If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
A livello di equity fanno poco, fanno più a livello di compliance.
Se ne parla poco ma è molto interessante la maxi multa da 13 Mld di $ su cui pare si stiano accordano JPM e USA anche se poi vorrebbero ancora la possibilità di incriminarli...
"It' better stand tall when they're calling you out, don't bend, don't break, don't back down"
The Economist explains from The Economist. You've seen the news, now discover the story.
AMERICA'S Federal Reserve surprised markets in December by starting to "taper" its programme of monthly purchases of government and mortgage bonds—a process known as "quantitative easing", or QE—from $85 billion a month to $75 billion. Some worry that scaling back QE could endanger America's recovery or create financial instability in emerging markets. Meanwhile, expectations are rising that the European Central Bank may soon launch its own QE programme to boost the euro-area economy, where high unemployment is contributing to deflation. But what exactly is quantitative easing, and how is it supposed to work?
Central banks are responsible for keeping inflation in check. Before the financial crisis of 2008-09 they managed that by adjusting the interest rate at which banks borrow overnight. If firms were growing nervous about the future and scaling back on investment, the central bank would reduce the overnight rate. That would reduce banks' funding costs and encourage them to make more loans, keeping the economy from falling into recession. By contrast, if credit and spending were getting out of hand and inflation was rising then the central bank would raise the interest rate. When the crisis struck, big central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England slashed their overnight interest-rates to boost the economy. But even cutting the rate as far as it could go, to almost zero, failed to spark recovery. Central banks therefore began experimenting with other tools to encourage banks to pump money into the economy. One of them was QE.
To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence "quantitative" easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. The idea is that banks take the new money and buy assets to replace the ones they have sold to the central bank. That raises stock prices and lowers interest rates, which in turn boosts investment. Today, interest rates on everything from government bonds to mortgages to corporate debt are probably lower than they would have been without QE. If QE convinces markets that the central bank is serious about fighting deflation or high unemployment, then it can also boost economic activity by raising confidence. Several rounds of QE in America have increased the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet—the value of the assets it holds—from less than $1 trillion in 2007 to more than $4 trillion now.
The jury is still out on QE, however. Studies suggest that it did raise economic activity a bit. But some worry that the flood of cash has encouraged reckless financial behaviour and directed a firehose of money to emerging economies that cannot manage the cash. Others fear that when central banks sell the assets they have accumulated, interest rates will soar, choking off the recovery. Last spring, when the Fed first mooted the idea of tapering, interest rates around the world jumped and markets wobbled. Still others doubt that central banks have the capacity to keep inflation in check if the money they have created begins circulating more rapidly. Central bankers have been more cautious in using QE than they would have been in cutting interest rates, which could partly explain some countries' slow recoveries. At least a few central banks are now experimenting with stimulus alternatives, such as promises to keep overnight interest-rates low for a very long time, the better to scale back their dependence on QE.
Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question
Ovvero spiega la differenza di approccio tra BCE e FED ovvero perchè noi ci stiamo mettendo così tanto ad uscire dalla crisi.
PS con questo non intendo che dovremmo fare la stessa cosa, ma che dovremmo ispirarci alla loro prontezza d'azione e al loro apporccio "whatever it takes"
"It' better stand tall when they're calling you out, don't bend, don't break, don't back down"
il whatever it takes può però avere effetti devastanti.
Molti economisti affermano che una delle maggiori causa della crisi del 2007-8 fu proprio la presenza di una quantità di denaro immensa nel sistema che fece nascere ed espandere (e poi esplodere) bolle speculative di dimensioni enormi.
(Costoro ritengono che la prime immissioni massicce di liquidi nel sistema avvenne dopo la famosa crisi del 2000-1...quella delle cosiddette dotcom)
Insomma per superare una crisi di liquidità si inietta denaro nel sistema....che però rischia di generare poi una nuova crisi di dimensioni maggiori di quella che si è appena superarata.
2000 - 2008
I pessimisti prevedono che prima del 2020 ci sarà una nuova crisi finanziaria di dimensioni di molto maggiori rispetto a quella del 2007-2008, causata proprio dal denaro che le banche centrali di vari paesi stanno "spruzzando nel sistema"......del resto il ripetersi nell'arco di pochi anni di 3 grosse crisi ( causate però da fattori ben diversi...2000/2001 2007/2008 e 2012/ in corso) ha costretto le banche centrale a praticare tassi di interesse bassissimi.
Chiaramente io sono uno straprofano......lungi da me dire cosa dovrebbe fare la BCE
Originariamente Scritto da SPANATEMELA
parliamo della mezzasega pipita e del suo golllaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzoooooooooooooooooo contro la rubentus
Originariamente Scritto da GoodBoy!
ma non si era detto che espressioni tipo rube lanzie riommers dovevano essere sanzionate col rosso?
l'approccio "fare tutto ciò che è necessario" e "farlo in fretta" sono quello che ha permesso agli USA di uscire dalla crisi prima dell'Europa, io non dico che sia necessario fare le cose senza pensare dico solo che pensare troppo e agire con tempi biblici tante volte è più controproducente che non scegliere una soluzione sub optimale!
Gli USA salvarono le proprie banche facendo digerire aiuti anche a chi non ne aveva bisogno perchè tutti sapevano che in un modo o nell'altro ne avrebbero giovato, qui in Europa invece litighiamo per ogni cazzata e per prendere ogni decisione (anche la più marginale) sono polemiche e tempi ultra allungati. Tra l'altro dobbiamo ringraziare di avere un pragmatico come Draghi perchè fosse stato per Trichet avremmo ancora lo spread >400...
"It' better stand tall when they're calling you out, don't bend, don't break, don't back down"
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Commenta