Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 88

Impact of QE on markets opposite of expected

October 2014 marks the end of the US Federal Reserve’s monetary policy it called ‘quantitative easing’ (QE) but the rest of us called plain old ‘money-printing’. The Fed’s aim was to create inflation by buying assets with newly printed money (instead of paying for them with cash raised by selling securities into the market) and crediting commercial banks’ reserve accounts in the hope that banks would increase lending to borrowers to invest and spend. A second aim was to depress the US dollar to help exporters (the theory being that money printing should devalue the currency because more paper money is chasing the same supply of assets).

There was much doom and gloom and even panic in the financial media about what QE might mean for markets. The resultant inflation or even hyper-inflation was supposed to be bad for share prices and bond prices, while the prices of inflation hedges like gold, oil and metals should soar. All this was supported by logic, theory, conventional ‘wisdom’ and the weight of opinion.

As it turns out, virtually all of the outcomes predicted by theory, logic and the shrill financial media were wrong. Driven by QE, markets did the opposite of what the conventional wisdom and weight of opinion expected. Prices of shares and bonds soared, the US dollar strengthened, and inflation and inflation hedges (gold, oil, metals) all fell.

The following diagram shows what was supposed to happen, and what did happen.

But US QE was not a failure. It prevented deflation in the US, which is far more debilitating than inflation. It also provided enough stimulus to bring US unemployment down from 10% to 6%. These benign outcomes inspired central banks in UK, Japan and now Europe to take similar action.

The following charts show the key events and impacts on markets. The first shows what was supposed to go down as a result of the massive central bank money-printing spree but went up instead.

The second chart shows what was supposed to go up as a result of the money-printing but went down instead.

It has been a good reminder that markets do not work according to text-book theories, nor do they follow logic. In the real world markets are driven by humans who in turn are driven by raw emotions and often illogical knee-jerk reactions to events that they perceive to be relevant. Studying these dynamics is far more difficult, interesting and rewarding than studying theory!

 

Ashley Owen is Joint CEO of Philo Capital Advisers and a director and adviser to the Third Link Growth Fund. This article is for general educational purposes and is not personal financial advice.

 

  •   14 November 2014
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
Kevin
November 14, 2014

Hi Ashley, I’m pleased you mentioned deflation, as you rightly point out, that was the key fear at the time. Whilst I’m certainly no expert, it seems to me if you view the results whilst looking through deflation glasses the results make more sense. US house prices had already deflated 30-50% depending on the state, so deflation was a real concern. In my view the QE money printing simply offset the deflationary pressures already in motion. This would explain why the popular financial media expectations did not eventuate (hyperinflation etc). As example, if bond yields are so low (due to Feds massive monthly purchases) there is almost no income derived then surely a logical expectation is investors will purchase income producing assets such as shares and the price for those shares will rise over time due demand. If the US economy was in a deflationary dive you would expect the US dollar to improve in value as it becomes worth more relative to other assets, especially given other countries were also actively depressing their currencies as well.

I’m not a fan of QE and as you say the jury is still out as to its longer term consequences, but I do think it worked as the Fed expected, it just wasn’t as the popular media expected.

ashley
November 15, 2014

Hi kevin
yes QE countered defaltionary forces. But falling house prices are not widely regarded as deflation , merely a correction from a bubble. Deflation forces came from huge excess capacity - human capacity (high unemployment), factory capacity, etc caused by the dramatic collapse in domestic and global demand.
But deflation was not a widely held fear. CPI inflation was running at 3% and 4%, the germans were running a scare campaign warning of 1923-style hyperinflation (they still are!), ATMs selling gold bars sprang up on the streets of Europe, and even the normally pro-inflation IMF advocated fiscal tightening.
The US also acted quickly to recapitalise banks but Europe is still in denial. Europe will be asleep for many years then it will just die of old age. The US has relatively good demographics (as has Australia) and this also helped in the recovery

Kevin
November 15, 2014

Yes I guess a US housing bubble collapse is a fair explanation and deflation by definition is prolonged negative CPI, but could you not also argue that the Feds QE pumped things up enough to counter what would otherwise have been prolonged negative CPI? I'd be interested in your view.

ashley
November 15, 2014

yes, deflation was the far more serious threat than inflation, although the inflation/gold bugs caught overwhelming bulk of public and media attention at the time. History will show that Bernanke was right and Greenspan wrong (although he was almost universally hailed as a god when he was in power).
Deflation should be a good thing - everybody likes paying lower prices! But if people expect lower prices next year they stop spending this year, and that stops production, investment and employment. It creates a negative spiral that requires a major shock (like an all-consuming war effort like WW2 followed by a baby boom and reconstruction boom) to break out of the spiral.
The other big difference between US and Europe is Europe's crippling extra layers of government and regulation, including and especially labour laws, welfare/pension entitlements and industry protection. It will take a lot more than money-printing by the ECB to get Europe out of its problems. So European QE (if it ever does occur it will be too late and too small) will be necessary but probably not sufficient to generate enough demand growth to restore full employment.
I don't make value judgements about whether policy actions like QE are good or bad, my main focus is on understanding impacts on investment markets and positioning portfolios to miminise losses and maximise gains.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Five reasons Australian rates unlikely to follow US

Trump's US dollar assault is fuelling CBA's rise

Brace, brace, brace: The real issue behind the banking turmoil

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Indexation implications – key changes to 2026/27 super thresholds

Stay on top of the latest changes to superannuation rates and thresholds for 2026, including increases to transfer balance cap, concessional contributions cap, and non-concessional contributions cap.

The refinery problem: A different kind of energy crisis in 2026

The Strait of Hormuz closure due to US-Iran conflict severely disrupted global energy supply chains. While various emergency measures mitigated the crude impact, the refined product market faces unprecedented stress.

Has Australia wasted the last 30 years?

The 20 years after Peter Costello left Treasury have been deemed wasted...by Peter Costello. The missed opportunities for Australia began long before.  

3 ways to defuse intergenerational anger

With the upcoming budget increasingly likely to include bold proposals to alter the tax code I’ve outlined three incremental steps with fewer unintended consequences.

Navigating the next stage of life in retirement

Retirement planning is more than just saving enough money. Long-term care needs, housing choices, and social networks are just as critical for a happy and enjoyable life.

The missing 30%: how LIC returns are understated, and why it matters

The perceived underperformance of LICs compared to ETFs is due to existing comparison data excluding crucial information, highlighting the need for proper assessment and transparent reporting.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Do super funds need a massive wake up call?

UK retirement expert, Guy Opperman, believes super funds are failing at supporting members in deaccumulation. Here is what Australia should do about it. 

Retirement

Sequencing risk resurfaces for retirees

A retirement strategy must consider how both the timing of cash flows and the sequence of returns impact the final dollar outcome from which a retirement is funded.

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Payday super – why should SMSF members even care?

Not filing your SMSF annual return on time can mean missed contributions under the new Payday super regulation. 

Strategy

There will be no permanent underclass

Worries about AI causing mass job loss are misguided. Far from creating a permanent underclass, Like other technological innovations AI will improve living standards around the world.

Taxation

Reforming the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers

As the budget approaches debate continues about the need and method for addressing wealth inequality. Could reinstating wealth transfer taxes be the answer?

Investment strategies

The biggest oil shock in history. Why isn't the price higher?

While increases in oil prices are dominating media coverage of the turmoil in the Middle-East it is worth exploring why prices haven't gone up more. 

Financial planning

Structured giving's new moment

A big year for philanthropy has seen multiple tax changes impact the approach donors are taking. For those with the intention to give generously there is a third structure available in the structured giving landscape.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.