Ceding Balance Sheet Control

quote

The tradeoffs, drivers, and management of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have come back into market focus this month with Chairman Powell shifting market expectations for the end of quantitative tightening. In an effort to anesthetize any discomfort from reading this article, we’ll summarize the most market-relevant points about the Fed balance sheet at this juncture:

  1. Discussions about an optimal size of the Fed’s balance sheet are increasingly at odds with the diverse drivers of how this ledger interacts with a shifting regulatory environment. Changes in the composition of Fed assets and liabilities – arising from the rapidly shifting incentives of market participants – are much more market-relevant than any arbitrary size target expressed in terms of trillions of dollars or % of GDP.
  2. There has been a material tightening of US banking sector liquidity this autumn that—awkwardly—can be most directly attributed to the cash holding preferences of the US Treasury. The Treasury General Account (TGA)1 has been an increasingly important determinant of US financial conditions in the last few debt ceiling standoffs in a way that is undermining the Fed’s control of reserve levels in the commercial banking system.
  3. There appears to be a deteriorating consensus at the FOMC around the current balance sheet tradeoffs. Policymaker speeches indicate a wide range of views on the relevant metrics, areas for policy focus, and future target states; this could create market uncertainty in the next financial market disruption or economic downturn.

We see the current state of Fed balance sheet management and communication challenges as an additional symptom of fiscal-monetary entanglement, where operational central bank independence is being eroded by the US Treasury. Given the rising dominance of fiscal policy as a driver of the economy and markets, we’ve developed a suite of fiscal policy signals in recent years have helped to inform portfolio positioning in this complex policy environment. In September, the sharp tightening of US liquidity conditions from the TGA re-build helped to inform our reduction of directional equity exposure in the Tactical Opportunities Fund.

Size is an increasingly unstable target variable

The Federal Reserve’s messaging about the balance sheet is typically framed in terms of notional amounts of asset purchases, sales, levels of reserves, and overall size – targets and timelines of $trillions and $billions. Instead, we model the influence of the balance sheet on markets and the economy as a dynamic and complex interaction between the composition of assets, composition of liabilities, and changes in financial market regulation/incentives – it’s not the size that matters. The visual below describes some of these interlinkages and distinguishes between the financial conditions impact of the asset holdings versus the liquidity role of the liabilities side of the balance sheet.

optimal size

Last year we discussed the shortcomings of the Fed’s size-based QT framework as it related to the asset side of the Fed’s balance sheet; QT2’s asset runoff of short-dated securities maintained relatively loose US financial conditions because the duration footprint of the balance sheet did not decline by much.2 This summer our focus shifted to the liability side of the ledger and the large swings in the composition stemming from the debt ceiling standoff and the ongoing US government shutdown; as we head into the end of 2025 a rapid decline in US bank reserves and tightening liquidity conditions have been our main area of focus.