Seth B. Carpenter

The Liquidity Effect in the Federal Funds Market: Evidence from Daily Open Market Operations

We use forecast errors made by the Federal Reserve while preparing open market operations to identify a liquidity effect at a daily frequency in the federal funds market. We find a liquidity effect on most days of the reserve maintenance period in addition to settlement day. The effect is nonlinear; large changes in supply more consistently have a measurable effect than do small changes. In addition, a higher aggregate level of reserve balances in the banking system is associated with a smaller liquidity effect during the maintenance period but a larger liquidity effect on the last days of the period.

Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?

With the use of nontraditional policy tools, the level of reserve balances has risen significantly in the United States since 2007. Before the financial crisis, reserve balances were roughly

Transparency and monetary policy: what does the academic literature tell policymakers?

20 billion whereas the level has risen well past

Household Participation in Formal and Informal Savings Mechanisms: Evidence from Pakistan

1 trillion. The effect of reserve balances in simple macroeconomic models often comes through the money multiplier, affecting the money supply and the amount of bank lending in the economy. Most models currently used for macroeconomic policy analysis, however, either exclude money or model money demand as entirely endogenous, thus precluding any causal role for reserves and money. Nevertheless, some academic research and many textbooks continue to use the money multiplier concept in discussions of money. We explore the institutional structure of the transmission mechanism beginning with open market operations through to money and loans. We then undertake empirical analysis of the relationship among reserve balances, money, and bank lending. We use aggregate as well as bank-level data in a VAR framework and document that the mechanism does not work through the standard multiplier model or the bank lending channel. In particular, if the level of reserve balances is expected to have an impact on the economy, it seems unlikely that a standard multiplier story will explain the effect.

Analyzing Federal Reserve Asset Purchases: From Whom Does the Fed Buy?

Transparency in monetary policy has become a popular topic over the past decade. However, the majority of the economic research is theoretical, calling into question its value as a practical guide to monetary policy. This paper surveys the literature to assess what conclusions a central bank can draw from the academic study of transparency and how beneficial transparency may be.

Money Demand and Equity Markets

Savings are an important determinant of both individual and national wellbeing. Typically, households employ a wide range of mechanisms for saving, including both formal and informal institutions. The choice of savings instrument has important micro- and macroeconomic implications. However, little is known empirically about the patterns of use of these instruments, or the factors affecting household decisions/ abilities to use them. The authors apply household-level data from a nationally representative survey for Pakistan to explore these issues in detail. In particular, they focus on the choice between banks and bisi, an informal saving committee similar in nature to a rotating-savings-and-credit association. Copyright 2002 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volatility, Money Market Rates, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy

Asset purchases have become an important monetary policy tool of the Federal Reserve in recent years. To date, most studies of the Federal Reserve’s asset purchases have tried to measure the interest rate effects of the purchases, and several provide evidence that these purchases do have important effects on longer-term market interest rates. The theory of how asset purchases work, however, is less well developed. Some of the empirical studies point to “preferred habitat” models in which investors do not have the same objectives, and therefore prefer to hold different types and maturities of securities. To study this more closely, we exploit Flow of Funds data to assess the types of investors that are selling to the Federal Reserve and their portfolio adjustment after these sales, which could provide a view to the plausibility of preferred habitat models and the transmission of unconventional monetary policy across asset markets. We find that the Federal Reserve is ultimately buying from only a handful of investor types, primarily households (which includes hedge funds), with a different reaction to changes in Federal Reserve holdings of longer-term versus shorter-term assets. Although not evident for all investors, the key participants are shown to rebalance their portfolios toward more risky assets during this period. These results can be interpreted as supporting, at least in part, the preferred habit theory and the view that the monetary policy transmission is working across asset markets.

The Liquidity Effect in the Federal Funds Market: Evidence at the Monthly Frequency

Money demand in part reflects a portfolio decision. As equities have become a significant store of household wealth, it seems plausible that variations in equity markets could affect money demand. We re-specify a standard money demand equation to include stock market volatility and revisions to analyst earnings projections. We find that these equity market variables are statistically significant and reduce the errors from money demand models.

Capital Requirements, Business Loans, and Business Cycles: An Empirical Analysis of the Standardized Approach in the New Basel Capital Accord

Central banks typically control an overnight interest rate as their policy tool, and the transmission of monetary policy happens through the relationship of this overnight rate to the rest of the yield curve. The expectations hypothesis, that longer-term rates should equal expected future short-term rates plus a term premium, provides the typical framework for understanding this relationship. We explore the effect of volatility in the federal funds market on the expectations hypothesis in money markets. We present two major results. First, the expectations hypothesis is likely to be rejected in money markets if the realized federal funds rate is studied instead of an appropriate measure of the expected federal funds rate. Second, we find that lower volatility in the bank funding markets market, all else equal, leads to a lower term premium and thus longer-term rates for a given setting of the overnight rate. The results appear to hold for the US as well as the Euro Area and the UK. The results have implications for the design of operational frameworks for the implementation of monetary policy and for the interpretation of the changes in the Libor-OIS spread during the financial crisis. We also demonstrate that the expectations hypothesis is more likely to hold the more closely linked the short- and long-term interest rates are.