to lend reserves, it is useful to describe the reserve demand curve in terms of the spread between the federal funds rate and the IORB rate. In addition, we control for the overall growth of the U.S. banking sector by specifying reserve demand in terms of the level of reserves relative to commercial banks’ assets.
There is a clear nonlinear downward-sloping relationship between prices and quantities of reserves, consistent with economic theory. The chart below plots the spread between the federal funds rate and the IORB against total reserves as a share of commercial banks’ total assets. When reserves are very low, the demand curve has a steep negative slope, reflecting the willingness of borrowers to pay high rates because reserves are scarce. At the other extreme, when reserves are very high, the curve becomes flat because banks are awash with reserves and the supply is abundant. Between these two regions, an intermediate regime–that we refer to as “ample”–emerges, where the demand curve exhibits a modest downward slope. The color coding of the chart reflects the shifts in the reserve demand curve over time. In particular, the curve appears to have moved to the right and upward around 2015 and then moved upward after March 2020, at the onset of the COVID pandemic.
Reserve Demand Has Shifted over Time
This chart highlights two of the main challenges in estimating the slope of the reserve demand curve. First, the curve is highly nonlinear, which means that a standard linear estimation approach is not appropriate. Second, various long-lasting changes in the regulation and supervision of banks, in their internal risk-management frameworks, and in the structure of the reserve market itself have resulted in shifts in the reserve demand curve. A third challenge is that the quantity of reserves may be endogenous to banks’ demand for them. Therefore, to properly measure the reserve demand curve, one must disentangle shocks to supply from those to demand. As we explain in detail in a recent paper, our estimation strategy addresses all three of these challenges.
Estimating the Slope of the Reserve Demand Curve
Our approach provides time-varying estimates of the price sensitivity of the demand for reserves that can be used to distinguish between periods in which reserves are relatively scarce, ample, or abundant. The chart below presents our daily estimates of the slope of the demand curve, as measured by the rate sensitivity to changes in reserves. Although we do not have a precise criterion for when reserves are scarce versus ample, during two episodes in our sample, the estimated rate sensitivity is well away from zero. The first episode occurs early in our sample, in 2010, and the second emerges almost ten years later, in mid-2019. In two other periods—during 2013-2017 and from mid-2020 through early September 2022—the estimated slope is very close to zero, indicating an abundance of reserves. The remaining periods are characterized by a modest negative slope of the reserve demand curve, consistent with ample (but short of abundant) reserves. The overall pattern of these estimates is robust to changes in the model specification, such as including spillovers from the repo and Treasury markets or measuring reserves as a share of gross domestic product or bank deposits (instead of as a share of banks’ assets).
Rate Sensitivity Changed over Time, Following the Path of Reserves
Interest Rate Spreads Alone Are Not Reliable Indicators of Reserve Scarcity
As we discuss in our paper, the time variation in the estimated price sensitivity in the demand for reserves is based on observations of small movements along the demand curve due to exogenous supply shocks. The location of the curve itself, however, also changes over time. That is, there is not a constant relationship between the level of reserves and the slope of the reserve demand curve.
In our paper, we find evidence of both horizontal and vertical shifts in the reserve demand curve, with vertical upward shifts being particularly important since 2015. This finding implies that the level of the federal funds-IORB spread may not be a reliable summary statistic for the sensitivity of interest rates to reserve shocks, and that estimates of the price sensitivity in the demand for reserves provide additional useful information.
In summary, we have developed a method to estimate the time-varying interest rate sensitivity of the demand for reserves that accounts for the nonlinear nature of reserve demand and allows for structural shifts over time. A key advantage of our methodology is that it provides a flexible and readily implementable approach that can be used to monitor the market for reserves in real time, allowing one to assess the “ampleness” of the reserve supply as market conditions evolve.
Gara Afonso is the head of Banking Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.
Gabriele La Spada is a financial research economist in Money and Payments Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.
John C. Williams is the president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
How to cite this post:
Gara Afonso, Gabriele La Spada, and John C. Williams, “Measuring the Ampleness of Reserves,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 5, 2022, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2022/10/measuring-the-ampleness-of-reserves/.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).
Nearly Half Of Americans Making Six-Figures Living Paycheck To Paycheck
Charlotte’s Web Full Spectrum Hemp CBD Products Launching Nationwide on Gopuff
Trudeau shouldn’t be raising payroll taxes
Buchanan: Is ‘Our Democracy’ Failing Our Country?
US Ports and Terminals Sustain Increased Cybersecurity Attacks
How data is crucial to the relaunch of the Cancer Moonshot
Consumer debt index highlights impact of affordability crisis
Pound recovers but remains at low levels – how to assess the long-term value of sterling
RON’s competitive advantage in today’s housing market
“Market Instability” Causes BOE To Reverse QT. Is The Fed Next?
Economics13 hours ago
Nearly Half Of Americans Making Six-Figures Living Paycheck To Paycheck
Economics24 hours ago
US Ports and Terminals Sustain Increased Cybersecurity Attacks
Spread & Containment15 hours ago
What’s next for ancient DNA studies after Nobel Prize honors groundbreaking field of paleogenomics
Economics22 hours ago
Consumer Savings Shrink to 2008 Lows
International19 hours ago
Four States Deploy National Guard To US-Mexico Border
Spread & Containment18 hours ago
A Policy Mistake In The Making
Government6 hours ago
Three Infrastructure Investments to Buy as War and Inflation Rage
Spread & Containment23 hours ago
COVID and the cost of living crisis are set to collide this winter – the fallout will be greatest for the most vulnerable