Example collocations logo

Quantitative in sentence

681 examples of Quantitative in a sentence

Moreover, given that the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Fed are venturing into capital markets – via quantitative easing (QE) in the US and the UK, and the ECB’s “outright monetary transactions” (OMT) program in the eurozone – long-term real interest rates are also negative (the real 30-year interest rate in the US is positive, but barely).
After all, they express their ideas with mathematics and arrive at quantitative estimates of implied relationships from empirical data.
Unlike China’s goal-setting exercises in the past, there are no quantitative targets attached to these “twin centenary goals” (which roughly align with the Party’s founding in 1921 and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949).
The main driving force clearly has been monetary divergence, with the Federal Reserve tightening policy and the European Central Bank maintaining rock-bottom interest rates and launching quantitative easing.
Much of the sovereign-debt accumulation of recent years has been enabled by quantitative easing, with central banks making large-scale purchases of government bonds.
There was quantitative easing (QE), or purchases of long-term government bonds, once short-term rates were already zero.
But the effects of so-called quantitative easing also depend on expectations.
The results of quantitative easing in the United States and the United Kingdom have been equivocal.
The main positive effect of quantitative easing was on asset prices – chiefly financial assets.
As the numbers of journalists covering major political events suggests, the size of the communications apparatus has increased to a point where quantitative change becomes qualitative change.
And, for the affected emerging economies, the Fed’s tapering of its massive monthly purchases of long-term assets – so-called quantitative easing (QE) – is certainly easier to blame than their own failure to move faster on economic reform.
NEW YORK – Monetary policy has become increasingly unconventional in the last six years, with central banks implementing zero-interest-rate policies, quantitative easing, credit easing, forward guidance, and unlimited exchange-rate intervention.
But five years of zero interest rates and massive quantitative easing have failed to achieve this.
To be sure, there is a role for unconventional policies like quantitative easing (QE); when markets are broken or grossly dysfunctional, central bankers need to think innovatively.
Quantitative easing and its cousins are implemented primarily in situations in which banks are willing to hold enormous quantities of reserves unquestioningly – typically when credit channels are blocked and other sources of interest-sensitive demand are weak.
In practice, helicopter money can look a lot like quantitative easing – purchases by central banks of government securities on secondary markets to inject liquidity into the banking system.
All forms of monetary stimulus – from quantitative easing to negative interest rates – carry risks.
For starters, unlike the ECB’s current quantitative easing, it would involve no debt monetization.
To the extent that unconventional monetary policy – including various forms of quantitative easing, as well as pronouncements about prolonging low interest rates – serves these roles, it might be justified.
For example, the US Federal Reserve’s first round of so-called quantitative easing (QE1), implemented in the midst of the crisis, was doubly effective: By purchasing mortgage-backed securities, the Fed brought down interest rates in that important market (in part, probably, by signaling its confidence in those securities), and restored it to vitality.
Similarly, a potential downside to quantitative easing is that low interest rates send capital to higher-growth, high-interest-rate countries.
We also know little about how smooth the exit from quantitative easing will be.
In 2009, when financial markets were in turmoil and the economy was in free-fall, the US Federal Reserve took matters a step further, initiating large-scale asset purchases, or quantitative easing (QE).
First, the two initiatives resulted in markedly improved borrowing conditions for southern European governments (at least until Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke created new shockwaves with his indication in mid-June that the US would wind down more than three years of so-called quantitative easing).
The result of low interest rates, quantitative easing, and forward guidance, Taylor argues, is a “decline in credit availability [that] reduces aggregate demand, which tends to increase unemployment, a classic unintended consequence.”
There is uncertainty about the quantitative parameters, and there can be doubt about whether the warming of recent decades is entirely due to the “greenhouse effect.”
QE Turns TenNEW HAVEN – November 2018 will mark the tenth anniversary of quantitative easing (QE) — undoubtedly the boldest policy experiment in the modern history of central banking.
Thus, we have the unseemly spectacle of the ECB hesitating to cut interest rates for fear that, having exhausted conventional policy, it would have to turn to unconventional measures like quantitative easing, which would antagonize German public opinion even more.
The more substantial argument against quantitative easing is that purchases of securities would be ineffectual, given Europe’s bank-based financial system.
For starters, it remains unclear whether the Federal Reserve will begin to “taper” its open-ended quantitative easing (QE) in September or later, how fast it will reduce its purchases of long-term assets, and when and how fast it will start to raise interest rates from their current zero level.
BackNext