tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post8745505718304885508..comments2024-03-26T20:07:59.406+08:00Comments on 金甲蟲之路: 沖銷版QE3:美國兩難的選擇gogoldjoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10379385900130057274noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-88896117731568304862012-03-24T20:19:00.905+08:002012-03-24T20:19:00.905+08:00Goldman on sterilised QE
Posted by Cardiff Garcia ...Goldman on sterilised QE<br />Posted by Cardiff Garcia on Mar 08 08:30.<br />We’ve had our take — three of them, actually — but the economics team at Goldman has a concise note running through the pros and cons of sterilising QE that we think is worth passing along.<br /><br />As a quick recap, sterilising QE would likely involve the Fed buying assets (probably including a heavy amount of MBS) in combination with reverse repos or more term deposits. That’s all from Fedwire’s piece Wednesday morning.<br /><br />Let’s look at the case of utilising reverse repos. Rather than selling off shorter-maturity Treasuries to fund purchases of the longer stuff, as in Operation Twist, the Fed would instead pledge collateral from its stock of Treasuries, borrowing the funds from its reverse repo counterparties.<br /><br />Thus, unlike with Twist, sterilised QE doesn’t change the mix of assets already on the Fed’s balance sheet — it just adds the new assets the Fed is purchasing. So the impact on the asset side is the same as in an unsterilised quantitative easing operation. The only difference is that the composition of the Fed’s liabilities change because of the reverse repos, of course.<br /><br />(And as to Hey, why not just extend Twist?, the answer is probably two-fold: First, sterilised QE is more stimulative because it doesn’t involve the Fed selling anything, as we just explained. And second, extending Twist might run up against logistical constraints, some of which we covered here and here.)<br /><br />That’s where we’ll pick up the note from Goldman (emphasis ours):<br /><br />There are various pros and cons to this approach. For instance, many investors and the broader public seem to view sterilized QE more favorably than unsterilized QE, even though we believe the distinction should be considered nearly irrelevant from a macroeconomic perspective. If a subset of the population holds these beliefs—wrongly or not—unsterilized QE could affect inflation expectations and possibly commodity prices beyond its impact on the growth outlook. Sterilizing may therefore be a low-cost way to avoid, or at least to hedge against, possible negative side effects of further easing action.<br />Additionally, sterilized QE may improve the functioning of money markets by allowing a broader set of financial institutions to be counterparties to the Fed’s balance sheet expansion. Under QE1 and QE2, with asset purchases financed through reserve creation, only banks could lend to the Fed to finance its purchases. Other money market investors, such as money market mutual funds, are forced to compete for a smaller pool of assets, which has driven down short-term yields to very low levels. Sterilized QE would provide more risk-free short-term assets to this broader investor base, helping normalize money market rates.<br />Izzy made the point earlier about money market funds having to eat negative yields in some cases, and how sterilised QE therefore might even increase the money supply through reverse repos — same as what’s in the Goldman excerpt above, but coming at it from a different angle and then taking it a step further.<br /><br /><br />http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/03/08/913481/goldman-on-sterilised-qe/wahdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16920220259748090791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-61355531327575778512012-03-24T11:17:24.199+08:002012-03-24T11:17:24.199+08:00thanks a lot Gordon!thanks a lot Gordon!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-26117340351122550512012-03-23T21:43:58.265+08:002012-03-23T21:43:58.265+08:00江苏长江村给每个村民发100克黄金100克白银
http://news.sina.com.cn/c/...江苏长江村给每个村民发100克黄金100克白银<br />http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2012-03-23/071824161649.shtml<br />--------------------------------<br />香港政府幾時跟?!?! :-)Cefullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-57499028585527101282012-03-23T19:18:08.924+08:002012-03-23T19:18:08.924+08:00Forbes 雜誌總編斯蒂夫.福布斯(Steve Forbes)昨在港演說時預測,美元將在5年內重新...Forbes 雜誌總編斯蒂夫.福布斯(Steve Forbes)昨在港演說時預測,美元將在5年內重新與黃金掛鹇,以穩定脆弱的全球貨幣體系。<br />----------------------------<br />Re: Marco,<br />Mr. Forbes預測無提到先會有大通縮,超通到崩潰,而只直接說美元與黃金掛鉤,似乎跳得太快,這樣的預測會令普通人容易誤會美元會突然與黃金掛鉤,當中段時間遇到金價大插水時,較易被振走。Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05500441871026512277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-44969006797566117692012-03-23T10:29:20.944+08:002012-03-23T10:29:20.944+08:00想請教各位,我不耐前睇過話現在美聯儲巳買了91%美國新發行的長債,咁即係QE?
但好似無消息咁樣,是...想請教各位,我不耐前睇過話現在美聯儲巳買了91%美國新發行的長債,咁即係QE?<br />但好似無消息咁樣,是否係之前印了大量的錢比銀行,銀行代為購買而遮掩了這事,事關美國的貿赤6千億不到,財赤就1.3萬億,外國無咁多錢去填數,<br />美國的企業個人也無咁多錢人年年去填數,<br />咁唔係美聯儲仲有邊個?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-21345973001682199282012-03-23T03:28:08.083+08:002012-03-23T03:28:08.083+08:00Joe 兄及其網友:
有新發現!!!
Forbes 雜誌總編斯蒂夫.福布斯(Steve For...Joe 兄及其網友: <br /><br />有新發現!!!<br /><br />Forbes 雜誌總編斯蒂夫.福布斯(Steve Forbes)昨在港演說時預測,美元將在5年內重新與黃金掛鹇,以穩定脆弱的全球貨幣體系。他指責美國聯邦儲備局向市場釋放過多流動性是導致全球經濟復甦緩慢的重要因素之一。<br /><br />福布斯在出席亞洲協會午餐會時表示,這好比燃油與一輛好車的關係,美聯儲人為釋放寬鬆流動性正「淹沒」不堪承受的全球市場。他指美國政府違背市場供求原則,在危機來臨時一味「印鈔」向全世界尤其是新興市場輸出了通脹;同時也無助於美國經濟復甦。<br />福布斯認為,數據的暫時好轉並無消除全球經濟存在的「隱患」。他強調美聯儲為歐洲央行以及其他監管者樹立了一個「壞榜樣」,讓各國央行誤以為流動性可以解決衰退,石油等大宗商品價格的持續上揚已經為政客們敲響了警鐘。<br /><br /><br />source: http://paper.wenweipo.com/2012/03/23/FI1203230007.htm<br /><br />Marco LEEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7814543764754729146.post-14203615206562222382012-03-23T00:32:26.867+08:002012-03-23T00:32:26.867+08:00作者已經移除這則留言。helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15838964867549609540noreply@blogger.com