Round Of Quantitative Easing Research Articles

Changes and Impact of Monetary Policy in the United States: Quantitative Easing and Federal rate hikes

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, marked by the collapse of Wall Street giants like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the U.S. faced significant economic challenges. Traditional monetary policy tools proved ineffective as interest rates neared the Zero Lower Bound. Consequently, the Federal Reserve implemented Quantitative Easing (QE) as an unconventional measure to stimulate financial markets. This policy was executed in four phases, and by the end of the fourth round, U.S. inflation rates surpassed the 2022 target. Elevated inflation impacted living standards, prompting the FED to introduce interest rate hikes in 2022 to control it. Supply chain disruptions were a major contributor to this inflation spike. This paper uses qualitative and statistical methods to explore QE and the subsequent FED rate hikes. It emphasizes that QE essentially expanded the FED's Balance Sheet and uses visual data like graphs to illustrate the FED's actions since 2022. The article provides a comprehensive view of U.S. monetary policy adaptations during and after the financial crisis. The first three QE rounds addressed the 2008 crisis aftermath, while QE4 combated the economic fallout of COVID-19. The 4 rounds of QE and the last 2 years of Fed rate hikes have been generally successful. Both monetary policies have had some proven effect on the US economy. However, by critical thinking, QE has potential downsides, like fostering economic bubbles and inflation. And the Fed's repeated interest rate hikes have led to the problem of bank failure. Therefore, the Fed's monetary policy choices, especially unconventional ones like QE, require weighing benefits against potential risks.

The Impact of U.S. Quantitative Easing (QE) Announcements on Indian Government Bond Yields

This study investigates the impact of U.S. Quantitative Easing (QE) announcements on Indian Treasury yields. Two outstanding channels of spillover effects on bond yields documented in the existing literature are signalingchannel and portfolio balance channel. This study decomposes Indian Treasury yields into yield expectationsand risk premia to measure spillover effects of U.S. QE announcements. The impact on yield expectationmeasures signaling effect while the impact on risk premia measures portfolio balance effect. It is observed that FOMC announcements of Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE) policy treated as shocks to Indian government bond yields. To investigate the announcement effects on Indian government Bond yields, event study methodology is used to capture the change in the bond yields, yield expectation and risk premia of Indian bond market around that time especially during the first round of Quantitative Easing (QE1) policy announcement periods in one-day and two-day window period. To support event study results regression analysis method is implemented and found robust evidence supporting larger signaling effect than the portfolio balance effect. At last, this study uses Dynamic Nelson-Siegel (DNS) yield curve model to compute the relationship between the U.S. and Indian Bond market. DNS model involves two-step estimation using VAR regression on Indian government bond yields with U.S. 10-year Treasury yield changes as an exogenous variable. The statistical result of DNS estimation shows that U.S. 10-year Treasury yield change affects the Indian long-term bond yield during the financial crisis period.

Quantitative Easing and bank risk-taking behavior

In this paper, we examine the effect of reserve creation due to the Federal Reserve's Large-scale Asset Purchase programs on bank lending and risk-taking behavior. In particular, we test the existence of a risk-taking channel that induces banks with higher reserve accumulation due to the Fed's policy to increase the share of riskier loans. Exploiting the heterogeneity in the exposure to such asset purchase programs, as measured by relative mortgage-backed securities holdings in the banks' portfolios, we use difference-in-differences analysis to study the effect of the Fed's policies on the supply of total loans and the share of riskier loans such as real estate, commercial and industrial, and consumer loans. We find that the first and third round of Quantitative Easing (QE) policies led to an increase in both the total loans and the share of riskier loans within the banks' portfolios, supporting the risk-raking channel. The second round of QE on the other hand, had no significant impact on banks' lending behavior.

The effects of conventional and unconventional monetary policy on the unemployment rate in the US

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the Federal Reserve's conventional and unconventional monetary policy shocks on the US unemployment rate.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ a unified time-varying framework to an extensive data set from 1960 to 2019.FindingsThe authors find that both conventional and unconventional monetary policy influence the unemployment rate, but the effects of unconventional monetary policy vary greatly during the first, second and third rounds of quantitative easing (dubbed QE1, QE2 and QE3, respectively). It significantly influenced the unemployment rate in QE3. However, the effects are less persistent than the effects of conventional monetary policy shocks. The impact of unconventional monetary policy transmits to the real economy through conventional interest rates, exchange rates and asset price channels. The responses of unemployment rate are smaller during QE1 and QE2 due to the rise in inflation uncertainty and economic policy uncertainty.Originality/valueThe impact of the Fed's unconventional monetary policy shocks on the US unemployment rate during QE1, QE2 and QE3 is time-varying. It is explained by inflation uncertainty and real option channels.

The stability of UK households Divisia money balances

This paper examines the stability of holdings of Divisia money balances by UK households using step and impulse indicators. An error feedback equation for money demand is estimated that includes 5 step dummies and 6 impulse dummies. For comparison an error correction model for the traditional M4 aggregate is also estimated that includes 9 steps and 5 impulse dummies. Steps in 1983 and 1990 are common to both aggregates. Steps in 1992, 2012 and 2015 only affect the Divisia aggregate. The step in 2012 corresponds to the Bank of England’s second round of quantitative easing. The Divisia aggregate appears to be a useful guide for policy, especially when the policy rate is close to the zero lower bound.

Bank risks and lending outcomes: Evidence from QE

This paper investigates the impact of bank risk positions on their lending outcomes during quantitative easing (QE) interventions. We find that after the first and second round of QE, banks with lower default probabilities expand lending more in comparison to their risky counterparts. However, differences were no longer relevant in the third round of QE, which occurred at a time when the banking sector health was improved relative to QE1. Our findings suggest that bank riskiness is important for the transmission of unconventional monetary policy interventions.

Unconventional Monetary Policy and the Search for Yield

We use U.S. syndicated loan market data to examine how banks responded to the unprecedented injection of reserves by the Fed over several rounds of quantitative easing (QE). We show that higher reserves boost bank lending. To establish a causal interpretation for this finding, we construct a novel instrument for the bank-level exposure to QE by using confidential data on daily bank reserves. Next, we identify a mechanism that can explain this link. We show that the connection between banks' reserves and lending volume depends upon the net return that banks enjoy on reserve balances. Our findings demonstrate that the search for yield component of the risk taking channel — wherein banks increase risk-taking to achieve nominal profitability targets during periods of low interest rates — is also a relevant consideration for policymakers during massive reserve injections.

The impact of quantitative easing on liquidity creation

• We study the impact of the Fed’s three rounds of QE on bank liquidity creation. • Banks create liquidity by financing illiquid assets with liquid liabilities. • We use a sample of US banks over 2006-14 and a difference-in-difference methodology. • Banks more exposed to QE increased lending during the first and third round of QE. • Liquidity creation among treated banks was higher only during the last round of QE. We study the effects of the US Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase programs during 2008–2014 on bank liquidity creation. Banks create liquidity when they transform the liquid reserves resulted from quantitative easing (QE) into illiquid assets. As the composition of banks’ loan portfolio affects the amount of liquidity it creates, the impact of quantitative easing on liquidity creation is not a priori clear. Using a difference-in-difference identification strategy, we find that banks more affected by the policy increased lending relative to those less affected, mainly during the first and third round of QE. However, we only find a strong effect of the policy on liquidity creation during the third round of QE. This points to a weaker impact on the real economy during the first two rounds, when more exposed banks transformed the reserves created through QE into less illiquid assets, such as real estate mortgages.

Quantitative Easing and Bank Lending: The Liquidity Channel

This paper provides direct evidence on the effect of quantitative easing (QE) policies on bank lending through the liquidity channel. By looking at changes in banks' liquidity-lending sensitivity in different rounds of QE, our results show that banks with higher levels of cash & reserve holding (especially excess reserves) are more responsive to the large-scale asset purchases (LSAPs) after the 2007-08 financial crisis, compared to their liquidity-constrained counterparts. Interestingly, we find this liquidity channel to be almost equally significant for both C&I loans and real estate lending. Our results are robust to different specifications, alternative measures of banks' liquidity constraint, and inclusion of controls for demand-side factors. Further analysis indicates that this liquidity channel is distinct from the net-worth channel and capital requirement constraint documented in the literature.

The Impact of Quantitative Easing on Liquidity Creation

We study the effects of the US Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase programs during 2008-2014 on bank liquidity creation. Banks create liquidity when they transform the liquid reserves resulted from quantitative easing into illiquid assets. As the composition of banks’ loan portfolio affects the amount of liquidity it creates, the impact of quantitative easing on liquidity creation is not a priori clear. Using a difference-in-difference identification strategy, we find that banks that were more exposed to the policy increased lending relative to a control group. However, while the increase in lending was present across all three rounds of quantitative easing, we only find a strong effect on liquidity creation during the last round. This suggests, that during the first two rounds, affected banks transformed the reserves created through the asset purchase program into less illiquid assets, such as real estate mortgages, pointing to a weaker impact of the policy on the real economy.

Employment Effects of Unconventional Monetary Policy: Evidence from QE

This paper investigates the effect of the Federal Reserve's unconventional monetary policy on employment via a bank lending channel. We find that banks with higher mortgage-backed securities holdings issued relatively more loans after the first and third rounds of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3). While additional volume is concentrated in refinanced mortgages after QE1, increases are driven by newly originated home purchase mortgages and additional commercial and industrial lending after QE3. Using spatial variation, we show that regions with a high share of affected banks experienced stronger employment growth after both, QE1 and QE3. While the ability of households to refinance mortgages after QE1 spurred local demand, the resulting additional employment growth was relatively weak and confined to the non-tradable goods sector. In contrast, the increase in overall employment after QE3 is sizable and can be attributed to the supply of additional credit to firms. To s upport this finding, we use new confidential loan-level data to show that firms with stronger ties to affected banks increased employment and capital investment more after QE3. Altogether, our findings suggest that unconventional monetary policy can, similar to conventional monetary policy, affect real economic outcomes.

Employment Effects of Unconventional Monetary Policy: Evidence from QE

This paper investigates the effect of the Federal Reserve's unconventional monetary policy on employment via a bank lending channel. We find that banks with higher mortgage-backed securities holdings issued relatively more loans after the first and third rounds of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3). While additional volume is concentrated in refinanced mortgages after QE1, increases are driven by newly originated home purchase mortgages and additional commercial and industrial lending after QE3. Using spatial variation, we show that regions with a high share of affected banks experienced stronger employment growth after both, QE1 and QE3. While the ability of households to refinance mortgages after QE1 spurred local demand, the resulting additional employment growth was relatively weak and confined to the non-tradable goods sector. In contrast, the increase in overall employment after QE3 is sizable and can be attributed to the supply of additional credit to firms. To s upport this finding, we use new confidential loan-level data to show that firms with stronger ties to affected banks increased employment and capital investment more after QE3. Altogether, our findings suggest that unconventional monetary policy can, similar to conventional monetary policy, affect real economic outcomes.

Bank excess returns and unconventional monetary policy

ABSTRACTDuring the Global Recession, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and the European Central Bank have implemented a series of unconventional monetary policy (UMP) measures. We argue that these programmes increased bank equity values in both the US and Europe via asset pricing channels. Using an event-study approach, we find that announcement of UMP actions amplified bank excess returns, especially during the first round of quantitative easing in the US and outright monetary transaction programmes in Europe. We also find evidence supporting market beta shifts subsequent of some major UMP announcements. Using the estimated shadow rates, we provide further empirical evidence on the continuous effect of monetary policy shocks on bank excess returns. Our results show that bank excess returns responded at least twice as stronger to monetary policy actions at the zero lower bound.

Did QE lead banks to relax their lending standards? Evidence from the Federal Reserve’s LSAPs

Using confidential loan officer survey data on lending standards and internal risk ratings on loans, we document an effect of large-scale asset purchase programs (LSAPs) on lending standards and risk-taking. We exploit cross-sectional variation in banks’ holdings of mortgage-backed securities to show that the first and third round of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3) significantly lowered lending standards and increased loan risk characteristics. The magnitude of the effects is about the same in QE1 and QE3, and is comparable to the effect of a one percentage point decrease in the Fed funds target rate.

An Estimate of the Impacts of the Bank of England’s Quantitative Easing Programme on UK Economic Growth

This paper reviews the reasons for and impacts of quantitative easing by the Bank of England. It analyses the macroeconomic impacts of this policy tool on the UK economy across the period 2008-16. It compares the impacts of each round of quantitative easing to assess how the impacts changed over time. The authors implemented econometric analysis based on the VAR model. This analysis indicated that the Bank of England’s monetary policy influenced GDP growth by a relatively small degree during the period studied. The impact of changes in the monetary base (M3) explained a bigger part of GDP growth than the decreases in interest rates and exchange rates. Over time the impact of this policy response diminished.

Did QE Lead Banks to Relax Their Lending Standards? Evidence from the Federal Reserve's LSAPs

Using confidential loan officer survey data on lending standards and internal risk ratings on loans, we document an effect of large-scale asset purchase programs (LSAPs) on lending standards and risk-taking. We exploit cross-sectional variation in banks’ holdings of mortgage-backed securities to show that the first and third round of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3) significantly lowered lending standards and increased loan risk characteristics. The magnitude of the effects is about the same in QE1 and QE3, and is comparable to the effect of a one percentage point decrease in the Fed funds target rate.

The Effects of Quantitative Easing on Bank Lending Behavior

Banks’ exposure to large-scale asset purchases, as measured by the relative prevalence of mortgage-backed securities on their books, affects lending following unconventional monetary policy shocks. Using a difference-in-differences identification strategy, this paper finds strong effects of the first and third round of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3) on credit. Highly affected commercial banks increase lending by 2% to 3% relative to their counterparts. QE2 had no significant impact, consistent with its exclusive focus on Treasuries sparsely held by banks. Overall, banks respond heterogeneously, and the type of asset being targeted is central to QE. Received January 13, 2016; editorial decision January 18, 2017 by Editor Philip Strahan.

Did QE Lead to Lax Bank Lending Standards? Evidence from the Federal Reserve's LSAPs

Using confidential loan officer survey data on lending standards and internal risk ratings on loans, we document an effect of large-scale asset purchase programs (LSAPs) on lending standards and risk-taking. We exploit cross-sectional variation in banks’ holdings of mortgage-backed securities to show that the first and third round of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE3) significantly lowered lending standards and increased loan risk characteristics. The magnitude of the effects is about the same in QE1 and QE3, and is comparable to the effect of a one percentage point decrease in the Fed funds target rate.

Regional Heterogeneity and Monetary Policy

We study the implications of regional heterogeneity within a currency union for monetary policy. We ask, first, does monetary policy mitigate or exacerbate ex-post regional dispersion over the business cycle? And second, does ex-ante regional heterogeneity increase or dampen the aggregate effects of a given monetary policy? To help answer these questions, we use detailed U.S. micro data to explore the extent to which mortgage activity differed across local areas in response to the first round of Quantitative Easing (QE1), announced in November 2008. We document that QE1 increased both mortgage activity and real spending but that its effects were smaller in parts of the country with the largest employment declines. This heterogeneous regional effect is driven by the fact that collateral values were most depressed in the regions with the largest employment declines, reducing the extent to which borrowers were able to benefit from rate decreases. We explore the implications of our empirical results for theoretical monetary policymaking using an incomplete-markets, heterogeneous-agent model of a monetary union whereby monetary policy influences local spending through collateralized lending. Preliminary results suggest that both the distributional and aggregate consequences of monetary policy depend on the joint distribution of local shocks. We find that if regions with low relative income also have depressed collateral values (as in 2008), then expansionary monetary policy will further exacerbate regional dispersion of economic activity and will also be less effective at stimulating aggregate spending.

The Effects of the Fed's Quantitative Easing Announcements on the U.S. Mortgage Market: An Event-Study Analysis

This paper uses regression based event-study analysis to examine the response of the 30-year mortgage rate to the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE) announcements in zero lower bond period. A total of 35 QE announcements from 2008 to 2015 are selected in reference to previous literature and my own discretion. Each announcement is then identified by a certain type and in a QE round. After model validation, the best-fitting IGARCH model with skewed t distribution is used to measure the QE announcement effects on daily changes of 30-year mortgage rate, 30-year Treasury rate and the spread between them. Abnormal returns (changes), cumulative abnormal returns and their long-run values of the mortgage rate for each announcement within 1-day, 3-day and 5-day event windows are calculated and reported. In event windows, announcements suggesting the start of a new round of QE reduced the mortgage rate tremendously, while the effects of further news conveying a continuation of the current QE policy diminished. Announcements of an increase in mortgage-backed security purchases decreased the mortgage rate more than the Treasury rate and reduced the credit risk of holding mortgage securities over Treasury securities. Two robustness checks find that the shocks of macro-economy and mortgage rate determinants were trivial in influencing abnormal returns and cumulative abnormal returns of the mortgage rate on average, and the results do not change so much if the model is controlling for the 10-year Treasury rate instead of the 30-year Treasury rate.