The Fed
is expected to announce a little after 2 p.m. that it will
ease monetary policy by rearranging its holdings of Treasury
securities to include more long-term bonds. By raising the average
maturity of the $1.65 trillion in Treasury securities it owns, the
Fed hopes to lower interest rates on long-term bonds and stimulate
borrowing and spending.
Fed-watchers have dubbed this procedure "Operation Twist," after
a
similar step taken by the Fed during John F. Kennedy's
presidency in 1961. The idea is to make the Fed's portfolio more
stimulative without changing the overall size of its balance
sheet.
Here's a snapshot of the Fed's current assets, provided by the
Cleveland Fed:
The bottom two sections represent, roughly, the Fed's Treasury
holdings. The orange bar is traditional holdings, and the mustard
is longer-term assets of the kind the Fed purchased in its QE2
program. The sharp increase in Long Term Treasury Purchases
beginning in late 2010 marks QE2.
What Operation Twist will do, in effect, is decrease the size of
the orange bar and increase the size of the mustard bar, which will
leave the overall level of Fed assets unchanged.
What everyone wants to know, of course, is whether this will
help the economy -- or, alternatively, spark inflation. Based on
the impact of QE2, and the limited size of a possible Operation
Twist, it seems probably that it won't have much of a measurable
impact one way or another. Bloomberg suggests that the Fed will
begin "selling securities with one to three years remaining
maturity, and purchasing mostly those with seven to 12-year
maturity." The simple fact is that there aren't enough bonds of
one- to three-years remaining maturity among the Fed's assets to do
anything on the scale of QE2.
As an illustration of this fact, here's a graph showing the
Fed's total Treasury holdings (blue line) relative to its holdings
of Treasury securities marturing in less than five years (green
line) and less than one year (red line).
Given that there's significant overlap between the categories,
it's fairly clear that the Fed is limited in how many Treasury
bonds maturing in less than three years it has to sell. And
considering that Operation Twist-style swaps of short-term for
long-term bonds is less stimulative than QE2-style outright
purchases of long-term bonds, there's clearly a ceiling to what the
Fed can accomplish through Operation Twist. According to Bloomberg,
the Fed's goal will be to bring down yields on longer-term bonds by
0.1 percent. Whether that's realistic or not, it wouldn't satisfy
the Fed's dovish critics, nor should it scare inflation
hawks.
"America tried precisely that in 1961. To lower long-term rates
the administration of John Kennedy persuaded the Federal Reserve to
co-operate with the Treasury in selling (shorter-term) bills and
using the proceeds to purchase (longer-term) bonds. By altering the
supply of different types of debt, the idea was to “twist” the
yield curve. This came to be known as Operation Twist after the
early 1960s dance craze sparked by Chubby Checker, a singer whose
views on QE are not known.
Operation Twist has long been considered a failure. Early studies
found little impact on yields, vindicating those who argued that
the price of a security depends only on expectations—of inflation,
for example, or monetary policy—not its relative supply."
Sad that we are so aware of changes to our social media but
clueless about our money which most of us "don't care about" yet
are enslaved to. http://youtu.be/QxahtcEfHyw
Clint| 9.21.11 @ 2:43PM
"America tried precisely that in 1961. To lower long-term rates the administration of John Kennedy persuaded the Federal Reserve to co-operate with the Treasury in selling (shorter-term) bills and using the proceeds to purchase (longer-term) bonds. By altering the supply of different types of debt, the idea was to “twist” the yield curve. This came to be known as Operation Twist after the early 1960s dance craze sparked by Chubby Checker, a singer whose views on QE are not known.
Operation Twist has long been considered a failure. Early studies found little impact on yields, vindicating those who argued that the price of a security depends only on expectations—of inflation, for example, or monetary policy—not its relative supply."
joshua gamen| 9.22.11 @ 1:26AM
Sad that we are so aware of changes to our social media but clueless about our money which most of us "don't care about" yet are enslaved to. http://youtu.be/QxahtcEfHyw