When the Federal Reserve went “all in” as wags liked to put it on December 17, with its declaration that it would use “all available tools” to fight looming deflation. The bond and currency markets both took note, with the dollar falling sharply before rebounding and mortgage interest rates falling (nicely done, to get much of what you want via an announcement, rather than action).
In fairness. the Fed contended then that what it is doing is not quantitative easing:
….the senior Fed official said the central bank’s approach is distinct from quantitative easing and different from what the Japanese did. The Fed’s balance sheet has two sides, the official explained: assets with securities the Fed holds (including loans, credit facilities, mortgage-backed securities) and liabilities (cash and bank reserves). Japan’s quantitative easing program focused on the liability side, expanding cash in the system and excess reserves by a large amount. The Fed’s focus, however, is on the asset side through mortgage-backed securities, agency debt, the commercial paper program, the loan auctions and swaps with foreign central banks. That’s designed to improve credit-market functioning, the official said. By expanding the balance sheet by making loans, the official explained, the focus is not on excess reserves but on the asset side. That securities-lending approach directly affects credit spreads, which is the problem today — unlike Japan earlier, where the problem was the level of interest rates in general, the official said.
I am not sure the difference between conventional quantitative easing and the Fed’s version (which we have called QE2) matters, in the sense that neither gets at the real problem. The Fed seems to be stuck in “if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” syndrome. The Fed has come up with a tremendous number of hammer-variants, but it is still acting as if the underlying problem is liquidity, when the issue is solvency. If a large number of borrowers are unable to pay their debt, making more debt available cheaply is no solution. It might enable a few at the margin who encountered bad luck to tide themselves over until they get themselves straightened out, but in more cases, the net effect would merely be to prolong the inevitable, with the end result that the borrower defaults on his debt, but with an even larger principal balance to write down.
What we need is more thought and effort devoted to the painful but necessary exercise of how to do triage on borrowers. Believe it or not, some are OK and might even be in a position to expand (there are countercyclical businesses), some could be made viable with a modest haircut, and some are beyond rescuing. Instead, we seem to be firmly on the path of putting off the day of reckoning as long as possible. That is the course of inaction the Japanese took, and we can look forward to even worse outcomes, since Japan had a robust export sector and a largely healthy global to sell into economy (save the 1997-8 Asian crisis and the dot-bomb recession).
Nevertheless,the Bank of England appears ready to emulate the US program despite its questionable logic. The Bank of England was permitted on Monday to engage in quantitative easing, but the announcement was sufficiently vague as to leave commentators scratching their head, particularly since the Bank has already gone a way down that road (which begs the question of why an announcement was needed).
Today, Mervyn King provided some clarification in a Tuesday evening speech. From the Independent:
The Bank of England will start buying up corporate bonds within weeks to unblock capital markets and free banks’ balance sheets so that they can lend to support the economy, Mervyn King, the Bank’s Governor, said last night.
In his first speech of the year, Mr King outlined radical plans for the Bank to buy up an initial £50bn of illiquid assets in the market to increase the flow of credit, with the option of ex-tending the scheme to boost the money supply by effectively creating new money. The asset purchases will come on top of a raft of other measures designed to get banks lending to limit the impact of the recession.
Mr King told a CBI dinner in Nottingham that the Bank was ready to use “unconventional measures”….
The Government is wary of taking on extra risk by buying corporate credit outright, and Mr King stressed that the Bank would only buy assets that played a key role in the financial system and for which there would be strong dem-and in normal conditions.
“There is a fine dividing line between helping to oil the wheels in markets that are temporarily impaired and artificially supporting markets in which there is no underlying demand,” the Governor said. “Such asset purchases involve taking more credit risk on to the public sector balance sheet. That is why the Bank will consider purchasing only high-quality assets.” He highlighted as potential purchases high-quality corporate bonds, whose risk spreads had been driven to their highest since the mid-1970s because of illiquid markets. Bank buy-ups of commercial paper could also ease that market, though it is less important in the UK than in the US, he added.
This is far more prudent than the course the Fed is taking, and that the US could be embarking on with the TARP. One of the big worries with large scale monetary expansion is that is merely counteracts (at best) debt deflation, so the money growth does not produce inflation, until it eventually succeeds. Normally, a central bank would then go into reverse, and try to mop up the excess liquidity by selling assets on its balance sheet (the cash payments by buyers reduce money supply). But if the Fed’s balance sheet is loaded with dreck, it would risk selling assets at a loss, and too many losses means it would have to go hat in hand to the government for a rescue.
The devil often lies in the detail, and the details of the Bank of England program could prove to be a meaningful improvement on the US version.
There is a fine dividing line between helping to oil the wheels in markets that are temporarily impaired and artificially supporting markets in which there is no underlying demand,” the Governor said
So they actually reveal their plans, to artificially mimic a market, because there really isn’t a market for unfettered free money for companies to leverage themselves to survive another quarter. There is a market, and those sellers want 20%, so it seems like the buyers are the ones not coming to the table.
“Such asset purchases involve taking more credit risk on to the public sector balance sheet. That is why the Bank will consider purchasing only high-quality assets.”
Translation: We will take on more credit risk and bind it to the taxpayers – and we will only buy non-investment grade assets with no hope of returning even par.
Such is government intervention…
Yves – my google-fu is weak, but wasn’t there a report recently released by Treasury saying that toxic assets bought had deteriorated like 25% in Q4? Why would it be any different in Britain? Like you said, it’s a solvency crises, and keeping the same people in charge with their stupid entrepreneurial ideas to bring profits which ended up dragging the entire world into a depression, as well as bankrupting their companies and wiping out shareholders, will not change because the .gov throws them a bone. Let the waste go down the drain.
Andy,
The Bank of England is at least attempting to take a tougher line than the Fed, both on bailouts, and in trying to pick its spots in the types of assets it buys. You may prove to be right, that in the end the BoE goes down the same path, but they do at least seem to have a greater appreciation of the risks that the Fed does.
Why are the governments unwilling to do the triage of the banking sector?
It seems they will have to do it sooner or later. The longer they wait more trillions would have been flushed down the bankster rat hole.
Picking up on Mervyn King’s “oiling the wheels” to improve liquidity, there is another way to make fluids flow. That is to filter the fluid in order to improve the viscosity, i.e. remove the less viscous components so that the remaining fluid flows faster. Simply adding more “thin” fluid (QE) is far less effective. The so called “toxic assets” inhibiting the velocity of money flows are like grains of sand rather than just less viscous fluid and should be filtered out asap because the whole system (or some parts(Bear, AIG etc) will seize up. Only after removal of contaminents should fresh oil be added.
As sand is of only negative value in such a system its removal should not reward those who put it in.
Because adequate filtration has not been carried out, it is now necessary to permanently remove major components of the engine system, namely many of the pumps (aka banks). Failure to perform proper maintainance at the fluid level (aka clean filters) means mechanical repairs will now be required and maybe even full shutdown for a period.
Expect runs on several currencies while our leaders try to decide how to do this.
Joe the maintenance man.
“The Fed has come up with a tremendous number of hammer-variants, but it is still acting as if the underlying problem is liquidity, when the issue is solvency.” Yves Smith
Exactly right … The current schemes on both sides of the Atlantic are to underwrite the debt balloon inflated over the last 30 years. With economies shrinking this is a fool’s errand.
And as stated we won’t be in as good a position as the Japanese. Our savings rate is anemic even now compared to what theirs was and they were running a huge trade surplus that added large amounts of capital to their economy.
"But if the Fed's balance sheet is loaded with dreck, it would risk selling assets at a loss, and too many losses means it would have to go hat in hand to the government for a rescue."
Perhaps the sentence is incomplete & should end with "so sterilization may well be too late to prevent inflation from taking off in a big way"..?
i disagree. i think buying assets off banks’ balance sheets can help them to lend, assuming that they are now reasonably well (re-)capitalised. the reason is economic / regulatory capital, i.e. the fear of future losses. if a bank sells corporate bonds and buys cash / govt bonds, it automatically frees up capital to lend as it does not need to fear future losses on those existing assets any more. the problem for the banks is finding someone who is actually willing to buy all those corporate bonds at current market price (i.e. the assets’ marked value does not equate anywhere near to liquidation value in such thin markets).
the fed / boe’s intervention obviously also helps solvency issues directly if the assets are purchased at a price higher than where the bank should really have been marking them if they hadn’t been allowed to fudge their accounts.
on the other hand, if banks are under-capitalised / already insolvent, or they fear making heavy losses on existing assets that are not eligible for sale to the fed / boe, then i agree that this approach will do little to stimulate new lending.