[gfodor]

I don't understand this point of view, sorry Warren. The fed is generating revenue for the government in a certain sense, yes, but saying it is a successful hedge fund is like me saying that if I hold a bunch of bonds in my portfolio throwing off some interest that is a successful hedge fund. The entire question is what are they going to be able to sell those bonds back to the market for. If they end up having to sell them at a massive loss, which is likely, then all that revenue they've been throwing off in interest better offset those losses. I might have this wrong but it seems to be very odd to characterize the fed's QE programs as a success when it is literally an experiment in progress.

[hkmurakami]

The Fed bought toxic assets at way below par value. These bonds are giving off interest, but their underlying value is going up as well. They also bought equity in companies like GM and AIG (iirc) for fractions of what they are worth today.

I think Buffet used the term "hedge fund" for dramatic effect rather than strict accuracy (since most of the public sees hedge funds as the epitomy of the investing money making dogma), but you can definitely draw parallels between the Fed's investment decisions and those of a long-only hedge fund (rather than the algo or long-short variety)

[dxhdr]

"their underlying value is going up as well"

How can you tell? These are illiquid bonds that have no market. The Fed could say they're worth anything and there's no way to prove or disprove it. The only way to know is to offer them for sale and obviously that's the opposite to what the Fed is doing.

[jessedhillon]

In the case where those toxic assets are mortgage-backed securities, the underlying is a house -- so we can tell by observing the housing market.

[jonnathanson]

Many of the mortgage-backed securities were so byzantine, so many orders of derivatives removed from the underlying houses, as to be nearly impossible to tie directly to housing. But that's a side point.

The real point is that a lot of the mortgages originally packaged into those securities no longer exist, and hell, a fair number of those houses probably no longer exist. Yes, there's a huge supply of housing once again, and real estate is doing well across the country. But mortgages represent specific financial obligations, made in specific slices of time, between specific parties. The mortgages themselves are not fungible, and never could have been. They were bundled into individualized tranches, whose bases have probably evaporated by now. (We must keep in mind that the troublesome MBSes circa 2007-8 comprised subprime mortgages, and most of those subprimes went belly up).

[cremnob]

The Fed can hold them to term. They are under no pressure to sell.

[msandford]

Holding them to term is actually a bit of a joke if you think about it. The Fed is buying bonds. The government is selling them. As long as the Fed keeps buying them, the government can keep selling them. If the Fed holds them to maturity, where will the money come from to pay back the mature bonds? From the government selling even more new bonds which the Fed will have to buy.

It's not a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scam but it can't help but be compared to them. It's in a similar boat to Social Security. It has the veneer of legitimacy because "it's the government" but underneath it's a bit unseemly.

[preempalver]

The fed is buying bonds on the secondary market i.e not directly bidding and taking down auctions at treasury. This may sound minute but is a huge point. See http://pragcap.com/understanding-quantitative-easing

[msandford]

Yeah I get it, they're not shoving everyone out of the way immediately.

But would the banks have all originated subprime loans had they not been able to repackage them and sell them? By selling the loans they were kept off the bank's balance sheet.

If the Fed is buying up all kinds of bonds and the banks know this, there's nothing preventing them from selling their older bonds which were purchased at a time when interest rates were higher (and thus bond prices were lower) and selling them at a profit to the Fed. They then need to do something with the money, why not buy some new bonds?

Just because the Fed isn't participating in the primary auction doesn't mean that they're not influencing the Treasury market in a huge way.

[preempalver]

The original comment was to reflect that the Fed is not monetizing the government, which is different than influencing the treasury market. The fed is influencing the market by effecting the "rate" not the "size". Just by influencing the treasury market you cannot make the logic leap that they are creating $ for the government to spend (recklessly?), or forcing the government to create more UST in order to pay back older maturing UST.

[msandford]

I think I see what you're saying there. I just disagree with it. I would argue that "rate" affects "size" in a real way.

For example, Greece was getting killed on their bonds: they had to pay 8%, 10%, 12% on them. Which means that in order to raise $10B now you had to promise $20B (or more) at maturity of 10 years. That was because they didn't have a central bank to buy their bonds on the secondary market and effectively reduce the supply, thus driving their price up and the interest rate down.

Here what we're seeing is that the Fed IS buying on the secondary market and the banks are aware of this. That reduces the supply of Treasury bonds (absent the Fed's intervention) which, everything else equal, drives the price up and the interest rate down.

Furthermore since the banks KNOW that the Fed will buy the bonds off of them, potentially at a small profit they don't have any problems going to the auction and buying the bonds to flip to the Fed. If the Fed dried up as a buyer of Treasurys it's entirely likely that the banks would stop buying, the auctions would be less successful and the interest rate on the bonds would go up as the price of the bonds goes down.

So what I'm arguing is that I would agree with you but only if the Fed either 1) didn't buy Treasurys on the secondary market or 2) the Fed couldn't create money to buy Treasurys from the banks who are buying them at auction. Since neither of those conditions is met, I would disagree. I would argue that they're monetizing the debt but indirectly. Just because it's indirect doesn't somehow make it not happen. It just makes it harder to follow.

[yuliyp]

How is there any sort of difference? The effect of reducing the supply of treasury bonds in the market and increasing the supply of money in the economy is the same, regardless of whether the bond is removed from the open market at auction or from the secondary market.

[preempalver]

Reducing the supply of UST !=Increasing the money supply. All QE is doing is increasing bank reserves. Unless bank lend the reserves out money supply is not affected. With IOERR and general aggregate demand being jacked, banks are not really lending money out to actually increase the money supply. If just taking UST's out would have increased money supply we would have seen a lot more inflation!

*edit: IOER = Interest on excess reserves. See http://synthenomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/interest-on-excess-... for a good explanation

[dxhdr]

The Fed has no choice but to hold them to term. The Fed's whole game is to continue keeping rates at zero by buying everything under the sun to the tune of $85 billion! per month. Selling, or even slowing the rate of purchasing, would do the opposite and raise rates.

[preempalver]

Agree, selling will be problematic. The fed's probably going to use reverse-repo to exit. See http://www.voxeu.org/article/exit-path-implications-collater... and http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/08/27/1612763/will-this-be-t...

[preempalver]

its here! http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_1...

[cremnob]

They have choices. They have complete flexibility. They are under no pressure to do anything that isn't explicitly their goals. They want to control inflation and increase employment. If the economy starts to heat up and inflation starts to rise above their 2% target they will then have the option of selling bonds or raising the federal funds rate, the latter of which is more likely.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with the last comment. He doesn't know the exact number off the top of his head. The exact amount remitted last year to Treasury is $88.4 billion.

[dxhdr]

They are under extreme pressure to continue purchasing treasury bills from the government and mortgage backed securities and derivatives from banks. Even hinting that they'll start tapering these purchases has caused the equity markets to drop and rates to rise. Actually tapering will in short order throw the country into a recession. I'd be hard pressed to call that "complete flexibility."