Monetary Fallacy? Deep Divisions Emerge over ECB Quantitative Easing Plans

To prevent dangerous deflation, the ECB is discussing a massive program to purchase government bonds. Monetary watchdogs are divided over the measure, with some alleging that central bankers are being held hostage by politicians.


At first glance, there's little evidence of the sensitive deals being hammered out in the Market Operations department of Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank. The open-plan office on the fifth floor of its headquarters building, where about a dozen employees are staring at their computer screens, is reminiscent of the simple set for the TV series "The Office". There are white file cabinets and desks with wooden edges, there is a poster on the wall of football team Bayern Munich, and some prankster has attached a pink rubber pig to the ceiling by its feet.

The only hint that these employees are sometimes moving billions of euros with the click of a mouse is the security door that restricts access to the room. They trade in foreign currencies and bonds, an activity they used to perform primarily for the German government or public pension funds. Now they also often do it for the European Central Bank (ECB) and its so-called "unconventional measures."

Those measures seem to be coming on an almost monthly basis these days. First, there were the ultra low-interest rates, followed by new four-year loans for banks and the ECB's buying program for bonds and asset backed securities -- measures that are intended to make it easier for banks to lend money. As one Bundesbank trader puts it, they now have "a lot more to do."

A Heated Dispute

Ironically, his boss, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, is opposed to most of these costly programs. They're the reason he and ECB President Mario Draghi are now completely at odds. Even with the latest approved measures not even implemented in full yet, experts at the ECB headquarters a few kilometers away are already devising the next monetary policy experiment: a large-scale bond buying program known among central bankers as quantitative easing.

The aim of the program is to push up the rate of inflation, which, at 0.4 percent, is currently well below the target rate of close to 2 percent. Central bankers will discuss the problem again this week.

It is a fundamental dispute that is becoming increasingly heated. Some view bond purchases as unavoidable, as the euro zone could otherwise slide into dangerous deflation, in which prices steadily decline and both households and businesses cut back their spending. Others warn against a violation of the ECB principle, which prohibits funding government debt by printing money.

Is it important that the ECB adhere to tried-and-true principles in the crisis, as Weidmann argues? Or can it resort to unusual measures in an emergency situation, as Draghi is demanding?

A Mixed Record in Japan and the US

The key issues are the wording of the European treaties, the deep divide in the ECB Governing Council and, not least, the question of what monetary policy can achieve in a crisis. Is a massive bond-buying program the right tool to inject new vitality into the economy? Or does it turn central bankers into the accomplices of politicians unwilling to institute reforms?

The question has been on the minds of monetary watchdogs and politicians since the 1990s, when a German economist working in Tokyo invented the term "quantitative easing." Its purpose was to help former economic miracle Japan pull itself out of crisis after a market crash.

The core idea behind the concept is still the same today: When a central bank has used up its classic toolbox and has reduced the prime rate to almost zero, it has to resort to other methods to stimulate the economy. To inject more money into the economy, it can buy debt from banks or bonds from companies and the government.

The Bank of Japan finally began to implement the concept, between 2001 and 2006, but the country sank into years of deflation nonetheless. After the financial crisis erupted, central bankers in Tokyo tried a second time to acquire government bonds on a large scale, in the hope that earlier programs had simply not been sufficiently forceful. Between 2011 and 2012, the central bank launched emergency bond-buying programs worth €900 billion ($1.125 trillion). Finally, in 2013, the new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, opened up the money supply completely when he had the central bank announce a virtually unlimited bond buying program.

A Higher Debt-to-GDP Ratio than Greece

But the strategy, known as "Abenomics," worked only briefly. After a high in 2013, in which Abe proudly proclaimed that Japan was "back," industrial production declined once again. With a debt-to-GDP ratio of 240 percent, much higher than that of Greece, investments declined again, despite the flood of money released under Abenomics.

Businesses and private households were simply too far in debt to borrow even more, no matter how cheap the monetary watchdogs had made it. The banks, for their part, still failed to purge all bad loans from their books, because the central bank was keeping them artificially afloat. "For decades, the Japanese government did not institute the necessary structural reforms," says Michael Heise, chief economist at German insurance giant Allianz.

Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, demonstrated that under different circumstances quantitative easing could indeed work. After the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers, Bernanke, a monetary theorist, spent close to $1.5 trillion to buy up mortgage loans, corporate bonds and US Treasury bonds.

A second program was launched in 2010, followed by a third in 2012. This time the Fed decided that the program would continue until unemployment had declined to 7 percent. Bernanke's successor, Janet Yellen, only put an end to the latest round of quantitative easing last week.

During this period, the Fed, through its emergency measures, has inflated its balance sheet by about $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion, and the economy is now falling into step once again. Unemployment has dropped from 10 to 6 percent, and the annualized growth rate in the third quarter was 3.5 percent. Many observers believe that this alone proves that Bernanke's mega-experiment was a success.

Relatively strong consensus only exists over the fact that the Fed, with its massive intervention, quickly returned many credit markets to normality after the crisis erupted by buying up securities that suddenly no one else wanted. But have the quantitative easing programs also stimulated the economy in the long term?

In a study, the Fed itself concludes that its programs reduced the unemployment rate by 1.5 percent in 2012. Other studies found that long-term interest rates on government and corporate bonds declined significantly as a result of the Fed's buying spree. Still others question the efficacy of the programs, especially more recently.

So who's right? "It's nearly impossible to measure that," says Clemens Fuest, president of the Center for European Economic Research, "if only because we don't know what would have happened without the programs."

Strong Side Effects

The lack of certainty has led many economists to believe that the effects of the bond buying programs were not all positive. On the contrary, the longer the central bank pumps up the markets with its injections of liquidity, they warn, the stronger the policy's side effects get. Because yields on many investments declined along with borrowing rates, more and more market players ignored the risks associated with many halfway lucrative business opportunities.

In Europe, for example, bond traders and other investors began buying up Greek, Spanish and Italian government bonds after the debt crisis had subsided, so that some of the former crisis-ridden countries are now paying even lower interest rates on new borrowing than before. Meanwhile, in the United States, corporate debt securities known as junk bonds became the latest trendy investment.

Junk bonds come with an enormous risk of default, but they are also considered very high-yield investments. The market blossomed, at least until recently. But what this means for the US economy may not become apparent for several years. More than $700 billion in junk bonds will mature by 2018, and "a large number of companies will suddenly have great trouble finding follow-up financing," warns Allianz economist Heise.

On the global exchanges, the mood among investors was long delirious. In June, the Bank for International Settlements, an international organization of central banks, noted a "puzzling disconnect" between the boom and actual economic developments. Because debt has also been growing worldwide, the financial system is, in a certain sense, even more fragile than before the crisis, said Jaime Caruana, the bank's general manager.

Whether this is true could become apparent in the next few weeks. Once the Fed has stopped its ongoing injection of liquidity into the economy, many observers fear severe withdrawal symptoms in markets and exchanges.

Discuss this issue with other readers!
9 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
pacchiardo 11/03/2014
1. Economics theories
At present we hear about two economic thesis, inflation and deflation. The first in planning a 2% inflation as a key stone for the economy growth – the consumers money availability through easy loans would incentivate consumers purchasing hence goods production, occupancy, GDP increase and so forth. The second one due to the goods price decrease will trigger a vicious cycle by reducing the consumers purchasing with the consequent outcome. The key of the discussion about the two thesis is that if you apply for one cannot verify what would happen with the other. However the two thesis are missing of the evaluation of the consumer behaviour vis-a-vis the economic system which presume consumers confidence which is based on occupation and purchasing power increase, not latest the good country governance. Who is at occupancy risk or who see his purchasing power loss or who see a bad country governance is not certainly willing to spend his money but rather save it. Furthermore for what the EU is concerned it seems that the new comers in EU are benefiting of the extra payments that other countries are doing and that with this money they are able to fund new enterprises which are migrating there from the countries already penalized by the extra payments. This is simply crazy.
peskyvera 11/03/2014
What worries me is that Mario Draghi is a former Goldman Sachs associate.
muley63 11/03/2014
3. So Obstuse
"So who's right? "It's nearly impossible to measure that," says Clemens Fuest, president of the Center for European Economic Research, "if only because we don't know what would have happened without the programs."" It doesn't matter that the evidence is Europe's austerity economy is failing into deflation to idiots like him. It's slapping Austerians in the face that their management has been an absolute failure and that Great Britain and US had a better plan after 2008. Merkle failed Europe when it needed Germany's economic leadership the most.
cwg1313 11/03/2014
4. QE did not work
QE did not work in US our government does not count people who do not get unemployment benefits once your benefits run out and you still don't have a job your not counted as unemployed you just don't exist. The real unemployment rate is called the e6 number and it's around 15% also in the US we don't count food, petro and housing expenses in our inflation rate which is actually around 11%. Since we started tracking the labor participation rate in the late 1970's we are now the lowest ever recorded around 62% that means 38% of American's working age population can't find work! 5 trillion dollars later and we are worse off so don't believe the QE lie.
Varheit 11/04/2014
5. All creditbased econmies are exhausted.
I must agree with Bundesbank that a credit based growth will decrease future growth rates in the economy. There is a natural limit how much householdes, coporations and governments can borow. Beyond this limit we will have an very artificial economy with low growth rates and lot of volality in the financiel markets. Only way to create real growth is not through monetary policy but through fiscal policy. Investments in infrastuctrure, education and coporate financing is a way to better growth rates.
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.