The problems faced by the QE era make me wonder if QT is a mirage

If we were to step back in time to when the new QE era began around a decade ago we would not find any central bankers expecting us to be where we are now. In a way that is summarised by the fact that the original QE pamphlet of the Bank of England from the Charlie Bean tour of the summer of 2009 has a not found at this address description on the website these days. Or if we look back this speech from policymaker David Miles finishes like this.

Concluding, David Miles says that quantitative easing will assist spending but also notes it is hard to decide
what the “.appropriate scale of purchases is when the power of the mechanisms at work are difficult to
gauge.” He also notes that the timing and means of reversing this monetary easing will “.depend on the
economic outlook, which in turn depends on conditions in financial markets in general and with banks in
particular.

As to the reversing we are still waiting as all we have had is “More! More! More!” as we note that despite record highs for equity and bond markets financial market conditions are apparently still not good enough.

Switching to the real economy we see that in fact we are back in something of a trough right now. We discovered yesterday that the UK is flat lining and we know the Euro area is similar and the United States has been slowing down as well.

The New York Fed Staff Nowcast stands at 0.6% for 2019:Q4 and 0.7% for 2020:Q1. ( the numbers are annualised )

To that we can add Japan which faces the impact of the rise in the Consumption Tax to 10% this quarter.

Next and in some ways most revealingly is the way that QE has acquired a new name. In Japan it has morphed into QQE or Quantitative and Qualitative Easing at the time purchases of equities and commercial property began. Since then it has become QQE with Yield Curve Control. We await to see if the review being conducted by President Lagarde leads to changes at the ECB but we do know this about the US Federal Reserve. From CNBC on the 8th of October.

Powell stressed the approach shouldn’t be confused with the quantitative easing done during and after the financial crisis.

“This is not QE. In no sense is this QE,” he said in a question and answer session after the speech.

The reality is that it fulfils the description of David Miles above in the case of the Treasury Bill purchases with the difference that they have a shorter maturity, although of course back then QE was not meant to be long-term.

The Bank of England looks ahead

Last night Andrew Hauser who is the Executive Director looked at the state of play.

Before the financial crisis, our balance sheet was modest, at 4% of GDP. Since then, and in direct response to the
crisis, that figure has risen to around 30%: a more than seven-fold increase.

He then looks ahead and point one covers a lot of ground to say the least.

The first is that, judged by historical standards, big
balance sheets are here to stay. That’s not a prediction that QE will never unwind: it will. But we have a
bigger responsibility than we did to provide liquidity to the system, in good times and bad, and to a wider set
of organisations, to maintain financial stability. And that’s not going away.

It was nice of him to give us a good laugh about it being permanent! At least I hope he was joking. The liquidity mention doffs it cap to some extent to the mess that the US Federal Reserve has got itself into as well as the fact that changes to the structure of the system such as banks being required to have more capital have put increased pressure on this area.

The next point meanders a bit but we eventually get to an estimate of circa £200 billion for a QT target or objective,

Point two is that big doesn’t mean outsized – so the balance sheet will eventually shrink from where it is today. That’s something the Bank has been stressing for some time. But the Discussion Paper has allowed us to put a tighter range on that forecast, and suggests our liabilities probably only need to be half the size they are today to carry out our
mission once QT is underway/

Ah “eventually!” Also some would think the sort of sum he is thinking of is indeed outsized.

Point three contains some welcome honesty.

Neither we nor the firms who use our liquidity really know what their demand will be when conditions normalise.

Finally we have this

The final message, therefore, is that we must have as our ultimate goal an end-state framework that can cope with
that ambiguity without shaking itself, and us, to bits.

How Much?

The Bank of England balance sheet is more than just QE

Three quarters of the Bank’s assets is in the form of a loan to the Asset Purchase Facility backing £435bn of
gilt holdings and £10bn of corporate bonds, while another £127bn has been lent to banks under the
Term Funding Scheme. A further £13bn of liquidity has been extended under the so-called
‘Index Linked Term Repo’ facility, part of the Sterling Monetary Framework (SMF).
Nearly all of that activity has been financed by an increase in central bank reserves.

He does not point it out but this structure led to another consequence which is that the Term Funding Scheme (and some smaller factors) adds to the official definition of the national debt raising it by around 8% of GDP.

Hard Astern Captain

I have long considered the Bank of England course reversal plan to be unwise and perhaps stupid.

First, the MPC does not intend to begin QT until Bank Rate has risen to a level from which it could
be cut materially if required. The MPC currently judges that to be around 1.5%.

– Second, QT will be conducted over a number of years at a gradual and predictable pace, chosen by
the MPC in light of economic and financial market conditions at the time.

– Third, the QT path will take account of the need to maintain the orderly functioning of the gilt and
corporate bond markets including through liaison with the Debt Management Office.

– And, fourth, the QT path can be amended or reversed as required to achieve the inflation target.

 

Comment

Frankly the very concept of the Bank of England raising interest-rates as high as 1.5% is laughable under the present stewardship. I have long thought that the plan as described above demonstrates that there is no real intention to reverse QE. There are former policymakers who explicitly endorse this such as David Blanchflower. But there are also implicit issues such as waiting for yields to rise and prices to fall as well as thinking there can be an “orderly market” when the biggest holder sells. When you intervene in a market on such a large scale there is always going to be trouble exiting. One answer to that is to not get too exposed in the first place and to me selling when others might be selling because of losses as well is classic Ivory Tower thinking.

None of that is Andrew Hausers fault as he is in this regard merely a humble functionary. So we shuld thank him for his thoughts that even if QE somehow was teleported away things would still be different.

Bringing all this together, our conversations with firms suggest the current sterling PMRR is of the
order of £150-250bn.

Meanwhile if Livesquawk are correct Switzerland might be adding more not less extraordinary monetary action. Also the original reason was external ( Swiss Franc) whereas now it seems to have spread.

Oxley said, “There is good reason to take the SNB’s forecasts seriously: it has not tended to change its policy stance in the past unless its inflation forecast foresees deflation at some point over its three-year horizon. If the bank crosses the deflationary Rubicon again, this would lend support to our below-consensus view that the bank will end up cutting the policy rate to -1.00pct in the first half of 2020.”

 

 

 

A new era of US QE starts with it being renamed Reserve Management

Last night saw something of an epoch making event as all eyes turned to Denver Colorado. This time it was not for the famous “hurry up offence” of John Elway in the NFL but instead there was a speech by Jerome Powell the Chair of the US Federal Reserve. In it he confirmed something I have been writing about on here for some time and the emphasis is mine.

Reserve balances are one among several items on the liability side of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, and demand for these liabilities—notably, currency in circulation—grows over time. Hence, increasing the supply of reserves or even maintaining a given level over time requires us to increase the size of our balance sheet. As we indicated in our March statement on balance sheet normalization, at some point, we will begin increasing our securities holdings to maintain an appropriate level of reserves. That time is now upon us.

This of course raises my QE ( Quantitative Easing) to infinity theme. I also note Chair Powell raises the issue of the balance sheet so let us look at that. It peaked at around US $4.5 trillion as we moved into 2015 and stayed there until October 2017 when the era of QT ( Quantitative Tightening) or reverse QE began and it began to shrink. Over the last year it shrank from US $4.17 trillion to US $3.76 trillion before the repo crisis struck.

In mid-September, an important channel in the transmission process—wholesale funding markets—exhibited unexpectedly intense volatility. Payments to meet corporate tax obligations and to purchase Treasury securities triggered notable liquidity pressures in money markets. Overnight interest rates spiked, and the effective federal funds rate briefly moved above the FOMC’s target range. To counter these pressures, we began conducting temporary open market operations. These operations have kept the federal funds rate in the target range and alleviated money market strains more generally.

What this misses out is that US Dollar liquidity has been singing along with Queen for some time.

Pressure: pushing down on me,
Pressing down on you, no man ask for.
Under pressure that burns a building down,
Splits a family in two,
Puts people on streets.

Here I am from the 25th of September last year.

The question to my mind going forwards is will we see a reversal in the QT or Quantitative Tightening era? The supply of US Dollars is now being reduced by it and we wait to see what the consequences are.

As you can see the phrase “unexpectedly intense volatility” is not true of anyone who is a follower of my work. One way of looking at this is that forwards pricing of the US Dollar has been in the wrong place for theory. This is one of the reasons why German bond yields have gone so negative ( as I type this the benchmark ten-year yield is -0.58%) because if you try to switch to US Treasury Bonds to gain the 1.54% or 2% higher yield you find that exchange rates take away the gain. To get a higher yield you have to take an exchange rate risk. Returning to the Chair Powell statement we see that it is more realistic to say we were hovering near an edge and then slipped over it.

If we return to the balance sheet we see that it has risen to US $3.95 trillion for a rise of the order of 190 billion in response to the repo crisis. The exact amount varies daily with the individual repo operations and also fortnightly as we now have those too. Just as an example the difference between the operations on Monday and yesterday was some US $9.55 billion lower. I point this out as some places have been claiming you add the repo operations up which is really rather odd when most so far only have the lifespan of a Mayfly.

Those who analyse events via the prism of bank reserves should be happy with this bit.

Indeed, my colleagues and I will soon announce measures to add to the supply of reserves over time. Consistent with a decision we made in January, our goal is to provide an ample supply of reserves to ensure that control of the federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates is exercised primarily by setting our administered rates and not through frequent market interventions.

An official denial

By now you should all know how to treat this.

I want to emphasize that growth of our balance sheet for reserve management purposes should in no way be confused with the large-scale asset purchase programs that we deployed after the financial crisis.

Indeed the next part is simply untrue or if you are less kind a lie.

Neither the recent technical issues nor the purchases of Treasury bills we are contemplating to resolve them should materially affect the stance of monetary policy, to which I now turn.

One of the roles of a central bank is setting interest-rates as part of monetary policy. Those who follow my podcasts will know I defined it as there second role after the existence and provision of a currency, in this case the US Dollar. Briefly monetary policy was affected as overnight interest-rates went outside the official range as described below by the Financial Times.

the pressures that bubbled up in September and sent the cost of borrowing cash overnight via repurchase, or repo, agreements as high as 10 per cent.

That is not as large as you might think as the impact is only for each day but it was way outside the official range. Also there were times when the role of a central bank was in setting the interest-rate for overnight money in terms of its monetary policy. The credit crunch moved events along as that did not have the hoped for impact on the real economy ( and hence we got QE) but the underlying principle remains.

Comment

So we find that the new version of Quantitative Easing or what will no doubt be called QE4 had the champagne bottle smashed on it last night by Jerome Powell as it got ready to go down to the slipway. It remains for it to be fully fitted out as I do not believe it will stop here.

making the case instead for the Fed to buy anywhere from $200bn to more than $300bn of shorter-dated Treasury bills over the next six months. ( Financial Times)

As you can see the lower estimate pretty much coincides with the change in the balance sheet do far with the repo operations. The larger amount perhaps aims for some sort of margin.

The difference between this and the QE we have seen so far is the term of the assets purchased. Treasury Bills last for up to a year whereas Treasury Bonds are for longer periods of time with what is called the long bond being for thirty-years. Also bills do not pay interest as you pay less for them to allow for that.

So there are minor differences with past QE efforts but the direction of travel is the same. Let me put it another way with this from the US Federal Reserve,

Total assets of the Federal Reserve have increased significantly from $870 billion on August 8th, 2007

They have indeed as we wonder how long it will be before we get back to the previous peak of US $4.5 trillion and presumably beyond.

If QE really worked it would not need so many new names would it? Japan now calls it QQE and now the US calls it reserve management. Perhaps Governor Carney will call it climate-related QE.