Live data from Hacker News

Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

bloomberg.com

191–200 of 499 posts

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#191

From what I gather after spending more time than I'm willing to admit listening to every finance talking head out there, the consensus on the street seems to be that this will result in a temporary market recovery followed by the continued deterioration of stock prices given that fiscal or monetary* policy can't really affect the real economy in the near term* i.e. if the supply chain is indeed impacted due to COVID-…

The Fed's job is supposed to be to keep inflation stable. Inflation is as stable as it's ever been. If stock prices go down, that means nothing to inflation. Somehow, since Greenspan, the Fed's job evolved to include pumping up asset prices to benefit asset owners (the top 5% own 80% of assets).

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#193
post #162
post #51

For those saying the Fed is running out of ammunition, study what the Bank of Japan has done. It owns close to 80% of the Japanese ETF market currently, with no end to the expansion of balance sheet in sight. After buying long treasuries, it's not unreasonable to imagine the Fed buying stocks, either individual issues or ETFs. The President would be for it, and it would be hard to drum up any opposition to it in cong…

What would buying stocks do for the economy?

Artificially propping up pension funds and the like, basically an indirect cash donation from the FED to the middle-class people who are over 40. We’ll see how it goes, because we didn’t really experience capitalism without creative destruction until now (which looks like the path we’re headed on).

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#194

From what I gather after spending more time than I'm willing to admit listening to every finance talking head out there, the consensus on the street seems to be that this will result in a temporary market recovery followed by the continued deterioration of stock prices given that fiscal or monetary* policy can't really affect the real economy in the near term* i.e. if the supply chain is indeed impacted due to COVID-…

I see 3 things driving the market now. An overdue market correction, reasonable reaction to supply chain issues and an irrational reaction to the virus.

A temporary boost to the market gives more time for the true long term impact to the supply chain to play out. It may turn out that the boost only gave a short respite but it may also turn out that it saved the market unneeded turmoil.

A short term boost also gives people a chance to take a breath, step back and take a more rational approach.

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#195
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fiscal policy can't really affect the real economy Fiscal policy ( e.g. the government buying tanks) absolutely affects the real economy. The central bank doesn't control fiscal policy. It controls monetary policy. Monetary policy also affects the real economy, just indirectly.

Monetary policy is about increasing or decreasing the money supply. The argument is that it cannot have long-term real effects because if it did we would all be incredibly rich, since it costs nothing to increase the money supply by whatever amount. Every underdeveloped nation would simply increase their money supply and poverty would be a thing of the past.

In the modern world its also about incentivizing/disincentivizing debt.

There is no argument that cannot or does not have long-term effects, and no we would not all be incredibly rich, as it absolutely costs something to increase to money supply.

When you increase the money supply you devalue each and every current piece of money in existence. Money (fiat) can be infinite but what you buy with it is not.

>Every underdeveloped nation would simply increase their money supply and poverty would end for ever.

No, it wouldn't. Have you heard of hyperinflation? A gallong of milk would simply cost $1000 dollars. Kind of like how milk used to cost 5 cents a gallon 50 years ago. The countries that do try what you are talking about, and there are plenty of examples, amazingly, all end up incredibly poor and economically devastated.

The argument that monetary policy cannot affect the real world economy is more about its limitations, where it cannot really make up for something like a months long interruption to international trade because the world's leading manufacturing nation has quarantined half its population.

The best it could to benefit the long term, I would think, is to make credit more available and cheaper to make it easier for companies and governments to weather the storm with minimal damage.

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#198

I'm retired and mostly not in the market. I won't invest in the market while it is overpriced. With such low interest rates, what is a safe investment?

Structured products!

More or less, this is a deal with an investment bank where they take your money and hold onto it for a fixed term, while watching the level of a stock market index. If the index ever gets above a pre-determined "trigger level", they give you your money back early, with interest calculated at a fixed rate. If it never gets above the trigger level, then at the end of the term, they give you back your money, without interest. Unless the index has fallen below a "barrier level", in which case you don't get all your money back - you lose it in proportion to the fall in the index.

So, it's a bit like investing in the stock market - if the market goes up, you make money, if it goes down, you lose money - but rounded to fixed levels.

Here's an example:

http://www.marianainvestments.com/adviser/contact/view-plan/...

The term is 10 years, the index is the FTSE 100, the barrier level is 70%; there are three options for interest rates and trigger levels, and the safest, option 1, pays 8.55%, and has trigger levels like this:

  Year   Level
     2  102.5%
     3  100.0%
     4   97.5%
     5   95.0%
     6   92.5%
     7   90.0%
     8   87.5%
     9   85.0%
    10   82.5%
So basically, if you think the FTSE 100 will hold its current level over ten years, or even decline slightly, you get a 8.55% per annum payout.

Or, if you think that it will make it to 105% of its current level, you could go for the full-blooded option 3, which pays out 14% per annum.

And bear in mind that a fall in the index only matters at the end of the term. If there's a crash, and the index has fallen to 50% of the current level by year 3, the product keeps running. If the index recovers to 87.5% of the current level five years after that, the product pays out! It literally cannot go tits up.

Re: Fed cuts half point in emergency move amid spreading virus

#200
post #72
post #51

For those saying the Fed is running out of ammunition, study what the Bank of Japan has done. It owns close to 80% of the Japanese ETF market currently, with no end to the expansion of balance sheet in sight. After buying long treasuries, it's not unreasonable to imagine the Fed buying stocks, either individual issues or ETFs. The President would be for it, and it would be hard to drum up any opposition to it in cong…

What would be the endgame here?

Stock bubble -> Stock crash -> More QE -> QE fails -> Bond crash & Govt crisis -> Currency crash -> Commodities skyrocket -> Civil chaos
Post reply on HN