quantitative easing Archives - Page 2 of 8

May 30, 2013

Central Banks’ Central Bank Warns About Rehypothecation Threats | Zero Hedge

Tyler Durden writes:

…….none other than the TBAC warned that the US is suddenly facing a $10+ trillion high quality collateral shortage in the next decade. As we have also explained, this is a major problem for the Fed which at current rates of QEeing, will monetize all Treasury duration exposure in roughly 5 years – at that point there will be virtually no collateral left and the Fed will be finally out of both tools and ammo.

I suspect that fiscal deficits will add sufficient new Treasury bonds to the pile, so that the Fed never has to run out of decent collateral.

May 1, 2013

Fed sticks to stimulus plan, worried about fiscal drag | Reuters

Pedro da Costa and Alister Bull at Reuters write:

The Federal Reserve stuck to its plan to buy $85 billion in bonds each month to push down borrowing costs and prop up the economy, citing risks to growth from recent budget tightening in Washington.

April 21, 2013

Richard Koo: Quantitative and Qualitative Easing

Richard Koo in his latest report makes that the point that central banks in the US and UK have not cured their economies of deflationary pressures, they have merely kicked the can down the road:

Central bank officials in the US and the UK claim quantitative easing has been a success because it prevented a Japan-like deflation. But as I noted in my last report (2 April 2013), the rate of Japanese wage growth four to five years after the bubble collapsed was roughly equal to the levels now being observed in the US. Deflation took root in Japan only after 1997, when the nation fell off the fiscal cliff following the Hashimoto administration’s ill-fated experiment with fiscal consolidation. That was seven to eight years after the bubble burst.

March 8, 2013

Quantitative easing does not address the fundamental problems underpinning struggling western economies. | EUROPP

John Doukas questions the benefits of quantitative easing:

…excessive money supply fails to increase real economic activity because it raises the labour cost while it lowers the cost of capital. Depressing yields at home, as a result of quantitative easing, in an open economy setting, leads yield-seeking investors into higher-risk investments such as emerging markets.

January 25, 2013

Visible Hand Of The Fed | Business Insider

Lance Roberts writes:

While the Fed programs that we have witnessed since the financial crisis are historically unique — liquidity driven markets are not. We have witnessed the effects of excess liquidity in the bull market cycle prior to the 2008 financial crisis. The only difference during that cycle was that, through government intervention, real estate was turned into an ATM allowing mortgage equity withdrawals to be the liquidity source for the economy and the markets…….

December 12, 2012

Risk Seen in Fed Bond Buying | WSJ.com

KRISTINA PETERSON at WSJ writes:

The Federal Reserve should stop buying bonds, even as the central bank is poised to purchase more, according to a narrow majority of economists in a new survey by The Wall Street Journal……”It’s distorting market prices and creating problems in the future,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities, who said the Fed’s bond-buying was making long-term Treasurys too expensive without significantly easing problems in the labor market. “The Fed needs to back away and let interest rates rise just a little bit,” he said.

If past performance is anything to go by, Fed quantitative easing (or bond buying) is ineffectual in lifting the employment rate. And the lower that they drive bond yields, the greater the backlash when yields eventually rise. Yields are likely to spike up rapidly as bond-holders attempt to offload positions in order to avoid massive capital losses.

via Risk Seen in Fed Bond Buying – WSJ.com.

December 12, 2012

Ray Dalio Explains The Rare Set Of Circumstances That's Making Him Bearish On Markets | Business Insider

Joe Weisenthal reports on hedge fund guru Ray Dalio’s outlook:

His novel set of circumstances he sees is an economy that faces austerity (due to the Fiscal Cliff, etc.) coupled with a Fed that’s mostly blown its bazooka, and can’t get much more juice out of QE.

Yields can’t go down anymore.

Austerity is coming.

Economy is running out of steam.

QE is losing its efficacy.

Rate turn probably finally coming late in 2013.

December 12, 2012

Dangers of quantiative easing may be political more than technical

Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, in an address to the Bank of Thailand today commented on the dangers facing central bank monetary policy:

For the major countries a further dimension to what is happening is the blurring of the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy. Granted, central banks are not directly purchasing government debt at issue. But the size of secondary market purchases, and the share of the debt stock held by some central banks, are sufficiently large that it can only be concluded that central bank purchases are materially alleviating the market constraint on government borrowing. At the very least this is lowering debt service costs, and it may also condition how quickly fiscal deficits need to be reduced. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that in circumstances of deficient private demand with low inflation or the threat of deflation. In fact it could be argued that fiscal and monetary policies might actually be jointly more effective in raising both short and long-term growth in those countries if central bank funding could be made to lead directly to actual public final spending – say directed towards infrastructure with a positive and long-lasting social return – as opposed to relying on indirect effects on private spending.

The problem will be the exit from these policies, and the restoration of the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy with the appropriate disciplines. The problem isn’t a technical one: the central banks will be able to design appropriate technical modalities for reversing quantitative easing when needed. The real issue is more likely to be that ending a lengthy period of guaranteed cheap funding for governments may prove politically difficult. There is history to suggest so. It is no surprise that some worry that we are heading some way back towards the world of the 1920s to 1960s where central banks were ‘captured’ by the Government of the day.

via RBA: Speech-Challenges for Central Banking.

Hat tip to Walter Kurtz at Business Insider.

December 10, 2012

What to do about the US currency war | Alan Kohler | Business Spectator

Alan Kohler writes about the Fed’s quantitative easing strategy which is effectively debasing the US dollar:

Because it is trying to reduce the world’s reserve currency, the Fed is effectively giving other countries two choices: either allow your currencies to appreciate against the US dollar and thus make your economies less competitive and crunch your export industries, or print money with us and risk (or perhaps guarantee) inflation.

It is a Hobson’s Choice, and like most other countries’ central banks, the Reserve Bank of Australia doesn’t quite know what to do.

The strategy is also debasing the more than $2 trillion of US Treasuries held by China and Japan, placing these Asian exporters in an awkward position. Repatriating their investments would send the dollar plummeting against the yuan and the yen, reversing their export advantage maintained over the last two decades through capital account inflows into US Treasuries. Capital inflows were used to offset the current account outflows and prevented the yen and yuan from appreciating against the dollar. If the flows reverse, the US will enjoy an unfair trade advantage from an under-valued dollar.

Methinks those who predict a globally dominant China with continued growth rates of 7% to 8% are a mite premature. …….Possibly a century or two.

October 31, 2012

Global QE

Observation made by Philip Lowe, RBA Deputy Governor:

Since mid 2008, four of the world’s major central banks – the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England – have all expanded their balance sheets very significantly, and further increases have been announced in a couple of cases. In total, the assets of these four central banks have already increased by the equivalent of around $US5 trillion, or around 15 per cent of the combined GDP of the relevant economies. We have not seen this type of planned simultaneous very large expansion of central bank balance sheets before. So in that sense, it is very unusual, and its implications are not yet fully understood……

via RBA: Australia and the World.