← Back to context

Comment by JumpCrisscross

12 hours ago

> how much did the fed sign up to backstop then? Surely it’s more than physical currency

The Fed doesn't backstop physical currency. That is issued by the Treasury (specifically, the Mint). The FDIC backstops bank deposits; the U.S. guarantees is obligations.

The Fed doesn't properly "backstop" anything. It's the lender of last resort–if you have a Treasury or other good collateral, it will loan you money against it. It's a financial regulator. And it regulates interest rates (i.e. the price of money) to influence inflation and employment.

The only backstops the Fed truly makes are to banks, by guaranteeing to always stand ready to lend against Treasuries and other good collateral.

6 comments

JumpCrisscross

Reply
hammock  12 hours ago

“Federal reserve note”

You are taking this too literally anyway. I know they don’t backstop jack squat but in practice there is a fed put.

Have a conversation with me, don’t be a pedant.

If you are saying they will lend last resort against treasuries you should know there are $40 trillion of those outstanding…

How about what’s the amount from banks that the fed would willing lend as a last resort?

  • JumpCrisscross  12 hours ago

    > “Federal reserve note”

    That isn't a backstop, it's a direct obligation. It's also, like, not a real one? You can't redeem notes for specie. The term originates from when you could redeem dollars for metal. The Fed did play a role in backstopping that guarantee.

    > know they don’t backstop jack squat but in practice there is a fed put

    Sure. That isn't the same as a backstop. Backstops are hard–the Fed can't turn away an eligible borrower at the discount window. The Fed put is soft–the Fed will let market participants fail to send a message.

    Going back to the top, it is incorrect to say the Fed backstops M2. This wouldn't be a footnote in a central-banking discussion, it would be something that would get called out as a screwup.

    > How about what’s the amount from banks that the fed would willing lend as a last resort?

    Infinity. The Fed mainly accepts Treasuries as collateral, but it can and has expanded the definition of good collateral in crises. There is no legal or frankly practical limit on how much money the Fed can create. Its only constraint is ultimately political. (Which is in turn mostly a function of inflation and employment and I guess now social media vibes.)

    If you're looping this back to Nvidia, yes, I never claimed Nvidia has more lending capacity than the Fed. What I said was it's interesting that in practice, Nvidia appears to have created more money (if we're being pedantic, M3 which turns into M1) than the Fed has in that time. The Fed wasn't particularly trying to ease financial conditions in that time, so this is more of a curiosity tied to the title than a statement of capability.