I used the cashiers check idea 5 or 6 years ago and it is not as straightforward as it sounds. When you return with your cashiers check to cash it months later, the bank will call the original payor while you sit in the lobby getting the eye from the employees who all think you are doing something that is not on the up-and-up. Whoever initially supplied the funds to you which resulted in the check is still considered the payor of the cashiers check according to the bank.

At least, this is how that bank treated me.

So, buyer beware of that idea.

While I was paid, it was a gigantic pain.

FWIW, why would negative rates cause the banks to do anything if their capital is impaired? They need the money, not more loans. And besides, the Fed will look after its owners as it has shown. Negative rates would tell you the buyers believe something really bad is coming down the pike. Or, perhaps the Fed can't pay the 8% dividend to the owners and needs some cash.

Could the Fed, by buying MBS, be hiding the multiple pledging of assets in those securities? That is, so the fraud does not come to light and cause a panic? Shoot, the multiple pledging creates a short and if the price of the underlying assets goes down, the originators can buy and add back the real estate securities at a good profit and make whole the MBS with nobody the wiser since the assets became homoginized (Spelling doesn't look right, but my dictionary is not at hand) in these vehicles.