Last few weeks, my blog focused on the
corporation finance: merger and acquisition. However, to operate the business,
the macroeconomic environment should be taken in account. This week, I would
like to review the Federal Reserve’s (FR) monetary policy. According the
definition of monetary policy, in order to keep the stability of the market and
GDP development, the Federal Reserve uses the interest rate and money supply to
control the macro economy. The monetary policy could be divided into two parts:
expansionary monetary policy and tight monetary policy. In this
credit crisis, the Federal Reserve provided the expansionary monetary, which
means that they increase the supply of the money to the market.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYabzVj42btfuwzO_ilAqK5IfyMPdC-VgBr6fj75ZYWxJ3G7zHqGMJb6Q-XOZkW14tv1QTD_asro1euAosNqpRuNLjZb6S9wYpgxj4i3yZHh5Tgl3-l1mCDSz7c3sfXtLlwX-X4e504zwA/s1600/images+(1).jpeg)
On 14th, March, the Federal Reserve
declared their policy would keep the expansionary monetary method. Since the
2007, the FR provided the expansionary monetary policy. From 18th,
September 2007, the FR adjusted the federal funds rate from 5.48% to 0.25%. At
the same time, the FR increased the minimum period of liability, from 1 day to
90 days. Meanwhile, the FR used the 700 billion dollar to incentive the market
to develop the liquidity of the market again. However, the result is not so
convinced. American economy did not recover from the crisis. Apart from that,
the increased money liquidity leads to a new challenge of inflation. Golden
price, petrol price and commodity prices have been challenged at the same time.
So is this policy real benefit for the market? The efficiency and effect of
this policy have been doubted by the market.
Where was the money? According to the research by Dr.
Ye of University of Alabama in the USA, these policies
did not let the capital flow to the companies, but just buy the NPA
(non-performing asset). And the interest policy just pushed the investors from
the long-term financial investment, shelter. The benefited party should be
these giant investors who lost money in the financial crisis. Compared with the
Roosevelt's
New Deal in
1927 crisis, these policies in this crisis lost their target and efficiency. In 1927's crisis, the government spent the money on the public infrastructures to provide the opportunities in the market, but this time, the FR just want to fix their lost. Is that a good thing for survive the crisis? So why do they keep these policies?