sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

What if the Reserve Bank of Australia itself has been feeding inflation? An economist explains

Banking / opinion
What if the Reserve Bank of Australia itself has been feeding inflation? An economist explains
Aussie money

By Matthew Crocker*

Here’s something for the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia to ponder as it meets next month to set interest rates.

It has pushed up rates on 13 occasions since it began its attempt to restrain inflation in May 2022.

On each occasion, its rationale was that by making borrowing more expensive, it would take money out of the economy. Yet, at the same time, it has also been pushing money into the economy and potentially feeding inflation.

It helps to know a bit about the relationship between the Reserve Bank and the private banks that bank with it.

Banker to the banks

Each of the private banks has an exchange settlement account at the Reserve Bank. The banks use these accounts to make payments to one another.

Here’s why. Every day some of the customers of each bank want to transfer money to the customers of other banks, usually to pay for services or goods.

To a large extent, the transactions cancel each other out, because, say, Westpac needs to transfer about as much to the ANZ as the ANZ needs to transfer to Westpac. But they don’t cancel out completely, meaning that at the end of each day Westpac might need to make a net payment to the ANZ.

It does this by transferring funds from its exchange settlement account at the Reserve Bank to the ANZ’s settlement account at the Reserve Bank.

If Westpac doesn’t have enough cash in its account, it will borrow from another bank that does, at a rate known as the overnight cash rate.

The overnight cash rate is the rate the Reserve Bank tries to influence when it adjusts interest rates.

How it adjusts the overnight cash rate is slightly more complicated. It sets two other rates.

The Reserve Bank pays interest to banks that have excess cash in their settlement accounts and it charges interest to banks that need to borrow cash from it to settle their payments.

It is by setting these two rates – either side of the overnight cash rate – that the Reserve Bank nudges the cash rate up or down.

Historically, the Reserve Bank ensured there was just enough cash in the exchange settlement system to meet the banks’ needs, neither too much nor too little. It called it a “scarce reserves” system.

From just enough cash to an abundance of cash

If there was too much cash in the system, the Reserve Bank sold financial instruments such as bonds to banks, requiring them to pay from their exchange settlement account. If there was too little, it bought financial instruments from them, paying cash into their account.

That’s until COVID. In 2020 it stopped buying bonds from banks, leaving cash to accumulate in their accounts in what it called an “abundant reserves” system. This was done to ensure the banking system had more than enough cash to deal with whatever was in store.

And because the Reserve Bank was also lending billions to the banks through its Term Funding Facility an awful lot of cash accumulated in these accounts.

Beginning in 2020, the amount of surplus cash in the system exploded, from very little in the years leading up to COVID to A$450 billion.



To start with, the Reserve Bank wasn’t required to pay much interest on these extra hundreds of billions because its cash rate target was close to zero. But as it lifted rates to get on top of inflation, it began to pay serious sums.

My calculations suggest that since the Reserve Bank began lifting rates in May 2022 it has paid out more than $25 billion in interest, in some months paying more than $1.3 billion.



To put that $25 billion in perspective, it is more than the $20 billion the government plans to spend on modernising the electricity network. An important difference is that for the billions paid out by the Reserve Bank, there’s no direct benefit to the public.

Each time the Reserve Bank has pushed up rates, it has had to pay out more in interest, which means it has been been pumping money into the economy potentially feeding inflation at the same time as it announced measures to restrain it.

Against this, in recent months the COVID-era Term Funding Facility has been winding down, as the three-year loans issued to banks expire. The last will expire in the middle of this year, winding back the surplus cash in exchange settlement accounts.

But my calculations suggest when this happens there is still likely to be $200 billion of surplus cash in the accounts and about $700 million paid to the banks in interest each month this year.

Excess cash is set to stay

It’d be open to the Reserve Bank to soak up the excess cash by selling the banks enough financial instruments to return to the system of scarce reserves.

But earlier this month it announced it wasn’t planning to go that far.

It said ensuring the banks had just enough cash to transfer funds to each other had required a lot of effort on its part, forcing it to buy and sell financial assets daily, and sometimes more than daily.

And it said the banks seem to have adapted to having more than enough reserves, and the extra reserves made the system resilient to shocks.

It will move instead to a new system it will call “ample reserves”, selling enough bonds to limit excess reserves, but not too harshly.

This new system will mean that when it next pushes up rates (most likely not for a long time) it will again be working against itself to some extent, putting more money into the hands of the banks.

How much has the interest paid out by the Reserve Bank contributed to Australia’s inflation problem? I don’t know. But I think it’s time we consider the whole picture.The Conversation


*Matthew Crocker, PhD Student in Economics, Deakin University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

25 Comments

In effect, nobody voted for this as almost nobody was aware of it.

Thus, the question must be asked, "Who is benefiting from this sudden change in policy?"

(Hint: it's not the average Joe.)

Up
4

Nobody voted for government to give away our money sovereignty to private banks either.

We've been aware of the iniquities caused by private credit creation yet we demand more because the property market must grow in price.

Are we insane or just programmed into debt servitude, the same as it ever was?

Up
2

We've become very entitled to free money from housing.

Up
0

These currency reserves are created in the first instance through the governments spending. When the government makes payments to the private sector it issues its currency to the banks who then create the deposits into the accounts of the recipients of the payment and so creating both an asset and a liability for the bank.

Banks then receive interest on their reserves but they also have to pay interest on the deposits which were created and so it is not free money for them. If the government reduces the reserves by issuing bonds then it will still be paying interest on these also and probably at a higher rate of interest and the government can only destroy these financial liabilities by taxing us.

Up
2

Banks don't pay that much interest on customer deposits to be fair - average across all deposits is about 2.5%. Banks net interest margin is very high at the moment (in part because of these ridiculous payments).

The appropriate comparison on interest paid by the Crown (RBNZ) is between the fixed rate bonds that could have been sold to soak up those reserves in 2022 and 2023 and the current rate being paid on the abundant reserves. My rough calculation is that rate payable on the bonds would have been about 3%, whereas RBNZ are paying 5.5%. In NZ, that's $7M per day of money being thrown at the banks instead of $3.5M.

The EU have clamped down on tis by tiering the interest rate so that they pay nearly nothing on some of the reserves, a higher rate on some, and the OCR (equivalent) on the top of the pile only. RBNZ explicitly decided not to do this.

Up
3

I suppose that at least some of it will be clawed back through taxation, it does make you wonder though.

Up
0

The NZ GOVERNMENT BOND REPURCHASES scheme has withdrawn $9.15bn bonds from the RBNZ's balance sheet along with the associated reserves. Many have been reissued to the public at tenders.

Up
2

Yes, I was guessing at the weighted average of LSAP bonds yields - including those bonds that have been re-issued at higher yields. Do you think I was way off?  

Up
0

Layman Question:  How do the Reserve Banks create the income from these bank reserves to pay that amount of Interest?  I understand after the GFC the US Fed took trillions of Home Mortgages off the troubled banks Balance Sheets and thus soon became arguably the largest Mortgage holder in the country--and thus in that case understandably they had plenty of income to pay Banks interest on their excess funds held by the FED, but by that income is paid back to the US Treasury. How does it work in NZ? What does the RBNZ invest in to pay that mighty amount of interest on excess reserves?  Obviously the Banks have nothing better to do with the money-how does the RBNZ find better investments than what the Banks can find?

Up
0

Good point - perhaps RBNZ should restrict such payments to the same rate as avaerage term deposit rates - even better nothing so RBNZ makes a profit.

Up
0

average across all deposits is about 2.5%.

My (limited) understanding is that a CBDC would shift many customer deposits away from the commercial banks and this would surely increase this averaged interest rate. Could potentially increase deposit interest rates as banks would need to incentivize deposits to retain them, not get them for free from everyday transaction accounts. That premium would surely affect the premium banks charge for loans.

Up
1

CBDC would also reduce the reserves that the banks hold as with cash which they have to exchange for their reserves.

Up
0

by  Audaxes  |  7th Apr 24, 8:07pm

Banks do not purchase government issued debt at syndication and tender events with bank reserves. They credit the Crown settlement accounts with what they owe the government for the bonds, which we call deposits. Bank reserves are simultaneously debited from bank settlement accounts since they are immediately in receipt of coupon bond interest and have yet to pay interest to beneficiary bank accounts. When the government enacts transfer payments to banks, an equal amount of reserves are credited to bank settlement accounts at the RBNZ

Up
1

Great article.  I certainly wasn't aware of this.  Does anyone know if a similar situation is occurring in NZ and the USA as well ?  Thanks.

Up
2

Yes, NZ also has settlement accounts. We've written quite a bit about this in recent years. Some of the articles are here - https://www.interest.co.nz/category/tag/settlement-accounts, including this one - https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/120770/could-or-should-rbnz-cut-interest-rate-it-pays-banks-settlement-cash-accounts

Up
5

Many thanks Gareth

Up
0

Maybe the reserve banks could lower the % paid on reserves... 

That they don't shows, to me, just how in bed they are with the Big Banks.

If I remember correctly.... In the past, reserve banks did not pay % on excess reserves ??

 

Up
2

If they lower the % rate on all reserves, that is basically the same as lowering the OCR. That's why they pay the OCR on all the balances.

What other central banks have done is zeroed the rate paid on the first few billion of reserves, but kept paying OCR on the rest.      

Up
1

Perhaps the Reserve Bank could use some other tools to control credit creation other than meddling with interest rates. They could say that 25% of lending has to be for new housing for instance as an example. Our dollar is also well overvalued. 

Up
1

I disagree. OCR is a cost while % on reserves is gift...big difference...in my view. In the current climate ,credit growth won't be impacted by changes in % on reserves??

So..... I can't see why they can't do away with paying interest on reserves. In the current climate there is no risk of banks creating credit against those reserves ... Ie. In a manner speaking... writing cheques,against those reserves.

A form of fiscal dominance.  I feel banks are getting a " free lunch" so to speak... Over 5% for zero risk.

Ps....I do see the problem of the OCR being higher than int. on reserves....  Banks would lend reserves to each other at lower rates than OCR..... I'm sure central banks could come up with a "fix" for that ??   As it stands Banks are "

laughing all the way to the bank"

Up
1

The OCR is *enforced* by the rate paid on reserves. You need to understand that to understand monetary policy.

Up
0

Only as things stand...   This current ample reserves system is just current fashion....so to speak.

Central banks can impose any rule they want ... eg... requirement to hold a certain level of reserves, and those those reserves are  at 0% interest, and then only pay interest on excess reserves...etc.

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2023/10/0…

Up
1

"If they lower the % rate on ALL reserves, that is basically the same as lowering the OCR".

Yes... you are right...  I missed the "all" bit .      ....As u mentioned with the ECB....which I've been alluding to,  there are ways to minimize % costs.

cheers.

Up
0

Thank you for an eye-opening article, Mathew!

I am curious to know how much economic history is taught at Deakin, or any of the other Australian universities?

The reason I ask is that the challenges you have outlined become a moot point if we could only look back in history at successful central banking models, and at least begin the discussion on how to rescue ourselves from a broken debt-based system by adopting serious banking reform.

Also, has there been any discussion at Deakin about public utility banking operating at central bank level?

LOOMING MELTDOWN OF ALL FIAT CURRENCIES

Whether we like it or not, these discussions will be forced on us anyway, because the entire Western financial system and all fiat currencies are about to implode. They will do so as soon as the BRICS+ bloc revalues gold and announces their hard-backed* national currencies with a similarly backed reserve trade-only instrument that will signal the end of the US petrodollar. This could well be before July 2024 and as early as the BRICS Summit in Kazan scheduled for May 14-16, 2024. 
*(hard backed by gold and up to 20 other commodities including probably silver as well)   

With the imminent meltdown of the entire Western financial casino is it not high time we all had a look at models from days gone by that actually worked for society, rather than for the global commercial banking industry - AKA robber barons?

The is another name for this - the PBS (Public Banking solution) or more commonly Public Banking Utility, meaning a monetary system that works for the people - what a novel idea - well not so fast - in fact, both NZ and Aus deployed these models at central bank level and they both demonstrated extraordinary success before losing them again to the ravenous global commercial banking cartel.

AUSTRALIA KILLED THE GOLDEN GOOSE... I outlined 12 reasons why this will happen in my recent article...

https://globalsouth.co/2024/04/11/economics-part-v-2024-if-man-is-still…

The PBS model would become a huge source of liquidity and capital for the entire domestic economy. This would replace the status quo giant con where we in NZ, just like Aus, and all other Western countries, allow a parasitic private global banking cabal to constantly thieve from us like a giant squid, sucking the lifeblood out of our nations.

This concept is extremely simple - it means that we as a nation create our own money and liquidity and reap the benefits of any interest paid domestically, directly into the govt current account, offsetting the need for most taxes. 

Why on earth let parasitic third parties create that money and allow them to charge us as a nation for that privilege - in the current broken model, we annually allow billions of dollars to disappear overseas into these parasitic global banking institutions.

The sad part of it all is that incredibly successful public banking utility models have already been tried and proven to work and generate huge sustainable wealth for entire national economies.

One of the most stunning examples was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which Ellen Brown details in her awesome book 'The Public Bank Solution'. Of course, history informs us of the tragedy that this incredible model didn't last - it became a tragic victim of its own astonishing success - destroyed by the might of the parasitic global central banking cartel.

While the US was setting up its privately owned central bank, the Federal Reserve, which would eventually suck the lifeblood out of the productive economy of most of the world, Australia at the exact same time was taking the bold step of establishing a govt controlled central bank that issued credit for the sole benefit of - wait for it - Australians!

The huge irony is that Denison Miller, the bank's first Governor, was allowed to try this model only because he was thought by the other existing bankers to be one of their own ilk and that therefore they would be able to keep him in line with traditional banking methods.

In essence, Miller understood how the commercial banks thieved from the nation at large and he set about creating this new model that could very rapidly revive a struggling economy and create long-term wealth for the entire Australian society.

The first branch opened in Melbourne in July 1912 and Miller was the only employee. Somehow he had persuaded the Treasury to advance him £10,000 as seeding money - the first and last time this version of the CBA was lent any money. Needless to say, this money didn't exist - it was simply created out of thin air as a ledger entry.

Miller subsequently promised that the CBA would at all times be the people's bank. It slowly dawned on the private bankers, who were so intent on having to guard against the socialisation of their own banks, that they completely underestimated the power of an orthodox banker who simply mobilised the resources of the entire country to enable the CBA to quickly grow into one of the greatest banking models the world had ever seen.

The bank began advancing massive sums of money simply on the credit of the Australian Nation. An early example was the Melbourne Board of Works who went to the market for money to redeem existing loans and to raise new capital - normally they relied on loans from the viper's nest residing in The City of London. Instead, this time they approached Dennison Miller and were loaned £3 million at 4% - this was an enormous sum at that time.

In 1914 during WW1 citizens started rushing into their banks to withdraw their funds - Miller quickly put a stop to these bank runs by simply declaring that the CBA would support any banks in difficulty - that was the end of the panic immediately. It was a dramatic demonstration of the power of the Govt to stabilize the financial system without relying on any other parties.

In just 2 years from the creation of this bank, Miller was basically in control of financing Australia's war effort and ZERO money was borrowed from overseas.

It was the first bank in Australia to receive a Federal Govt guarantee and offered both savings and general transactional services. By 1912 it took over the State Savings Bank of Tasmania, and by the following year, it had branches in all 6 states.

In 1920 it began acquiring central bank powers and took over the responsibility of issuing Australian bank notes from the Dept of the Treasury. In 1924 a board was appointed with 6 members as the new governing body. During WW2 emergency legislation was passed and the CBA was granted almost full central bank powers.

The CBA was a remarkable success and was subsequently seen to be threatening the hegemony of the City of London bankers. Prior to the establishment of the CBA, London capital had always dominated the Australian financial system.

This was a challenge to the colonial model of the time - ie financial colonialism, where the colonies were granted the right to "govern" themselves - provided they obeyed the financial rules of the COL (City of London). As such the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street (The Bank of England) presided over the financial dynasty of the empire.

Australia was a debtor nation until WW1 when it suddenly demonstrated its ability to independently finance its war effort. It also used the CBA to finance its own shipping line which was poised to smash the COL's shipping monopoly - meanwhile, the old lady from Threadneedle Street was not amused.

Miller calmly told the big bankers at a dinner in London that Australia could meet any demand simply because it had the capital of the entire country behind it - that turned out to be a major mistake.

When he arrived home in Aus he was asked by a deputation of the unemployed for a loan of £350 million for productive purposes - he advanced the money immediately, and news of this caused panic within the COL, as they realised that if other countries adopted this model their entire financial edifice could completely collapse.

The COL immediately set about devising a plan that would enable overseas national institutions to be drawn into its squidlike network. The plan was to centralise all banking throughout the empire over to the supervision of the Bank of England - it would become the super banker's bank.

The old lady eventually got her way and as such the modern parasitic and hegemonic central banking model was born. The head of the bloodsucking squid would eventually move from London to the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) in Basel Switzerland - a model primarily designed to launder Nazi war loot from their rampage across Europe during WW2.

This is the utterly parasitic model that survives to this day, and NZ is a paid-up member of this bankster club - our RBNZ dances to their tune and as a result we squander billions of dollars annually overseas to thieving institutions when we could create our own money just as the CBA did in Australia.

None of these solutions are new. What a tragic irony it is when 110 years ago the CBA model demonstrated its remarkable success when it became a global beacon of banking success in a little over 2 years.

NZ could do this too, if we only engage half a brain and a little bit of courage to boot. In fact, we did so in the 1930s when the RBNZ was converted into a public utility by the first-ever Labour Govt, when we quickly demonstrated to the world a miracle blueprint on how to recover from the Great Depression. We were sold out too.

Tragically, both of our countries squandered the opportunity to become the most wealthy and sustainable economies on the planet. 

Colin Maxwell

Up
3

Other ways of doing things ...in contrast to the current, very pro-bank friendly ways...  :

"Furthermore, some changes in policy with respect to reserve requirements are likely if fiscal dominance becomes a reality. The existing amount of the zero-interest debt (the inflation tax base) is currently limited to only currency, given that bank reserves bear interest today. Given the small size of the currency outstanding, if the government wishes to fund large real deficits, that will be easier to do if the government eliminates the payment of interest on reserves. This potential policy change implies a major shock to the profits of the banking system."

"For that reason, it is quite possible that a fiscal dominance episode in the US would result in not only the end of the policy of paying interest on reserves, but also a return to requiring banks to hold a large fraction of their deposit liabilities as zero-interest reserves. For example, under one illustrative example, I will show that requiring banks to hold 40 percent of deposits as zero-interest reserves, under 1. For an example of how fiscal dominance can produce inflation taxation in the steady state, see the study of Brazilian inflation by Calomiris and Domowitz (1989). Calomiris Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis REVIEW . Fourth Quarter 2023 225 reasonable assumptions, would reduce the annual inflation rate to fund likely deficits from an inflation of about 16 percent to only about 8 percent. For that reason, imposing high reserve requirements for zero-interest paying reserves may seem quite attractive to a policymaker interested in reducing the inflationary consequences of fiscal dominance."

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2023/10/0…

Up
0