QE3 is on

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,828
184
106
Markets not really budging too much, looks like they already priced it in.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,037
1,135
126
Thought things were looking OK at least on Wall Street. What is the need for QE3?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Thought things were looking OK at least on Wall Street. What is the need for QE3?

A november election. Bump up the economy ever so slightly to help the incumbent. Afterwards, nothing has changed except we have that much more debt on the books.
 

Franz316

Golden Member
Sep 12, 2000
1,025
550
136
Print mo money!! This should make gas go even higher, yay for us!

I really fail to see how buying mortgage debt will help the labor market, maybe I am missing something? All I see this doing is devaluing the dollar even more.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
My guess is it has more to do with weakness in Europe (are they choosing Japanification (http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2008/07/deflation-and-bank-bailouts-in-japan.html) to deal with their debt problems and in doing so perhaps sending a shockwave of deflation to our shores?), and especially in China (just announced another stimulus program ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/802681-crouching-tiger-hidden-profit) perhaps the quid pro quo was for Bernanke to promote inflation in the Chinese economy to maintain status quo (no economy hard landing and no political instability / revolution) for them http://seekingalpha.com/article/713691-china-beyond-the-hard-soft-landing-debate ?) more than the U. S. economy per se.

Could also be that Bernanke was expected to do his share to promote global growth if Germany has already capitaluated a bit to allow some bond buying, China announced another stimulus program, South Korea also.
"The coordinated move by governments to lower interest and supply liquidity to banks and governments, has tipped the hand of world leaders. It will be seen as inflationary, but it is actually an anti-deflationary move. It is a concerted action to off-set deleveraging. In my opinion it is a test run leading to further action as necessary, and it will involve almost every major nation in the world. The immediate reaction this time was money flying into equity markets around the world. The following days and weeks should tell us much more about the direction we are headed. Hopefully we will be able to avert a panic. If not…stay tuned."

http://www.paulnathan.biz/commentaries/111-at-the-point-of-panic.html


It will be fairly spun by Romney and Republicans as Bernanke bailing out Obama (which is patently false, because this move will just bring up bail out rage all over again, which hurts, not helps Obama), but Benanke really does seem to be a straight shooter, so probably have to listen carefully to what he says during q & a session today, then wait 6, 9, 12 months, and look back at his actions retrospectively to determine whether it was prudent or not...

Something like only 11% of all active money managers are beating index, so if Bernanke believes in the power of wealth effect in promoting economic growth, he has probably caught a lot of money managers flat footed, and perhaps having to chase the markets into year end (?)

So maybe in this way he gets more bang for his buck vs. waiting till December.
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
fed%20debade.jpg


Race to Debase: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fed-losing-race-debase






Shadow Banking System as Inflation Buffer (U. S. > Europe): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/verge-historic-inversion-shadow-banking
Shadow%20vs%20Traditional%20Liabilities%20_0.jpg


Shadow%20Appendix%20A_0.jpg


Deloitte%20Shadow_0.png



"What shadow banking has been for America is nothing short of an inflation buffer. Recall what the primary characteristic of shadow banking is: it performs all the traditional credit intermediation transformations that conventional banking entities do: Maturity, Credit and Liquidity.

However, unlike traditional banks, shadow banking has one huge deficiency: it has no deposits! In other words, the entire rickety shadow banking system is based simply on the good faith and credit that rehypothecated assets (http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...d_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/) converted into liabilities, and so on (think repos and reverse repos) courtesy of fractional reserve credit formation (recall rehypothecation), are valid and credible sources of liquidity. While that may be the case in a leveraging environment, i.e., in the expansionary phase of the ponzi, it no longer works when systematically deleveraging, i.e., where we are now.

It also explains why with collapsing shadow banking system it is purely up to traditional banks to grow if not to create additional credit-money instruments, then simply to plug the hole that is created every quarter with the expiration of more shadow liabilities. Because, once again, these are not of the Federal Reserve note variety, but credit instruments themselves, which in time maturity, and effectively take money out of the system all else equal.

Most importantly, it also explains why Goldman IS right, and the Fed has no choice but to shift to a "flow" reserve creation format, at least until such time as the balance of shadow liabilities is offset by generic liabilities: i.e., deposits.

However, there is a rub. As we noted previously, shadow banking is simply an inflation buffer: since there are no deposits, there is little risk of the "money" contained in the banking system from furiously vacating and be used to spur purchases of everything from 1,000x P/E/ stocks, to overvalued housing, to just being packed away safely in a mattress. In other words, the Shadow Banking system is circular as the money contained therein is self-contained.

Not so for deposits. Just ask any banker, central or otherwise, especially in Europe, who has had to deal with the threat of bank runs.

The biggest paradox is that as the US financial system takes more and more steps back, and reverts to a more conventional system (look at Europe as a paradigm of what is coming), the risk that incremental money creation by the Fed will eventually spur inflation rises exponentially, as more and more "money" ends up residing within conventional bank deposit accounts.

That currently there are just shy of $10 trillion give or take in consolidated deposits across the US financial system, on total liabilities of $30 trillion, is the only reason why the Fed has still be unable to spawn the kind of "virtuous" inflation that Bernanke dreams about every night but is unable to create.

Said inflation buffer, however, is getting smaller and smaller every quarter, and at this rate, shadow banking as a transformational conduit will completely disappear in a few short years, at which point everything will be in the hands of fickle depositors.

It is then, that America will finally figure out why Germany and the Bundesbank, are so leery of runaway printing. Because while the US still has the benefit of shadow liabilities, Europe does not. And Schauble, Merkel, and Weidmann, not to mention the German population (at least subconsciously) all know this."
 
Last edited:

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,828
184
106
Okay, looks like everyone was out to lunch earlier (literally). Big rally, I lose again by not buying.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
I'm surprised that he made such a big move. I sold most of my holdings in advance for my loss ;_;
 

thestrangebrew1

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2011
4,063
760
126
Just curious but you guys seem pretty privvy on stocks etc. Do you guys listen to shows like Planet Money & Freakonomics? I haven't listened to their shows in a while but I really enjoyed them.
 

Hoober

Diamond Member
Feb 9, 2001
4,417
62
91
Just curious but you guys seem pretty privvy on stocks etc. Do you guys listen to shows like Planet Money & Freakonomics? I haven't listened to their shows in a while but I really enjoyed them.

I read a lot, and not just mainstream media. I don't follow most of the talking heads on TV. I think they're full of shit.

There are a good deal of differing opinions on quantitative easing, and whether or not it's really going to help the economy in the long run. In the end, you have to educate yourself and form your own opinions.

Personally, unless you're making policy (Congress), or a banker, I think you're screwed just about any way you look at it. You can hedge, and you can try to do your best to protect and grow what you have, but in the end, I think our children, and our children's children, are screwed.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86

This is part of the problem with ZH posters, they think in terms of everything having to be full reserve lending as being the only way to run a monetary system. Further, they think that the only way to fund a bank is to have deposits for the entire bucket of assets in a bank rather than funding specific assets at specific levels, even moreso for non-financial entities. Ripping on stuff like ABS/MBS/ABCP for being "non deposit funding" is silly, sure, the funding doesn't come from deposits, but it is not a contained pool of money. The funding comes from a variety of sources.

As far as saying it is containing inflation, sorry, but that's wrong. What is containing inflation is a lack of velocity, manufacturing slack, offshoring, deflationary tendancies after a credit bubble...etc.
 

Hoober

Diamond Member
Feb 9, 2001
4,417
62
91
As far as saying it is containing inflation, sorry, but that's wrong. What is containing inflation is a lack of velocity, manufacturing slack, offshoring, deflationary tendancies after a credit bubble...etc.

I don't know how anybody in the world can say these policies are containing inflation. It's ludicrous.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I don't know how anybody in the world can say these policies are containing inflation. It's ludicrous.

They aren't causing inflation either. "Shadow banking" does neither, at least in the sense of asset backed finance, it just separates assets and investors from the originators.

For example, what is the difference between John Deere having $1bn in John Deere loans on its balance sheet and investors investing in JD as a whole compared to having JD finance those loans separate from JD itself. Either way you need to analyze the $1bn in loans, whether they are a part of JD or separate. Many say that the $1bn in loans being off of JD's BS is non-inflationary, but it is a net zero difference.

Others say that you are trying to peg value to an "uncertain" flow of future cashflows. Sure you are, in the sense that you don't know the future 100% certain. If you cannot balance risk/return in the sense of future flows than you shouldn't take out $1 of debt.

This is why I read ZH every morning but dismiss about 80% of it as illogical anarchist tripe.

Now the other form of "shadow banking", such as investments going into oil and other commodities, I agree that IS causing inflation. Other policies, such as ethanol, is causing more in the food system.
 

Kroze

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
4,052
1
0
Can someone explain to me in layman's term what's all this mean? Is this the Fed's last resort to save the economy or are they building a bubble for one of the largest depression ever known?
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Liberals are the only people stupid enough to believe that when what they are doing fails it is simply because they didn't do it enough.....let's keep trying the same stupid crap over and over again. Liberals really are having a hard time accepting that they have completely destroyed the first world in less than century.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Liberals are the only people stupid enough to believe that when what they are doing fails it is simply because they didn't do it enough.....let's keep trying the same stupid crap over and over again. Liberals really are having a hard time accepting that they have completely destroyed the first world in less than century.

I really wonder who you think the last non-liberal president was.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,634
6,016
136
LOL, everyone was saying the exact same things as you guys in the early 80s. and the early 70s. and the mid-60s. and the 30s. and the 1890s.