Help to like and comment. Than_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-06-21

Help to like and comment.

Thanks

Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In "Heat-Seeking Missiles": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":167517548,"tweetId":"167517548","gmtCreate":1624277138584,"gmtModify":1634008553602,"author":{"id":3581514718170051,"idStr":"3581514718170051","authorId":3581514718170051,"authorIdStr":"3581514718170051","name":"fwpang","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":13,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Help to like and comment. Thanks</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Help to like and comment. Thanks</body></html>","text":"Help to like and comment. Thanks","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167517548","repostId":1146982088,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146982088","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624259620,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1146982088?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 15:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146982088","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpect","content":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.<blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.<blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.<blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:<blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote> When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP. Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"<blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</blockquote> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.<blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"<blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代).\"</blockquote> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.<blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有奖励分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"<blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储也该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</blockquote> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"<blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），5bps太慷慨了波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率会扰乱“奇点”的状态“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</blockquote> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.<blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.<blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境太少日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.<blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"<blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，一些债券重的银行不能。因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够不处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote> Bottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.<blockquote>底线：尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</blockquote> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.<blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</blockquote> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"<blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote> Translation:&nbsp;by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.<blockquote>翻译：通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPowell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-21 15:13\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nLast week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.<blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.<blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.<blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:<blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote> When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP. Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"<blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</blockquote> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.<blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"<blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代).\"</blockquote> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.<blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有奖励分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"<blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储也该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</blockquote> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"<blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），5bps太慷慨了波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率会扰乱“奇点”的状态“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</blockquote> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.<blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.<blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境太少日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.<blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"<blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，一些债券重的银行不能。因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够不处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote> Bottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.<blockquote>底线：尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</blockquote> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.<blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</blockquote> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"<blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote> Translation:&nbsp;by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.<blockquote>翻译：通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146982088","content_text":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.\nWhat does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.\nBut what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.\nThe problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:\n\n When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.\n\nBottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"\nIn retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.\nNeedless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"\nWhat he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.\nIn other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"\nHe's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"\nIndeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.\nTo help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.\nThis process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.\nAnd here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"\nBottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.\nOr, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.\nBottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"\nTranslation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3365,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":27,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/167517548"}