QE3 is a whole new beast

By MoneyWeek editor-in-chief Merryn Somerset Webb Sep 20, 2012

Merryn Somerset-Webb

Share with
friends:

Comments (3) Print this article

Years ago, back when all this first started, Bill Bonner and I talked about how it would play out. He said central banks would print money. Then they’d print more money. Then they’d get addicted to printing money. And then there would be inflation. You can make the crisis and its ongoing semi-resolution sound a whole lot more complicated than that if you like, but in the end that’s more or less what is happening.

America, as ever, is rather ahead of the rest of us. Its first two rounds of QE made some sense. The money supply was on the verge of serious contraction as the banks pulled back from lending. So to prevent deflation and depression the Federal Reserve stepped into the breach and printed just enough money to stop the overall supply of money falling. QE1 and QE2 were all about trying to mend the broken financial system.

But the US financial system is now more or less fixed with the supplies of credit and money growing. That makes QE3 something different altogether. It marks the beginning of the addiction phase and the targeting of a variable (employment) for which no clear transmission mechanism really exists.

The newly created money is destined for the hands of financial institutions holding mortgage backed securities (MBS) but, as CLSA’s Russell Napier points out, they won’t use it to create jobs. They’ll use it to buy other financial assets – shares, bonds and the like.

It might end up creating employment somehow, sometime. But before it does it has to “cascade” through a lot of financial assets. And if those into whose hands it cascades decide to leverage up a little along the way we can expect the cascade to turn into a deluge.


Lead indicators for Britain's economy

Gold/silver ratio:
A warning for the markets
Where to next for
UK house prices?
Is Britain's inflation
about to take off?


This might not be good news for ordinary Americans – after all, as Bill points out, they don’t own many of the assets in question. “At best they own houses, which have gone down. At worst they own nothing but their time, which has also gone down” as real wages have collapsed.

But it’s great for speculators, for those who own stocks (think of what’s about to happen as a kind of predictabubble) and those who’ve been waiting for the currency war to kick off in earnest – note that Japan has now been pushed into chucking new money into the mix too.

So what do you do? You hang on to your gold (tightly) and read John’s cover story where we run through all the major asset classes and tell you just where we stand on them (an exercise we plan to repeat regularly from now on): Going cheap - bargain assets to put into your portfolio now.

Then you look at my interview with Edinburgh Partners' Sandy Nairn. The stand out point for me from our talk comes from Sandy’s work on valuations and inflation. Buy something expensive now and history shows that when inflation hits 4% you’ll lose money, probably a lot of it. Buy something cheap and you won’t. What’s cheap? The good news is that it is two things regular readers are probably already holding: European equities and Japanese equities.

Comments (3)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Dr Bob

    (20 September 2012, 06:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    What proof have you seen that the QE money which entities receive from selling their debt holdings to the Fed is then being used by these entities to buy other financial assets? Genuinely interested. Thanks in advance.

  • 2. Dyadco

    (21 September 2012, 11:43AM)  Complain about this comment

    When I read "hang onto your gold (tightly)", my only concern with holding onto gold is that everyone is advising me to do this.

    I bought gold many years back at $325-$380 and sold at $1,100 and I just feel that when everyone is buying gold, its not the right move.

    Any other opinions?

  • 3. Dr Bob

    (25 September 2012, 06:59AM)  Complain about this comment

    Tumbleweed ....

    Have you at least considered the possibility that QE money is being used to recapitalize the banks and other lenders and that the money is not reaching other asset markets, let alone the wider economy? That there is already more than sufficient liquidity chasing other assets even without QE?

    That when it comes to unwind QE, governments will force the banks etc to eat the paper under the auspices of prudent increases in reserves?

    That the recapitalisation will take a very long time....and that the inflation will never come?

    All bubbles are built on a shared fallacy. This gold bubble is built on unfounded inflation expectations resulting from a widely held misunderstanding of QE. Look at Japan. The end game is a default against domestic bond holders not hyperinflation.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>