3 ms·

> Reserve requirements are almost non-existent. This says otherwise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTRESNS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTRESNS

> Reserve requirements are almost non-existent. This says otherwise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTRESNS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTRESNS Lots more real evidence here https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/123 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/123

throw0101c 4y ago
> This says otherwise. And in Canada, Australia, etc, they are zero: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Countries_and_districts_without_reserve_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Countries_...
- Nursie 4y ago
  Indeed, in these countries the banks have capital requirements, which they also do in the US, instead.
throwaway742 4y ago
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
gilbetron 4y ago
Those are reserves, not reserve requirements (which are noted as "discontinued" in the first link). To quote this: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm "As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions."
- SideQuark 4y ago
  Read more - the reason is the "ample reserves" regime, where, as I showed, reserves are vastly higher than usual. This is because the Fed has transitioned to a better method to handle what used to be called the reserve requirement. The new (and as the above data demonstrated) is higher actual reserves. This is done via changes in mechanisms, described in the FAQ. It's not like banks suddenly loan out all the money. The Fed page has a FAQ and you can look up related papers. From the FAQ: "For many years, reserve requirements played a central role in the implementation of monetary policy by creating a stable demand for reserves. In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime. Reserve requirements do not play a significant role in this operating framework." People see the change, which is a good move for good reasons, and flip out, just like goldbug times or when CPI get adjusted and so on. A simple way to look at it for a long time there has been a idea battle between what's called endogenous and exogenous money creation (somewhat overview of the debate [1]), and over the past 50 years, most central banking systems have evolved as market needs evolved, to allow banks to lend beyond reserve requirements as long as they soon replenish, which was done via overnight lending windows through central banks. The practical effect is there has not been a "reserve requirement" except in name only for decades. Banks can lend whatever they want, and only have to borrow back to the old requirement which is simply an inefficiency. This is summed up in one sentence on the Wikipedia article on reserve requirements as "Under this view, reserves therefore impose no constraints, as the deposit multiplier is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth" [2] Under the new system, the Fed changed other rates to account for this bookkeeping trick, with the same net effect on the banking system, but under simpler and more transparent accounting. They're not idiots. So, since this was the reality of banking, the FED changed how things are tallied. Just like when CPI changed some terms to handle changes in reality, changes that were well documented, for good reason, people not reading carefully got upset and were sure they got cheated somehow. So setting the old rate to zero and adopting the new methods for monetary control are the same pattern: terms change, in practice things are actually better off, but people used to the old term are upset and mischaracterize it as some a sign of financial calamity or underhandedness. It's not. When people dig this out during an unrelated bank issue as some smoking gun it's worth stopping the nonsense in it's tracks in the same vein as COVID or climate or goldbug nonsense. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944319303606 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109094431... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement

throw0101c 4y ago

> This says otherwise. And in Canada, Australia, etc, they are zero: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Countries_and_districts_without_reserve_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Countries_...

Nursie 4y ago
Indeed, in these countries the banks have capital requirements, which they also do in the US, instead.

throwaway742 4y ago

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

gilbetron 4y ago

Those are reserves, not reserve requirements (which are noted as "discontinued" in the first link). To quote this: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm "As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions."

SideQuark 4y ago
Read more - the reason is the "ample reserves" regime, where, as I showed, reserves are vastly higher than usual. This is because the Fed has transitioned to a better method to handle what used to be called the reserve requirement. The new (and as the above data demonstrated) is higher actual reserves. This is done via changes in mechanisms, described in the FAQ. It's not like banks suddenly loan out all the money. The Fed page has a FAQ and you can look up related papers. From the FAQ: "For many years, reserve requirements played a central role in the implementation of monetary policy by creating a stable demand for reserves. In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime. Reserve requirements do not play a significant role in this operating framework." People see the change, which is a good move for good reasons, and flip out, just like goldbug times or when CPI get adjusted and so on. A simple way to look at it for a long time there has been a idea battle between what's called endogenous and exogenous money creation (somewhat overview of the debate [1]), and over the past 50 years, most central banking systems have evolved as market needs evolved, to allow banks to lend beyond reserve requirements as long as they soon replenish, which was done via overnight lending windows through central banks. The practical effect is there has not been a "reserve requirement" except in name only for decades. Banks can lend whatever they want, and only have to borrow back to the old requirement which is simply an inefficiency. This is summed up in one sentence on the Wikipedia article on reserve requirements as "Under this view, reserves therefore impose no constraints, as the deposit multiplier is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth" [2] Under the new system, the Fed changed other rates to account for this bookkeeping trick, with the same net effect on the banking system, but under simpler and more transparent accounting. They're not idiots. So, since this was the reality of banking, the FED changed how things are tallied. Just like when CPI changed some terms to handle changes in reality, changes that were well documented, for good reason, people not reading carefully got upset and were sure they got cheated somehow. So setting the old rate to zero and adopting the new methods for monetary control are the same pattern: terms change, in practice things are actually better off, but people used to the old term are upset and mischaracterize it as some a sign of financial calamity or underhandedness. It's not. When people dig this out during an unrelated bank issue as some smoking gun it's worth stopping the nonsense in it's tracks in the same vein as COVID or climate or goldbug nonsense. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944319303606 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109094431... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement