PDA

View Full Version : Fed to Buy $1 Trillion in Securities to Aid Economy


Homyrrh
03-18-2009, 02:53 PM
(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19fed.html?hp))
March 19, 2009
Fed to Buy $1 Trillion in Securities to Aid Economy
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON — Saying that the recession continues to deepen, the Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the mortgage market and longer-term Treasury securities in order to revive the economy.

“Job losses, declining equity and housing wealth, and tight credit conditions have weighed on consumer sentiment and spending,” the Fed said, adding that it would “employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability.”

As expected, the Fed kept its benchmark interest rate at virtually zero. But in a surprise, it dramatically increased the amount of money it will create out of thin air to thaw out the still-frozen credit markets that have cramped lending to consumers and businesses alike.The Fed said it would purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, on top of the $500 billion that it is currently in the process of buying. In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. That would tend to push down longer-term interest rates on loans of all types.

The Fed’s action got a positive reception on Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average, which had been down about 50 points before the 2:15 p.m. announcement, was up 80 points within a half-hour.

All of the Fed’s measures would come in addition to what has already been an unprecedented expansion of lending by the Fed. Since last September, the central bank has roughly doubled the size of its balance sheet from $900 billion to nearly $2 trillion — even before Wednesday’s action — mainly because of its efforts to rescue credit markets.

Despite a trickle of encouraging economic data in the last few weeks, Fed officials were clearly unimpressed and in no mood to cut back on their emergency efforts.

Fed policy makers sharply reduced their economic forecasts in December, predicting that the economy would continue to experience steep contractions for the first half of 2009, that unemployment that could approach 9 percent by the end of the year and that there was at least a small risk of an across-the-board drop in consumer prices akin to what Japan experienced for nearly a decade.

Hours before the Fed announced its decision on Wednesday, the Labor Department reported that consumer prices climbed 0.4 percent in January, the second consecutive monthly increase. The news provided some relief from deflation worries, but most analysts still expect prices to remain nearly flat for the foreseeable future. In their most recent forecast, Fed policy makers predicted that consumer prices would rise 0.3 to 1 percent this year — well below the central bank’s unofficial inflation target of nearly 2 percent.

The Federal Reserve slashed its benchmark interest rate to virtually zero in December, declaring that it would keep the rate at that level for “some time” and focusing its additional efforts to revive the economy on a wide range of new lending programs.

In a sign that it is even more worried than at its last meeting in January, the Fed said on Wednesday that it would keep its benchmark rate, the federal funds rate, at virtually zero for “an extended period.” While the central bank had said for some time that it was considering the possibility of buying longer-term Treasury bonds, Fed officials had played down that idea in the past month as they focused their attention instead on more targeted intervention in the credit markets.

In their statement on Wednesday, however, the Fed policy makers offered little explanation for the decision to go ahead with the Treasury purchases after all, saying only that the move was intended to “improve conditions in private credit markets.”

Since last September, new lending programs — including money for bailouts of individual companies like Citigroup, American International Group and Bank of America — have caused the Fed to print new money at the fastest pace in history. But much of that money has remained dormant, because the economic downturn has made banks reluctant to lend and businesses and consumers either reluctant or unable to borrow.

The Fed and the Treasury are in the process this week of starting a joint venture called the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative in their latest effort to revive the still-frozen credit markets. The program will start out by offering $200 billion worth of financing for consumer loans, small business loans and some corporate purposes like equipment leasing.

Fed officials have said they hope to expand the program next month, possibly to include the huge market for commercial mortgages, and both the Fed and Treasury hope the program will eventually provide up to $1 trillion in total financing.

QUENTIN
03-18-2009, 03:05 PM
An ever better, more economically beneficial move would be for them to dismantle.

jolanar
03-18-2009, 03:11 PM
An ever better, more economically beneficial move would be for them to dismantle.

Or at least allow itself to be regulated by Congress.

shoe1985
03-18-2009, 03:55 PM
If Bernake wasn't behind this, I would have no trust in this. But, Bernake has studied recessions and depressions, and I feel, knows what he is doing.

Goodness though, you wouldn't think we are in a recession right now, at least where I live. People are buying more now than during the holidays. People seem to be doing well right now.

Homyrrh
03-19-2009, 08:08 AM
An ever better, more economically beneficial move would be for them to dismantle.
It's really funny you say that...

Potter82
03-22-2009, 04:50 PM
I honestly have no clue whether or not this will work and honestly, I doubt many people truly do, it's such a complicated problem.

I have no doubt that we'll hear a lot of bitching and moaning about it's price tag which is admittedly quite high but honestly, what are the alternatives? Based on what I've heard, just letting AIG, Citi, and others fail would be far, far worse and that seems to be the only solution offered up by critics of this plan and others like it and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a financial institution far smaller than AIG, Citi, etc. was one of the most damaging occurences based on what I've heard in this entire recession.

It will be interesting to see how the stock market reacts to this once details are released on monday. Based on what I've heard, hedge fund managers are really in favour of the idea so we'll see.

I also think that Bernake is somewhat knowledge on this topic given his background. He basically inherited this mess from Greenspan and he should be given a chance - that goes for Geithner as well. I am just amazed when I hear people call for Geithner's resignation - as if that would help anything. He's sort of a scapegoat based on what I can see and hasn't done anything deserving of being fired yet, though I do think he needs to fix the staffing woes asap, even if that means relaxing the lobbyist restrictions, which I think is at the heart of the top level staffing shortage at the treasury. Clearly that policy has led to some unintended consequences, i.e. the staffing woes.

The way I see it, there is a lot of pent up anger and frustration revolving around this thing and I worry that peoples' emotions over the money being spent on this thing will derail possibly productive solutions and will thus only aggravate the problem even more. This is a problem that will require patience and risk taking and honestly... I don't know if many in the general population are mature enough to handle it. People seem to want this problem fixed without paying any sort of price for it, it's unfortunate really. If anything this is a time to be bold and a time to question long held assumptions, not to hold on to them.

shoe1985
03-22-2009, 06:22 PM
What many people don't understand is that even 1 of these companies were to go under, they would be impacted by this. You know how they say a company is "Too big to fail?" Well, what happens if they do? Well, these are one of those companies, and the impact would be more severe than pushing up our deficit.

The Heart Collector
03-22-2009, 08:33 PM
If Bernake wasn't behind this, I would have no trust in this. But, Bernake has studied recessions and depressions, and I feel, knows what he is doing.

Boy, do I have news for you.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/11/bernanke-an-expert-on-the-great-depression/

shoe1985
03-22-2009, 09:58 PM
Boy, do I have news for you.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/11/bernanke-an-expert-on-the-great-depression/

See, anyone can go and critique someone's work. Is it right or wrong? Yes and no. Many people believe that FDR's New Deal had nothing with getting us out of the Depression, others will disagree.

Bernanke, who I believe is the right guy for the job, was a professor at one of the best universities in this country, and in this world. He has gone through a lot of research to come to his conclusions, which this person that wrote on him probably spent minutes going through the paper, and disagreeing with what he wrote.

I didn't read the whole article, quite lengthy, but yes, everyone has an opinion on what created and ended the Great Depression. Bernanke had the resources and time to study the Depression, something most of us don't have.

Your source does suck though. He mentions that he hasn't even read the book Bernanke wrote, so, he is just writing on a journal, which was more than likely shortened so people would buy the book.

Then the last paragraph is blaming deflation, which did not occur until late into this current crisis. Which usually happens in a recession. If anything, inflation cause this current crisis much more than deflation. Think about this, would we be where we are now if gas prices had not hit $4 a gallon?

I studied the Great Depression in a few classes in college, but not in-depth. A current class I am working on now, is studying the current crisis, mainly looking at the cause of it. People want to say one problem caused everything, but it wasn't one problem, but many small problems that created a massive bubble, then one day that bubble exploded.

Credit Default Swaps are one of the main reasons we are currently in the spot we are in. Then the housing crisis occurred, gas hit $4 a gallon forcing people to make drastic cutbacks, then the banking crisis happened, and along with this, we are finding even more problems in the mix. We are losing jobs at an incredible rate to overseas markets because we lack the skill level to perform those jobs. Along with this, we are finding that our infrastructure sucks. We are nowhere near ready energy wise for the future because we relied on oil for so long.

Everything has hit at once, and this is why we are in the situation we are in. It wasn't just the housing crisis. It wasn't just credit default swaps or the banking crisis, it was many problems forming this massive bubble, that just happened to catch up to us, and burst.

So, we rebuild to be a stronger country. We make the needed changes: add stronger regulations, get the banks back in order, help people stay in their homes, get our children educated for the future, fix our crumbling infrastructure for the future, and move past oil and onto renewable energy resources.

We can look at the Great Depression, and see how that helped us prepare for the future.

Potter82
03-23-2009, 03:04 PM
well, the stock market seems to definitely like this plan, it's up around 400 points today. Except now to see a surge in support for this plan and an end to calls for Geithner's head. To oppose the plan now when the market seems to favour it would be put people in a difficult position especially since the GOP were blaming every recent dip in the stock market on Obama - for them to oppose it now would be risk to calls that they are putting the economy at risk for the purposes of ideology, but then again, Republicans don't seem to grasp the concept of hypocrisy

The Heart Collector
03-23-2009, 11:37 PM
There is nothing wrong with the source not having read the entire book. The source acknowledges that. Bernanke's ideas are not original. He follows the Friedman explanation. The author is familiar with the Friedman explanation. That is the gist of his criticism: that Bernanke seems to be only focused on that explanation and on nothing else, and that explanation is severely lacking because Friedman's monetarist economic beliefs are disproven in many ways.

shoe1985
03-24-2009, 09:48 AM
well, the stock market seems to definitely like this plan, it's up around 400 points today. Except now to see a surge in support for this plan and an end to calls for Geithner's head. To oppose the plan now when the market seems to favour it would be put people in a difficult position especially since the GOP were blaming every recent dip in the stock market on Obama - for them to oppose it now would be risk to calls that they are putting the economy at risk for the purposes of ideology, but then again, Republicans don't seem to grasp the concept of hypocrisy

Of course the market was up, it was helping Wall Street out. But yes, in times like these, you take risky moves hoping it improves things.

There is nothing wrong with the source not having read the entire book. The source acknowledges that. Bernanke's ideas are not original. He follows the Friedman explanation. The author is familiar with the Friedman explanation. That is the gist of his criticism: that Bernanke seems to be only focused on that explanation and on nothing else, and that explanation is severely lacking because Friedman's monetarist economic beliefs are disproven in many ways.

And yet, we can say all economic beliefs can be wrong in some way. Which is why you add a little of each belief to create the best one. Do you honestly belief we don't use some of Friedman's ideas?

It is like us being a capitalist country, and people are so against socialism. I have a little nugget of fact for you and them, we have parts of socialism in our country. We have to, to survive.

Potter82
03-24-2009, 01:55 PM
You know, I'm getting pretty tired of people saying "let them fail" as if that is even a viable option. This argument seems to be driven entirely by emotion and not say, actual data or logic.

Yes we can all agree in principle that is wrong for someone to be rewarded for engaging in bad behaviour or for failing but this isn't some hypothetical moral dilemma existing purely in the abstract - this is real life, with real life consequences - including for people who themselves are completely innocent.

People who seem to say "let them fail' don't seem to think of the consequences, if anything they dismiss it by saying "we'll get through it" well that's encouraging! Why can't people understand that concept of the lesser or two evils? That sometimes you must do something distasteful to avoid a more harsh, unforgiving fate such as giving money to these institutions to avoid a much, much worse financial situation. If I am wrong and letting these institutions fail would someone "improve" the economic crisis then let me know because I haven't seen anyone who actually knows what they're talking about seriously advocate that the gov let huge institutions like AIG or Citi fail.

The argument should be; what is the best, most effective way to fix the financial system in a way that will benefit the greatest number of people while doing the least amount of harm? Not; should we risk long term, widespread economic suffering just to satisfy our moral sensibilities in the short term?