Bitcoin Forum
November 08, 2024, 01:47:24 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Could take 5-8 years to shrink Fed portfolio: Yellen  (Read 10152 times)
rafamadeira (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 79
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 08, 2014, 07:46:02 PM
 #1

Could take 5-8 years to shrink Fed portfolio: Yellen

By Ann Saphir

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON Thu May 8, 2014 1:55pm EDT


U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testifies about the U.S. economy before a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington May 8, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testifies about the U.S. economy before a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington May 8, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

(Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve is in no rush to decide the appropriate size of its balance sheet, but if it ultimately shrinks it to a pre-crisis size, the process could take the better part of a decade, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Thursday.

Yellen, in testimony to a Senate panel, said no decision had yet been made on the central bank's portfolio of assets, which has swollen to $4.5 trillion from about $800 billion in 2007.

Three rounds of asset purchases meant to stimulate the economy in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis have boosted the balance sheet to this record level. Unsatisfied with the U.S. recovery, the Fed is still adding $45 billion in bonds each month, though the purchases should end later this year.

Yellen said the portfolio should start to shrink once the Fed decides to raise near-zero interest rates.

"We've not decided, and we'll probably wait until we're in the process of normalizing policy to decide, just what our long-run balance sheet will be," she told lawmakers, adding it will be "substantially lower" than it is now.

While the central bank could sell the mortgage-based bonds it has accumulated, in the past it has telegraphed that it would more likely simply stop re-investing funds from expired assets and then, over years, let the assets run off the balance sheet naturally.

"If we do that and nothing more, it would probably take somewhere in the neighborhood of five to eight years to get it back to pre-crisis levels," Yellen said of halting reinvestments.

It was the Fed's most explicit time frame yet for the delicate task of shrinking its balance sheet to a more normal level. The massive portfolio has sparked worries that, once the Fed starts to raise rates, inflation will shoot up. The Fed could also absorb losses if it decides to sell assets in the years ahead, a potential political headache for Yellen.

The five-to-eight-year timeline generally aligns with estimates of both private economists and a paper published last year by top Fed economists. A paper by JPMorgan economists predicts shrinking the Fed's portfolio would take seven years.

A COMMUNITY BANKER FOR FED BOARD

Yellen, in her second day of testimony before lawmakers, again stressed that excessively low inflation drags on economic growth. But she rejected the idea, floated by some private economists, of trying to boost inflation above the Fed's 2-percent target to ratchet down unemployment, saying it was critical to keep inflation expectations firmly anchored.

Inflation has been running just above 1 percent in the world's biggest economy while unemployment, albeit falling, is still elevated at 6.3 percent.

Asked repeatedly about fiscal policies, Yellen took a page from her predecessor Ben Bernanke and urged the Congress to address the nation's long-term budget challenges, warning that the current course was unsustainable.

"We can see that going out 20, 30, 50 years without some further shifts in fiscal policy, it's projected that the ratio of debt to GDP will rise to unsustainable levels," Yellen told the Senate Budget Committee.

"I would join my predecessor in saying that I do think it's important that the Congress address that issue," she said, adding recent tightening of fiscal policy had been one of the "headwinds" that had undercut the Fed's efforts to foster a stronger economic recovery.

In another exchange, Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, asked Yellen if she would favor the addition of a community banker to the Fed board, which currently has only four of its seven seats filled.

"Certainly I am in favor of that," Yellen said, noting recently retired governors Elizabeth Duke and Sarah Bloom Raskin were very familiar with small banks. The Fed governor said she had conveyed her desire for a community banker on the Fed board to the White House, which nominates central bank governors.

Reuters reported last month that the White House was considering a former banking lawyer, as well as two others with direct community-banking experience, as possible nominees to the depleted Fed board.


LINK: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSBREA470QE20140508


_____________________



Lets say they want to shrink it to 1 trillion U$.. that is 3.5 trillion dollars or something like U$435 billion/year for 8 years...

KEEP CALM AND HOLD YOUR BITCOINS  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Insert Coins Here: 1GWz2R7NKVgtYg8yYQ7bbzDZWyRLXoitBN

Thank you Sir!
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 08, 2014, 08:01:49 PM
 #2

"
Asked repeatedly about fiscal policies, Yellen took a page from her predecessor Ben Bernanke and urged the Congress to address the nation's long-term budget challenges, warning that the current course was unsustainable.

"We can see that going out 20, 30, 50 years without some further shifts in fiscal policy, it's projected that the ratio of debt to GDP will rise to unsustainable levels," Yellen told the Senate Budget Committee.
"
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4494
Merit: 3402



View Profile
May 08, 2014, 10:35:44 PM
 #3

She lost any respect I might have had for her with this:

Quote
Yellen ... stressed that excessively low inflation drags on economic growth.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
jamesc760
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 08, 2014, 11:30:59 PM
 #4

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4088
Merit: 1452



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2014, 01:50:57 AM
 #5

Why is there a FED to begin with would be the best question, nobody should be running it.  It should be run down, its a pointless invention. 

▄▄███████████████████▄▄
▄███████████████████████▄
████████▀░░░░░░░▀████████
███████░░░░░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░░░░███████
██████▀░░░░░░░░░░░▀██████
██████▄░░░░░▄███▄░▄██████
██████████▀▀█████████████
████▀▄██▀░░░░▀▀▀░▀██▄▀███
███░░▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀░░███
████▄▄░░░░▄███▄░░░░▄▄████
▀███████████████████████▀
▀▀███████████████████▀▀
 
 CHIPS.GG 
▄▄███████▄▄
▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄
███▀░▄░▀▀▀▀▀░▄░▀███
▄███
░▄▀░░░░░░░░░▀▄░███▄
▄███░▄░░░▄█████▄░░░▄░███▄
███░▄▀░░░███████░░░▀▄░███
███░█░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░▀░░░█░███
███░▀▄░▄▀░▄██▄▄░▀▄░▄▀░██
▀███
░▀░▀▄██▀░▀██▄▀░▀░██▀
▀███
░▀▄░░░░░░░░░▄▀░██▀
▀███▄
░▀░▄▄▄▄▄░▀░▄███▀
▀█
███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
█████████████████████████
▄▄███████▄▄
███
████████████▄
▄█▀▀▀▄
█████████▄▀▀▀█▄
▄██████▀▄▄▄▄▄▀██████▄
▄█████████████▄████████▄
████████▄███████▄████████
█████▄█████████▄██████
██▄▄▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▄▄██
▀█████████▀▀███████████▀
▀███████████████████▀
██████████████████
▀████▄███▄▄
████▀
████████████████████████
3000+
UNIQUE
GAMES
|
12+
CURRENCIES
ACCEPTED
|
VIP
REWARD
PROGRAM
 
 
  Play Now  
TrailingComet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 09, 2014, 02:17:28 AM
 #6

The Fed made sense kinda in the 20th century where centralisation was believed to create he bet social outcomes
Very different paradigms will evolve in this century

RoadTrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009


View Profile
May 09, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
 #7

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?
You must be very short-sighted if you unconditionally believe in what Yellen and other great economists say.

On the topic. It's quite predictable that Fed is likely to hold most of bought assets to maturity. In case they start raising interest rates they will incur paper losses. They will likely try to avoid realizing these losses by holding to maturity.
The only situation in which they might incur losses is if the rates they pay on liabilities are greater than average yield on assets.
But anyways earning profits is not a purpose of Fed's operations, so it may not matter.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
May 09, 2014, 09:34:28 PM
 #8

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?
Because he knows better. The current economy is a giant scam. Nobody who points this out stands any kind of chance of being part of its leadership.

Look inside yourself, and you will see that you are the bubble.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
May 10, 2014, 11:57:07 PM
 #9

Impossible

Banks financed and constructed many houses and sold them to people who don't have a good job, when the house price dropped, those people went for default. Central banks print lots of money to buy those houses from banks to artificially support the house price so that other house owners with better finance situation won't be pulled into this crisis together

Now central banks are holding those huge amount of houses at hand, value about 1/4 of the size of US GDP, and hope to sell those houses in the coming 5-8 years

Who is going to buy those used houses at such a high price? Unless the inflation raise quickly to make those houses attractive again, the only way going forward is for them to hold onto those houses indefinitely. If they release those houses on market, they will push the housing price down and pull the economy back into recession

And real income is dropping quickly because of automation, so new houses will be cheaper to gain more buyer, those old houses that FED holds will become more and more difficult to sell

On the other hand, commercial banks who successfully dumped those houses to FED are holding huge amount of cash right now. If those cash flow out, the inflation will shoot up quickly

RoadTrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009


View Profile
May 11, 2014, 03:03:02 AM
 #10

Impossible

Banks financed and constructed many houses and sold them to people who don't have a good job, when the house price dropped, those people went for default. Central banks print lots of money to buy those houses from banks to artificially support the house price so that other house owners with better finance situation won't be pulled into this crisis together

Now central banks are holding those huge amount of houses at hand, value about 1/4 of the size of US GDP, and hope to sell those houses in the coming 5-8 years

Who is going to buy those used houses at such a high price? Unless the inflation raise quickly to make those houses attractive again, the only way going forward is for them to hold onto those houses indefinitely. If they release those houses on market, they will push the housing price down and pull the economy back into recession

And real income is dropping quickly because of automation, so new houses will be cheaper to gain more buyer, those old houses that FED holds will become more and more difficult to sell

On the other hand, commercial banks who successfully dumped those houses to FED are holding huge amount of cash right now. If those cash flow out, the inflation will shoot up quickly

You are wrong.
MBS which Fed holds are securitized and guaranteed by government-sponsored enterprises (Freddie, Fannie, Ginnie). The credit risk is their burden.
Fed will get the money no matter what, even if it implies another GSEs bailout.

What types of agency MBS will the Desk purchase?
Agency MBS purchases will likely be concentrated in newly-issued agency MBS in the To-Be-Announced (TBA) market because these securities have greater liquidity and are closely tied to primary mortgage rates. The Desk may purchase other agency MBS if market conditions warrant. Only fixed-rate agency MBS securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are eligible assets for purchase. These eligible assets include, but are not limited to, 30-year and 15-year securities of these issuers. Ineligible assets include CMOs, REMICs, Trust IOs/Trust POs and other mortgage derivatives or cash equivalents.
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
May 11, 2014, 10:54:03 AM
 #11

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?

LOL! Do you seriously think the Fed would ever let him near the application form if there is one if they heard he supported deflation? These people want hyperinflation and inflation of the money supply to continue because they profit from it enormously, they're scam artists that's why the keep talking about QE and then keep carrying it on so they can keep their system going for a few more years.

Just you wait, when the depression happens, all these people involved with the fed are going to mysteriously disappear or move somewhere else like Mark karpeles and you'll be left holding all the debt, well, not us, because we're in crpytocurrencies and precious metals but everyone else will be Tongue
i dig bitcoins
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 11, 2014, 07:37:34 PM
 #12

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?
Because he knows better. The current economy is a giant scam. Nobody who points this out stands any kind of chance of being part of its leadership.

Agree with you Ibian, especially when the CPI formula they use is "non-transparent". Their reason for this being they don't want other companies "to gain an unfair advantage" over another. I really really so love the concern the Feds have in protecting me from commercial corporations and I love that they have my best interest at heart. Great big hugs with love and kisses to our great benefactors the Federal Reserve and The Bureau of Labor statistics for keeping the inflation rate so low so that I can pay my bills and still have some money left over to buy shiny trinkets that will make me happy and make me the envy of my  peers and neighbors  Grin
johny08
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1045
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 11, 2014, 07:37:49 PM
 #13

when the goverment would have no debts bitcoin would not be important. but so its unstoppable to break the systems of banks reproducing money and getting richer and richer by stealing it from the people.
hashman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008


View Profile
May 11, 2014, 11:15:13 PM
 #14


...
the Fed is still adding $45 billion in bonds each month,   ...


Just curious, is Yellen providing the functionality here of getmininginfo() ? 

Is there a way for the public to verify the number in any way? 
Access
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 12, 2014, 07:07:05 AM
 #15

No way Smiley

RoadTrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009


View Profile
May 13, 2014, 05:00:53 AM
 #16


...
the Fed is still adding $45 billion in bonds each month,   ...


Just curious, is Yellen providing the functionality here of getmininginfo() ? 

Is there a way for the public to verify the number in any way? 
Mostly only info provided by Fed itself. They are regularly publishing their balance sheet, which I believe is being periodically audited by government.
They also publish the info regarding their open market operations.
IIOII
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1012



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
 #17

(Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve is in no rush to decide the appropriate size of its balance sheet, but if it ultimately shrinks it to a pre-crisis size, the process could take the better part of a decade, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Thursday.

Not rushing this decision process is good, because the balance sheet will never shrink again.

It's a joke but with very sad consequences for the majority of the population.

In these days blessed are those who own some Bitcoin.
Ron~Popeil
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 06:38:42 PM
 #18

The idea of them reducing the money supply is laughable. If the huge debt burden that the US owes were to suddenly increase in value the system would collapse under it's own weight. A huge debt that we all owe that we never agreed to btw. 

Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1003


View Profile
May 14, 2014, 01:27:57 AM
 #19

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?

+1. I was skeptical of Yellen, but she has said a few things that make me tentatively respect her. Also, though we might disagree on certain things, she came to her point of view through a lot of experience and knowledge. Might she be wrong? Absolutely. That being said we should consider what she has to say carefully.

My main problem with her is that she continues to cite the CPI as a measure of inflation, which I do not believe is accurate.

ACCOUNT RECOVERED 4/27/2020. Account was previously hacked sometime in 2017. Posts between 12/31/2016 and 4/27/2020 are NOT LEGITIMATE.
twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 14, 2014, 03:59:43 AM
 #20

I lost all respect for odolvlovo with his comment ^^^^

Since you obviously know more and better than Yellen, why aren't you running the Fed?

+1. I was skeptical of Yellen, but she has said a few things that make me tentatively respect her. Also, though we might disagree on certain things, she came to her point of view through a lot of experience and knowledge. Might she be wrong? Absolutely. That being said we should consider what she has to say carefully.

My main problem with her is that she continues to cite the CPI as a measure of inflation, which I do not believe is accurate.

How would you describe the key differences between Yellen and Bernanke?  Kinda surprised Larry Summers withdrew.  Maybe he was too vocal and Yellen was more "safe"
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!