Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Fed's "new and improved" QE



There was a story in the WSJ yesterday about how the Fed is considering a new form of “sterilized QE” if it decides to do QE again. I’ll explain what this is in a minute, but first, the reason they are considering this new QE is because, while they admit internally that regular QE DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION (as MMT proponents have been saying), they are worried about the public’s perception that it does. As an aside, why doesn't the Fed just come out and explain to the public how QE actually works, and allay those fears, instead of spending all this time and energy to devise some new machination of QE to pretend they are taking care of a non-problem? That would be too easy, I guess. (I could explain it to the public if they asked me to, but I’m not holding my breath.)

Anyway here’s a little review on how the “regular, plain vanilla” QE works. The Fed buys securities from the public (Treasury bonds or notes, for example) and that adds to reserves in the banking system. The action of buying those securities removes one asset—the bond—and replaces it with another—the reserve (cash)—balance. NO NEW MONEY HAS BEEN CREATED. Or more precisely, no new financial assets have been created. The public has the same nominal dollar amount of financial assets as before QE, the only change being the composition of those assets (less bonds, more reserves). The duration has become shorter. In other words, they have less bonds (which have some duration) and more cash (which has zero duration). AND (this is a big point), interest income has been removed.

As the Fed correctly understands, this is not inflationary. However, for some reason they just can’t explain it in the simple fashion that I have done here???? Weird.

Okay, so here’s how the “new and improved” QE is going to operate.

The Fed will buy bonds and credit the system with reserves, just like before. But then, it will sell shorter-dated maturities out of its portfolio and take back those reserves. Yep, you read that right…it will add reserves then take them back. Whoopeeee!!! This is what our genius financial leaders are going to do. Can you believe this?? And by the way...just how does this boost the economy?

The only effect on the economy is that it will lead to a flattening of the yield curve: long term rates come down (due to Fed buying) relative to short term rates (where the Fed is selling).

That’s it.

End result: it will likely hurt banks and financial firms, who actively “arb” the yield curve. Nice job, Fed.

BTW: I emailed Jon Hilsenrath, the WSJ reporter who wrote the story, simply to point out that he needn't refer repeatedly to "money printing" whenever he talked about QE, as he did in his article. I haven't heard back.


24 comments:

Matt Franko said...

Mike,
I've come to view Hilsenrath as a proxy employee of the Fed's PR Dept.

He writes what they tell him to write and for this they provide him access.

Not much independent analysis from him at all...

Resp,

NeilW said...

Mike,

Is the 'overnight bond' a bit short for them then?

What the hell do they think they are doing here?

Tilting at windmills?

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a big mental block in the press about the basic idea that when the Fed injects liquidity into the system they do it by buying stuff. They have this view that the Fed just hands out tons of free money.

Tom Hickey said...

Most financial writers and many economists are deeply confused about reserves. They think that the monetary base is the money supply, so that increasing the monetary base "creates more money." The just can't seem to comprehend the difference between what happens on the Fed's spreadsheet and what happens in the economy and, being oblivious to this, continually stumble over the obvious. It would be laughable it weren't so pitiful.

mike norman said...

"What the hell do they think they are doing here?" Indeed.

As for Hilsenrath, it's just arrogance. They're all arrogant. They're smart enough to understand all this stuff, but they don't feel like expending the effort because they work for the Wall Street Journal or whatever and they think that gives them a pass when it comes to the fact. The public need only accept what they say and not question it.

Woj said...

What is the difference, if any, between sterilized QE and Operation Twist?

As best I can tell, in both cases the Fed buys long-duration bonds and sells short-duration bonds. The biggest difference seems to be exchanging reserves back and forth in between. However, with the Twist operations on different days, weren't they already doing that?

Anonymous said...

On the topic of the media and it's understanding of bank reserves and the "money supply", I listened to another disappointing report today from NPR's "Planet Money". The reporter focused on one American ex-pat who runs a failing beach front bar in Spain, and the guy's inability to get a loan from a Spanish bank. She informed us that the problem was all due to the fact that there was a shortage of money, and that banks were thus "hoarding their money", but that now that the ECB has opened up the faucets or the spigot or something, that money would eventually get down to the level of the guy with the bar.

It never seemed to occur to her to entertain the hypothesis that the reason the bank is not lending to the bar owner is not mainly because they have some kind of shortage of money, but because the bar is just a bad risk and the banks has no confidence they will ever get their money back - much less get it back with interest so they can profit.

A lot of businesses in the Spanish economy are sinking ships, so no doubt banks are reluctant to attach their balance sheets to those ships and get dragged down with them. Maybe somebody at NPR should think more about why the bar doesn't have any customers and Spain has massively high unemployment, instead of why banks have a spurious "money shortage".

Fix unemployment first, and that will bring back everything else.

Chewitup said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EppdVuV0z8I

The Fed Shell Game- long term, short term, cash.

And the cat figured it out!

mike norman said...

WOJ-

It's the same.

Anonymous said...

Whoopeeee!!!

Made me laugh three times!


But if the fed bids up the price of bonds through a massive buying spree, doesn't this in effect increase private sector NFA? (or at least have the potential to do so?).

MarioLa said...

"In other words, they have less bonds (which have some duration) and more cash (which has zero duration). AND (this is a big point), interest income has been removed."

I am confused about this. If this removed interest income, why would *anybody* sell the bond? It would just mean the price offered is too low to compensate for the interest income lost.

Matt Franko said...

they dont "bid up" the bonds when they buy. They try to "get a good deal for the taxpayers" and it typically results in lower bond prices else equal imo.

My TLTs would probably be solidly above 120 imo if the Fed wasnt doing "the twist"...

Resp,

Anonymous said...

how do they go about getting a good deal for tax payers?

I assumed the fed buying up so many bonds was a main reason why the price went up.

Anonymous said...

I am confused about this. If this removed interest income, why would *anybody* sell the bond? It would just mean the price offered is too low to compensate for the interest income lost.

MarioLa, it must be because the seller prefers the immediate liquidity now to a slightly higher amount of interest to be received later.

But the seller can just turn around and use that liquidity to more treasuries, right? So I wonder if in the long term they are really foregoing that much interest income. If you buy a $1000 bond for $900, and then sell it to the Fed for $950, you don't get the same amount you would have received for waiting. But you have still pocketed $50. If you keep rolling that profit over into more bond purchases and sales, does the result add up to as much interest income as you would have received for holding the bonds to maturity?

Matt Franko said...

Anon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/economy/11fed.html?pagewanted=all

Resp

Leverage said...

More market manipulation by the FED. Can't they be quiet for a damn day!? Prices... must... not... fall.

This is the way the FED manipulates the market, inflating the "hope" bubble on its omnipresent measures. So the market can grind higher, and people leverages even more.

The ghost of Greenspan is everywhere (even if he still lives).

Anonymous said...

Mike, agree it's so simple that it's mind boggling. Even for those who can't differentiate base money from broad credit creation, surely they've heard of IOR?!

Dan,

Agree that fixing unemployment fixes the economy ... It just doesn't suit the rich (who essentially run government). They prefer to hold onto the trickle down myth, not because they actually believe it I think, but because they know for sure that it enriches them.

Apj

John Zelnicker said...

Can I get a short (2-4 sentence) explanation of the relationship between the "monetary base" and the "money supply"? I understand the difference between M0, M1 and M2, I think. But I'm still unsure of how the terminology fits.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I have a question also...

When the U.S. government bailed out the banks etc, did they "print" new money money?

Or was the transaction more like QE?

Can anyone here provide a link that explains the entire bailout process, at least according to the best available knowledge?

John Zelnicker said...

Anonymous -- Randy Wray and his graduate students did a great analysis of the various programs the Fed offered to the banks to help them. He had a pretty good summary of the various programs and how they worked, as well as the amounts of money that was made available.

Tom Hickey said...

John Z, MMT economists avoid using the terms "monetary base" and "money supply" because they are confusing. It's a hold over from the convertible fixed rate system, where a fixed amount of reserves determined the amount of "money" in the economy, and more reserves implied that a greater supply could be created.

When reserves were scarce, banks used all of them available to create credit in order to maximize profit. That is no longer the case under the current system, in which the amount of reserves is not constrained. The amount of bank reserve plus currency no longer determines the "supply" the private sector has available at any time. so more reserves in the system does not imply anything about creation of credit money.

Another erroneous idea is that when the Fed buys bonds is increases deposit accounts in the private sector, which increases spending power and leads to higher effective demand. MMT shows how that is not the case in that govt securities merely function as savings accounts that can be converted to deposit accounts instantaneously by selling them, which just shifts the same funds from one account to another without increasing or decreasing the tota NFA held by non-government, just the liquidity. No new net financial assets are injected into non-government.

There is yet a further erroneous notion, and that is that greater liquidity leads to greater spending power, hence increased effective demand. MMT economists argue that the liquidity difference is so negligible as to make no difference in the actual propensity to consume, as the facts now show. The ratio of saving desire to spending desire doesn't change with either the amount of reserves or a change in interest rates. That is there is no directly causal link as erroneously presumed.

As MMT economists assert, the Fed's shifting its balance sheet between tsys and reserves is just an interest rate maintenance operation, not a fiscal one as erroneously presumed. So no change in "money supply" as the amount available for non-government to spend.

This undermines the Austrian business cycle theory as well as the loanable funds doctrine.

Tom Hickey said...

Anonymous: "When the U.S. government bailed out the banks etc, did they "print" new money money Or was the transaction more like QE?"

It was liquidity provision rather than a fiscal injection involving solvency. then Treasury sec Hank Paulson wanted Ben to have the Fed handle it, but since it involved buying assets that were not tsys, to lighten up the banks' books. Ben was afraid that it pushed the Fed too far toward fiscal if there were defaults, so he refused to do it and Congress was forced to approve the deal.

Owing to lack of transparency, I don 't think it is yet clear how this all shook out. At least it is not clear to me. The claim is that all the funds were repaid so there was no fiscal loss in the end. I'm not convinced by someone just telling me this.

Bill Black has written a huge amount on this, and as a former regulator he is outraged at how it was handled.

paul meli said...

Tom,

"The claim is that all the funds were repaid so there was no fiscal loss in the end. I'm not convinced by someone just telling me this."

Here's something written on just this today at NC:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/03/gao-almost-half-of-bailed-banks-repaid-the-government-with-money-from-other-federal-programs.html

John Zelnicker said...

Tom -- Thanks very much. Now I understand why I haven't seen those terms used or explained much in my MMT readings. They are relics of the past. And good riddance since they don't tell us anything truly useful.