Film Finance Economics Banking Tax Markets
There are many sides to this story but the four most important issues which
I’ll focus on are inflation, Government budget deficits, interest rates and
The financial crisis in 2008 followed a massive credit expansion of
unprecedented scale, fuelled by ultra low interest rates of the Greenspan era
and financial innovation in “asset backed” instruments driven by distorted
incentives inside banks which were unconstrained by sound regulation. When the
asset bubble burst, these instuments ‘ value came crashing down and the assets
supporting them were so remote that the holders had no transparent view of their
real, physical value. Accordingly no-one was willing to purchase thrm and whole
markets ceased to function, including those which did have transparent
What this amounted to for banks was an inability to perform their day to day
business, as banks depend on these markets to lend to businesses to keep the
economy going. It was a massive credit contraction that threatened to collapse
the economy in on itsself. The Government had no choice but to step in and bail
the banks out, not because of any law or contract, but because of the economic
consequences if it didn’t. The consequences for the Government, of course, were
a massive increase in borrowings, almost to unmanagable levels. These borrowings
are raised by the Federal Reserve issuing US Treasury Bonds.
So we have bond investors facing massive losses, banks unable to borrow or
lend leading to a massive transfer of funds from the Government, which in turn
is funded by Government bonds in the Treasury market. So who is buying the
The answer is, in part, the Fed. And it is doing so specifically to inject
money into the financial system. That is, not to make people more wealthy, but
to change the prices of things. This is called Quantitative Easing.
The Fed does not have to pay for the money it makes. It is the only body
which can literally legally print money. In the Monetarist school of economics, prices are determined by the quantity
of money. For example, the Fed printing more money does not influence the amount
of products and services being sold evey year. so if we assume this volume of
things does not change, more printed money would mean that the prices must on
average be higher. Here, finally, we get to the effect in inflation.
Higher prices is, by definition, inflation. In this instance it is not
necessarily a bad thing (depending on your perspective), but may be useful.
Firstly it is useful because it prevents prices from dropping, or deflation,
which is a probable side effect of a massive credit contraction. Deflation is
very damaging to an economy because it discourages consumption, as the value of
a dollar today is worth less than it will be tomorrow. Deflation tends to beget
more deflation. This is also likely to fan unemployment and drive economic
conditions to a worseplace than they started.
Another benefit of inflation is that the amount of debt owed by Government
and consumers alike is usually limited to the amount actually borrowed at some
time in the past. If that amount doesn’t increase, rising prices and incomes
make it easier to repay that debt. Since the expansion in the amount of money is
not in this instance based on growing economic activity, it has a similar effect
as a tax on lenders. However the lends may be happier to accept that tax rather
than see allthe borrowers default. So the effect on Government borrowing is
positive for the economy, in that it is reduced in real terms.
The effect on currency is, in theory, similar to any inflationary impact. As
prices rise, the value ofthe currency reduces. This has a positive effect on
goods traded when priced in the local currency. It makes exports cheaper,and
stimulates local production. This effect is included in recent articles about
We are now approaching he nuts and bolts effect on interest rates, but
firstly I’d like to note something about the discussion so far. The question
that should be asked is, has the above theory worked? Arguably yes, the effect
on currency is as expected. However, the main lever forthis effect was supposed
to be inflatin, which has however been vey benign. Is thatbecause it wouldhave
otherwise been negative? The answer is more likely that the excess money has not
pushed up the cost of goods and services alone (the extent to which deflation
would have occurred is not examined here) but also pushed up the prices of
assets, specifically stocks and bonds. But this is not such a bad thing in the
case of bonds, as we shall see.
Interest rates are affected by monetary easing both directly and indirectly.
The indirect effect ofreducing rates by inflating bond prices through providing
liquidity to the entire economy is discussed in the preceeding paragraph. But
the direct effect is also significant, in that the Fed is a market participant,
specifically acting as a buyer of Government bonds, and this pushes bond prices
higher and interest rates lower. In turn the lower interest rates reduce the
cost of debt for businesses, improving profitabiliity and stimulating
In conclusion, Quantitative Easing is a relatively benign way to provide
stimulation and support to the economy, easethe cost of borrowing to businesses
and Government and that applies whether the impact is via general price
increases or via interest rate relief.
Copyright © Michael Lenn, CFA