In Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve buys securities (typically Treasury bonds and/or mortgage-backed securities) from banks in exchange for “reserves.”
- To purchase that bond, the Fed simply credits the selling bank’s account for the agreed-upon price and debits the bond-inventory accounts the same amount.
- Credit in an account at the Fed is called “reserve” and can be withdrawn as cash.
- This chart tells what’s included in each definition of “the money supply (M1, M2, or M3). Note that checking accounts are part of the money supply but a bank’s reserves and vault cash are not.
- The Fed recently started paying a quarter of a percent interest on reserves, significantly less than the bank would have collected in interest on that bond.
- All such considerations are reflected in the price that the selling bank insists on for that bond.
- Since 2001 the money has climbed sharply to its highest level since 1959, when such records first we kept.
- At any time, anyone can sell their bonds to a bank or take out a loan against them in exchange for credit in an account at that bank, which is new money to the money supply. So it’s not surprising that the previous two rounds of quantitative easing, QE1 and QE2, have had little effect.
- Since 2008 reserves have jumped to roughly $1.6 dollars, i.e., most of the reserves that went into QE1 and QE2 are still sitting at the Fed and are not part of the money supoply. Yet another reason that QE1 and QE2 have had little effect, not even the inflation that some predicted.
In spite of the fact that I doubt that QE3 will have any effect, I welcome it because it will yet again empirically demonstrate that the government can buy up (pay off) the national debt with freshly issued money without causing hyperinflation. In other words, the alleged “debt crisis” isn’t one.



16 Comments

Arrgh. My understanding was that a big part of QE3 was purchasing (toxic, I assume) mortgage-backed securities, *plus* the modified Twist in addition. I may never learn this stuff, but it seems it never keeps me from trying, lol.
I’d read a lot of opinions over the past few days, and most economists of the non-captured kind seemed to say that the last two QEs *may have* translated into 18% or less to the 99%.
Yves Smith was a bit too enigmatic about it for my taste, so I did ask a question, but I either got on the thread too late, my questions were too newbie-stupid, or something.
But she had mentioned that straight away, commodity prices rose after Ben’s announcement (confidence fairy stuff, imo). I asked if more money meant more *manipulation*, rather than the ‘safe haven’ stuff.
Oh: and actually, I hate to admit it, but Dan Kervick has a funny piece up at ww.neweconomicsperspectives.com about that…
Anyway, dear wigwam: Rec’d, and thanks.
Forgot the third ‘w’ in the web address; don’t try to copy/paste it.
Sorry to be so lazy to go in search of the actual link. Long day here.
Hi Wendy. It looks like you’re correct. Per CNN:
IIUC, QE1 and QE2 were mostly Treasury bonds, but QE3 is slated to be all mortgage-backed securities (hopefully, non-toxic ones).
The general principles are the same whatever kind of security is being purchased, monetizing securities other than treasuries does not make the point that I hoped would be made.
Regarding Dan Kevick’s article, I presume that you are talking about his posting entitled, “Shamanistic Economics.” It’s excellent. Thanks.
I got the distinct impression, also, that the *rate* at which the Fed might purchase the MBSs would act to sequester the mortages long enough so that ‘new home (fuck, I hate that term) purchases’ would *seem to be* on the increase.
Yeah, Dan isn’t usually funny, and I did dislike his ignorant Native American/Indigenous metaphors, but still… it was pretty great. (I used to blog next to him in the past, so…I have a few issues with him.)
I agree with Dan that there is no reason in terms of money mechanics to think that another round of QE will have any more effect than the two previous rounds. But maybe it’s like the guy who sprinkled salt on his lawn every morning. When his neighbor asked what that was for, he replied that it was to keep rogue elephants away. The neighbor noted that there were no rogue elephants within 2000 miles. The guy replied, “See how well it works!”
Similarly, Helicopter Ben can irrefutably claim that QE1 and QE2 saved us from a deeper recession. And, that QE3 will possibly be even more effective.
Personally I don’t buy it. The only reason I is to keep Wall Street and the banks happy and make it Look like something is being done.
The only difference between capitalism and feudalism is the way they are spelled.
Wendy, I think wigwam has it right. In the medium term QE3 will mean little or nothing, because it provides no net financial assets to the economy. There may be a confidence fairy, self-fulfilling prophecy effect. Dan Kervick covers this in the post you linked to.
There’s also a good discussion of QE3 at Warren Mosler’s site, that should further lay out the case for you that no NFA is added to the system, and also that no money is being added to the money supply, even though much money will be added to the monetary base by this move.
Thanks, letsgetitdone. You’re dead on!
Ultimately, it looks like QE3 might add half-a-trillion dollars per year to the mortgage market, which would certainly drive down the already very low rates on mortgages, e.g., 15-year mortgages at 2.6% by some of the ads I saw today.
It would also be an incentive for the greedy bastards who inflated the subprime real-estate bubble to re-inflate it. They’d certainly have plenty of money to work with, if they can sell enough mortgages, grind them up into MBS sausages, and sell them to the Fed fast enough.
It appears that the Fed is doing toxic laundering of MBS. I wonder if we are crediting the banks reserve account with the bs face value of the instrument or something closer to the actual market value of something along 10% of face value.
In any event, if we could re-inflate some of the home real estate market values, without the contamination of liar loans, some needed discretionary spending might increase.
QE3 should improve the banks stress test performance as well. Perhaps Ben is getting us ready for an EU shock. It still looks like they will test the global financial system again in the near to mid term.
Hmmmmm. Good question. I just assumed that these would be MBSs made up of new loans and not another round of “bail out.” But, a re-reading of several articles did not show that the Fed actually promised that.
Thanks, lets. I swear I’ll never get this stuff well enough to hold a valid opinion, just more questions, lol.
Mosler: ‘As ever, QE is a ‘crop failure’ for the dollar. It works to strengthen the dollar and weaken demand..’
Yves Smith has a QE3 piece up this morning, asking if Ben’s doing another stealth bank bailout, including this:
“Back to the current post. Given that previous QEs amped up the stock market, weakened the dollar, lifted commodity prices, and made central bankers in emerging markets mighty unhappy (risk on trades boosted their currencies and sent hot money into their economies, developments they did not like), all on a temporary basis, it’s quite a stretch for Bernanke to depict it as a way to boost employment in the US, unless he has a very bad case of “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” syndrome.”
Then she uses MBS Guy (?) to debunk the FT’s premise that this round isn’t helping so very well yet because of staffing problems (which led to a couple funny comments re: employment):
I’m still highly interested in whether or not all this increases not only commodities speculation, but manipulation as well.
it’s not toxic; the fed is buying agency debt, from Fannie et al, has virtually the same credit rating as treasuries…
they are attempting to reinflate the housing bubble so the banks can unload their REO without taking a big loss…
Given that QE3 involves $40B/month of MBS purchase, I’d expect its effects to show up in the mortgage/housing market, including construction jobs, housing prices, and refinancing to shrink monthly mortgage payments.
I suppose there could be spill-over to commodities, but I’d expect that effect to be weak.
Why? Desperation.
Political gridlock and business greed have shut down I and G. Consumers are still struggling with C. And X-M is still negative.
What else is there but trickle down?
IIUC, it was Keynes who referred to stimulus via monetary policy as “pushing a string.”
What we now need is a lot more G directed toward high-multiplier targets.
Because they like loaning our tax money to the banks to drive up commodities with.