Excess Reserves

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Back in 2008 the Fed got authority to start paying interest on excess bank reserves held on the Fed’s books. They took advantage of this authority immediately, and as a result banks started stashing a lot of money at the Fed. This is a very useful tool: if you raise the rate then you take money out of circulation, and if you lower rates you give banks incentives to go find better things to do with it. Matt Yglesias comments:

People have wondered for a while what’s the Fed’s “exit strategy” from the current bout of credit easing, and there you have it. Raising the interest rate on excess reserves from 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent or .75 percent or 1 percent would have a contractionary impact and help curb inflation if this becomes a problem in the future. Today, however, inflation is not a problem. Very high unemployment, however, is a problem. So if raising the rate from 0.25 to .5 produces contraction, then why shouldn’t lowering it from 0.25 percent to 0 percent percent produce expansion?

Fiddling with interest rates on excess reserves is indeed a new and powerful weapon in the Fed’s arsenal. At the moment, though, it’s not clear that lowering rates would do any good, because it’s not clear what it is that’s keeping bank lending low. The most likely reason, though, is that the private sector growth projections are weak, excess capacity still abounds, the housing market continues to suck, and there’s just not a lot of demand for new loans. Lowering the interest rate on excess reserves won’t change this, it will just eat into bank earnings, and right now the Fed is eager for banks to recapitalize as quickly as possible. That’s probably why the Fed isn’t changing its excess reserve policy right now.

Needless to say, comment from informed observers is welcome on this score.

UPDATE: Another possible reason for sluggish bank lending is here. I doubt it’s really a major factor, but it’s certainly a fascinating example of unintended consequences.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend