Happy New Year to you and your family in California
Thank you for responding to my question, directly on the daily commentary .
In that commentary you said that banks still prefer to hold a reserve at the FED in their balance sheet rather than holding Treasuries (as a result of the balance sheet reduction) , although both have same credit rating (i.e. the credit rating of the US government)
I don’t understand the last point. Why should banks prefer holding a lower yielding reserve asset than a higher yielding Treasury bond, if we isolate the duration difference between the 2? I am struggling to understand why balance sheet reduction is so bad a thing for banks (as liquidity providers as you point out) if they exchange one asset for the other. Their lending power is not impaired as a consequence. Or am I wrong? actually lending activity by commercial banks in the US has been picking up until end of 2018 notwithstanding the equity markets gyrations
Btw. I am attaching a link of chart showing the increase of Treasuries and Government agency papers + MBS by commercial banks in US. They are picking up. They have accelerated in December so much that the new 10 years yield now discounts only one rate hike for 2019. Very bearish an implicit scenario.
Thank you for this follow-up question. (The original was posted in the Comment of the Day on December 21st )
Click HERE to subscribe to Fuller Treacy Money
Back to top
The money the central bank pay banks for parking reserves is guaranteed but Treasuries change in value from day to day and therefore have more volatility. Any volatility represents more risk than none and therefore more uncertainty