美联储宽松货币政策的调控逻辑与实践

2007年次贷危机发生后,美联储采取了以利率调控、量化宽松(QE)和扭转操作(OT)为内容的宽松货币政策。实施宽松政策的目的在于通过调低短期名义利率、增加货币供应降低长期利率和金融产品风险溢价,以增加经济金融体系流动性和信贷可获得性,进而推动美国经济走出危机。本文分析了美联储宽松货币政策的理论基础、调控逻辑与操作实践,反思了货币政策在应对危机中的效应、调控框架构建、超额流动性传导等问题,以期为我国央行政策操作提供一些参照与借鉴。     

美联储量化宽松货币政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响

2013年12月19日,美联储宣布削减量化宽松每月资产采购规模100亿美元,标志着正式启动 QE退出,美联储 QE退出增加了全球经济复苏的不确定性,对我国跨境资金流动产生深远影响,从而引起了市场的高度关注。本文回顾了美国量化宽松政策的实施过程和退出步骤,分析了量化宽松政策退出的主要传导机制与渠道,剖析了美联储量化宽松政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响,并提出了相关政策建议。     

美联储量化宽松货币政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响

2013年12月19日,美联储宣布削减量化宽松每月资产采购规模100亿美元,标志着正式启动QE退出,美联储QE退出增加了全球经济复苏的不确定性,对我国跨境资金流动产生深远影响,从而引起了市场的高度关注。本文回顾了美国量化宽松政策的实施过程和退出步骤,分析了量化宽松政策退出的主要传导机制与渠道,剖析了美联储量化宽松政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响,并提出了相关政策建议。     

美联储量化宽松货币政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响

2013年12月19日,美联储宣布削减量化宽松每月资产采购规模100亿美元,标志着正式启动QE退出,美联储QE退出增加了全球经济复苏的不确定性,对我国跨境资金流动产生深远影响,从而引起了市场的高度关注。本文回顾了美国量化宽松政策的实施过程和退出步骤,分析了量化宽松政策退出的主要传导机制与渠道,剖析了美联储量化宽松政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响,并提出了相关政策建议。     

美联储量化宽松货币政策的影响及其退出展望

2008年美国金融危机爆发至今,美联储实行了四轮超宽松的货币政策(QE1～QE4)。在刺激其经济复苏的同时也给世界上其他国家尤其是新兴市场国家的经济带来了更大的冲击和不确定性。本文主要分析了美国量化宽松货币政策对中国经济发展的影响,并提出了一些应对措施来加强中国经济稳定,以减轻其有可能对中国经济造成的负面影响,同时对美国量化宽松货币政策的可能退出时机、操作目标、退出模式等因素及其影响进行了前瞻性分析。     

量化宽松货币政策下央行政策变化对备行业的影响

金融危机爆发后,各国政府采取量化宽松的货币政策来刺激经济的增长。但是发达国家并没有很快走出衰退,其货币政策当局即将开展第二轮量化宽松货币政策。中国人民银行随即调整了货币政策。本文将通过分析量化宽松货币政策的效应以及人民银行此次加息,来阐述通货膨胀预期不断上升的情况对各行业的影响。     

美国量化宽松货币政策及中国面临的挑战

随着次贷危机的不断蔓延和影响的逐渐深化,美国等发达国家纷纷采取了量化宽松货币政策来稳定和刺激经济。此种极端货币政策将对全球经济金融产生深远影响＇本文着重分析美国量化宽松货币政策可能造成的影响。     

量化宽松货币政策的主要目的是降低长期利率

量化宽松货币政策通过降低长期利率而发挥作用,较为有效地缓解了流动性危机,其传导机制与常规货币政策的传导基本相同。宏观模型表明,量化宽松货币政策对经济增长和通货膨胀都具有积极影响,这种影响并不仅仅限于金融危机期间。     

美联储量化宽松货币政策退出对我国跨境资金流动的影响分析

本文在回顾美国历次量化宽松货币政策的实施情况及未来可能的退出步骤的基础上,研究发现我国外汇资金净流入受美国量化宽松货币政策影响较大。针对美联储量化宽松货币政策退出产生的影响,本文提出了相关政策建议。     

美国量化宽松货币政策及其影响

2008年国际金融危机之后,美联储两次实施量化宽松货币政策以推动经济复苏,其规模巨大和持续时间都属少见。有鉴于此,本文首先介绍了美联储量化宽松货币政策的出台背景以及传导机制,随后,本文根据政策传导效果和市场表现分析指出,美国量化宽松货币政策的短期效果比较明显,但对美国经济的长期刺激作用有限,且给美联储及其他各国央行的政策操作带来了不利影响。     

金融危机前后的美联储货币政策调控方式演变

2008年国际金融危机前后,美联储的货币政策调控方式发生了明显变化.从金融危机之前准备金短缺下的公开市场操作调控转变为金融危机之后准备金充裕下的利率走廊与公开市场操作相结合的调控方式.本文详细分析了危机前后美联储货币政策调控方式的变化情况,这对于理解和预测未来美联储货币政策调控具有重要意义.     

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、...     

美联储货币政策对我国资产价格的影响

本文利用事件研究法考察了美联储货币政策对我国资产价格的影响。研究发现美联储货币政策会显著影响我国资产价格,美联储加息会降低我国债券和股票回报,降息则会提高债券和股票回报。将美联储货币政策进行细分后发现,预期到的货币政策调整对债券市场和股票市场的回报都有显著影响,而未预期到的货币政策调整和前瞻性指引只影响债券市场。进一步的研究表明,未预期到的美联储货币政策调整和前瞻性指引还会加剧我国金融市场的波动率。本文的研究结论为美联储货币政策对我国经济金融的影响提供了新的证据,对于投资者提高投资收益、降低投资风险以及货币当局完善我国货币政策调控和维护我国金融市场稳定具有重要意义。     

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.     

The Federal Reserve's Tools for Policy Normalization in a Preferred Habitat Model of Financial Markets

We develop a model to analyze monetary policy implementation with multiple Federal Reserve liabilities and superabundant reserves. The analysis demonstrates the Federal Reserve's tools including interest on excess reserves (IOER), overnight reverse repurchase agreements (ON RRP), and term deposits should allow the Federal Reserve to raise the short‐term interest rates to any desired level. We find the contribution of each the increase in the IOER and ON RRP offering rates in firming money market rates suggested by the data during the December 2015 policy tightening event is remarkably similar to the effect of each tool implied by the calibrated model.     

Evaluation of the Federal Reserve's financial-crisis timeline

The present paper evaluates the effect that the events and policy actions important for the Federal Reserve had in five US financial markets. Analysis concentrates on events starting from February 2007 up to August 2009, as dictated by the financial-crisis timeline of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Evaluation is indicated via an economic and statistical significance criterion. The former is based on Sharpe-ratio and the latter on Welch's t-test. Robustness of the latter criterion as appropriate for event evaluation is provided via a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. An overall comparative analysis across the board of categories of the financial events is provided as well. Are there categories of events more significant than others? Is it fiscal decisions or policy actions that more significantly affect US financial markets? Results suggest that academics, economists and financiers re-think the significance of some of the events and policy decisions. Analysis is implemented in the following US financial markets: stock spot indices, stock index futures, Exchange Traded Funds, US Treasury bond futures and spot exchange rates.     

The Causality Effects of the Federal Reserve's Monetary Policy on U.S. and Eurodollar Interest Rates

Previous studies argue that U.S. interest rates will become more sensitive to changes in eurodollar rates as international financial-market integration increases. However, the empirical results of these studies are suspect because they select their subperiods in an ad hoc manner and ignore the different trading hours of the U.S. and London markets. This study adjusts for the markets' different trading hours and uses Goldfeld and Quandt's switching regression technique to show that the causal relation between U.S. CD rates and eurodollar rates is impacted by the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Because the latest subperiod exhibits uni-directional causality (i.e., U.S. interest rates cause changes in eurodollar rates), the results cast doubt on the implicit assumption made in the literature that interest-rate causality is only affected by increasing levels of financial-market integration.     

On the Effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's Margin Requirement

A portfolio-theoretic model of the optimal margin account is developed. It is argued that the Federal Reserve's goal in setting the margin requirement is to influence investor equity ratios. Using the average equity ratio as the dependent variable and the arguments of the model as independent variables, an empirical model is estimated. It is concluded that the margin requirement is an effective regulatory tool.     

Changes in the Federal Reserve's Inflation Target: Causes and Consequences

This paper estimates a New Keynesian model to draw inferences about the behavior of the Federal Reserve's unobserved inflation target. The results indicate that the target rose from 1 1/4% in 1959 to over 8% in the mid to late 1970s before falling back below 2 1/2% in 2004. The results also provide some support for the hypothesis that over the entire post-war period, Federal Reserve policy has systematically translated short-run price pressures set off by supply-side shocks into more persistent movements in inflation itself, although considerable uncertainty remains about the true source of shifts in the inflation target.     

A Bayesian interpretation of the Federal Reserve's dual mandate and the Taylor Rule

When the Federal Reserve was established by the US Congress in 1913, its charter mandated that the new central bank “promote an elastic currency” and the institution was given extraordinary powers to serve as a lender of last resort to the banking system. Congress was reacting to the cycle of financial panics that had beset the country since the Civil War and had worsened with the Panic of 1907. Congress sought to find a remedy to prevent runs on banks turning into full-fledged financial crises. The term “elastic” in the opening words of the charter was intended to underscore the need for a robust banking system that could withstand shocks and not collapse upon itself. There was no mention whatsoever of a dual mandate of promoting price stability and encouraging full employment.With prodding from the US Congress, the Federal Reserve became highly involved in the management of the economy of the United States after WWII, focusing on inflation and full employment objectives. In 1993 Professor John Taylor set forth an elegant and simple framework (aka, the Taylor Rule) for analyzing the interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve in terms of its dual mandate.This paper examines Federal Reserve behavior from the mid-1950s to 2011 through the lens of the Taylor Rule. Our contribution is to use a dynamic linear model with Bayesian inference to update the evolution through time of the key parameters surrounding the inflation and full employment mandates, using only the information available to the Federal Reserve at each point in time. Our findings provide a more nuanced quantitative view than is previously available in the literature of how the Federal Reserve shifted its management of its dual mandate over time and in response to different economic challenges. Moreover, our research leads to serious questions of how Federal Reserve decision making may change in the future, following the financial panic of 2008, pointing toward numerous avenues for new research.