|
|
|
|
|
by onlyrealcuzzo
1833 days ago
|
|
Taking a step back - "repo" is short for "Repurchase Agreement". Financial Institutions put collateral into an overnight market and receive cash, and then they "agree" to "repurchase" / give the cash back (plus some fee) for the collateral the next day - right? This is the "opposite" in that Financial Institutions put cash in and get collateral (treasuries) out - right? The transaction is essentially going in the "reverse" direction it traditionally went - which is why it's the "reverse repo market". It's interesting because "having too much cash" is not usually a problem. Now it is. |
|
This is really smoke and mirrors though. Moving the cash into the repo market doesn't change anything, other than now it's an "asset" instead of a "liability." Yes, there are obviously legal differences here, but it's still the same amount of cash owned by the same entity, except now they're getting paid just to park it overnight.
I'm not saying the reverse repo market is nonsense. I'm saying the way the government has structured assets and liabilities in this instance is bizarre and seems like musical chairs. I've actually read up on this and am happy for someone to explain it to me further, but it really seems like they're just inventing new ways to kick the can down the road. I don't think they're actually solving anything; they're just making the problem worse and hiding the symptoms.