So the Bernanke announces that the Fed will buy $40B of t-bonds per month, on top of the $45B in MBSs per month. That equates to them monetizing 90% of the treasury's debt issuance. What does this mean for us? It seems like the Fed is flailing madly in an attempt to just keep things the way they are. That gives me somewhat of an uneasy feeling. They reeeeeally want people piling into equities and RE.
Implications of recently announced QE4?
By bmwman91 Follow Mon, 3 Dec 2012, 8:30pm 890 views 20 comments
In Mountain View CA 94043
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (2) Dislike Viewing Comments 1-20 of 20 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member bmwman91 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
63 threads
476 comments
Simi Valley, CA
it means buy hard access (like a house) because massive inflation is coming.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,517 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Won't end well. But what are the alternatives? Move to Mexico?
Follow
Befriend
29 threads
1,475 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Mark D says
Not if this money doesn't make it into the middle class's hands.
No wage inflation, no inflation.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,517 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Exactly, very little of the liquidity from the bailouts made it into middle class hands (even though much of it was meant to spur loan creation). This is more bank welfare and handouts as all the previous QE actions have been.
Follow
Befriend
29 threads
1,475 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
"It seems like the Fed is flailing madly in an attempt to just keep things the way they are"
better that than the way we were going, 2008-2009.
The key thing is that the Bush Economy threw a rod in 2007, since it was based entirely on us selling houses to each other and/or liberating the equity out of them so that we could support our consumerism.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT
Once we hit the wall in 4Q07, that was all she wrote on that.
We need to close our $500B/yr trade deficit:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP
get it back to $100B/yr like it was in the 1990s.
To do that, we need a weaker dollar, which I think requires massive printing.
So here we are.
Enjoy the ride.
Follow
Befriend (9)
160 threads
1,534 comments
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
Yup look at Japan. They have been under perpetual QE. They have massive debt, more than any industrialized nation-well nobody knows how much debt China has and it is not a developed nation- but the yen is at lifetime highs or close to the dollar and they only have deflation to show for so much QE.
Follow
Befriend (2)
60 threads
1,297 comments
Premium
The MBS purchase was meant to lower morgage rates
The T-Bill purchase was meant to lower business borrowing rates
It is designed/decided to soften the impact of the fiscal cliff, spending cut, tax or whatever uncertainty Just 12 people vote and make it happen, none of this politics crap with Boehner and Obama drama. The federal reserve just acts, make a decision and do it. I wish I can say the same about lawmakers.
And how the hell does the frog knows it is not going to end well. The guys sitting in the federal reserve board knows less than the Frog?
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,525 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
SFace, so in short, the Fed is taking another step to make debt cheaper in an attempt to nullify the decrease in real income that will result from the fiscal cliff? Is this a recipe for major asset price inflation as some suggest, or just a way to prevent them from falling? Asset prices already are inflated by most traditional metrics.
Follow
Befriend (9)
160 threads
1,534 comments
Premium
SFace says
I would think so. They never saw the housing bubble and bust coming-or so they claim. Greenspan was asking the public to take on adjustable rate mortgages at the height of the bubble. Helicopter Ben and his merry band of bankers has one answer to every problem-More QE.
Follow
Befriend (2)
14 threads
647 comments
bmwman91 says
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm
the fed's mandates are:
1) maximum employment
2) stable prices
3) moderate long-term interest rates
they are not trying to inflate prices but keep them from falling (stabilizing them). i suppose the latest rounds of QE are to stabilize real estate prices; the side effect is equity prices get inflated.
from 2007 to today, the 30 year fixed mortgage rate has dropped from 6.7% (2007 july) to 3.35% (2012 nov). a 50% drop in rates; manufactured almost solely by the fed reserve. this has prevented housing prices from crashing more than they already have.
Follow
Befriend
29 threads
1,475 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Hysteresis says
Kinda. There's also the general macro flight-to-quality going on:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WGS30YR
the fed is buying treasuries but so is everyone else.
I think what really happened is that we overextended ourselves 1995-2000 and then again 2002-2007.
The inflation has already happened. What we're doing now is trying to keep the rubber side down, because if there's actual dislocation in the economy, That Would Be Bad for everyone's assets.
Looking down the road, what do we have ahead of us other than much higher taxes?
How can we avoid that fate? WHY are we trying to avoid that fate?
Did we think we could have $3T in wars and not pay for them?
Are we really THAT stupid?
Follow
Befriend (1)
246 threads
4,658 comments
I thought QE3 was going to be an open door policy, in Bernanke's office.
Hence negating having to name any future QEs, essentially creating a never ending QE.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
133 comments
SFace says
T-Bill purchases are meant to keep the government solvent. The USG can't afford interest rates to rise even 100 basis points. There are not enough buyers for the $1T+ in issuance coming online. How else can ZIRP be maintained?
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
588 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Hysteresis says
Didn't any of these guys watch the Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote cartoons when they were growning up?
How does this all not end in an absolutely horrible mess?
Follow
Befriend
88 threads
457 comments
El Cerrito, CA
Premium
The idea is to get all the goodies away from the last generation and into the 'right hands' but skirting the pesky political process. Then start handing out those plums to the younger generation as the 'right hands' deem fit. Forget that 'invisible hand' crap. We actually know their names now.
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,765 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
dodgerfanjohn says
the same thing was said over and over during the great depression... that it would all end in sudden inflation, and the end of the dollar. read some history!!!!
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,203 comments
31 male
Premium
From those, according to their political disprivilege and inability to avoid being taxed, to those, according to their political privilege, and willingness to "if you can't beat them, join them" and use the usfedgov system of systems as a weapn against their fellow man
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,203 comments
31 male
Premium
Id like to see a graph with three sets of data
First, 10yr treasury
Second, 30 yr mort rates
Third, quantum easings and other fedgov/fed reserve methods of "keeping rates low"
It just seems like every time the government does something, the result is the opposite of their stated goal. For instance, rates on the 10yrT seemed poised to dip below 1.0, just before QE3 was introduced. But I guess the fedreserve is not a government entity,,,,,,
Follow
Befriend
10 threads
379 comments
There is to much debt in our economy which can't be serviced without rates being incredibly low. We have loaded up our seniors with debt, our young adults with debt, our businesses with debt, our government with debt. The only institution with the capacity to take on more debt is the fed. Without debt constantly growing our economy doesn't grow. It will not end well. Without wage growth inflation can't stick. Demand destruction will continue and deflation will take hold. I wonder why we continue to use an economic system that completely breaks without constant growth. You would think one of those smart kids at Harvard would have asked that question.
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
588 comments
Los Angeles, CA
robertoaribas says
?
It did end in years of inflation. Fortunately this allowed us to pay off our war debts quite quickly.
I don't see how it compares to the current situation.