The Treasury Play


I’ve heard one version or another of this story about a million times now. Here is William Cohan’s take on why Wall Street is so damn profitable right now:

Mostly [] Wall Street is making money by taking advantage of its rock-bottom cost of capital, provided courtesy of the Federal Reserve — now that the big Wall Street firms are all bank holding companies — and then turning around and lending it at much higher rates.

The easiest and most profitable risk-adjusted trade available for the banks is to borrow billions from the Fed — at a cost of around half a percentage point — and then to lend the money back to the U.S. Treasury at yields of around 3 percent, or higher, a moment later. The imbedded profit — of some 2.5 percentage points — is an outright and ongoing gift from American taxpayers to Wall Street.

I guess I’m demonstrating hopeless naivete by asking this, but huh? The market for U.S. treasury bonds is huge and extremely competitive, and the risk of holding treasurys is approximately zero. So if banks have access to giant pools of cash that cost them 0.5%, they should start bidding down the treasury rate until this particular arbitrage play is only barely positive. Treasury yields would very quickly end up around 0.6%, not 3%.

And yet, like I said, I’ve heard this same basic story over and over and over. Can someone with some serious financial sophistication explain it to us hicks? Are big banks, big as they are, not big enough players to really affect Treasury prices, so they’re just free riding on a price set by the rest of the market? What’s really going on here?

UPDATE: So far, the consensus in comments is that this whole story is wrong. Banks can borrow from the Fed at low rates, but those are overnight loans. They can buy treasurys at high yields, but those are ten-year notes. Chart here. As The Lounsbury puts it: “One does not finance a 10yr note off of a 24 hour repo. Of course buying and reselling (trading desk) using the overnight funding is possible, although the spread is not what he implies.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.