Andy Constan Profile picture
Oct 15 22 tweets 5 min read Read on X
This chart Should not be new to anyone that has my work since 2022. @SteveMiran used and credited my work to write his paper on ATI which probably helped him get the Fed Governor Gig😅.I have presented my work to many Fed staffers and senior treasury officials many times. BUT 🧵
The Fed bears only partial responsibility to the muting of QT. QT impact is two fold reducing reserves HAS occurred. Though not much and mostly just reduced pseudo reserves in the form or RRP reduction to zero.

BUT by far the biggest impact of QT is the forcing of the private
Sector to absorb duration. As written in my DSR of 3/14/2022 before QT had even formally been announced I described how choosing runoff vs outright sales when implementing QT was handing monetary policy to the treasury. dampedspring.com/wp-content/upl…
Janet knew the power she had and exercised that power when it suited her. Jay Powell was complicit in this power shift and the FOMC has continued to enable the treasury to maintain easy financial conditions TO THIS DAY
Scott Bessent continues to control the monetary impact of quantitative tightening as we speak. The impact has been hugely beneficial to asset holders (the wealthiest amongst us) and has come at the expenses of this without assets who have lived with almost 5 years of above
Target inflation which shows literally zero signs of returning to target in the coming year or even two.

The Fed is responsible for the original sin of choosing runoff over outright assets sales. But the treasury even to this day is the one responsible for the monetary impact
The fed is also responsible for its reinvestment policy which as the OP (and many of my reports shows has resulted in long term treasuries accumulating by 200BN when we have been told the balance sheet has been shrinking. We haven't been lied to. This was obvious 3 years ago
It's occurred in the bright light of weekly data. I had many conversations with fed staff about this. My DSRs are sent to the fed by request. I had great hope after the January Fed minutes that they would act and at least correct the reinvestment program. See the whole impact here


Not only that I had made concrete recommendations for the Fed to seize control of monetary policy as far back as 14 months ago dampedspring.com/wp-content/upl…Image
The full report from 7/28/2024 is here
dampedspring.com/wp-content/upl…
The big deal though is the Fed simply enabled the ongoing monetary policy by the treasury with its reinvestment policy. How you may ask? Every quarter the treasury show us the ongoing grift Image
Notice the ironically gold colored line. It shows that the treasury weighted average maturity of its total debt is at a fairly long level. Implying that the treasury has done a good job "terming out the debt"
But it's a lie. Because the Fed has bought long dated treasuries the private sector didn't have to. The blue line represents the private sector owned WAM which shows that the private sector hold very little WAM relative to what's been issued.
We all know this is true as buried in the linked reports we know that private sector coupon auctions have remained fixed and beginning the moment QT started Janet issued half of all private sector purchased debt in bills. She could and did (and the current treasury secretary
Continues to) tell us that the government debt is responsibly extending when The Fed's ridiculous reinvestment plan is the entire reason for the extension. So the treasury department is desperately afraid of the Fed changing its reinvestment policy because it will make the grift
Visible to all. It "should" be visible to all already but somehow no one seems to care.

Here's the big deal. IF the Fed finally stops enabling the treasury grift by stopping buying coupons greater than 5 year the treasury will HAVE to sell those bonds not bought be the Fed
To the private sector. That would mean a substantial increase in auction sizes of coupon treasuries. Fwiw those auction sizes need to go up a lot anyway and so because we increase debt 2TN per year but this reinvestment policy shift would significantly compound the issue.
Janet Yellen is long gone. Jay Powell says talking about the balance sheet is worse than going to the dentist. OF COURSE it Is. Truth is painful.

He and @scottbessent701 are likely to agree to NOT change the reinvestment plan continuing the grift
And certainly Jays replacement will do be even more amenable to things that prolong asset performance and fail to control inflation.

The answer is so simple and yet policymakers won't act because they fear the bond market
Change the reinvestment policy to only buy 5 year bonds and shorter

Increase auction sizes to offset this "terming in". The private sector can absorb the issuance and the price won't be a disaster BUT assets may detox a bit.

Blame Jay and Janet all you want but be prepared
Bessent and Miran are even better at this than Jay and Janet and their incentives are NOT to detox the markets.
Fwiw the fucking dentist joke by Powell today was just too much. 70% of the FOMC and the chair either doesn't understand monetary policy or simply is too afraid of the bond market. Instead they avoid the pain of understanding. Or intentionally grift.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andy Constan

Andy Constan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dampedspring

Sep 18
Assets vs cash NOT one asset vs another. 101

I raised cash yesterday by selling 20% of my liquid net worth of assets holdings. I sold gold, long term bonds and stocks without view on one asset vs another. Just raised cash while keeping my asset allocation roughly constant.
I now hold 50% of my AUM in cash. Why would I do that. What makes me want less of an asset portfolio I'll refer to now as Beta and more cash.

Well my decision hinges on various factors and all are based on expectations
For centuries and certainly recently policymakers have debased their currency which makes holding assets more attractive than holding cash currency. But we all know this. So to trigger a change in one's portfolio you have to expect a different amount of debasement relative
Read 14 tweets
Sep 16
COT Vs TFF.

There is a chart going around using the COT data which suggest non commercial (speculators) are historically short equity futures. Firstly yep they (whomever "they are") are short and medium large but not historic

BUT Far more importantly the Non commerical is a terrible kluge of data including leverage longs and shorts and real investors. We never ever use COT data for equities because TFF is available and purpose built. Those who use COT are dinosaurs.Image
TFF is moderately more useful because the cohorts are more sensible.

AIN is Unlevered long only asset managers. They are pretty long.but not as long as theyve been and I could accept the idea that they need to buy to keep up. BUt they are pretty long just not all time long Image
LFN is hedge funds. They use futures to hedge their stock picking books and to speculate long and short. They are biased short because they are biased long single names and need a hedge. They are medium short today. Notice they were really short in Q1 and covered on the bottom. Now they have been scaling shortsImage
Read 5 tweets
Sep 4
Lightning network as a way for $MSTR to earn on its BTC holdings 101

I am a sucker. As you may know I have been obsessed with how MSTR or any other BTC treasury company can earn money on its holdings in excess of appreciation.

People including my friend @LynAldenContact
Whisper words that my old brain gives unmediated validity to because I'm a newbie dumb fuck on the topic. The Lightning network was one of those whispers.

My friend Claude and I did some work Image
Turns out the entire lightning network today has a fee generation of 10MN dollars. Maybe Claude is wrong but anyway seems reasonable.
Read 9 tweets
Sep 3
Fed Bills purchases to add reserves 101

As mentioned in a bunch of my writings Reserves are abundant today. Without changing QT on treasuries of 5BN and QT on mortgages which runs at roughly 20BN reserves will not be scarce for at least a year or more

BUT...🧵
Someday in the future reserves will be ample and have potential to become scarce.

Firstly let's deal with do reserves matter at all. In my DSR from last winter Image
Image
So reserves don't matter except to keep the daily transactions flow moving smoothly. So every bank needs reserves to process transactions and there needs to be enough systemwide reserves such that a bank with a temporary need can borrow reserves intraday from a bank with some
Read 19 tweets
Sep 1
Global Wealth vs medium of exchange 101 - just some thoughts

I've been thinking a lot about my understanding of the value and amount of currencies and their link to global wealth. I am sure there is great research on this topic and would be grateful for sources. Nonetheless
I suspect people are really confused about owning stuff (wealth) and mediums of exchange. I am, hence this writing.

In a world without currencies or any other medium of exchange wealth would still exist. Wealth isn't denominated in a currency. It's what assets you own.
For instance a person can own a property and the buildings built on the property. Another person can own a factory. Another person can own shares in a company that owns a property. Someone else can own debt issued by a property owner which if not paid back can give the debt
Read 15 tweets
Aug 26
MMT vs Old School impact of interest rates 101

These are my thoughts which could be completely wrong and have been formed by a fair amount but not exhaustive readings on MMT. Try to read this as a work in progress and a middle ground between two extreme views.
The question at hand is whether increasing interest rates is restrictive on or stimulative to economic activity.

Here's where you are going to get angry. My answer is "it depends"

Let's posit two worlds

1. A world with only private and no government debt

2. A world with
no private debt and only public debt.

In world 1. (this is the by and large the OG world) when a central bank increases interest rates above the level that they would otherwise settle in a (market based no fed world) the effect is to decrease demand for borrowing and increase
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(