#Trump

8 09, 2025

Karen Petrou: What Treasury Wants from the Fed and Why It Should Get it

Shane Smith2025-09-08T09:29:11-04:00September 8th, 2025|The Vault|

With all the bandwidth absorbed by the Miran and Cook dramas, insufficient attention was paid late last week to Secretary Bessent’s Wall Street Journal article laying out a new monetary-policy model. I like it a lot and not just because Mr. Bessent quotes my book. As he says, we need a different monetary policy model, one that the Fed is clearly unable to develop on its own judging by the five years of work that went into the ultra-cautious 2025 fiddles with the 2020 model. Most of what Mr. Bessent wants will make the Fed better at its core mission and a more independent guardian of the public good, overdue reforms that Democrats should support.

What does reform entail? First, the Fed would adhere to its statutory mandate, not the truncated “dual” one recent Fed leadership selects in defense of its legitimacy. Secretary Bessent and Stephen Miran read all the law, not just selected passages, correctly observing that the mandate is a triple-header of maximum employment, price stability, and “moderate long-term interest rates.” Mr. Miran’s testimony cites the 1946 Full Employment Act as one source of this mandate along with the 1978 law. Current law also implores the Fed to act in concert with the federal government to further the “general welfare.” The FRB and FOMC thus have an affirmative, express duty to do all they can to reduce economic inequality, not inadvertently but significantly worsen it as has long been the case. Mr. Bessent seconds this view …

2 09, 2025

Karen Petrou: How to Redesign the Federal Reserve Banks

Shane Smith2025-09-02T09:19:51-04:00September 2nd, 2025|The Vault|

“U.S. President Donald Trump’s radical shift in economic approach has already begun to change norms, behaviors, and institutions globally. Like a major earthquake, it has given rise to new features in the landscape and rendered many existing economic structures unusable,” or so says Adam Posen at the Peterson Institute. After last week, it looks as if the Federal Reserve as it came to be known over recent decades is also on the scrap heap. It may not be “unusable,” but the uses to which it will be put are to serve Mr. Trump’s political interests, not necessarily those also of the long-term economy’s resilience, equality, or stability. The Fed deserves this due to its geriatric monetary-policy model and persistent contributions to economic inequality. I’m not so sure about the rest of us.

The transformation already under way is not just the result of the President’s unprecedented effort to dismiss a member of the Federal Reserve Board and, if the courts rule in his favor, anyone else he doesn’t like. Another profound change could come next March, when the Board must ratify the appointments of Federal Reserve Bank presidents. With a majority of members of the Board on his side, Mr. Trump could block reappointment of all twelve Reserve Bank presidents in March of next year.

The Federal Reserve Act places a rolling list of five Reserve Bank presidents on the FOMC in an effort to balance what congress feared in 1913 would be undue Wall Street influence on monetary …

16 06, 2025

Karen Petrou: Why Republicans Want the Fed’s Money

Shane Smith2025-06-16T09:23:03-04:00June 16th, 2025|The Vault|

In the iconic movie “Goldfinger,” a murderous thug with a deadly bowler hat chases James Bond around Fort Knox as our hero stops a maniacal plutocrat from making the nation’s gold stock go radioactive. Compared to current gold conspiracies, that almost makes sense. Both President Trump and Elon Musk, among others, have doubted the security of the nation’s gold supply on nothing more than the fact that they haven’t actually seen it. To the rescue last week rode several super-conservative Members of Congress, who have introduced a bill to force an “independent” audit – read not the GAO or even Treasury – of all the gold held by or entrusted to the U.S. Gold conspiracies have come and gone since at least 1974, but the heights reached now speak to profound, widespread distrust of the government even by those who run it. This paranoia isn’t limited to inert stockpiles. It pervades two of the nation’s three branches of government and even occasionally touches the third. Thus, just because something doesn’t seem to make sense doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

I bring this up because several responses to my memo a couple of weeks back said Congress would never cotton to a sharp reduction in the payment of interest on reserve balances (IORB) or to balances held in the U.S. by foreign central banks. “Fringe thinking,” or so I was told by friends at the Fed, thinking they believed they could easily dismiss without a second thought by reminding critics …

2 06, 2025

Karen Petrou: A New Trade War: Interest on Reserves

Shane Smith2025-06-02T09:16:29-04:00June 2nd, 2025|The Vault|

Clients will recall that, during his first term, Donald Trump nominated Judy Shelton, a frequent monetary-policy commentator, to the Federal Reserve Board. However, her nomination sparked outrage among Congressional Democrats and many pundits that doomed confirmation. Ms. Shelton nonetheless remains a trusted adviser to many with the President’s ear, making renomination and, this time, confirmation a strong possibility should Ms. Shelton still want a seat on the Board of Governors. We thus took notice when she last week posted an attack on the payment of interest by the Fed on balances held by foreign branches and agencies. She drew in part on another post adding foreign central banks to the complaint. This might seem a remote or even improbable concern, but so does much else in CEA head Stephen Miran’s proposal positing a “user tax” that’s now in the House reconciliation bill attacking foreign investors. Ms. Shelton’s complaint should thus be taken very seriously, especially given all the other demands to curtail interest on reserve balances (IORB).

Ms. Shelton finds that foreign branches and agencies get 42 percent of interest payments from the Fed, or about $78 billion based on total interest payments to banks of $186 billion in 2024. Rates now on IORB stand at about 4.4 percent – one of the very best deals on offer for super-safe, overnight funds. Another post calculates interest payments to foreign central banks at around $16.5 billion a year. In short, it’s a lot of money which the posts rightly say …

12 05, 2025

Karen Petrou: Why Stablecoin Hegemony Could Cost Too Much

Shane Smith2025-05-12T09:49:18-04:00May 12th, 2025|The Vault|

In the battle over stablecoin regulation, defenders of the pending legislation make much of the need for the U.S. to become the dominant global leader. That’s fine, but what if the new stablecoin framework gives the U.S. crypto preeminence at the cost of U.S. bank resilience and macroeconomic growth? That would be a high price to pay, but it’s nonetheless the Faustian bargain lurking in the latest legislation.

As our analyses have made clear, the House and Senate bills address only payment stablecoins – i.e., digital assets used by consumers and companies to settle financial accounts or to purchase goods and services. The idea is to make regulated stablecoins as reliable a medium of exchange as dollars, with the bills’ reserve-asset requirements meant to ensure that one stablecoin dollar always equals one U.S. dollar. This is fine as far as it goes, but that’s not far enough to ensure payment-system finality, ubiquity, and equality. A more robust stablecoin also does little but make it still more likely that regulated banks will be disintermediated as deposits move from the current, fractional system into a new, “narrow bank” model that does little for anyone but stablecoin issuers, their affiliates, and parent companies such as giant tech platforms.

A dollar’s worth of stablecoins is little more than an abstraction until one knows how it moves across the payment system. If the payment rails are weak or the engineer is negligent, then armored boxcars just make an even bigger, harder bang when they derail.…

17 04, 2025

FedFin on: Antitrust Policy

Arezou Rafikian-12025-04-17T16:29:07-04:00April 17th, 2025|The Vault|

As required by an executive order (EO) from President Trump mandating both review and then repeal of any rules that adversely affect competition, the FTC is seeking public comment on which rules to target and whether these standards could be modified or must be rescinded to meet the President’s goals. This process will clearly invite new scrutiny of the bank-merger process, also likely to lead to comment from banking organizations seeking relief in areas such as de novo chartering requirements and access to brokered or reciprocal deposits….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.

…

14 04, 2025

Karen Petrou: The Fed Has Given Itself Nothing But Bad Choices

Shane Smith2025-04-14T09:13:54-04:00April 14th, 2025|The Vault|

Much has been written of late about the pickle in which the Fed finds itself due to the President’s quixotic trade war. The Fed is indeed facing a dilemma setting monetary policy, but it confronts a Rubik’s Cube trying also to ensure financial stability. The reason: the more the Fed fights inflation, the less it can secure the financial system and the more it is forced to secure the financial system, the less able it will be to conduct monetary policy. This vise results from the Fed’s huge portfolio, yet another example of why the Fed should have reduced its portfolio as quickly as possible after both 2008 and 2020. Since it didn’t, it now has only bad choices if Treasury-market illiquidity turns toxic.

This negative feedback loop is the result not only of the Fed’s cumbersome trillions, but also of its unwillingness to make another hard decision: meaningful action to address identified systemic risks. Had the Fed heeded its own warnings going back to 2020, it might have done something to reduce Treasury-market dependence on high-risk, leveraged hedge funds. To be fair, the Fed cannot directly regulate hedge funds and the SEC lacks prudential authority, but both agencies had lots of ways to curtail systemic risk long before basis-trading hedge funds came to hold at least $1 trillion in assets.

So far, hedge-fund deleveraging is proceeding in a reasonably-ordered way, but risks such as these have a bad habit of cascading. Jamie Dimon already anticipates this, but he …

7 04, 2025

Karen Petrou: Why Regulators Will be Flat-Footed if Bad Now Turns Soon to Worse

Shane Smith2025-04-07T09:15:06-04:00April 7th, 2025|The Vault|

One of the comforts with which bank regulators will doubtless console themselves after last week’s market rout is that the largest U.S. banks have the capital not only to withstand this, but also the probable, profound consequences of the President’s punitive tariffs. However, because U.S. regulators mismeasure capital resilience, this confidence is misplaced. Using the economic-capital approach I recently endorsed shows that, while U.S. banks still are strong, they are not fortresses.

FedFin recently analyzed two new studies demonstrating that geopolitical risk is hard on bank solvency. To this, one of course can say that there’s no real-world need for exhaustive studies of dozens of countries over decades – common sense buttressed by history makes this all too clear. These hard lessons and the data that describe them do, though, make clear that it’s more than worth revisiting the United States after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs to get a sobering idea of the negative feedback loop between geopolitical risk, macroeconomic hazards, bank vulnerability, and – back to the beginning, geopolitical risk. Any talk of the 1930s is alarmist and also inapplicable in numerous respects, but it is the most pertinent example of geopolitical risk over the past century and thus demonstrates the need now to be very, very careful – not something this White House appears to be good at.

Economic-capital measures are a more robust platform to assess bank resilience than regulatory capital and are thus of particular pertinence at this dangerous moment. Regulatory-capital measurements are so complex and often …

31 03, 2025

Karen Petrou: The President Ditches the Dollar

Eliza Allen2025-03-31T10:49:46-04:00March 31st, 2025|The Vault|

Given the controversies aroused by many of last week’s executive orders, it’s understandable that those redesigning Treasury’s payment system generally escaped notice. They shouldn’t. On purpose or not, President Trump has mandated that digital currency henceforth counts along with the dollar as U.S. fiat currency. That is a very, very big decision with consequences far beyond the ostensible goal of speeding Treasury payments and, yet again, ending waste, fraud, and abuse.

As I laid out in my book, there is nothing preordained about the dollar serving as the U.S. “fiat” currency. The medium of exchange a sovereign demands to honor its obligations is the fiat currency, but nothing forces the citizenry to accept it if the sovereign state is weak, the fiat currency is of dubious value, or options such as gold – the centuries-old go-to or a digital alternative – are better. As the U.S. gained economic power at home and abroad, the fiat currency Lincoln selected to fund the Civil War – the dollar – came to dominate U.S. transactions, especially those with the federal government. Now, the dollar is the dominant fiat currency not only at home, but is also the reserve currency around the globe. This “exorbitant privilege” is preordained by the United States; it was earned.

Now though, the U.S. is stepping back from the once “almighty dollar.” The President said it will accept alternatives to the dollar for tax and all other payments to and apparently also from the Treasury. The executive order …

3 03, 2025

Karen Petrou: The Casualties of Slash-and-Burn Regulatory Rewrites

Eliza Allen2025-03-03T10:54:41-05:00March 3rd, 2025|The Vault|

There’s no doubt that many U.S. institutions have grown such long teeth over the years that they bit themselves in the foot. As a result, radical reform challenging conventional wisdom is long overdue. But, there are two ways to do this: the break-first/fix-later approach taken by the Trump Administration in biomedical research and other vital arenas; the other is to think first, then act decisively within the boundaries of current law or the better ones you demand. Radical reform to U.S. biomedical research is already leaving near-term treatments and cures on the cutting-room floor. If slash-and-burn transformation is also applied to financial-services supervision and regulation, systemic-risk guardrails could be unintentionally, but dangerously, dismantled.

The risks to biomedical research are not so much in what the Trump Administration has done, but that it’s more often than not done retroactively regardless of contractual commitments for continuing funding authorized under longstanding appropriations and by frenetic, indiscriminate firings of well-performing staff. You simply can’t suddenly stop a clinical trial without endangering patients and putting treatments years behind, if they continue at all. You also can’t stop basic biomedical research all of a sudden without leaving labs with a lot of mice, dogs, and primates to feed and no money for kibble. It also takes years to train good biomedical researchers; suddenly firing thousands of them endangers this pipeline and, with it, treatments and cures.

Biomedical research and financial-system governance have little in common, but leaving financial policy in tatters will also have unintended consequences …