Quantitative Easing for Dummies
Posted by WARREN MOSLER on December 17th, 2008
FACTBOX: What is quantitative easing?
Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:30pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve on Tuesday cut its target for overnight interest rates to zero to 0.25 percent, bringing it closer to unconventional action to lift the economy out of a year-long recession.
“The message is they’re instituting quantitative easing on a fairly large scale,” said Doug Roberts, chief investment strategist at Channel Capital Research.com.
Under quantitative easing, central banks flood the banking system with masses of money to promote lending.
Central banks exchange non or low interest bearing assets- reserve balances- for longer term higher yielding securities.
Since lending is in no case ‘reserve constrained’, the ‘extra’ reserves do nothing for lending.
The purchase of the longer dated securities results in lower longer term rates than otherwise. The lower borrowing rates may or may not alter aggregate demand.
The lower rates for savers definitely lowers aggregate demand.
They usually do this when lowering official interest rates no longer is effective because they already are at or near zero.
True!
The central banks add cash by buying up large quantities of securities — government debt, mortgages, commercial loans, even stocks — from banks’ balance sheets,
Yes.
giving them plenty of new money to lend.
No, they already and always have infinite ‘money to lend’.
Available funds are not a constraint for the banking system.
The constraints are regulated asset quality and capital requirements that are expressed in the rates bank charge.
Not the total quantity of funds available.
It is a tool used by Japan earlier this decade to combat deflation and stimulate the economy.
Didn’t work then either. It was fiscal policy that kept them afloat, though not a large enough deficit to sustain output at full employment levels.
[top]
December 5th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Mr Mosler, getting over the idea the government can spend without restraint will be a hard pill to swallow. One can easily envision inflation with higher taxes and the inefficiency the government is famous for. If uncle Sam has money, surely the health care industry will come with hat in hand. So will many welfare recipients, wanting more, of course.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
December 6th, 2010 at 7:39 am
could be, but facts are facts, and it’s a simple operational fact that fed govt spending is not revenue constrained.
Reply
July 12th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Mr. Mosler:
Thanks for this — I am just working through MMT bit by bit?
I know you posted this in 2008, but three questions:
By “savers”, are you referring mainly to those on fixed incomes?
Would not savers’ lower consumption, in a context of lower interest rates, more than be offset by higher general household consumption?
Are you assuming that monetary policy (with interest rates at such low levels even in 2008) is now pretty much powerless to further stimulate demand?
Thanks for your helpful post, speeches and books!
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
savers in that context means those earning interest- savers vs borrowers
Reply
John O'Connell Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
@WARREN MOSLER,
“savers in that context means those earning interest- savers vs borrowers”
I think it means those who spend their interest income.
In stereotypes, those whose only means of support is earnings on their net financial assets, accumulated in previous periods. I.e., retired people.
Many working people are both savers and borrowers. Many savers do not spend their interest earnings, they let them compound and live off their wages. Their current consumption is not reduced by lower interest rates. In fact, given the prospect of diminished returns on savings, they may be more likely to spend their current earnings than to add them to savings, where their buying power will wither away over time.
Reply
May 28th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
An MMT economy would collapse with in a year in a hyperinflationary holocaust.
Given commercial banks all the reserves they want ! Lol they would buy up the world and get the money back the next minute.
There are some really dumb people on the internet.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 1:30 am
Bank in japan us uk etc always have all the reserves they want
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
@WARREN MOSLER
Can a bank ask for a get 50 Trillion dollars in reserves?
Reply
Neil Wilson Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
@RJ,
They don’t want 50 Trillion dollars.
They get what they need to stop the payment system freezing up.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Up to capital constraints
roger erickson Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 9:30 am
@RJ, RJ, you’re proving your own point. Warren may have gotten tired of saying it, but please read his 7Dif book on this very site.
Also William Vickrey: http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html
Also Marriner Eccles: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/ecctes33.pdf
Also Ben Franklin:
http://etext.virginia.edu/users/brock/webdoc6.html
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/publications/economic-education/ben-franklin-and-paper-money-economy.pdf
An “MMT Economy” holds the ability to scale a nation’s economy to new heights, or new depths. Like all tools, it’s only a question of becoming smart enough to use it – i.e., exploring options.
After you’re done reading, try some of that exploration too, it’ll do you & your co-citizens some good.
Reply
May 29th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
No they don’t. The aggregate level of reserves is decided by monetary policy.
Reply
May 29th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
“They dont want 50Trillion dollars”
Lol – they’re a for-profit organization. Of course the would want 50Trillion – they just wouldn’t want it to carry any cost to them.
According you MMT nutjobs a bank will be happy to have X trillion in reserves – but now I have one of you saying they wouldn’t.
Make your mind up.
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 29th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
@RJ,
right, that’s why reserves are never for free in nominal terms at least.
Reply
Neil Wilson Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 1:00 am
@RJ,
“they just wouldn’t want it to carry any cost to them.”
But it does carry a cost for them. Borrowed reserves aren’t free – they carry a penalty interest rate. Plus the banks are regulated entities and wanting that level of reserves (out of odds with everybody else) rings alarm bells about their solvency.
So by signalling that to the regulators they put themselves at risk of being put into administration.
Which wouldn’t go down well with their equity holders.
The system is always at dynamic tension, but the key point, as shown in spades by the ‘credit crunch’ is that central banks will not shut down banks for cash flow reasons. Therefore reserves cannot be a constraint on their operations.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:03 am
with a 10% capital ratio, for example, bank liabilities are limited to that multiple. 1 million in capital means you can only have 9 million in ‘borrowings’/deposits/reserves, etc. If you have more the regulators are supposed to shut you down,
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
@WARREN MOSLER,
Capital ratios and calculated against asset / capital not liabilities / capital under Basel.
Reserves carries a 0% risk weighting. No regulator is going to shut down a bank who has plenty. Do the math.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 2:49 am
all liabilities are also ‘instantly’ assets
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@WARREN MOSLER,
Do regulators consider borrowed reserves as capital?
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 2:50 am
no, liabilities/assets
Neil Wilson Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 1:08 am
“Do regulators consider borrowed reserves as capital?”
Not as far as I can tell.
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:51 am
@WARREN MOSLER,
RJ: “No regulator is going to shut down a bank who has plenty”
Well, this is a little bit away from the reality. Both from the internal risk management point of view as well as external regulations. At the very least and to my knowledge US banks are still constrained by the leverage ratio.
May 30th, 2012 at 2:48 am
@Neil Wilson,
Are you talking MMT world here? Build up of reserves are a natural consequence of MMT, no?
Reply
Neil Wilson Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:01 am
@RJ,
There is a difference between borrowed reserves, and reserves representing ‘excess savings’.
As Warren would say ‘please read 7dif, thanks’.
Reply
May 30th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@Neil Wilson,
Why – both can be invested – one just carries a higher cost. Cost of borrowing from the central bank is less that borrowing from a money market – which banks are more than happy to do.
Are you also saying the people who own the excessive savings that cause these excess reserves cannot expect to receive a rate of interest? Doesn’t bode well for currency acceptance.
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
@RJ,
I don’t think borrowing in the money market increases the reserves of the banking system, unless you are talking about people depositing cash.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 2:50 am
borrowing increases liabilities, and the borrowed funds are assets
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 7:46 am
@WARREN MOSLER,
you didn’t read what I wrote.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am
and lost the context, sorry. been working from a cell phone mostly. please repeat
May 30th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
@MamMoTh,
I was talking about the cost of borrowing in the capital markets. It is greater than borrowing from the central bank. Banks are happy to borrow from the capital markets so they would be equally happy to borrow from the central bank. Inferring that they wouldn’t because of penalty rates is ridiculous.
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
@RJ, nobody said they wouldn’t, just that they will not do it for free as you originally claimed.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
@MamMoTh,
I claimed no such thing. What I said is if you force large amounts of reserves on a bank – they will no exactly what to do with them. Such currency debasement gives them the incentive to acquire assets. Why is it debasement – because they have a mass of liabilities which have no hope of ever receiving value over time.
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
@RJ,
My understanding is that if banks want to acquire assets, and are permitted to do so, they just create the needed deposits, and look for reserves later if required.
There is no such things as forcing large quantities of reserves into the banking system. It’s all about the cost of reserves to sustain the fund rate.
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:59 am
@RJ,
RJ: Banks are happy to borrow from the capital markets so they would be equally happy to borrow from the central bank. Inferring that they wouldn’t because of penalty rates is ridiculous.
So why don’t they do it?! RJ, your claims with regards to how and what drives banks, reveal some lack of knowledge about banks. I would stop pretending that you know what is ridiculous and what is not.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
@Sergei,
Jeez, thinking is not your strong point is it.
The Fed only lends money according to its policy objectives.
Centrals banks main objectives are not the provision of funding.
Reply
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 12:51 pm
@RJ,
RJ, I guess it was your own claim. Do you contradict yourself or simply trolling?
May 30th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@MamMoTh.
Maybe you need to turn the reply button on ?
“My understanding is that if banks want to acquire assets, and are permitted to do so, they just create the needed deposits, and look for reserves later if required.”
This is such a simplistic view. What’s Banks consider are its cash flows. It will write loans according to its current cash holdings; the amount of cash it can expect to borrow for settlement and at what cost; expected inflows; and its own capital position. If the bank treasury is sitting a pile of zero maturity cash the incentive is to disburse that cash into productive assets. Overnight borrowing and net outflows will not problem with such large cash position. Problem is every bank will be doing the same – so even though net settlement positions don’t change much, the balance sheets grow at a far greater pace.
Why do you think central banks have to sterilise liquidity injections?
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@RJ,
Why do you think central banks have to sterilise liquidity injections?
To sustain the funds rate.
Reply
May 30th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
@MamMoTh,
Yes – a monetary policy objective. Setting the price of money by limiting its supply. What happens to the price when there is plenty of supply?
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@RJ, price is fixed, supply floats
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
@MamMoTh,
You’ve just contradicted yourself.
“Funds Rate”
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
@RJ,
No, I haven’t.
You probably have, since you are making no sense at all.
Good luck!
May 30th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Yes you have. Funds rate – the interest you have to pay to borrow reserves. This interest rate is the price. How much it costs you. If you alter the aggregates level of reserves you are affecting its price – this made you have said. Supply and price are correlated.
And then you go and contradict yourself by saying supply doesn’t affect the price.
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 30th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
@RJ,
Good luck!
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 2:45 am
when the fed changes the ff rate it changes the interest rate it charges the banking system when it adds needed reserves, or changes the rate it pays on reserves when there are excess reserves.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 5:10 am
@WARREN MOSLER,
The feed has a TARGET rate – the Fed Funds Target rate. It achieves this rate by altering the supply of money via open market operations to achieve the Fed Funds effective rate. It doesn’t just decide on the rate by opening its mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate
Reply
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 6:29 am
@RJ,
RJ: It doesn’t just decide on the rate by opening its mouth
Check the amount of reserves in the system around any announcement day. This should be the best proof that you are wrong.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am
when it keeps the banks net borrowed, it just changes the cost of those funds to change fed funds rates
when it keeps the banks net long, it just changes the rate it pays on reserve balances
no quantity changes involved
May 31st, 2012 at 3:00 am
“Do regulators consider borrowed reserves as capital?”
“Not as far as I can tell.”
“no, liabilities/assets”
Bank reserves are “Cash and Cash equivalents”. They are assets on the balance sheet. They carry a 0% risk weighting under Basel – i.e. they do not affect the capital ratio – which is a ratio of capital to its risk weighted assets.
I think maybe there some confusion here between these and capital reserves which are a completely different thing.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:10 am
@RJ,
Borrowing Reserves does not increase capital. Capital only increases through earnings and investor buy up of share capital.
I think maybe some people are confused on what balance sheet capital actually is. It is NOT a pot of gold.
Reply
Neil Wilson Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:33 am
@RJ,
“I think maybe some people are confused on what balance sheet capital actually is. It is NOT a pot of gold.”
It’s not a quantity restriction either.
Capital is always available at a price.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:35 am
@Neil Wilson,
No. Balance sheet capital only increases through earnings, asset revaluation, and investor buy-up of new share capital. Borrowing does not increase balance sheet capital. It cannot.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:12 am
true
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:12 am
though gold holdings could count towards capital
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:10 am
they do affect tier one capital, the overall leverage ratio.
Reply
May 31st, 2012 at 7:50 am
“RJ: It doesn’t just decide on the rate by opening its mouth
Check the amount of reserves in the system around any announcement day. This should be the best proof that you are wrong.
”
Wrong in what regard? The aggregate level of reserves in the banking system is decided entirely by the Fed. No one else can put more reserves into the system.
Reply
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 8:17 am
@RJ,
Wrong because the Fed decides on the rate simply by opening its mouth. No operations with reserves are required whenever the Fed announces a new target.
Reply
RJ Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 12:08 pm
@Sergei,
Lol. Maybe you should stop before you make yourself look more of an idiot.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm
“Open market operations–purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities–are the Federal Reserve’s principal tool for implementing monetary policy. The short-term objective for open market operations is specified by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). This objective can be a desired quantity of reserves or a desired price (the federal funds rate). The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight. “
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 12:36 pm
@RJ,
You just made yourself look like an idiot.
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 12:48 pm
@RJ,
RJ, before you go too far with your claims, please take time series of reserve balances and look up what happened on any date when the Fed changed the target interest rate.
But I wind up here. No reason to discuss anything with someone who knows everything but knows nothing.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
banks do when they make loans/deposits and there are reserve requirements.
making the loan creates both the deposit and the reserves as a matter of accounting.
however, banks are designated agents of the fed so technically you are correct.
;)
Reply
May 31st, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“WARREN MOSLER Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 2:49 am
all liabilities are also ‘instantly’ assets”
Well, this is a truly idiotic comment. The nature of the assets change which is why a risk-weighting is applied according to the risk that the asset will not become impaired. The assets provide the cash flow. A pile of ten dollars bills has no risk. An MBS has far greater risk.
I looked you up – are you meant to be an economist? Frankly, your knowledge and understanding is amazingly limited.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:27 am
let me rephrase to express better what was implied.
liabilities are also ‘instantly’ assets that are subject to regulation and supervision.
i’m just a blogger, by the way. feel free to not read this.
Reply
May 31st, 2012 at 3:38 pm
“RJ, before you go too far with your claims, please take time series of reserve balances and look up what happened on any date when the Fed changed the target interest rate.
But I wind up here. No reason to discuss anything with someone who knows everything but knows nothing.”
Mate, it seems know a darn sight more than yourself.
“Sergei says: Well, this is a little bit away from the reality. Both from the internal risk management point of view as well as external regulations. At the very least and to my knowledge US banks are still constrained by the leverage ratio.”
Reserves do not add to a bank leverage through the prism of regulatory capital measurement. What part of 0% risk-weighting, capital adequacy and Basel are you struggling with? What happens when you times a number by zero?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/208/appendix-A
“C. Risk Weights
Attachment III contains a listing of the risk categories, a summary of the types of assets assigned to each category and the weight associated with each category, that is, 0 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent. A brief explanation of the components of each category follows.
1. Category 1: zero percent. This category includes cash (domestic and foreign) owned and held in all offices of the bank or in transit and gold bullion held in the bank’s own vaults or in another bank’s vaults on an allocated basis, to the extent it is offset by gold bullion liabilities. 29 The category also includes all direct claims (including securities, loans, and leases) on, and the portions of claims that are directly and unconditionally guaranteed by, the central governments 30 of the OECD countries and U.S. Government agencies, ”
“Footnote(s): 30 A central government is defined to include departments and ministries, including the central bank, of the central government. The U.S. central bank includes the 12 Federal Reserve Banks”
Reply
MamMoTh Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 4:00 pm
@RJ,
Clearly you don’t know any better since you are talking about something else.
Reply
Sergei Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 4:25 pm
@RJ,
RJ, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
To my knowledge *at*least* 2 countries in the world with large international banking systems use leverage ratio *and* capital requirements. That means capital requirements PLUS leverage ratio. Independently of each other. These countries are USA and Canada.
The leverage ratio is calculated as Tier 1 capital / Assets and it obviously has nothing to do with risk weights or capital adequacy.
Basel 3 has leverage ratio as part of requirements.
Reply