Connect with us

Spread & Containment

What Should We Expect From The Market in The Week Ahead?

Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge 06-12-20

Published

on

This article was originally written by Real Investment Advice.

 
In this issue of “Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge:”
  • Market Correction
  • Short-Term Excesses Reversed
  • A Note Of Fed Forecasts
  • The Bear Case Is Still Valid
  • Technical Review Remains Bullish
  • Portfolio Positioning
  • MacroView: Rationalizing High Valuations Won’t Improve Outcomes
  • Sector & Market Analysis
  • 401k Plan Manager
Follow Us On: Twitter, Facebook, Linked-In, Sound Cloud, Seeking Alpha

Upcoming Event  – CANDID COFFEE

Sign up now for this virtual “Financial Q&A” GoTo Meeting

June 27th from 8-9 am

Send in your questions, and Rich and Danny will answer them live.


Catch Up On What You Missed Last Week


Market Correction

As I wrote previously, the break above the 200-dma had changed the complexion of the market.
“If the markets can break above the 200-dma, and maintain that level, it would suggest the bull market is back in play.
However, in our Tuesday follow up, we discussed how the market rally had gotten to an extreme. As such, we noted the need to become more defensive in the short-term. To wit:
“Regardless, the markets are bullish biased, and we must be respectful of that reality. No matter how you slice the data, the markets are back to more extreme overbought conditions on a short-term basis. The break above the 200-dma triggered a parabolic advance in the market over the last week. The market is making a 3-standard deviation move to the upside. With indicators very overbought, short-term corrective action is likely. (Note the market was just 3-standard deviations BELOW the 50-dma in March.)”
That correction came swiftly on Thursday. The surge in COVID-19 cases in the U.S. undermined the “V-Shaped” economic recovery meme. As we noted, the market had rallied into overhead resistance, and the correction found support at the 200-dma. Last weekend we had laid out the risk/reward parameters and had assigned probabilities for a correction.
  • -6.6% to the 200-dma vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (70% – Target achieved)
  • -11.2% to the 50-dma vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (20%)
  • -14.4% to previous consolidation lows vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (5%)
  • -18.3% to March bounce peak vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (5%)
The market achieved the retracement to the 200-dma support on Thursday during the most intense sell-off since March. Importantly, it was a good reminder of just how brutal markets can be when there is a complete lack of liquidity.  

Correction Reduces Short-Term Excesses

Previously we discussed the more extreme levels of optimism in the markets. These indicators have historically corresponded with short-term market peaks and corrections. The first was the large level of short-positions non-commercial speculators were carrying on the S&P 500. (These are contracts on the S&P 500 in the futures market used for hedging long market positioning.) Net-short positioning had reached a more extreme level, which historically aligns with short-term peaks and bear markets. The correction last week reduced some of that excess. The same goes for the total put-call ratio, This ratio measures the total of option contract buying. Investors had gotten extremely aggressive in buying call options betting the market would only go higher. At extremes, retail “call option” buyers generally wind up on the wrong side of the trade. The quick rout on Thursday reduced some of those excesses. Note, however, the 10-day moving average of the put-call ratio remains in more “bearish” territory, suggesting we may not be done with the correction just yet. The issue remains that the markets have priced in a “V-shaped” recovery, which is well ahead of what the economic data suggests. 

A Note About The Fed

There were two catalysts that ignited the sell-off on Thursday. The first, as stated above, were headlines of a surge in COVID-19 cases. (As discussed in this week’s #MacroView below) stocks economy, #MacroView: The Great Divide Between Stocks & The Economy The second, and probably more important reason, was what the Fed didn’t say following this week’s Fed meeting. While the markets were hopeful for announcements for more stimulus to support the markets, the Fed simply reiterated their current stance. More importantly, the Fed stated that QE would remain at $40 billion per week or $120 billion per month. This is substantially less than the current level of Treasury issuance. As Tavi Costa of Crescat Capital noted this week: As noted previously, while the Fed is doing a massive amount of QE, the “hole” they are trying to fill is substantially larger. In what I call the “PacMan” chart below, the “economic deficit” will consume more than the Fed has currently committed. (Economic deficit is the estimated loss due to ongoing unemployment, reduced growth, and impact of debt and deficits.)

The Worst Economic Forecasters Ever

The Federal Reserve must qualify as the worst economic forecasters ever. Despite annual promises of stronger economic growth, such has yet to be the case. Ever. While the economy will indeed recover in 2021 and 2022, the Fed is likely overestimating the outcome. However, in the short-term, they have little choice.
“Unwittingly, the Fed has now become co-dependent on the markets. If they acknowledge the risk of weaker economic growth, the subsequent market sell-off would dampen consumer confidence and push economic growth rates lower. Therefore, they have to be overly optimistic.”
As discussed Friday, the surging levels of debts and deficits, combined with demographics, will suppress economic growth below 2%. Such leaves very little room for the Fed to make a policy mistake.
“Before the “Financial Crisis,” the economy had a linear growth trend of real GDP of 3.2%. Following the 2008 recession, the growth rate dropped to the exponential growth trend of roughly 2.2%. Instead of reducing the debt problems, unproductive debt, and leverage increased.”
stocks economy, #MacroView: The Great Divide Between Stocks & The Economy While the Fed had an opportunity to disconnect monetary policy from the market, they failed to do so. Instead, they once again opted to bail out financial markets at the expense of economic prosperity longer-term.

By voting to avoid short-term pain, the Federal Reserve has locked the economy into a long-term economic malaise. Like a “frog in boiling water,” the vast majority of Americans will see their economic prosperity slowly fade. The stock market is not the economy. It is a distortion of economics.

The Bear Case Is Still Valid

As my colleague Doug Kass pointed out on Friday:
Yesterday provided at least five reasons for the markets to decline:
  1. Federal Reserve Chairman Powell delivered a cautionary economic message for not only this year but for several years to come. To me, this renders the rosy EPS projections of the consensus, and many high-profile strategists (like my friends Dave Kostin and Thomas Lee) are unrealistic. 
  2. There was mounting evidence that Covid-19 is still not tamed.
  3. Wells Fargo CFO John Shrewsberry said second-quarter loan loss reserves would be higher than in 1Q-2020.
  4. The Robinhood traders’ objects of affection, stocks of bankrupt companies, took a sudden dive. Silly speculation is almost always evidence of a maturing bull market.
  5. Technical signposts are flashing red: Investor sentiment has increased as stock prices rose as a bull market in complacency has quickly unfolded from the depths of MarchMarket breadth has started to wane.
I agree with Doug and have been well ahead of the media in lowering forecasts. As noted previously: “Given the horrific data we now have coming in, we already know our previous estimates of $100/share were too high. A more realistic, and still overly optimistic 50-60% decline in earnings, makes current valuations even more challenging to support. (Using the chart and table below, you can pick your price and valuation level.) “ profits, Fundamentally Speaking: Estimating The Earnings Crash What is essential to understand is that while Fed liquidity is currently fueling a “bull market,” the “bear case” still has teeth. Eventually, the market will fill the gap between “fantasy” and “reality.” 

Technical Review Remains Bullish

In the short-term, however, the technical backdrop of the market remains bullish. The market had gotten overheated over the last couple of weeks, but the correction successfully retested the 200-dma. Such establishes important support. Concurrently, the correction reversed most of the more extreme overbought conditions. However, if we slow our analysis down a bit, we find that the current sell signal remains intact. Such suggests the market could still experience further corrective or consolidative actions over the next couple of weeks or months. The short-term technical structure remains bullish and overbought currently. However, the longer-term fundamentals remain worrisome in light of the economic devastation. While the Fed’s monetary policies mitigated much of the downside risk, it can not be removed entirely. As experienced on Thursday, “reversions happen fast.”

Portfolio Positioning For An Overbought Market

As I noted last week:
“With ‘coronavirus cases’ likely to rise sharply following Memorial Day celebrations and recent crowded protests, the risk of disappointment has risen. Such has been an exceptionally rally. All of our equity positions are now extremely stretched and overbought. Conversely, all of our hedges VERY oversold.”
That reversion happened this past week, with our hedges of Treasury bonds and the U.S. dollar offsetting the decline in our longs on Thursday. We did use the secondary retest of the 200-dma on Friday to add some “Pandemic exposure” stocks back to our portfolio. As we detailed to our RIAPRO subscribers (30-day Risk-Free Trial).
“After the market dropped over 5% yesterday and successfully tested the 200-day moving average, we made slight additions to the portfolios. The positions are small, and we remain vigilant to potentially more downside as the S&P 500 sits on top of its 200-day moving average. Equity Portfolio Buys
  • CMCSA – Initiate 1% position
  • CSCO – Initiate 1% position
ETF Portfolio Buys
  • XLE – Add 1% to bring total to 2%
  • XLP – Add 1% to bring total to 5.5%
We continue to hold our TLT and UUP positions for now as a hedge.”
As discussed over the last several weeks, we have slowly added equity exposure in areas we like. However, we focus on dividend yield, and continue to hedge increases in equity risk with offsetting hedges. We also still carry a higher than normal level of cash. This is a very risky market. Caution is advised.  

The MacroView

If you need help or have questions, we are always glad to help. Just email me. See You Next Week By Lance Roberts, CIO

Market & Sector Analysis

Data Analysis Of The Market & Sectors For Traders


MISSING THE REST OF THE NEWSLETTER?

This is what our RIAPRO.NET subscribers are reading right now! Risk-Free For 30-Day Trial.
  • Sector & Market Analysis
  • Technical Gauge
  • Sector Rotation Analysis
  • Portfolio Positioning
  • Sector & Market Recommendations
  • Client Portfolio Updates
  • Live 401k Plan Manager
 

THE REAL 401k PLAN MANAGER

A Conservative Strategy For Long-Term Investors


If you need help after reading the alert; do not hesitate to contact me

Model performance is a two-asset model of stocks and bonds relative to the weighting changes made each week in the newsletter. Such is strictly for informational and educational purposes only and should not be relied on for any reason. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Use at your own risk and peril.  

401k Plan Manager Live Model

As an RIA PRO subscriber (You get your first 30-days free) you have access to our live 401k plan manager. Compare your current 401k allocation, to our recommendation for your company-specific plan as well as our on 401k model allocation. You can also track performance, estimate future values based on your savings and expected returns, and dig down into your sector and market allocations. If you would like to offer our service to your employees at a deeply discounted corporate rate, please contact me.
The post Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge 06-12-20 appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

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…

Published

on

 

 - 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:




He indicated that it “illustrate[s] a scenario where we end up in a regime of year-round variant-driven circulation with more circulation in the winter than summer, but not flu-like winter seasons and summer troughs.”

In other words, we could expect higher caseloads during regular seasonal waves, but unlike influenza, the virus would never entirely recede into the background during the “off” seasons.

That is what we are seeing so far this autumn.

Confirmed cases have continued to decline, presently just under 45,000/day, a little under 1/3rd of their recent summer peak in mid-June. Deaths have been hovering between 400 and 450/day, about in the middle of their 350-550 range since the beginning of this past spring:



The longer-term graph of each since the beginning of the pandemic shows that, at their present level cases are at their lowest point since summer 2020, with the exception of a brief period during September 2020, the May-July lull in 2021, and the springtime lull this year. Deaths since spring remain lower than at any point except the May-July lull of 2021:



Because so many cases are asymptomatic, or people confirm their cases via home testing but do not get confirmation by “official” tests, we know that the confirmed cases indicated above are lower than the “real” number. For that, here is the long-term look from Biobot, which measures COVID concentrations in wastewater:



The likelihood is that there are about 200,000 “actual” new cases each day at present. But even so, this level is below any time since Delta first hit in summer 2021, with the exception of last autumn and this spring’s lulls.

Hospitalizations show a similar pattern. They are currently down 50% since their summer peak, at about 25,000/day:



This is also below any point in the pandemic except for briefly during September 2020, the May-July 2021 low, and this past spring’s lull.

The CDC’s most recent update of variants shows that BA.5 is still dominant, causing about 81% of cases, while more recent offshoots of BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 are causing the rest. BA’s share is down from 89% in late August:



But this does not mean that the other variants are surging, because cases have declined from roughly 90,000 to 45,000 during that time. Here’s how the math works out:

89% of 90k=80k (remaining variants cause 10k cases)
81% of 45k=36k (remaining variants cause 9k cases)

The batch of new variants have been dubbed the “Pentagon” by epidmiologist JP Weiland, and have caused a sharp increase in cases in several countries in Europe and elsewhere. Here’s what she thinks that means for the US:


But even she is not sure that any wave generated by the new variants will exceed summer’s BA.5 peak, let alone approach last winter’s horrible wave:



In summary, we have having an autumn lull as predicted by the seasonal model. There will probably be a winter wave, but the size of that wave is completely unknown, primarily due to the fact that probably 90%+ of the population has been vaccinated and/or previously infected, giving rise to at least some level of resistance - a disease on its way to seasonal endemicity.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

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.

Published

on

By

The _Neisseria gonorrhoeae_ bacterium causes gonorrhea by infecting mucous membranes. Design Cells/iStock Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

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.

The CDC tracks the emergence and spread of drug-resistant gonorrhea strains.

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.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

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…

Published

on

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

Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Federal Reserve Economic Data, FRED (“TLAACBW027SBOG”); authors’ calculations.

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

Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Federal Reserve Economic Data, FRED (“TLAACBW027SBOG,” “IOER,” and “IORB”); authors’ calculations.

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

Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Federal Reserve Economic Data, FRED (“TLAACBW027SBOG,” “IOER,” and “IORB”); authors’ calculations.

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/.


Disclaimer
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).

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending