If Treasury markets can’t be reigned in, the Fed expands its balance sheet by buying those Treasury securities to add liquidity and stability. These “open market operations” are usually the “money printing” that people are talking about happening at the Fed. “QE” refers more specifically to operations where the Fed is buying other assets beyond just Treasury securities, as occurred in the 2008 crisis and during COVID. But the Treasury buying back its own issued debt is, in essence, QE by another name.

When interpreting Treasury yield data, remember that this market is being heavily manipulated by Yellen – she's conducting the Treasury versions of both Operation Twist and QE, w/ overreliance on short-term issuance and now buybacks; term premium is now virtually nonsensical: pic.twitter.com/RH8UixQOMK

— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) May 1, 2024

While this occurs outside the halls of the Federal Reserve itself, Treasury buybacks are merely a different way to print money from nothing. The US is running a deep, sustained fiscal deficit with no true debt ceiling — so the Treasury buys back its own securities by issuing new debt, which it creates out of thin air. With spending far exceeding revenue, higher interest rates plus more debt means that fiscal deficits accelerate. The short-term stimulative effect of this somewhat offsets the Fed’s tightened monetary policy but digs a deeper hole in the longer term.

One method the Treasury uses is to shorten the average duration of securities so that debts mature sooner. That means more short-term debt (like Treasury bills) versus long-term debt (like Treasury bonds). This encourages more capital flows into the banking sector and helps stave off instability. If it fails, the big banks still win: when smaller banks fail, they’re usually just absorbed by bigger ones where the profits are private but the losses are socialized. The “Too Big to Fail” club becomes even bigger and more powerful.

When the Treasury issues more short-term debt, it’s waging war on the Fed’s higher interest rate policy. Both the Treasury and Fed need to keep Treasury yields down, but tightened monetary policy encourages higher yields. If yields get too high, the bond market — and challenged industries like commercial real estate that rely on debt — are screwed. So while the Fed tightens, the Treasury must loosen. Yields have since gone down, but if inflationary pressures and other factors push them back past 5%, both the Fed and Treasury are trapped.

“Higher for longer” policy at the Fed is even more essential for holding back inflation as the Treasury injects liquidity into markets. If the Fed lowers rates now, the results of simultaneously expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will send consumer prices soaring.

So are the Fed and Treasury in opposition, or are they working together, one changing its policy to prevent a disaster caused by the policies of the other? The answer is complex, but the oversimplified version is that the two have locked the economy into a game of musical chairs where, eventually, the music is bound to stop.

The end result of the Treasury’s showdown with the Fed will still be out-of-control inflation. Both artificially contract and expand the money supply, and their policies have both created an inescapable trap. COVID QE is one big unexploded bomb that is sitting in the center of that trap. And even with the Fed holding off on interest rate cuts in the short term, the Treasury’s buybacks are QE by a different name. With too much inflationary pressure and not enough tools to stop it, the end result of all this fiscal and monetary tinkering will be a disaster for the dollar.

It’s a curious situation when Jerome Powell, a man who oversaw the largest money-printing campaign in American history, is saying that the debt is unsustainable. While maintaining that the Fed “tries hard not to comment on fiscal policy,” Powell’s suggestion for handling the debt shifts blame and burden from money printing to fiscal irresponsibility on the part of policymakers.

While they have their part to play, and it’s a big one, it’s interesting to see that Federal Reserve monetary policy hasn’t been mentioned in any of Powell’s ‘urgent’ warnings about ballooning debt:

“In the long run, the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The U.S. federal government’s on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable. I don’t think that’s at all controversial. And I think we know that we have to get back on a sustainable fiscal path.”

It’s a wonder how, even if the government suddenly adopted responsible spending and budgeting, we would be back on a path of true sustainability after Powell oversaw the printing of over 3 trillion dollars in 2020 alone. The Fed is an interesting source of criticism for unsustainable debt, to say the least:

More loans and more deposits will increase M1 in an already-frothy inflationary environment, adding pressure to a pot that’s already in danger of boiling over from money printing during Covid. Post-COVID rate hikes have not even come close to reversing this course, with interest still far lower than it would be in an actual free market, where a few dozen bureaucrats would no longer be pulling the levers. Excessive borrowing makes US Treasurys less attractive as doubts begin to mount that the US will be able to pay its obligations back, decreasing demand for our debt and fueling further challenges for funding the government.

All of this led Fitch and Moody’s to downgrade the US’s credit rating last year, from “AAA” to “AA+” in the case of Fitch, and for Moody’s, from “stable” to “negative.” Fed interest rate hikes without an accompanying plan to reduce spending or increase revenue leave no hope at all for meaningfully reducing fiscal deficits.

From this new sense of urgency, lawmakers in Idaho and Wyoming have called for a convention of states to address the problem, with Idaho’s resolutions calling for a possible constitutional amendment limiting the spending abilities and overall power of the federal government. Idaho’s Senate Concurrent Resolution 112, or SCR 112, calls for, in its words:

“(1) imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government; (2) limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government; and (3) limiting the terms in office for its officials and for members of Congress. Currently, identical applications have been sent to Congress by other state legislatures.”

The question remains if anything, at this point, would be enough to get the US back on a genuinely sustainable economic track other than an outright collapse of the US dollar leading to a total monetary reset. As long as the Fed exists, the likelihood of truly reigning in out-of-control debt is nothing but a pipe dream.

With recent new all-time highs for gold and bitcoin in response to the debasement of the debt and central banks locked in a buying spree that is likely to last years, the message is clear that the banking system agrees with Peter Schiff that inflation is far from over.

Interestingly, the real driving force behind gold’s price increase appears to be foreign central banks, which have been significant buyers of the metal. This shift towards gold by central banks is seen as a strategic move away from holding U.S. dollars, signaling a broader trend of de-dollarization among global financial institutions. These developments come at a time when retail interest has been diverted towards more speculative investments like cryptocurrencies, overshadowing traditional safe havens like gold.

The lack of public participation in the gold rally, coupled with the substantial interest from central banks, presents a unique contrarian opportunity for investors. While gold stocks, such as those of Newmont Mining, have experienced volatility, the physical commodity’s price resilience underscores gold’s enduring value as a monetary asset.

This divergence offers insightful lessons on the dynamics of investment psychology and market trends, emphasizing the importance of looking beyond mainstream narratives to understand the underlying factors driving market movements.

The recipe for GDP growth is a recipe for disaster

The big factor driving the GDP was the increase in government spending. Well, where’s the government getting this money? It’s borrowing it! That’s not a recipe for economic growth — that’s a recipe for disaster!”

Spending increases caused massive increases in national debt and liabilities.

The US national debt currently stands at $34.1 trillion. Total unfunded liabilities tower in the hundreds of trillions, mostly from Social Security and Medicare.

Peter states that this used to be a priority, but is no longer:

Back in the 1980s, 1990s we were still pretending we were going to do something about entitlements —about Social Security, about Medicare, that there was going to be some effort to fix the problem before it blew up… Nobody at this point believes that we’re going to do anything about stopping the bomb from going off. In fact, it’s already gone off. We’ve already passed the point.”

Social Security is officially broke

Social Security trust funds are now liquidating their treasury holdings, putting a massive net drain on the US treasury.

And it’s getting worse:

[The] drain is getting bigger every day as more people retire whether voluntarily or involuntarily and more people just drop out of the labor force and stop paying taxes.”

Peter explains that many roles are being replaced by AI and automation tools, which don’t help the Social Security fund:

They’re not going to be paying Social Security taxes. Computer programs don’t have to pay into FICA. This this is going to get bigger but given the fact that we have this huge hole in Social Security, we’re bleeding — we’ve got a massive deficit that’s running out of control.”

Peter projects a total depletion of Social Security reserves within the next few years.

Making matters worse, manufacturing has been in recession

This confounds the administration’s narrative of a healthy economy:

They keep talking about a “Manufacturing Renaissance.” They got the “r” right, except it’s a recession instead of a renaissance.”

The Fed Philly Manufacturing Index has been negative for 18 out of the past 20 months, a manufacturing dark age.

This all begs the question:

How can you talk about a great economy? How healthy can the economy be when a vitally important part, the goods-producing sector, has been in a recession for almost two years?”

There are signs of higher inflation to come

Peter points out that just this week, oil prices rose $5 a barrel and the M2 money supply increased a whopping $100 billion, a significant expansion.

Plus, the Fed won’t deny voters anything this election year.

Peter concludes:

I’m correct that inflation is going to be picking up, it’s going to be weakening the economy. We could see a more meaningful turnaround. Maybe we’ll even get the government to come back and officially acknowledge that we’re in a recession.”

It’s as if the Fed is asking the healthiest swimmers to don faulty life jackets first, in a bid to make them seem less alarming to those already struggling to stay afloat. Our guest commentator explains why this strategy, while intended to fortify the banking sector against future storms, would endanger all US banks.

The following article was originally published by the Mises Wire.

Last Thursday, Bloomberg reported that federal regulators are preparing a proposal to force US banks to utilize the Federal Reserve’s discount window in preparation for future bank crises. The aim, notes Katanga Johnson, is to remove the stigma around tapping into this financial lifeline, part of the continuing fallout from the failures of several significant regional banks last year.

This new policy is reminiscent of the Fed’s actions during the 2007 financial crisis, where financial authorities encouraged large banks to tap into the discount window, taking loans directly from the Federal Reserve, to make it easier for distressed banks to do the same. The hesitancy from financial institutions to tap into this source of liquidity is justified. If the public believes a bank needs support from the Fed, it is rational for depositors to flee the bank. The Fed’s explicit aim is to provide cover from at-risk banks, trying to hold off bank runs that are an inherent risk in our modern fractional reserve banking system.

By strong-arming healthy banks to comply, the Fed is escalating moral hazard and leaving customers more vulnerable. They are deliberately trying to remove a signal of institutional risk.

The regulator’s concerns about bank fragility are justified. The Fed’s low-interest rate environment meant financial institutions seeking low-risk assets bought up US treasuries with very low yields. As inflationary pressures forced rates upward, the market value of these bonds decreased in favor of new, higher-yield bonds. It was this pressure that sparked the failure of Silicon Valley Bank last year.

Additionally, the state of commercial real estate is a further stress for regional banks, which are responsible for 80 percent of such mortgages. In the previous low-interest rate environment, investors viewed commercial real estate as “a haven for investors in need of reliable returns.” Unfortunately, this same period experienced major changes in consumer behavior. Online shopping, remote work, and shared office space increased at the expense of traditional brick-and-mortar locations. Covid lockdowns only further amplified these trends.

As a result, commercial real estate debt is viewed as one of the most dangerous financial assets out there today, sitting right on the balance sheets of regional banks across the country.

These stresses have had a major impact not only on this latest policy from federal regulators but the depth of their response to last year’s failures. Following the failure of SVB, the Fed created the Bank Term Funding Program, which allowed banks and credit unions to borrow using US Treasuries and other assets as collateral. This emergency measure reflected fears of other banks being at risk. The Fed has signaled its willingness to let this program expire in March, with the aim of transitioning banks to increasing their use of the discount window.

While the actions of the Fed and financial regulators illustrate real concerns about the health of US banks, these same institutions have projected bullish optimism about the state of the economy in public. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have consistently described the US economy as “robust” over the last few months, a view not shared by the majority of Americans. Additionally, Powell proclaimed victory over inflation this past December, even while the Fed’s preferred measures remain well above their 2 percent target, in stark contrast to his previous statements about the necessity to aggressively tackle inflation at the risk of it becoming normalized.

The shadow of politics obviously can’t be decoupled from the rosy statements from government officials on the economy, particularly going into a presidential election year. Another motivation for projecting economic strength, however, is to re-arm the Federal Reserve’s policy arsenal. While the projections of Fed officials for rate cuts in 2024 have been packaged as reflecting the growing strength of the US economy, the reality is that the Fed desires the option to lower rates as a response to financial distress. The Fed has proven time and time again that if given the choice between forcing Americans to suffer from the consequences of inflation or bailing out the financial system, it will choose the latter.

With the 2024 election in full swing, Americans will be consistently bombarded with political lies and false promises, not just from politicians but from government agencies and the central bank. While we can expect another ten months of being told how strong the economy is, the actions being taken behind the scenes tell a very different story.

“On a year-to-date basis, central banks have bought an astonishing net 800t, 14% higher than the same period last year.”

Whether or not The January Effect will apply to the gold price as we finish the first month of 2024, there are plenty of indicators that the central bank buying spree will continue for at least the first half of the new year. Accelerating de-dollarization is just one factor, as powerhouses like China and Russia continue strategically moving further and further from the grips of USD hegemony.

Of course, actions by the Biden administration to isolate Russia with sanctions in the wake of the Ukraine conflict only provide further impetus for the Russians to continue divesting in any way they can from the US dollar. Combined with a volatile ruble and a wave of new American spending to feed its proxy wars in Ukraine and Israel, it only makes sense that Russia’s gold coffers will continue to grow.

You can also bet on China and Russia buying significantly more gold than what gets reported publicly, so the real numbers are always higher than they seem. As Jim Richards has pointed out many times, such as in this tweet from Q1 last year, countries like Russia and China hold gold acquired through off-the-books buying programs that far exceed what they officially claim:

“Central Bank of Russia reported a gain of 30 metric tonnes in its gold reserves. That’s after a year of flatlining more likely due to non-reporting than non-acquisition. Nice to see Russia back in the game.”

For more central bank gold-buying fuel, the Fed, claiming victory against inflation, has actually given up on fighting it. The Fed knows it backed itself into a corner and has no choice but to lower rates in 2024 — which means central banks will need a way to hedge against those easier money policies. And while the Fed’s balance sheet shrank in 2023, it didn’t even come close to closing the gap created by the trillions it added during the Covid era. Of course, that wouldn’t stop Powell from running his victory lap at 2023’s final post-FOMC press conference about stopping rate hikes:

“That’s us thinking we’ve done enough.”

However, lower rates in 2024 would bolster the case for even more inflation, not less — leading to a tanking dollar and surging relative prices for gold and other commodities. Peter Schiff isn’t the only one to have pointed this out, but all you have to do is forget what central banks say and look at what they do. The stage is set for banks to add more gold to their reserves to hedge against downward pressures on the dollar, even as the Fed claims victory over the inflation battle. The only question is which will occur first: a dollar crisis or a sovereign debt collapse? Central bankers aren’t going to wait to find out.

It's only the 2nd day of Jan. and the #NationalDebt already blew past $34 trillion. I think 2024 will set a record for the largest one-year increase in the U.S. National Debt in history. The only question is will there be a sovereign debt or #dollar crisis before the year ends.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) January 3, 2024

After all, in 2023, not even higher nominal yields managed to slow down gold’s rally. Booming Treasury yields reflect less certainty in the health of the economy, not more, as investors flee to the perceived safety of Treasurys and bonds. But what goes up must come down, and a collapse in the Treasurys market would nuke the dollar, taking the rest of the economy with it:

“…a Treasurys crash will force the value of the dollar to plunge, which will lead to a brutal economic downturn — one in which the “standard of living” in the country will drop dramatically.”

Finally, 2024 brings even more uncertainty in the face of the US’s continuing proxy conflicts and, notably, a US presidential election that is reinforcing a global picture of domestic political instability. With candidates on both sides like RFK Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy embracing anti-establishment messages about reigning in central banks, the military-industrial complex, and the US debt spiral, there are plenty of candidates shaking the nest in ways that would have been unheard of just a couple elections ago. As Robin Tsui of the South China Morning Post points out, somewhat obviously:

“…the potential for US government shutdowns, fiscal policy debates, and political stand-offs ahead of the 2024 US election cycle persist.”

It’s true that many economists and Fed officials haven’t given up hope for a ”soft landing” next year, which would imply decreasing demand for gold. But as time has pressed on, this is a claim that even they admit could end up being proven hollow. To any honest observer, more signs of instability, inflation, negative-yielding debt, and election-year madness all point to a strong need for safety throughout this year. 

Looking past the claims that US bankers and officials are making in public, central banks know the truth: they need to keep gobbling gold. It’s the only strategic maneuver that makes sense, with few other meaningful ways to protect themselves from becoming collateral damage in the confluence of self-destructive economic meddling, overstretched foreign entanglements, and election-year political turmoil in the US.

Price increases on essential goods like food, housing, and fuel are hitting hard for Average Americans. But in its policy to avoid economic reality as much as possible, the Fed’s CPI numbers don’t account for factors such as consumers buying cheap alternatives instead of the name brands that they used to easily afford.

Acting as de facto PR agencies for Federal Reserve monetary policy, some media outlets are claiming that Americans are making headway on their debts, it’s just that higher inflation is obscuring all their great progress. As described by WalletHub editor Christie Mathern:

“When you adjust for inflation to compare this number to past years, our current credit card debt total is actually 15% lower than the highest number in 2008.”

According to that analysis, crippling price increases are causing consumers to take on more loans, but the debt only seems too high because each dollar is worth so much less now than it was 15 years ago. Unfortunately, the economy is now so irreparably distorted that these perceptions of economic pseudo-reality have become the norm. Increasingly severe mental gymnastics are required to continue justifying the position that consumer debt has reached anything but utterly unsustainable levels.

Meanwhile, trillions printed during Covid are still in the economy, meaning inflation will only get worse as Powell waves his magic wand to cut rates in the hopes of “stimulating growth.” If you believe that more debt automatically equals more growth, then Powell might be right. But the real result will be higher prices at the store, more consumer debt, and more previous debts left unpaid. According to a Bankrate survey, over 50 million Americans are carrying credit card balances for an entire year and then some, and other numbers show that around half of consumers are carrying balances from month-to-month.

“Total credit card balances hit a high of $1.08 trillion in the third quarter of 2023, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — a figure that is up $48 billion over the quarter and $154 billion over the year. Interest on this debt is also increasing, with the Federal Reserve reporting the average APR for revolving credit at 22.77 percent as of the third quarter.”

One has to wonder if maybe consumer defaults are the goal. Perhaps “economic growth,” in the Fed’s eyes, really means crashing it all so that more assets like real estate can be owned by parasitic megabanks. However, the simpler explanation is that backed into a corner with so few weapons in their arsenal to meaningfully stabilize prices or get debt under control, there isn’t much else that the Fed can do other than more of the same.

Delinquencies are already at their highest point in about a decade, and the notion that these debt-addicted spenders are going to borrow less rather than more appears quite unlikely in 2024. Lower interest rates will be too tempting when cash-strapped consumers are already struggling more than ever just to afford rice and beans:

As Peter Schiff tweeted on January 11th, there’s unfortunately no end in sight for consumers who are already borrowing just to finance basic needs.

Anyone who thinks the #Fed will succeed in returning #inflation to 2% doesn't understand inflation, including #Powell or other FOMC members. Today's hotter than expected Dec. #CPI doesn't mean that the Fed has to fight harder to win the inflation war, but that it's already lost!

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) January 11, 2024

As he said on last week’s The First TV with Jesse Kelly:

“Americans continue to borrow to buy things that they don’t earn enough money to afford, and all that means (is) more upward pressure on prices — the Fed has done too little, too late…we’re running a trillion dollars in debt every quarter.”

But if the job numbers pick up, maybe consumers can afford more expensive survival needs and finally start paying down those debts…right? Not so fast. 2023 was a big year for layoffs, especially in an overly-frothy tech industry suffering further disruption by AI. And ResumeBuilder.com’s recent survey found that almost half of companies are anticipating more job cuts in 2024.

Making matters worse, over 1 out of 4 debtors (especially Millennials and Gen Z) are already saying YOLO and “Doom Spending” their way into an even deeper hole. That’s more than 25% of American consumers throwing in the towel, borrowing like there’s no tomorrow, and all but guaranteeing default at one point or another.

The only question left is when we’ll reach the debt event horizon that sucks the economy into a black hole of runaway inflation and cascading defaults. If the Fed is good at one thing, it’s kicking the can down the road — but at some point, that road leads to a cliff, and from there, there’s nowhere left to go but into the void.

Minimum wage laws are politically popular. According to the narrative, benevolent politicians raise the minimum to force greedy businesses to pay their workers a decent wage. It sounds great, doesn’t it? It seems like a victory for the little guy.

The problem is you can’t suspend economic laws by government edict.

One of the biggest enduring economic myths is the notion that the minimum wage laws only help workers and have no real negative effects. The fallacy inherent in this line of thinking becomes immediately clear if we simply propose a $ 1,000-per-hour minimum wage. After all, if $20 is good, $1,000 would be fantastic, right?

Of course, nobody would pay a worker $1,000 per hour to perform a low-skill task. You’d never get any kind of return on that investment, and it’s obviously unaffordable. A $15 per hour minimum is just slightly less unaffordable. It’s only a matter of scale.

The smaller scale of a hike to $15 makes the effects much less obvious – sometimes completely invisible. But the same fundamental economic reasons a $1,000 per hour minimum wage would never work make a $15 minimum just as economically unviable.

Nevertheless, as long as we have politicians, they will pander to “workers” and pass these economically damaging laws. And as long as there are minimum wage laws on the books, some low-productivity workers will go without jobs.

A wage is nothing more than the price of labor. And labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When you raise the price of something, demand falls. That means raising the price to hire somebody will ultimately mean fewer people get hired.

It’s critical to understand that governments can force employers to pay you minimum wage. But they can’t force a company to hire you.

CALIFORNIA: A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE

California workers are going to learn this economic lesson the hard way.

A $20 per hour minimum wage for restaurant workers in California will go into effect in April. To cope with the increased cost of labor, two Pizza Hut operators plan to eliminate delivery service. That means some 1,200 delivery drivers will go from making their current wage to earning zero.

“PacPizza, LLC, operating as Pizza Hut, has made a business decision to eliminate first-party delivery services and, as a result, the elimination of all delivery driver positions,” the company said in a statement.

Southern California Pizza Co. also gave notice that it will discontinue delivery service.

Restaurant industry analyst Mark Kalinowski told Business Insider that he expects “more harm to come” from the law as fast food chains “take action in an attempt to blunt the impact of higher labor costs.”

Some of that pain will fall on customers. Pizza lovers will now have to pick up their orders or depend on third-party delivery services such as DoorDash and Uber Eats. Meanwhile, McDonald’s and Chipotle have already indicated that they will raise menu prices.

Gov. Gavin Newsome signed the FAST Act into law in 2022. The original plan would have raised the fast food industry minimum wage to $23 per hour. In a compromise, a law passed last year set the wage at $20. The wage applies to California-based fast-food chains with 60 or more locations nationwide.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH A MINIMUM WAGE?

Nick Giambruno did a good job of explaining the problem with minimum wages in an article published by the International Man. He points out that minimum wage laws are simply price controls.

In this case, a control on the price of labor. And price controls always create destructive distortions in the market. Here, that means unnecessary unemployment and artificially high prices passed on to consumers. Even the Congressional Budget Office admits that 500,000 jobs would be lost if the US government raised the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.”

Giambruno illustrates this point by making a comparison that’s easy to wrap your head around. Imagine if the government set the minimum price for an aluminum can at $5. In that scenario, Coca-Cola would have to charge over $5 for a can of Coke. Would you shell out more than five bucks for a can of Coke?

Me neither.

In this scenario, we’d end up with a glut of Coke cans sitting on store shelves.

In this scenario, the problem isn’t that people don’t want Coke. They do. The problem is the artificially high price of aluminum cans… which leads to the artificially high price of Coke… that just sits on shelves, gathering dust, until eventually, Coca-Cola drastically cuts back production because of lack of demand.”

In all likelihood, Coca-Cola would just switch to exclusively using glass or plastic containers. The $5 minimum can price that was supposed to help the can companies would actually hurt them over the long term.

Now, just substitute aluminum cans for labor and you have the same scenario.

A similar dynamic plays out when the government mandates the price of labor. But instead of Coke cans, potential employees sit on the shelves while employers eliminate jobs they otherwise wouldn’t, and are forced to pass on higher prices to consumers when they otherwise wouldn’t. The plain truth is, not every job generates $15 an hour worth of output. And some workers would much rather accept jobs that pay less than $15 than have no job at all.”

Minimum wage advocates seek to solve a legitimate problem facing American workers: their dollars buy less and less every year. But simply mandating employers fork over more dollars is a little like putting a band-aid on an amputation. It doesn’t do anything to address the underlying problem. We don’t have a wage problem. We have a money problem.

Over the last month, loans outstanding in the Federal Reserve bank bailout program increased by $17.24 billion. It was the second month we’ve seen borrowing from the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) surge. And the pace of borrowing is increasing.

Between December 13 and December 20, the balance in the BTFP grew by $7.57 billion.

As of Dec. 20, the balance in the BTFP stood at just under $133.34 billion. It’s the largest balance since the program was created in March.

The increase in banks tapping into the BTF started in November. As you can see from the chart, borrowing had leveled off in August before the sudden spike in November. Keep in mind that banks were still tapping into the bailout even as the total balance in the program plateaued. Some banks were paying off loans as others borrowed.

This surge in bank bailout borrowing would seem to indicate more banks are struggling in this high interest rate environment, and the financial crisis that kicked off in March continues to boil under the surface.

But thanks to the Fed bailout, the crisis remains “out of sight, out of mind.”

WHAT IS THE BTFP?

After the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the Fed created the BTFP, allowing banks to easily access capital “to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.”

The BTFP offers loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging US Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. Banks can borrow against their assets “at par” (face value).

According to a Federal Reserve statement, “the BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.”

The ability to borrow against the face value of their bond portfolios is a sweetheart deal for banks given the big drop in bond prices over the last year-plus.

Fed interest rate increases to fight price inflation decimated the bond market. (Bond prices and interest rates are inversely correlated. As bond prices fall, bond yields increase.) With interest rates rising so quickly, banks could not adjust their bond holdings. As a result, many banks have become undercapitalized on paper.

According to the FDCI, unrealized losses on securities climbed to $683.9 billion in Q3. That represented a 22.5% jump from the second quarter. Rising mortgage rates reducing the value of mortgage-backed securities drove the increase.

The BTFP gives banks a way out, or at least the opportunity to kick the can down the road for a year. Instead of selling bonds that have dropped in value at a big loss, banks can go to the Fed and borrow money at the bonds’ face value.

PAPERING OVER THE PROBLEM

The creation of the BTFP allowed the Federal Reserve to paper over the banking crisis its interest rate hikes created. But what happens when the loans come due?

In the first week of the BTFP, banks borrowed $11.9 billion from the program, along with more than $300 billion from the already-established Fed Discount Window.

The Discount Window requires banks to post collateral at face value and loans come with a relatively high interest rate and must post collateral at fair market value. While Discount Window borrowing surged in the weeks after the collapse of SVC and Signature Bank, the balances were quickly paid back down, and Discount Window borrowing returned to normal levels.

One would expect borrowing from a bailout program to slow down considerably once the crisis passed. But banks never stopped tapping into the BTFP. And borrowing suddenly accelerated in November.

Notably, the sudden spike in bailout borrowing happened even as the bond market rallied and bonds regained some of their value as the Fed eased off the rate hike accelerator. This ostensibly provided some relief on banks’ balance sheets.

Granted, the $133 billion outstanding appears insignificant compared to the $22.8 trillion in commercial bank assets held by the 4,100 commercial banks in the US. The fact that some troubled banks are still tapping into a bailout program nine months after the crisis doesn’t necessarily mean the banking system is on the verge of collapse. But while the bailouts might not be a fire, it’s at least smoke. There are still problems in the banking system bubbling under the surface.

This is a predictable consequence of the Fed raising interest rates to battle price inflation.

Artificially low interest rates and easy money are the mother’s milk of this bubble economy. With everybody from corporations, consumers, and the federal government buried in debt, this economy and the financial system simply can’t function long-term in a high interest rate environment. The banking crisis earlier this year was the first thing to break as a result of rising interest rates. Other things will follow. We’ve already seen some tremors in the commercial real estate market.

While you might be tempted to blame the Fed’s recent rate hikes for these issues, the real problem started years ago.

After the Great Recession, Federal Reserve policy intentionally incentivized borrowing to “stimulate” the economy. It cut rates to zero and launched three rounds of quantitative easing. After an unsuccessful attempt to normalize rates and shrink its balance sheet in 2018, the Fed doubled down on easy money policies during the pandemic. This monetary inflation inevitably led to price inflation. That forced the Fed to raise interest rates. The central bank appears to have cooled price inflation (for now), but it also broke the financial system.

In effect, the Fed managed to paper over the financial crisis with this bailout program. It basically slapped a bandaid on it. But it has not addressed the underlying issue – the impact of rising interest rates on an economy and financial system addicted to easy money.

And it’s only a matter of time before something else breaks.

So, how is this victory over inflation working out for the average person? Not so great.

Based on official CPI data, price inflation has cooled somewhat, although it remains far above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. That hasn’t stopped President Biden and most of the mainstream financial media from declaring victory over rising prices. Biden even suggested that companies should start cutting prices since inflation is falling.

It’s important to remember that even if we believe the government numbers and price inflation is cooling, that doesn’t mean consumers are getting any relief.

Prices are not falling. They’re just going up slower than they were six months ago.

And those price increases are cumulative. Since January 2022, prices have risen 9.7% based on the CPI. And the CPI is designed to understate rising prices.

In other words, we’re all still coping with much higher prices no matter what the latest CPI report says. And the suffering is far worse than sterile BLS reports indicate.

This becomes clear when we go out in the real world and stop listening to news people spouting government numbers.

Ironically, we can learn more about the actual impact of inflation from the movie Home Alone than we can from some guy on CNBC droning on and on about the CPI.

In this 1990 classic, 8-year-old Kevin McCallister’s family went on a holiday trip to Paris and accidentally left him alone in his house. Chaos ensues.

You may recall that after realizing he’s alone, Kevin makes a trip to the grocery store. After all, a kid has to eat.

Kevin bought a basket full of groceries including a half-gallon of milk, orange juice, Wonder Bread, a Stouffer’s frozen turkey dinner, toilet paper, Snuggle dryer sheets, Tide liquid laundry detergent, plastic wrap, Kraft macaroni and cheese, and a bag of army men. He paid a grand total of $19.83 with a $1 off coupon for the orange juice.

In 2022, that same basket of groceries would have cost around $44.40 based on a shopping trip by a West Virginia mother. That’s a 123.9% increase. (Keep in mind prices vary somewhat depending on the store and location.)

This year, Kevin would have to fork out a whopping $72.28 for his provisions at a Chicago store. That’s another 62.8% increase in just one year. Since 1990, the price of Kevin’s groceries has gone up over 264%.

So much for that 3.1% CPI.

This just goes to show that real-life price inflation is far worse than the official numbers indicate.