The Aleph Blog » Blog Archive » 3.4%, NOT 34 Basis Points

3.4%, NOT 34 Basis Points

With thanks to jck at Alea, I retract part of what I wrote earlier, but leave it up for all to see my mistake.  3.4% is correct for the ROA.  Now, note if you are levered 44 times, 3.4% means you earned ~50% more than your capital in a year, which is quite a haul.

Post-embarrassment for me, 3.4% is reasonable, and more in line with what I thought my topic would be about when I started writing last night.  The Fed is taking risks:

  • Duration — short liabilities, long assets.
  • Convexity — mortgages are prepaying
  • Credit/Equity — GSEs (modest), Maiden Lanes, AIG

Will they prove to be prudent risks? Not sure.  The duration risk concerns me the most.  Now the Fed doesn’t have to mark to market like the rest of us mortals, and having 3.4% of ROA covers a multitude of errors.  It would engender a loss of confidence if the yield curve got really steep, that the Fed was insolvent on a mark-to-market basis — that could lead to a loss of confidence in the dollar.

But that would take more than a 2% move up from here, and who knows?  Maybe the Fed would suck in a lot of high coupon, long duration treasuries at that level, and profit off of a bigger spread, kind of like the attitude some life insurers had in the mid-80s.  Mismatch long to earn extra money, and if rates rose higher, write more business to get out of distress caused by unrealized capital losses.  Eventually won’t work if you have risk-based capital rules, or liabilities that can run, but if you are the Fed, then there are almost no limits except that of inflation kicking in amid economic weakness.

Following this is the piece with the math error, as published.


Who cares what the Federal Reserve remits to the US Treasury?  Some are amazed by the record $78.4 Billion remitted to the US Treasury, as if that were “found money.”  It is all stolen out of the pockets of savers, who deserve a currency that is truly a store of value, and rewards saving.

The amazing thing to me is that the Fed only earns 34 basis points on assets, especially since they pay less than 25 basis points on assets as a cost of funds over the last year.  The huge earnings points me to the massive leverage the Fed uses, 44x, which it would/should not let the banks it regulates operate at.

But the Fed is different, because it can create money/credit out of thin air.  It can’t go broke as a result.  But, in the limit, that doesn’t mean that really ugly things could not happen if the Fed were to create money/credit with abandon in order to make its books balance after massive capital losses.

So I don’t give the Fed any credit for remitting a record amount to the US Treasury.  The day may come when the US Treasury may have to recapitalize the Fed after credit losses, or the day may come when inflation causes people to distrust the value of the US Dollar.

My big surprise is that the Fed isn’t earning more in this environment.  QE 1&2 should be rich sources of earnings, but is it not happening because the Fed keeps its maturities short?  If so, good, and it explains why QE is so weak.  QE is meant to stimulate through lowering longer interest rates, and that has not happened to the degree that it might, which means the Fed is playing it safe.

Humph. So we have a Fed that muddles in the middle.  Probably the best that we could hope for?  Perhaps.  I need to think about this more, and perhaps this mutes my criticism of the Fed.  That’s not what I intended when I started writing tonight, but it is where I am now.

Bonds, Fed Policy, Macroeconomics | RSS 2.0 |

6 Responses to 3.4%, NOT 34 Basis Points

  1. [...] Is the Fed so profitable after [...]

  2. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by alea and seriouslystocks, Rahul Deodhar. Rahul Deodhar said: 34 Basis Points [...]

  3. [...] Why doesn’t the FED make MORE money.  (Aleph Blog) [...]

  4. matt says:

    Can you clarify something about Fed operations for me. You said, “…they pay less than 25 basis points on assets as a cost of funds over the last year.”

    My impression is that when assets are added to the Fed’s balance sheet, dollars are simply “created” and credited to the sellers’ accounts. These dollars are notes that effectively cost them 0. How is there any cost of funds for the Fed when it makes asset purchases?

    Also, my impression is that the Fed is standing on the front end of the curve as part of the stealth bailout of banks by keeping the yield curve steep. I suspect Fed Open Market Operations would, in aggregate, look very differently sans this motive.

  5. I believe the Fed is presently paying between 0.00% and 0.25% to have banks hold their reserves at the Fed at present.

  6. Greg says:

    The Fed’s balance sheet is more than twice the size of last year, but their “remitances” to the US Treasury are up only 90%?

    If they had a constant profit margin on assets, one would expect remitances to also be a bit more than double the previous year. Instead they are quite a bit less.

    Obviously there are some significant losses buried inside the claimed 3.4% ROA

    And if the Fed were being honest, many more losses were essentially moved to FNMA/FHLMC’s balance sheet instead of being recognized at the Fed.

    Anyone can get 3.4% ROA (probably even a bank CEO) if they count gains but shift losses to another entity

    Two Christmas Eve’s ago, Geithner made it very clear that FNMA / FHLMC is where they plan to hide all the bodies.

    Its pretty easy to fool the average member of the public with fancy accounting gimmicks. Its a bit more surprising that finance professionals can’t see through the scam (or they are choosing to be fooled). This tells us a lot more about the health of Wall Street than it does about the Fed’s profits


David Merkel is an investment professional, and like every investment professional, he makes mistakes. David encourages you to do your own independent "due diligence" on any idea that he talks about, because he could be wrong. Nothing written here, at RealMoney, Wall Street All-Stars, or anywhere else David may write is an invitation to buy or sell any particular security; at most, David is handing out educated guesses as to what the markets may do. David is fond of saying, "The markets always find a new way to make a fool out of you," and so he encourages caution in investing. Risk control wins the game in the long run, not bold moves. Even the best strategies of the past fail, sometimes spectacularly, when you least expect it. David is not immune to that, so please understand that any past success of his will be probably be followed by failures.

Also, though David runs Aleph Investments, LLC, this blog is not a part of that business. This blog exists to educate investors, and give something back. It is not intended as advertisement for Aleph Investments; David is not soliciting business through it. When David, or a client of David's has an interest in a security mentioned, full disclosure will be given, as has been past practice for all that David does on the web. Disclosure is the breakfast of champions.

Additionally, David may occasionally write about accounting, actuarial, insurance, and tax topics, but nothing written here, at RealMoney, or anywhere else is meant to be formal "advice" in those areas. Consult a reputable professional in those areas to get personal, tailored advice that meets the specialized needs that David can have no knowledge of.

 Subscribe in a reader

 Subscribe in a reader (comments)

Subscribe to RSS Feed

Enter your Email

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Seeking Alpha Certified

Top markets blogs award

The Aleph Blog

Top markets blogs Bull, Boards & Blogs

Blog Directory - Blogged

IStockAnalyst supporter

All Economists Contributor

Business Finance Blogs
OnToplist is optimized by SEO
Add blog to our blog directory.

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin