美联储非常规货币政策框架北大核心CSSCISSCI

金融危机后,主要依靠美联储非常规货币政策,美国经济避免滑向通缩,实现了缓慢复苏。尽管非常规货币政策框架基本具有危机前传统货币政策框架的主要特点,但非常规货币政策的理念、目标、工具、传导渠道等仍有诸多不同之处:(1)在长期通胀预期稳定的情况下强调最大就业;(2)过度宽松、稳定通胀预期及以平衡方式实现美联储双重目标的政策策略;(3)最优控制和成本收益比较的政策规则;(4)资产负债表工具和利率前瞻性指引的政策工具;(5)以资产组合平衡渠道和未来短期利率预期渠道为主的政策传导渠道;(6)"先量后价"、多工具组合和缓慢渐进的非常规货币政策退出,等等。危机后的这种非常规货币政策框架是传统政策框架的扩展和延伸,丰富了传统货币政策框架的内涵。     

欧美非常规货币政策的反思

美联储。美国为迅速摆脱危机,在美联储的操作下,将联邦基金利率一降再降,直至接近于0,随后又动用了非常规的货币政策工具。美联储通过演讲、政策声明和承诺等多次向公众传达经济形势,引导联邦基金利率未来的可能趋势,修正投资者和经济预测者的利率预期;     

欧美非常规货币政策的反思

美联储。美国为迅速摆脱危机,在美联储的操作下,将联邦基金利率一降再降,直至接近于0,随后又动用了非常规的货币政策工具。美联储通过演讲、政策声明和承诺等多次向公众传达经济形势,引导联邦基金利率未来的可能趋势,修正投资者和经济预测者的利率预期;制订"信贷流动性计划"向金融机构和金融市场注入流动性;执行购买长期资产的量化宽松政策。2008年11月25日,自美联储宣布将购买房利美、房地美及美国政府国民抵押协会所担保的抵押贷款支持证券(MBS)开始,到2012年12月共开展了五次大规模资产购买,其中四次操作被外界称为量化宽松政策(即QE1～QE4)。     

美联储应对疫情货币政策评述

为应对前所未有的疫情冲击,美联储综合运用利率、公开市场操作、资产购买、流动性支持等常规和非常规货币政策工具来稳定金融市场和支持实体经济.美联储非常规货币政策工具的运用呈现出资产负债规模大幅增长、直接支持经济的职能大幅扩充、与财政政策联系更为紧密等特点.美联储应对疫情的货币政策尽管取得了短期成效,但同时面临理论支撑不足、...     

美联储何时退出零利率政策?

短期名义利率退离零下限是美联储退出非常规货币政策的最关键步骤,在这一决策过程中,美联储的政策将继续遵循常规时期的双目标制,兼顾价格稳定和经济增长。然而,由于当前美国通货膨胀压力很小,通胀预期温和,而失业率居高不下,短期内美联储加息的可能性不大。在预测未来美联储的利率政策变化时,作者分别从泰勒规则、历史数据和美联储的政策信号三种方法入手,对其货币政策的决策做一前瞻性的分析,结论是美联储退出零利率的最早时点是2010年年底。     

美联储重回零利率

2020年3月,在疫情蔓延和全球金融市场剧烈动荡的冲击下,美联储连续两次大幅降低联邦基金目标利率150个基点至0~0.25%,再次回到零利率时代。这是美联储有史以来最大力度的单次降息行动,无疑将会对国际市场和世界经济产生重大影响。值得关注的一是美联储连续大幅降息的背景;二是对世界经济金融的影响;三是国际经济学界的相关争论;四是美国货币政策和宏观经济的未来走向。     

美联储非常规货币政策退出对中国金融市场的外溢效应 ——基于LT—TVP—VAR模型的实证分析

根据美联储数据特征构建LT—TVP—VAR模型,从加息和缩表两个层面实证研究美联储非常规货币政策退出对中国金融市场的外溢影响.理论分析和实证结果表明:美联储加息将主要通过流动性供给冲击和跨境资本流动渠道导致我国货币和债券市场利率上行以及人民币对美元汇率的贬值,对我国股票市场的影响有限;美联储缩表的目的是回收过剩流动性,并促进货币政策正常化,短期内对我国金融市场的影响有限,其长期外溢效应取决于缩表的速度和力度.美联储非常规货币政策退出对我国金融市场外溢影响的长期效应,大于短期效应,要积极应对美联储非常规货币政策退出的外溢效应,提升金融市场应对非预期冲击的能力,防范外部冲击造成的系统性金融风险.     

研图观势

为应对金融危机,日本央行采取了一系列宽松的货币政策来刺激经济增长。除了零利率的稳定物价承诺外。信贷宽松政策、企业融资支持计划和资产购买计划等非常规货币政策对其资产负债表规模和结构也产生了影响。     

非常规货币政策的理论与现实

货币政策的两种形态:常规与非常规常规货币政策是货币当局通过利率的升降来传递其政策调整方向,并通过调节市场的流动性来影响一国宏观经济走向。常规货币政策有两个核心,一是政策趋势。央行通过宣布基准利率的方式来表明其货币政策调整方向,大多数国家央行选择隔夜利率作为基准利率。二是运用公开市场操作管理市场流动性,通过影响短期利率进而影响中长期利率以及实体经济。非常规货币政策是在常规货币政策失效之时的权宜之策,有四种操作。一是明确承诺利率将长期保持低     

各国央行非常规货币政策综述

美国次贷危机爆发以来,全球金融系统和实体经济遭遇了严重冲击,为了有效缓解负面冲击,各国央行纷纷推出各种宽松性货币政策,但在实际应用中,传统货币政策不能有效克制危机,美联储等央行纷纷求助于量化宽松等新型非常规货币政策。目前来看,非常规货币政策产生了积极影响,美国等经济体实现了就业的改善、金融系统的稳定和经济增长的复苏。为全面了解货币政策,本文系统归纳了美联储等央行采取的各类非常规货币政策,探讨了非常规货币政策的实施途径及效能得失,并总结了美联储采取非常规货币政策的主要经验。     

Monetary Policy Implementation: Making Better and More Consistent Use of the Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet

Since December 2015, the Federal Reserve has operated a new “floor system” in which it brings about desired changes in its targeted federal funds rate by managing the interest rate it pays on bank reserves and other short‐term liabilities. The design of this new system reflects the tendency of Fed officials to view monetary policy as affecting the economy through Keynesian” interest rate channels. From this Keynesian perspective, policy actions that change the size of the balance sheet are seen as tools for influencing credit market conditions that operate in addition to and independently of the Fed's monetary policy stance. The alternative monetarist framework proposed by the author views monetary policy and its effects as operating through the interaction between money supply and demand. Use of this framework makes clear that, even under a floor system, monetary policy actions designed to affect the aggregate price level and the rate of inflation must be accompanied sooner or later by traditional open market operations that have implications for the size and composition of the Fed's balance sheet. Use of the monetarist framework also underscores the likelihood that the Fed, by paying interest on reserves, has unknowingly contributed to the restrictiveness of its own monetary policies since the financial crisis, a period during which inflation has run consistently below target. More generally, the monetarist framework downplays the importance of the zero lower interest rate bound and suggests that monetary policy could be conducted more effectively by adopting and adhering to a consistent, rule‐like manner during good times and bad.     

Macroeconomic cycles and the stock market’s reaction to monetary policy

This paper examines cyclical variation in the effect of Fed policy on the stock market. We find a much stronger response of stock returns to unexpected changes in the federal funds target rate in recession and in tight credit market conditions. Using firm-level data, we also show that firms that face financial constraints are more affected by monetary shocks in tight credit conditions than the relatively unconstrained firms. Overall, the results are consistent with the credit channel of monetary policy transmission.     

Credit risk dynamics in response to changes in the federal funds target: The implication for firm short-term debt

The recent credit crisis has raised a number of interesting questions regarding the role of the Federal Reserve Bank and the effectiveness of its expected and unexpected interventions in financial markets, especially during the crisis, given its mandate. This paper reviews and evaluates the impact of expected and unexpected changes in the federal funds rate target on credit risk premia. The paper's main innovation is the use of an ACH-VAR (autoregressive conditional hazard VAR) model to generate the Fed's expected and unexpected monetary policy shocks which are then used to determine the effects of a Federal Reserve policy change on counterparty credit risk and more importantly short-term firm debt financing. The findings answer a longstanding question sought by researchers on the effect of policy makers' announcements on firm debt financing. The results clearly show that the Federal Reserve influences short-term debt financing through the credit channel for both expansionary and contractionary monetary policies. In particular, we find that the growth in counterparty risk appears less responsive to anticipated responses in the Fed funds rate that fail to materialize than to an unanticipated increase in the federal funds rate. Finally, we also document that the results appear to validate the Feds interventions in financial markets to stem counterparty risk and to make liquidity more readily available to firms.     

非常规货币政策退出：文献综述与研究展望

非常规货币政策是国际金融危机期间主要经济体中央银行缓解流动性压力、提振市场信心以及压低融资成本重振经济的重要举措。随着美联储开始逐步退出量化宽松政策。非常规货币政策退出成为各方关注的焦点。非常规货币政策退出会带来怎样的冲击？如何把握退出节奏？本文从非常规货币政策退出的内涵、原因、策略以及影响等角度对主要文献进行了总结．提出了进一步研究的几个方向。     

Dynamic linkages between monetary policy and the stock market

This paper examines the dynamic linkages between the federal funds rate and the stock market during the 1970–2004 period using the VAR methodology. We detected a disconnection between Fed actions and market responses in the 1990s relative to the 1970s and 1980s. Upon further analyses, we observed asymmetric effects of monetary policy actions on the stock market and that such actions were more turbulent during bear markets than bull markets. Overall, our results appear to suggest that there was consistent dynamic relationship between the conduct of monetary policy and the corresponding behavior by the stock market during the last three decades.     

U.S. Monetary Policy Surprises and International Securitized Real Estate Markets

This paper examines the impact of U.S. monetary policy surprises on securitized real estate markets in 18 countries. The policy surprises are measured by both the surprise changes to the target federal funds rate (the target factor) and surprises in the future direction of the Federal Reserve monetary policy (the path factor). The results show that most international securitized real estate markets have significantly positive responses to surprise decrease in current or future expected federal funds rates, though such responses vary greatly across countries. Also, while the U.S. securitized real estate market reacts mainly to the target factor, foreign securitized real estate markets react to the path factor. Furthermore, we find that the cross-country variation in the response to the target factor is correlated with the country’s exchange rate regime and its degree of real economic and particularly financial integration, while the cross-country variation in the response to the path factor is mainly related to the country’s degree of financial integration.     

Congress and the Federal Reserve

We examine legislative activity to determine when Congress threatens the Fed and whether this pressure affects monetary policy. By the late‐1980s Congress shifted from threatening when unemployment was high to threatening when inflation was high. We use the Romer and Romer monetary shocks to isolate changes in the federal funds rate that cannot be explained by economic conditions and ask whether these shocks respond to pressure. In the 1970s, the Fed responded to bills credibly threatening Fed powers by lowering the federal funds target below that prescribed by current and forecast economic conditions. However, this accommodation ceased in the mid‐1980s.     

The Fed and short-term rates: Is it open market operations,open mouth operations or interest rate smoothing?

It is widely believed that the Fed controls the federal funds rate by altering the degree of pressure in the reserve market through open market operations when it changes its target for the funds rate. Recently, however, several analysts have suggested that the Fed need not conduct open market operations to change the funds rate. Rather, they argue it is sufficient that the Fed indicate its desire for the funds rate. This paper notes that there is yet a third alternative, the interest-rate-smoothing hypothesis, that suggests that the Fed does not move rates per se but, rather, smooths the transition of rates to the new equilibrium required by economic shocks. This paper tests the open market and open mouth alternatives using a methodology first used by Cook and Hahn [Journal of Monetary Economics (1989a) 331]. Finding no evidence that either open market operations or open mouth operations can account for the close relationship between the funds rate and the funds rate target, a variety of evidence consistent with the interest-rate-smoothing hypothesis is considered. The results suggest that many changes in the Fed’s funds rate target are an endogenous response to economic events and suggest that an alternative way to identify exogenous changes in policy is to identify exogenous changes in the Fed’s funds rate target.     

Tests of the expectations hypothesis: Resolving the anomalies when the short-term rate is the federal funds rate

The expectations hypothesis (EH) of the term structure plays an important role in the analysis of monetary policy, where shorter-term rates are assumed to be determined by the market’s expectation for the overnight federal funds rate. With two exceptions, tests using the effective federal funds rate as the short-term rate easily reject the EH. These exceptions are when the EH is tested over the nonborrowed reserve targeting period and when the test is performed only using data for settlement Wednesdays – the last day of bank reserve maintenance period. This paper argues that these exceptions are anomalous: in the former case, the failure to reject the EH occurs when economic analysis suggests that the market should be less able to forecast the federal funds rate. In the latter case, it occurs when there are sharp spikes in the funds rate that cannot improve materially the market’s ability to forecast the funds rate. Additional analysis shows that these anomalous results are a consequence of the procedure used to test the EH.     

A Model of Monetary Policy Shocks for Financial Crises and Normal Conditions

Deteriorating economic conditions in late 2008 led the Federal Reserve to lower the target federal funds rate to near zero, inject liquidity through novel facilities, and engage in large‐scale asset purchases. The combination of conventional and unconventional policy measures prevents using the effective federal funds rate to assess the effects of monetary policy beyond 2008. We employ a broad monetary aggregate to elicit the effects of monetary policy shocks both before and after 2008. Our estimates align well with major changes in the Fed's asset purchase programs and yield responses that are free from price, output, and liquidity puzzles that plague other approaches.