Panel on Shrinking the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Arvind Krishnamurthy, Sydney C. Ludvigson, Jonathan H. Wright
{"title":"Panel on Shrinking the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet","authors":"Arvind Krishnamurthy, Sydney C. Ludvigson, Jonathan H. Wright","doi":"10.1353/eca.2022.a901273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Panel on Shrinking the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Arvind Krishnamurthy, Sydney C. Ludvigson, and Jonathan H. Wright </li> </ul> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Lessons for Policy from Research <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Arvind Krishnamurthy </li> </ul> ABSTRACT <p>I review lessons from the research on central bank actions over the last decade and draw out implications for expanding the Federal Reserve balance sheet (quantitative easing) and shrinking the balance sheet (quantitative tightening). As I outline, there is already enough evidence in the research to indicate the manner in which the Federal Reserve could update its policy normalization principles and plans.</p> <p>Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke famously quipped, in a 2014 discussion at the Brookings Institution, that \"the problem with QE is that it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory.\" Academic and policy research on quantitative easing (QE) has come quite far over the last decade, and we are less in the dark about the workings of QE. In this paper, I review the lessons from this research and then draw out implications for expanding the Federal Reserve balance sheet (QE) and shrinking the balance sheet (quantitative tightening, or QT).</p> <p>There are three principal lessons from the research: (1) QE works differently than conventional monetary policy in that the impacts are highest in the asset market targeted. (2) QE impacts are highest during periods of financial distress, market segmentation, and illiquidity. While this statement is likely also true of conventional policy, the effects are much more dramatic with QE. (3) QE alters the quantity of central bank reserves, and the post-2008 regulatory and economic regime implies substantially higher necessary reserve balances. I review each of these points and then turn to their implications for the formulation of rules governing QE/QT. The Fed <strong>[End Page 233]</strong></p> <br/> Click for larger view<br/> View full resolution Figure 1. <p>Yield Changes by Maturity from UK QE for UK Gilts and Gilt-OIS Spreads</p> <p>Source: Joyce and others (2011); copyright Bank of England and the Association of the International Journal of Central Banking; adapted with permission.</p> <p></p> <p>currently uses QE in two ways: to provide liquidity to markets during financial illiquidity episodes (\"crisis QE\") and to lower financing costs for borrowers at a time when the zero lower bound binds (\"easing QE\"). I argue that rules for these two types of policies should differ, but that the Fed has blurred the lines between them which has led to policy errors.</p> <h2>I. Lessons from Research</h2> <h3>I.A. QE Works through Narrow Channels</h3> <p>Joyce and others (2011) present data from an event study around two significant QE news dates in 2009 by the Bank of England. On February 11, 2009, the <em>Inflation Report</em> and the subsequent press conference gave a strong indication that the bank would do QE. Markets interpreted this to mean that the bank would purchase bonds out to around fifteen-year maturity. On March 5, 2009, the bank announced that purchases would be in the five- to twenty-five-year range. Figure 1, replicating figure 4 in Joyce and others (2011), shows the changes in gilt yields around the event dates and the changes in the spread between gilt and overnight index swap (OIS) yields around these dates. Panel A shows the market reaction to the <strong>[End Page 234]</strong> February announcements: yields fall across the board. The pattern is similar to a conventional policy response in that there are larger effects on short-term bonds than longer-term bonds. In the curve showing the yield-OIS spread change, we see unique QE effects. If the policy transmission is akin to conventional monetary policy, there should be no change in these spreads as we would expect that both gilt yields and OIS yields will move in lockstep so that their spread would not change. Panel B shows the market reaction to the March announcement, and here we can really see the unique QE effects. First note that the effect on gilt yields is concentrated in the five- to twenty-five-year range, which the bank indicated as the target of QE purchases, with yields in the fifteen- to twenty-five-year range falling dramatically on the news that these maturities would also be purchased. Second, note that the yield-OIS spread change reflects the...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2022.a901273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Panel on Shrinking the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet
  • Arvind Krishnamurthy, Sydney C. Ludvigson, and Jonathan H. Wright
  • Lessons for Policy from Research
  • Arvind Krishnamurthy
ABSTRACT

I review lessons from the research on central bank actions over the last decade and draw out implications for expanding the Federal Reserve balance sheet (quantitative easing) and shrinking the balance sheet (quantitative tightening). As I outline, there is already enough evidence in the research to indicate the manner in which the Federal Reserve could update its policy normalization principles and plans.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke famously quipped, in a 2014 discussion at the Brookings Institution, that "the problem with QE is that it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory." Academic and policy research on quantitative easing (QE) has come quite far over the last decade, and we are less in the dark about the workings of QE. In this paper, I review the lessons from this research and then draw out implications for expanding the Federal Reserve balance sheet (QE) and shrinking the balance sheet (quantitative tightening, or QT).

There are three principal lessons from the research: (1) QE works differently than conventional monetary policy in that the impacts are highest in the asset market targeted. (2) QE impacts are highest during periods of financial distress, market segmentation, and illiquidity. While this statement is likely also true of conventional policy, the effects are much more dramatic with QE. (3) QE alters the quantity of central bank reserves, and the post-2008 regulatory and economic regime implies substantially higher necessary reserve balances. I review each of these points and then turn to their implications for the formulation of rules governing QE/QT. The Fed [End Page 233]


Click for larger view
View full resolution Figure 1.

Yield Changes by Maturity from UK QE for UK Gilts and Gilt-OIS Spreads

Source: Joyce and others (2011); copyright Bank of England and the Association of the International Journal of Central Banking; adapted with permission.

currently uses QE in two ways: to provide liquidity to markets during financial illiquidity episodes ("crisis QE") and to lower financing costs for borrowers at a time when the zero lower bound binds ("easing QE"). I argue that rules for these two types of policies should differ, but that the Fed has blurred the lines between them which has led to policy errors.

I. Lessons from Research

I.A. QE Works through Narrow Channels

Joyce and others (2011) present data from an event study around two significant QE news dates in 2009 by the Bank of England. On February 11, 2009, the Inflation Report and the subsequent press conference gave a strong indication that the bank would do QE. Markets interpreted this to mean that the bank would purchase bonds out to around fifteen-year maturity. On March 5, 2009, the bank announced that purchases would be in the five- to twenty-five-year range. Figure 1, replicating figure 4 in Joyce and others (2011), shows the changes in gilt yields around the event dates and the changes in the spread between gilt and overnight index swap (OIS) yields around these dates. Panel A shows the market reaction to the [End Page 234] February announcements: yields fall across the board. The pattern is similar to a conventional policy response in that there are larger effects on short-term bonds than longer-term bonds. In the curve showing the yield-OIS spread change, we see unique QE effects. If the policy transmission is akin to conventional monetary policy, there should be no change in these spreads as we would expect that both gilt yields and OIS yields will move in lockstep so that their spread would not change. Panel B shows the market reaction to the March announcement, and here we can really see the unique QE effects. First note that the effect on gilt yields is concentrated in the five- to twenty-five-year range, which the bank indicated as the target of QE purchases, with yields in the fifteen- to twenty-five-year range falling dramatically on the news that these maturities would also be purchased. Second, note that the yield-OIS spread change reflects the...

关于缩减美联储资产负债表的小组
文章摘要:本文回顾了过去十年中央银行行为研究的经验教训,并提出了扩大美联储资产负债表(量化宽松)和缩小资产负债表(量化紧缩)的启示。正如我概述的那样,研究中已经有足够的证据表明,美联储可以以何种方式更新其政策正常化原则和计划。前美联储主席本·伯南克在2014年布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institution)的一次讨论中有一句著名的俏皮话:“量化宽松的问题在于,它在实践中有效,但在理论上不起作用。”在过去的十年里,关于量化宽松的学术和政策研究已经取得了长足的进步,我们对量化宽松的运作方式也不那么一无所知了。在本文中,我回顾了这项研究的经验教训,然后得出了扩大美联储资产负债表(QE)和缩小资产负债表(量化紧缩,QT)的含义。从这项研究中可以得出三个主要教训:(1)量化宽松与传统货币政策的作用不同,因为其对目标资产市场的影响最大。(2)在金融困境、市场分割和流动性不足时期,量化宽松的影响最大。尽管这种说法可能也适用于传统政策,但其对量化宽松的影响要大得多。(3)量化宽松改变了央行准备金的数量,2008年后的监管和经济机制意味着必要准备金余额大幅增加。我回顾了每一点,然后转向它们对制定量化宽松/QT规则的影响。美联储[End Page 233]点击查看大图查看全分辨率图1。英国量化宽松对英国国债和国债- ois息差的到期收益率变化来源:Joyce等(2011);版权归英格兰银行和中央银行国际期刊协会所有;经许可改编。目前使用量化宽松有两种方式:在金融流动性不足时期为市场提供流动性(“危机量化宽松”),以及在零利率下限生效时降低借款人的融资成本(“宽松量化宽松”)。我认为,这两种政策的规则应该有所不同,但美联储模糊了它们之间的界限,导致了政策错误。Joyce等人(2011)提出了2009年英国央行两次重大量化宽松新闻发布日期的事件研究数据。2009年2月11日,通货膨胀报告和随后的新闻发布会强烈暗示,央行将实施量化宽松。市场将此解读为央行将购买15年期左右的债券。2009年3月5日,央行宣布将在5至25年内购买国债。图1复制了Joyce等人(2011年)的图4,显示了事件日期前后英国国债收益率的变化,以及这些日期前后英国国债与隔夜指数掉期(OIS)收益率之间利差的变化。图A显示了市场对2月份公告的反应:收益率全面下跌。这种模式类似于传统的政策反应,对短期债券的影响大于对长期债券的影响。在显示收益率- ois息差变化的曲线中,我们看到了独特的量化宽松效应。如果政策传导与传统货币政策类似,那么这些息差应该不会发生变化,因为我们预计英国国债收益率和OIS收益率将同步变化,因此它们的息差不会改变。图B显示了市场对3月份声明的反应,在这里我们可以真正看到独特的量化宽松效应。首先要注意的是,对金边债券收益率的影响集中在5 - 25年的范围内,这是央行表示的量化宽松购买目标,而15 - 25年范围内的收益率在这些期限也将被购买的消息后急剧下降。其次,请注意,收益率- ois息差的变化反映了…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信