Download to read offline
![From 2008 to 2014, the Fed accumulated nearly $4.5 trillion in assets—a record level.
The Fed’s decision to end quantitative easing signaled confidence that the program has
helped to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the broader economy during the
last few years. Members of the Board of Governors voted 9 to 1 to end the program,
citing “a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market since the inception
of [the] current asset purchase program.” The Board explained that its decision to end
the program was based in part on the Federal Open Market Committee’s perception that
there is “sufficient underlying strength in the broader economy to support ongoing
progress toward maximum employment in a context of price stability.”
The announcement was not a surprise. Many analysts think quantitative easing has
helped the recovery, and the Fed has been winding down its asset purchases over the
past year. Indeed, the lack of market backlash illustrates the public sentiment about
quantitative easing at this stage in the recovery. Previously, Fed statements only hinting
at a drawback of quantitative easing reverberated through trading markets.
For example, in June 2013, stock markets fell about 4.3% over three days when former
Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed was merely considering
pulling back on quantitative easing in the event the economy continued to grow. This
time, markets remained stable in the wake of the announcement, and currently, stocks
are trading at the same level they were before the financial crisis.
Despite its apparent success, quantitative easing was not without its detractors. Some
observers think the program arbitrarily picked winners and losers by favoring certain
types of investments—in this case, housing market investments. Other commentators
have argued that quantitative easing contributed to inequality by making money more
easily available only to those who have it, including financial institutions, strategic
investors, and higher-earning individuals.
The long-term effects of the decision to end quantitative easing are unclear. While its
asset-buying program may have become less necessary, the Fed has a historically high
balance sheet. Before it began buying bank assets in 2008, the Fed held between $700
and $800 billion in treasury notes. Over the last six years, it has accumulated $4.5 trillion
in assets. The Fed’s unusually high balance sheet limits its ability to rely on quantitative
easing in the event of another crisis. And if the Fed ever decides to sell those assets, the
result might be to oversaturate an already congested market in mortgage-backed
securities.
But the Fed has not announced plans to sell its assets. If anything, it is more likely to
start with raising interest rates. Although the Fed described its plans to keep interest
rates low for a “considerable time”—between 0 to 1/4 percent for federal funds—it will
continue to adjust these rates in response to new economic activity, which cannot be
easily forecasted.
Tagged: Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, Financial Crisis
Nov 17, 2014 | PPR News
Professor Coglianese to
Lead New Initiative on Regu‐latory
Excellence
Nov 13, 2014 | PPR News
RECENT SERIES
Is it Time to Reconsider
Chevron Deference?
September 8, 2014 - September 11,
2014
Regulatory Essay Competi‐tion
Winners
July 7, 2014 - July 9, 2014
Debating the Independent
Retrospective Review of
Regulations
May 19, 2014 - May 23, 2014
Does Regulation Kill Jobs?
March 10, 2014 - March 18, 2014](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/7b61e984-8746-47ee-a705-f45cad33dd9e-141120204246-conversion-gate02/85/Fed-Ends-Quantitative-Easing-RegBlog-2-320.jpg)
Fed Ends Quantitative Easing | RegBlog
- 1. Home Contributors ResourcesAbout Us Submissions Contact Us NEWS · ANALYSIS · OPINION · SERIES · TOPICS · PPR NEWS · ARCHIVE Fed Ends Quantitative Easing Grayson Weeks | Nov 20, 2014 | News The Federal Reserve recently announced the end of its practice of purchasing financial assets from commercial banks—known as quantitative easing—that began as part of the Fed’s response to the 2008 financial crisis. The move represents a vote of confidence in the economy. In its press release, the Fed cited a number of reasons for ending its asset-buying program, including the “moderate pace” of economic expansion in the U.S., “diminishing underutilization” of resources, rising household spending, and increasing business investments. Quantitative easing is a monetary policy central banks use to stimulate economic activity. In short, it increases the money supply by giving financial institutions ready access to capital, encouraging lending and liquidity. To achieve this, central banks purchase financial assets from commercial banks. Banks will then remove many of these assets from the marketplace, decreasing their supply. This boosts their value and yield (the amount that purchasers receive back from their investment). It also increases the nation’s monetary base, which can boost commercial lending, consumer demand, and consumer spending. The Fed relied on quantitative easing as a main component of its effort to repair economic losses sustained during the 2008 financial crisis. Traditionally, the Fed holds almost entirely U.S. government bonds, which are considered a safe, neutral asset. To supplement its monetary policy strategy, the Fed turned to quantitative easing—normally a backup plan when low interest rates do not do enough to stimulate economic activity—and began purchasing mortgage-backed securities from commercial banks. The Fed intended that its program would flood money into the housing market, increasing demand for mortgages and making it easier for people to acquire home loans. Search this site MOST POPULAR Dodd-Frank’s Regulatory Morass Nov 10, 2014 | Opinion There is More to Mandatory Disclosure than Meets the Eye Oct 27, 2014 | Opinion How Fear Can Help Fight Ebola Oct 21, 2014 | Opinion Can Copyright Law Protect Revenge Porn Victims? Nov 6, 2014 | Analysis Gift Cards and the Potential for Money Laundering Apr 10, 2014 | Analysis FEATURED Fed Ends Quantitative Eas‐ing Nov 20, 2014 | News Proposed Tax Rule Would Help Domestic Abuse Sur‐vivors Get Affordable Health Coverage Nov 19, 2014 | News Making Student Loans More Affordable Nov 18, 2014 | News Improving Regulatory Agen‐da- Setting
- 2. From 2008 to2014, the Fed accumulated nearly $4.5 trillion in assets—a record level. The Fed’s decision to end quantitative easing signaled confidence that the program has helped to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the broader economy during the last few years. Members of the Board of Governors voted 9 to 1 to end the program, citing “a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market since the inception of [the] current asset purchase program.” The Board explained that its decision to end the program was based in part on the Federal Open Market Committee’s perception that there is “sufficient underlying strength in the broader economy to support ongoing progress toward maximum employment in a context of price stability.” The announcement was not a surprise. Many analysts think quantitative easing has helped the recovery, and the Fed has been winding down its asset purchases over the past year. Indeed, the lack of market backlash illustrates the public sentiment about quantitative easing at this stage in the recovery. Previously, Fed statements only hinting at a drawback of quantitative easing reverberated through trading markets. For example, in June 2013, stock markets fell about 4.3% over three days when former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed was merely considering pulling back on quantitative easing in the event the economy continued to grow. This time, markets remained stable in the wake of the announcement, and currently, stocks are trading at the same level they were before the financial crisis. Despite its apparent success, quantitative easing was not without its detractors. Some observers think the program arbitrarily picked winners and losers by favoring certain types of investments—in this case, housing market investments. Other commentators have argued that quantitative easing contributed to inequality by making money more easily available only to those who have it, including financial institutions, strategic investors, and higher-earning individuals. The long-term effects of the decision to end quantitative easing are unclear. While its asset-buying program may have become less necessary, the Fed has a historically high balance sheet. Before it began buying bank assets in 2008, the Fed held between $700 and $800 billion in treasury notes. Over the last six years, it has accumulated $4.5 trillion in assets. The Fed’s unusually high balance sheet limits its ability to rely on quantitative easing in the event of another crisis. And if the Fed ever decides to sell those assets, the result might be to oversaturate an already congested market in mortgage-backed securities. But the Fed has not announced plans to sell its assets. If anything, it is more likely to start with raising interest rates. Although the Fed described its plans to keep interest rates low for a “considerable time”—between 0 to 1/4 percent for federal funds—it will continue to adjust these rates in response to new economic activity, which cannot be easily forecasted. Tagged: Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, Financial Crisis Nov 17, 2014 | PPR News Professor Coglianese to Lead New Initiative on Regu‐latory Excellence Nov 13, 2014 | PPR News RECENT SERIES Is it Time to Reconsider Chevron Deference? September 8, 2014 - September 11, 2014 Regulatory Essay Competi‐tion Winners July 7, 2014 - July 9, 2014 Debating the Independent Retrospective Review of Regulations May 19, 2014 - May 23, 2014 Does Regulation Kill Jobs? March 10, 2014 - March 18, 2014
- 3. Fed May Increase Capital Holding Requirement for Large Banks Treasury Agency Struggles to Change Paper Money SEC Expands Disclosure Requirements for Asset-Backed Securities Proactive Regulation Related Posts GET REGBLOG'S WEEKLY EMAIL Email Address* First Name* Last Name* * = required field Subscribe FEATURED CONTRIBUTOR Susan Dudley Susan Dudley di‐rects the George Washington Uni‐versity Regulatory Studies Center and is a Research Professor in the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration. She served from 2007-2009 as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Reg‐ulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. FEATURED TOPIC: EPA GAO Says Congressional Re‐view Act Not Triggered by Proposed Rules Christian Latham Sep 3, 2014 | News How Much Could it Cost to Do Nothing? Christian Latham Aug 28, 2014 | News Rethinking the Value of Volun‐tary Environmental Programs Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash Aug 25, 2014 | Opinion More on this topic LINKS Penn Program on Regulation Penn Law E-Rulemaking RuleFinder regblog@law.upenn.edu | Penn Program on Regulation | Penn Law | Disclaimer Copyright © 2014 University of Pennsylvania Law School 3501 Sansom Street · Philadelphia, PA 19104