Wall Street's assumptions about the U.S. Treasury's July intervention in the yen may be significantly off the mark, with the actual scale potentially sitting near a mere $500 million, a stark contrast to the widely-circulated $5 billion to $10 billion estimates.
According to an analysis by Alphaville, a Financial Times blog, a note previously seen on Besent's desk suggested the intervention could have been between $5 billion and $10 billion. However, by tracking the Treasury's weekly foreign exchange reserve data and stripping out valuation changes from currency movements, researchers found that euro holdings decreased by approximately $495 million and yen holdings increased by about $502 million in the week following the intervention—both pointing towards a $500 million operation.
This calculation is not a direct disclosure from the Treasury but an inference drawn from changes in reserve assets. Since the July financial report for the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) did not explicitly reveal these positions, researchers turned to weekly data to trace asset shifts left by the intervention, adjusting for currency fluctuations.
If this estimation holds, the intervention's size would be a fraction of the Treasury's maximum available euro assets of roughly $26.3 billion, suggesting that the U.S. Treasury's ability to influence exchange rates through direct FX tools may be far less potent than markets had previously believed.
Official Filings Leave Questions Unanswered
Under U.S. law, the Treasury must publish ESF financial data within a set period after each quarter's end. By that schedule, August 30 should have been the key date for markets to confirm the intervention's scale.
Yet, Alphaville's review of the July ESF report revealed that the accompanying notes did not mention any euro-yen cross positions. If the Treasury had used euro-yen forward contracts, regulations would require disclosure of "all contracts entered into and renewed, and estimated liabilities" under note 9 of the report. Neither this clause nor other notes contained such information.
This leaves two possibilities: either the Treasury omitted the disclosure, or there are unknown rules that exempt contracts signed on the last trading day of July from that month's report. Alphaville has sought clarification from the Treasury but has not received a response.
Weekly Reserve Data Offers Cross-Verification
With the ESF report yielding no clear answers, researchers pivoted to the Treasury's weekly foreign exchange reserve figures, which cover euro and yen deposits and securities held by both the ESF and the Federal Reserve's System Open Market Account (SOMA).
Beyond the asset shifts noted earlier, Alphaville applied daily closing exchange rates from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database for valuation adjustments, though this method carries inherent error since closing rates are not actual transaction prices. To further test their findings, they cross-checked with Brad Setser, a former U.S. Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary and expert in official sector financing, who arrived at a similar estimate.
Intervention Instrument Determines Transparency
The vehicle used for the intervention is crucial to whether outsiders can reconstruct its size from official data. If the Treasury utilized euro-yen forward contracts, it could tap into more liquid FX markets without selling bonds to raise funds, offering greater flexibility—but such positions would typically need to be disclosed in the ESF report.
Spot market intervention, however, tells a different story. Since trades settled on July 31 would have settlement dates after that day, the position changes would not immediately show up in the July ESF report, making it difficult for monthly filings to capture the transaction.
Given the current evidence, the intervention likely occurred in the spot market, with a scale of about $500 million. If this conclusion is ultimately confirmed, Besent's move would be notably smaller than market expectations, potentially forcing a reassessment of the U.S. Treasury's capacity and willingness to persistently and substantially influence currency values through the ESF.
Comments