By purchasing long-term government bonds, the central bank lowers the term premium of these bonds. Via arbitrage processes the returns on similar assets are also affected. In addition, falling returns may induce some investors to switch to riskier assets with higher yields, putting pressure on those yields as well.
Alternatively, central banks can directly buy private sector assets e. These assets are obviously imperfect substitutes for both money and government bonds, as they typically represent more risky investments. Central bank purchases of private sector assets directly reduce market risk premiums. QE may also lead to a depreciation of the exchange rate, e. Provided that these transmission channels are strong enough to significantly stimulate GDP, QE may contribute to price increases and hence to an increase in inflation.
To the extent that these effects are anticipated, expected inflation might increase immediately without a time lag, which also would lead to an instantaneous reduction in the ex ante real interest rate. All these channels may also have confidence effects by improving the economic outlook, reducing uncertainty and lowering financial market volatility, particularly in times of financial market distress. Strengthened business confidence may encourage investment spending directly and may also contribute to a decline in risk premiums. Empirically disentangling the QE-induced effects from other causes of fluctuations in interest rates is challenging.
The analysis of announcement effects and model-based estimations are the main approaches used in applied empirical research. Announcement effect studies report the variation in long-term interest rates within a brief window of time around a central bank announcement. These studies assume that markets are efficient in the sense that all the effects on yields occur when market participants update their expectations and not when actual purchases take place. This approach is, however, problematic for evaluating QE measures that have been anticipated by market participants prior to the official announcement.
A second approach uses time series analysis on a monthly or quarterly basis. Typically, long-term yields or estimates of the term premium are regressed on the net supply of long-term bonds or other assets included in a QE programme.source link
The estimated parameters measure the effect of QE on long-term rates. Other factors that explain interest rates are included as control variables in the regression. This approach also suffers from identification problems if the anticipation of QE already affects rates before the actual purchases of assets by the central bank via expectation formation. Hence, empirical estimates regarding the effects of QE have to be interpreted cautiously.
Almost all studies find that QE will reduce long-term interest rates. However, the magnitude of this reduction differs widely across studies and the results show a large degree of uncertainty. Studies focusing on Japan and the UK find similar results. For the US and the UK, a number of studies emphasise the relative importance of the portfolio rebalancing effect, but a similar number of studies find an important role for the signalling channel.
Quantitative easing - Wikipedia
In contrast, most empirical studies of Japan find evidence of transmission of QE mainly via the signalling channel. Regarding the persistence of QE effects, some authors find only temporary effects, 9 while others report evidence for persistent effects. The macroeconomic effects of QE are even more difficult to assess than the effects on interest rates, as there may be considerable transmission lags, making it difficult to disentangle the QE-specific impact from other impacts.
There are two main approaches. The first is to use theory-based macroeconomic models. This approach is challenging because standard macroeconomic models are usually based on frictionless financial markets and need to be adjusted to include financial market frictions in order to allow the analysis of both the signalling channel and the portfolio rebalancing channels. The second approach uses unrestricted, purely empirical methods like vector autoregressions.
The results of all of these studies are even more uncertain than those regarding the effects of QE on the interest rate. Further, the empirical evidence from several studies indicates that QE1 was more effective than QE2. QE1 was implemented during the most acute phase of the crisis. Hence, it might have had large effects via providing liquidity, restoring confidence and alleviating financial market distress by signalling that the Fed would decidedly combat possible tail risks based on lessons learned from the Great Depression.
When QE2 was undertaken, financial market stress had already fallen substantially, so that a significant liquidity provisioning effect was unlikely and transmission via increasing market confidence played a smaller role. However, QE2 was also more highly anticipated by market participants than QE1, and thus event studies that narrowly focus on interest rate movements around the announcement date most likely underestimate the impact of QE2.
While QE1 included the purchase of private sector assets, QE2 was restricted to government bonds. Hence, QE1 might have been more effective in reducing risk premiums. Determining which of these three factors was most important is hard to substantiate. Among the vast empirical literature on the effects of QE, only few studies analyse the role of exchange rates. There is evidence that QE significantly depreciated the currencies in the US and the UK versus those of their major trading partners. By contrast, no significant effect of the BoJ's QE measures on the yen has been found.
QE interventions are no "free lunch" but bear risks via unintended consequences. As opposed to the short-run benefits that central banks expect from their QE programmes, most of the costs are likely to show up in the long run. They are also more diffuse and less concrete than the potential gains, making them even more difficult to quantify than short-run benefits.
Current affairs & culture from Australia and beyond
Most of the risks of QE are similar to those that stem from ultra-low interest rate regimes for a prolonged period of time. This follows from the fact that QE aims to bring market interest rates further down once central banks have reached the zero lower bound. In addition, QE can be interpreted as a credible central bank commitment to leave interest rates at ultra-low levels for an extended period of time to overcome the time inconsistency problems of forward guidance.
However, there are also risks that are specific to QE strategies. Firstly, expansionary monetary policy may contribute to excessive risk-taking, it fuels asset price bubbles and it increases systemic financial risks. It is well understood that ultra-low interest rates for an extended period of time stimulate risk-taking in financial markets. However, excessive risk-taking, in turn, increases systemic risk, fuels asset-price bubbles, and — in the worst case — triggers banking crises.
Excessive risk-taking revealed by large financial imbalances, a massive credit expansion and housing price explosions was a key driver in the run-up to the global financial crisis. Secondly, the exit from ultra-easy monetary policy and QE may be extremely difficult. In theory, there are several instruments to exit from ultra-easy monetary policy and to avoid runaway credit creation and inflation. In practice, however, there are very limited experiences with exits when the balance sheets of central banks are extremely large, and central banks will most likely face severe problems on their way to normalising monetary policy.
These problems include the timing of the exit, massive price adjustments of fixed-interest securities and conflicting policy goals in particular financial stability vs. Central banks would find themselves in a very difficult position if inflation picked up in a situation when a tightening of monetary policy would contribute to a sovereign debt crisis due to increasing government bond yields , lead to recurring financial market distress due to balance sheet problems of major financial market participants such as pension funds or life insurance companies or might weaken the financial health of its own balance sheet.
- Lets Talk A Guide To Resolving Workplace Conflicts (2009);
- Understanding child sexual abuse;
- Are Negative Interest Rates on the Way in the U.S.?.
- Numéros en texte intégral?
- Why do we need quantitative easing?.
- Wildfowl in Great Britain!
- Quantitative easing in a monetary union | Oxford Economic Papers | Oxford Academic.
The longer ultra-low interest rates prevail, the higher is the share of low-yielding securities in the market. Once interest rates rise again, these securities will experience major price adjustments. As a result, the central bank may tolerate inflation rates above the bank's official target rather than risking new financial turmoil. Thirdly, an ultra-easy monetary policy may lead to the misallocation of capital and it blocks necessary adjustment processes. Interest rate variations affect not only the level of investment but also the structure of investment and — as a result — of the capital stock that predetermines to a large extent the future production possibilities.
The longer market interest rates are kept artificially low by monetary policy, the more investment decisions are guided by distorted interest rate signals. These distortionary effects were important factors behind the construction booms that took place in many economies e. Misallocation of real resources is not limited to the construction sector but can also occur in other sectors in which such misallocation might be even harder to identify. In a similar way, ultra-easy monetary policies tend to prevent or delay necessary adjustment processes.
Ultra-low interest rates allow high debt burdens to be sustainable for the debtor. In such an environment, banks are tempted to continue financing firms that are basically insolvent, as the opportunity costs of non-performing loans decrease in low-interest rate environments "evergreening".
This prolongs the life of "zombie enterprises" and "zombie banks" and continues directing scarce resources to insolvent, unproductive entities. There is evidence that evergreening and "zombie" structures were major problems for the Japanese economy in the aftermath of the banking crisis, preventing the necessary restructuring of the economy and thereby dampening potential growth. Finally, there is the risk that due to ultra-easy monetary policy, necessary policy actions for structural reforms are delayed. Central banks were successful in aggressively fighting financial market distress in the first phase of the global financial crisis, and they supported economic growth considerably by lowering interest rates.
The extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy was also largely perceived as buying time for economic policy to conduct necessary structural reforms. This is in line with conventional wisdom, given that monetary policy can generally respond much faster than governments do. Moreover, structural reforms, for example labour market reforms or consolidations of government budgets, can be extremely painful and usually take time to be implemented. However, the more time central banks buy, the less likely it becomes that necessary structural reforms will be taken.
The greater the extent to which accommodative monetary policy stimulates the economy, the more it will conceal the real problems of the economy and the need for structural reforms will appear to be less urgent. This is less of a problem for the US and the UK, where the need for structural reforms is less apparent than it is in the euro area or Japan.
- What Is Quantitative Easing Explained – Definition, Risks & Effects on the Economy.
- Es d?nket mich, ich seh dich kommen, Aria, No. 4 from Cantata No. 175: Er rufet seinen Schafen mit Namen (Tenor Part)!
- Large Deviations and Metastability!
- Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Essays on Participatory Culture?
- What is helicopter money?;
- Subscribe to read | Financial Times!
The most obvious difference between the euro area and the US, the UK, and Japan is that it is a currency union consisting of national states with largely independent national governments. These governments pursue individual fiscal and financial policies, which leads to very different fiscal positions of the euro area countries. In this context, a QE programme that consists of buying government bonds further blurs the differences between monetary and fiscal policy, and the concern that the independence of the central bank is at risk when it buys large amounts of government bonds could be even more relevant for a currency union.
Moreover, the financial system in the euro area is more bank-centric than its counterparts in the US and the UK. Given the relatively higher importance of bank credit in the financing of economic activity, 20 the ECB has initially chosen to directly support bank liquidity via its lending programmes. Furthermore, individual countries within the euro area are in very different economic states. While some countries are still suffering from large structural problems, high unemployment, or high private and public indebtedness, other countries are experiencing solid growth and strong labour markets.
Monetary policy in the economically weak countries is likely to be less effective than in the economically strong countries. For the latter group, the monetary policy stance was arguably already very expansive even before the ECB implemented the EAPP, as judged by widely used measures to assess the appropriate stance of monetary policy, such as the Taylor rule.
Additional monetary stimulus could increase the economic divergence further and generate numerous risks e. Finally, the current situation in the euro area is quite different from the situation in the US or the UK at the time of their first-round QE programmes because market interest rates are already very low and financial market distress has been alleviated.
Last spring, when the Fed first mooted the idea of tapering, interest rates around the world jumped and markets wobbled. Still others doubt that central banks have the capacity to keep inflation in check if the money they have created begins circulating more rapidly.
Central bankers have been more cautious in using QE than they would have been in cutting interest rates, which could partly explain some countries' slow recoveries. At least a few central banks are now experimenting with stimulus alternatives, such as promises to keep overnight interest-rates low for a very long time, the better to scale back their dependence on QE. Join them. Subscribe to The Economist today. Media Audio edition Economist Films Podcasts.
New to The Economist? Sign up now Activate your digital subscription Manage your subscription Renew your subscription. Topics up icon. Blogs up icon. Current edition. Audio edition. Economist Films. The Economist apps. More up icon. The Economist explains Explaining the world, daily. The Economist explains What is quantitative easing?
And how does it work? The Economist explains Mar 9th by R. Reuse this content About The Economist. Waltzing Confucius Australian universities are accused of trading free speech for cash. Bartleby Hot desk, cold comfort.
Daily chart There may be hope for the northern white rhino. Subscribe now.