- Divergence Theme Questioned
- What to Expect from the Central Banks in 2017
- The ECB is Clearly NOT Hawkish
- Bank of England On Hold Until November
- Trump’s Proposal “Print the Money” Echoes Franklin and Lincoln
- Japan's Helicopter Money Play
- Brexit and the Derivatives Meltdown
- Central Banks Gaming
- Is that Buzzing Sound Helicopter Money?
- Is the Influence of the Central Banks Fading?
- Reinventing Banking
- Negative Interest, the War on Cash, and the $10 Trillion Bail-in
- The Future of Central Bank Monetary Policy
- Jeremy Corbyn’s Controversial Quantitative Easing Proposal
- Central Bank Season Heats Up
- Reserve Bank of New Zealand Rate Decision
- What has the ECB been Buying
- Four Central Banks Meet but FOMC is the Key
- Federal Overnight Reserve Repurchase Repo and Fed Funds Implications for 2015
- BoJ and ECB expected QE policies
- Unfitting Policies Will Not Save the Euro-area or Japan in 2015
- Can the $40 Drop In the Price of Oil Bankrupt the Biggest Banks?
- New G20 Banking Rules
- Central Banks Are Playing the Stock Markets
- A Public Bank Option for Scotland
- Preparing To Asset-strip Local Government The Fed’s Bizarre New Rules
- The Fed could Keep Rates at Zero through 2015
- Are Public Banks Unconstitutional? No. Are Private Banks? Maybe.
- New Challenges for an Old FED
For advertising, contact
The first major hit to US municipal bonds occurred with the downgrade of two major monoline insurers in January 2008. The fault was with the insurers, but the taxpayers footed the bill. The downgrade signaled a simultaneous downgrade of bonds from over 100,000 municipalities and institutions, totaling more than $500 billion. The Fed’s latest rule change could be the final nail in the municipal bond coffin, another misguided move by regulators that not only does not hit its mark but results in serious collateral damage to local governments – maybe serious enough to finally propel them into bankruptcy.
Why this unprecedented move by US regulators? It is not because municipal bonds are too risky, since corporate bonds with lower credit ratings are accepted under the new rules. Nor is it that the stricter standard is required by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the BIS-based global regulator agreed to by the G20 leaders in 2009. The Basel III Accords set by the BCBS are actually more lenient than the US rules and do not include these HQLA requirements. So what’s going on?
From the Inscrutable, Unaccountable Fed
The rule change was detailed by Pam Martens and Russ Martens in a September 4th article titled “The Fed Just Imposed Financial Austerity on the States.” They write that on September 3rd:
“The Federal regulators adopted a new rule that requires the country’s largest banks – those with $250 billion or more in total assets – to hold an increased level of newly defined “high quality liquid assets” (HQLA) in order to meet a potential run on the bank during a credit crisis. In addition to U.S. Treasury securities and other instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government (agency debt), the regulators have included some dubious instruments while shunning others with a higher safety profile.
Bizarrely, the Fed and its regulatory siblings included investment grade corporate bonds, the majority of which do not trade on an exchange, and more stunningly, stocks in the Russell 1000, as meeting the definition of high quality liquid assets, while excluding all municipal bonds – even general obligation municipal bonds from states with a far higher credit standing and safety profile than BBB-rated corporate bonds.
This, rightfully, has state treasurers in an uproar. The five largest Wall Street banks control the majority of deposits in the country. By disqualifying municipal bonds from the category of liquid assets, the biggest banks are likely to trim back their holdings in munis which could raise the cost or limit the ability for states, counties, cities and school districts to issue muni bonds to build schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure needs. This is a particularly strange position for a Fed that is worried about subpar economic growth.”