NextFin News - The Federal Reserve should abandon any remaining ambitions to significantly reduce its balance sheet, according to a new research paper released Tuesday by two influential economists. The warning, delivered as a retrospective on the Jerome Powell era, argues that the structural demand for liquidity in the modern banking system has rendered a "small" balance sheet not only obsolete but potentially dangerous to financial stability.
The paper, authored by former Fed official Andrew Levin and Dartmouth College professor David Blanchflower, contends that the central bank’s footprint must remain permanently large to accommodate the regulatory and operational needs of private lenders. Levin, who served as a special adviser to the Fed Board, and Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, have long advocated for more aggressive monetary support and have frequently criticized the Fed for being too quick to tighten policy. Their latest findings suggest that the "ample reserves" regime, once considered a temporary post-crisis necessity, is now a permanent fixture of the U.S. financial architecture.
This perspective, while gaining traction among some academic circles, does not represent a unanimous consensus within the Federal Reserve or among primary dealers. While the Fed has already slowed the pace of its quantitative tightening (QT) program, several officials, including Governor Miran, have recently argued in public speeches that a smaller balance sheet is desirable to preserve "dry powder" for future crises and to minimize the central bank's interference in credit allocation. The debate highlights a fundamental rift between those who view a large balance sheet as a source of stability and those who see it as a distortion of market pricing.
Levin and Blanchflower point to the repo market turbulence of September 2019 and the banking stresses of early 2023 as evidence that the Fed consistently underestimates the "lowest comfortable level of reserves" (LCLOR) required by the system. They argue that as U.S. President Trump’s administration navigates a complex fiscal landscape, any accidental drainage of liquidity could trigger a spike in short-term borrowing costs that would undermine broader economic goals. The economists suggest that the Fed’s balance sheet, which currently sits significantly higher than pre-2008 levels, should be viewed as a public utility rather than a temporary emergency measure.
The risk to this "permanently large" thesis lies in the potential for long-term inflationary pressure and the political optics of the Fed’s interest payments to private banks. Critics of the Levin-Blanchflower view argue that maintaining a massive balance sheet effectively subsidizes the banking sector and limits the Fed's ability to respond to a true inflationary spiral. If the Fed were to follow the economists' advice and halt balance sheet reduction prematurely, it might find itself with limited tools if a sudden surge in consumer prices requires a more traditional contraction of the money supply.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
