On the pervasive effects of Federal Reserve settlement regulations
To manage their reserve positions, depository institutions in the United States actively buy and sell deposits at the Federal Reserve Banks via the federal funds market. Beginning in 1991, the Eurodollar market also became an attractive venue for trading deposits at the Federal Reserve Banks. Prior to 1991, the Federal Reserve’s statutory reserve requirement on Eurocurrency liabilities of U.S. banking offices discouraged use of Eurocurrency liabilities as a vehicle for trading deposits at the Federal Reserve. This impediment was removed in December 1990. Beginning in January 1991, the overnight instruments in the federal funds market and in the Eurodollar markets, except for minor differences in risk, became similar vehicles for exchanging deposits at Federal Reserve Banks. Because the risk characteristics of the instruments differ, the law of one price need not hold precisely across the two markets. Yet, the authors hypothesize that, beginning in 1991, the two trading instruments became close enough substitutes that price pressures in one market began to show through to the other. Herein, the authors examine overnight LIBOR for U.S. bank settlement effects. During the period when the federal funds market and Eurodollar markets are similar venues for trading deposits at Federal Reserve Banks, they find strong settlement effects in overnight LIBOR. However, during the period when Eurocurrency liabilities carry a reserve tax, they find no evidence of a settlement effect in overnight LIBOR. Their results suggest that (i) the microstructure of the federal funds market spills over into the markets for substitute assets and (ii) Federal Reserve rules have implications beyond U.S. borders.
Volume (Year): (2003)
Issue (Month): Mar ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, MO 63166|
Web page: http://www.stlouisfed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/ Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Griffiths, Mark D. & Winters, Drew B., 1995. "Day-of-the-week effects in federal funds rates: Further empirical findings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1265-1284, October.
- Bartolini, Leonardo & Bertola, Giuseppe & Prati, Alessandro, 2001.
"Banks' reserve management, transaction costs, and the timing of Federal Reserve intervention,"
Journal of Banking & Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1287-1317, July.
- Leonardo Bartolini & Giuseppe Bertoli & Alessandro Prati, 2000. "Banks' Reserve Management, Transaction Costs, and the Timing of Federal Reserve Intervention," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0123, Econometric Society.
- Giuseppe Bertola & Leonardo Bartolini & Alessandro Prati, 2000. "Banks’ Reserve Management, Transaction Costs, and the Timing of Federal Reserve Intervention," IMF Working Papers 00/163, International Monetary Fund.
- Hamilton, James D, 1996. "The Daily Market for Federal Funds," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 26-56, February.
- Ken B. Cyree & Drew B. Winters, 2001. "Analysis Of Federal Funds Rate Changes And Variance Patterns," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 24(3), pages 403-418, 09.
- Marvin Goodfriend & Monica Hargraves, 1983. "A historical assessment of the rationales and functions of reserve requirements," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Mar, pages 3-21.
- Marvin Goodfriend & Monica Hargraves, 1983. "A historical assessment of the rationales and functions of reserve requirements," Working Paper 83-01, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
- Glosten, Lawrence R & Jagannathan, Ravi & Runkle, David E, 1993. " On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the Nominal Excess Return on Stocks," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(5), pages 1779-1801, December.
- Lawrence R. Glosten & Ravi Jagannathan & David E. Runkle, 1993. "On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks," Staff Report 157, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Cyree, Ken B & Winters, Drew B, 2001. "Analysis of Federal Funds Rate Changes and Variance Patterns," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 24(3), pages 403-418, Fall.
- Joshua N. Feinman, 1993. "Reserve requirements: history, current practice, and potential reform," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), issue Jun, pages 569-589.
- Bollerslev, Tim & Chou, Ray Y. & Kroner, Kenneth F., 1992. "ARCH modeling in finance : A review of the theory and empirical evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1-2), pages 5-59.
- Ray Chou & Robert F. Engle & Alex Kane, 1991. "Measuring Risk Aversion From Excess Returns on a Stock Index," NBER Working Papers 3643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Daniel L. Thornton, 1988. "The borrowed-reserves operating procedures: theory and evidence," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 30-54. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)