The article mentions the real core of the issue, but doesn’t make it clear that it is in fact the core: SLR (a banking regulation). SLR effectively requires banks to raise capital along with deposits. So if you flood the banking system with cash through fiscal policy, they can’t just accept all those deposits and leave them parked in their Fed reserve account. If they could, then the Fed wouldn’t need reverse repo—it could just pay interest on reserves to set a floor on interbank lending rates.
> SLR effectively requires banks to raise capital along with deposits.
How is that relevant for the choice between buying treasuries and keeping the reserves?
> So if you flood the banking system with cash through fiscal policy, they can’t just accept all those deposits and leave them parked in their Fed reserve account.
Isn’t it just as possible as “just accept all those deposits and buy treasuries with the money” - if not more?
That would at the very least be unpopular with their customers, if not outright illegal. What would it look like to be a customer at a bank that did that? Especially for something like SVB - your startup closes its funding round, they wire the money to your bank account, and the bank refuses it?
SVB lobbied for a law that changed a crucial regulatory threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion. From ~2016 to ~2020 their assets jumped from <$50 billion to >$200 billion, with most of that happening from 2020 to 2022.
SVB was perfectly capable of restricting the total amount of assets it held. It wasn't a matter of rejecting small deposits; it was a matter of allowing (or rather, soliciting) huge clients to open new accounts to hold hundreds of millions or billions in assets.
