Stuffing banks with reserves via Quantitative Easing doesn't spur lending if there's no real economy demand. The current shift is driven by a genuine "pull" for credit from sectors like AI and onshoring, making banks willing to lend, which is a far more powerful economic force.
Related Insights
Quantitative Easing (QE) forced massive, often uninsured deposits onto bank balance sheets when loan demand was weak. These deposits were highly rate-sensitive. When the Fed began raising rates, this "hot money" quickly fled the system, contributing to the banking volatility seen in March 2023.
On paper, the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet to cool the economy (quantitative tightening). In reality, rate cuts and other channels are injecting liquidity into the financial system faster than it's being removed. This contradictory policy means that despite official tightening, actual liquidity conditions are already easing, fueling asset prices.
AI challenges traditional monetary policy logic. Historically, lower interest rates spur capital investment that creates jobs. However, if lower rates now incentivize investment in job-reducing AI, the Fed's primary tool for boosting employment may become less effective or even have ambiguous effects, a new dynamic policymakers must understand.
The recent uptick in the Fed funds rate was not a direct signal of scarce bank reserves. Instead, it was driven by its primary lenders, Federal Home Loan Banks, shifting their cash to the higher-yielding repo market. This supply-side shift forced borrowers in the Fed funds market to pay more.
The post-Powell Fed is likely to reverse the QE playbook. The strategy will involve aggressive rate cuts to lower the cost of capital, combined with deregulation (like SLR exemptions) to incentivize commercial banks to take over money creation. This marks a fundamental shift from central bank-led liquidity to private sector-led credit expansion.
For the past decade, the Fed was the primary driver of liquidity. Now, the focus shifts to commercial banks' willingness and ability to create credit to fund major initiatives like AI and onshoring. Investors fixated on Fed policy are missing this crucial transition.
Instead of treating private credit creation as a black box, analyze it by tracking corporate bond issuance in real-time and observing whether the market is rewarding high-debt companies over quality names. A rally in riskier firms signals a positive credit impulse.
The Fed's "ample reserve" system has fundamentally changed the Fed funds market. Banks no longer need to borrow reserves from each other. The market is now dominated by non-U.S. banks borrowing from home loan banks in a simple arbitrage trade, making it a poor barometer of liquidity.
The global shift away from centralized manufacturing (deglobalization) requires redundant investment in infrastructure like semiconductor fabs in multiple countries. Simultaneously, the AI revolution demands enormous capital for data centers and chips. This dual surge in investment demand is a powerful structural force pushing the neutral rate of interest higher.
Contrary to intuition, a gradual pace of Fed rate cuts is often preferable for credit markets. It signals a stable economy, whereas aggressive cuts typically coincide with significant economic deterioration, which hurts credit performance despite the monetary stimulus.
