People read “reserve requirements have gone to zero” (which is true) and assume it is so that banks can keep lower reserves.
In fact, reserve requirements became meaningless because banks had (and continue to have) so much more in reserves than they were ever required to have under the prior system.
I don't understand this, could you clarify? If they have so much more money than the requirements demand, what is the point of lowering the requirements? Who does it help?
The point wasn’t that reserve requirements were “lowered”; they were removed - because the Fed moved to a different mechanism to set short-term interest rates.
If banks choose to keep lots of reserves (because you’re paying interest on them), it’s hard to change the willingness of banks to lend by changing the reserve requirement, right?
In economic terms, the supply of reserves is meeting the demand curve for reserves in an inelastic region.
So the Fed decided to announce a new approach; the so-called “ample reserves regime” where short term interest rate control would be achieved by administered rates rather than by the reserve requirements of the “limited reserves regime” that went before.
If this sounds very far from the quotidian business of deposit taking and loan making: that’s because it is.
In fact, reserve requirements became meaningless because banks had (and continue to have) so much more in reserves than they were ever required to have under the prior system.