Example collocations logo

Quantitative in sentence

681 examples of Quantitative in a sentence

For example, developed economies’ quantitative easing programs have contributed to excess liquidity – and thus to the recent corporate-debt explosion in emerging economies.
Second, the Federal Reserve should expand its quantitative easing and forward guidance programs.
Draghi spent months before the ECB’s January 22 announcement that it would launch quantitative easing (QE) in intense public debate with the Germans over which point of principle they chose as a “red line” – the point beyond which no deal would be possible.
The ECB’s bailout initiatives climaxed with the introduction of quantitative easing (QE), whereby the Eurosystem’s central banks purchased €2.3 trillion ($2.8 trillion) in freshly printed euro securities – including government bonds worth €1.8 trillion – between 2015 and 2017.
This became painfully apparent in recent years, as central banks, confronted by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, turned to unconventional policies – in particular, massive liquidity injections through quantitative easing (QE).
Though the German government does not officially support quantitative easing, it should be grateful to the ECB for calming financial markets.
The ECB’s vast program of quantitative easing (QE), initiated in March 2015, reinforced the virtuous cycle.
The downside risks result from political gridlock in Congress (particularly given the upcoming midterm election in November), which will continue to limit progress on long-term fiscal consolidation; a lack of clarity about the Federal Reserve’s planned exit from quantitative easing (QE) and zero policy rates; and regulatory uncertainties.
Economics has an important quantitative side, which cannot be escaped.
Similarly, the risk of deflation worldwide has been contained via exotic and unconventional monetary policies: near-zero interest rates, quantitative easing, credit easing, and forward guidance.
Quantitative easing and forward guidance can push down the long-term interest rate.
At that time, markets were beginning to fear that monetary-policy normalization and an end to quantitative easing in the United States would have dire consequences globally.
First came zero interest rates, then quantitative easing, and now negative interest rates – one futile attempt begetting another.
Quickly out of ammunition when the Great Crisis hit in late 2008, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke embraced the new miracle drug of quantitative easing – a powerful antidote for markets in distress but ultimately an ineffective tool to plug the hole in consumer balance sheets and spark meaningful revival in aggregate demand.
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s famous 2012 promise to do “whatever it takes” to defend the euro took the ECB down the same path – first zero interest rates, then quantitative easing, now negative policy rates.
But most major central banks are clinging to the false belief that there is no difference between the efficacy of the conventional tactics of monetary policy – driven by adjustments in policy rates above the zero bound – and unconventional tools such as quantitative easing and negative interest rates.
When the bubbles burst and pushed unbalanced economies into balance-sheet recessions, inflation-targeting central banks were already low on ammunition – taking them quickly into the murky realm of zero policy rates and the liquidity injections of quantitative easing.
This led to a plan to keep short-term interest rates near zero until late 2014, as well as to massive quantitative easing, followed by Operation Twist, in which the Fed substitutes short-term Treasuries for long-term bonds.
Thus, while there may be some reduction of the Federal Reserve’s purchases of long-term assets (so-called quantitative easing, or QE), a move away from rock-bottom interest rates is not expected until 2015 at the earliest.
Critics of central banks have claimed that a sustained policy of exceptionally low interest rates, reinforced by huge doses of quantitative easing, have caused asset prices to rise indiscriminately.
But there are strong quantitative parallels as well.
One solution would be to establish a continuing program of research into the measurement implications of emerging economic trends, conducting one-off studies at first to gauge their potential quantitative importance.
But adoption of this quantitative approach should not be the single most important criterion for assessing scientific excellence and deciding career trajectories.
But its response – essentially just more quantitative easing – could backfire, exacerbating imbalances and generating serious financial instability.
Abenomics’ three components – or “arrows” – comprise massive monetary stimulus in the form of quantitative and qualitative easing (QQE), including more credit for the private sector; a short-term fiscal stimulus, followed by consolidation to reduce deficits and make public debt sustainable; and structural reforms to strengthen the supply side and potential growth.
The third element of Draghinomics – similar to the QQE of Abenomics – will be quantitative and credit easing in the form of purchases of public bonds and measures to boost private-sector credit growth.
Now Draghi has signaled that, with the eurozone one or two shocks away from deflation, the inflation outlook may soon justify quantitative easing (QE) like that conducted by the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and the Bank of England: outright large-scale purchases of eurozone members’ sovereign bonds.
Quantitative and credit easing could affect the outlook for eurozone inflation and growth through several transmission channels.
By the end of this year, it is to be hoped, the ECB will start to do its part by implementing quantitative and credit easing.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke talked openly of “tapering” the Fed’s policy of open-ended bond purchases, also known as quantitative easing (QE).
BackNext