The Market’s Reaction to QE3 Is a Little Unnerving

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Fed’s QE3 program involves the purchase of $85 billion per month of mortgage-backed securities. In June, when the Fed suggested it might “taper” this down to $65 billion, markets tanked. Yesterday, when the Fed reversed course and announced that this wouldn’t happen, bond and equity markets were euphoric and shot upward on the news.

Felix Salmon thinks—almost certainly correctly—that the size of the response to yesterday’s news far outstrips the size of the potential change in Fed bond purchases:

If that is indeed the case, then what we’re seeing is what you might call the QE multiplier — the amount by which every dollar of QE effects the markets as a whole. I don’t know what we thought the QE multiplier was on Wednesday, but in light of Thursday’s market action we might need to revise our guesses: the QE multiplier is, I suspect, much larger than most of us would have pegged it at.

This doesn’t worry Salmon. In fact, he thinks it’s a good thing. It shows that the Fed’s policies have a big bang for the buck.

I agree. And yet….there’s something worrisome about it too. Right now the economy is still fragile, so it’s not surprising that investors reacted positively to evidence that the Fed plans to continue its support. But it’s not that fragile, is it? The reaction of the market really does seem out of whack with the likely impact of the Fed’s program.

So we have a few possibilities. The first is that QE3 has a big impact and investors realize that. Alternatively, it could mean the economy is more fragile than we think and investors are reacting to that. Or maybe it’s not especially fragile, but markets don’t believe it and are far more skittish than they should be. Or it could mean that QE3 is mainly just a profit-making opportunity for financial institutions, and they’re reacting rationally to it.

Three out of four of these are bad things. I’d feel a lot better about yesterday’s news if I were sure that none of them was the real explanation for the market’s apparent euphoria.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend