If a gap opens between a central bank’s promises and the market’s belief, the cost will be levied in the usual way with financial markets — volatility.
If a gap opens between a central bank’s promises and the market’s belief, the cost will be levied in the usual way with financial markets — volatility.
Financial markets ought to sell off no matter what the U.S. Fed does about tapering, but almost certainly they won’t.
The approval of the final version of the Volcker rule, a restriction on banks’ proprietary trading, is being billed as the toughest piece of U.S. financial-markets regulation to come out of the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.
In the week that Twitter went public at a stratospheric valuation the U.S. Fed set the stage for yet more aggressive monetary policy. Both events will bear some bitter fruit.
The evidence that central banks’ main policy response to the Great Recession, quantitative easing, can kindle inflation, much less revive an economy, is decidedly mixed.
U.S. central bank feels the time is right to start putting away the unorthodox monetary policy that has come to define the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
The U.S. jobs report for August released Sep. 6 illustrates perfectly why Federal Reserve policymakers are divided over whether and when to start reining in the central bank’s stimulus.
The emphasis on the taper by the Fed is puzzling if you only take into account what the central bank actually says, and compare it to the data the economy is actually recording.
All the leading candidates to succeed Ben Bernanke (above) as Fed chairman are, to one extent or another, products of a dynamic, technocratic system that has done better than most political establishments in attending to the needs of the common people.
An eventual end to the U.S. Fed’s asset purchase program is taken as a given; what matters to investors now is how long will the central bank hold off on raising interest rates.