Why does quantitative easing negatively affect stocks?
Can you isolate the market impact to just the Fed's quantitative easing?  Can you rule out the future economic predictions of low growth and that there are reasons why the Fed has kept rates low and is trying its best to stimulate the economy?  Just something to consider here. The key is to understand what is the greater picture here as well as the question of which stock market index are you looking at that has done so badly.  Some stocks may be down and others may be up so it isn't necessarily bad for all equally. The stock market in general likes monetary easing. With lower interest rates and easy cheap money freely available, companies can borrow at reduced cost thus improving profits. As profits increase share prices generally follow. So as John Benson said Quantitative Easing usually has a positive effect on stocks. The recent negativity in the stock markets was partly due to the possibility of QE ending and interest rates being raised in the future.
Not really my field but this is how I see the impact   Disadvantages for banks : not being able to chose where they park assets/cash they have been trusted with which mean lower income from investing those  disadvantage for banks shareholders : less earnings   disadvantage for the economy : harder criteria to lend, lower loan growth   advantage for the economy : (theoretically) less risks of liquidity crunch and financial crisis Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and   varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect   is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to   keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive,   which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this   increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those   with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a   slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns.  For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc.  This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used. The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later.  So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital.  What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm. I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions.  When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy. "Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets.  This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve.  As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them.  This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return.  Sooner or later, ""the trade"" becomes ""crowded"".  Eventually, large amounts of money try to ""exit the trade"" (into cash or the next discovered asset).  And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:" This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." "While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of ""hypothetical"" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't).  Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming." "Right, as I stated I agree that it will cause greater variance from the true intrinsic value for individual equities. To take this example to an extreme, traders can throw darts at a board of ticker symbols, purchase them, and still diversify away most firm specific risk. You're correct in stating that such a strategy will eventually cause systematic market failures if everyone does it, but the herd goes where they can make the most profit, and right now that is with ETFs.   When fund managers prove they have foresight enough to exploit any systematic failures that this causes, or can start beating ETF returns, the herd will flock back to them. I only meant to point out the reasoning behind why this is happening, not advocating one over the other, and also to point out that Paul Singer shouldn't whine. To re-purpose an old saying, ""Don't get mad, get even (by making your investors rich).""" My view is that hedge funds and high-frequency traders tend to create this correlation because they're making directional bets on individual stocks, grouped as a whole, and then share these ideas with so many other funds (who, in turn, do the same thing).  I think Beta and inflated share prices are related to this effect, but are not the cause of this effect. The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is? I don't think that's the case.   I mean, of course some of the new money supply is making it into the stock market, but I think it's because of the factors I listed. The money supply isn't growing faster now than it has in the past.   Here is M2 since 1980 on a log scale (because a percent change is more relevant than a change in raw dollars, just like stock market returns).  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxeb  (I am using M2 because it's a more complete measure of liquidity)  Here is the percent change over time in M2, just to show that the QE isn't really doing anything out of the ordinary.  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxek  Here you can see the inflation rate:   https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxes  What quantitative easing has done is drive bond prices lower, which I already mentioned. It can also be argued that QE has expanded wealth inequality, but I already mentioned that as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/06/25/how-federal-reserve-quantitative-easing-expanded-wealth-inequality/#1f7528a321eb Although I have tried to read as much as I can about whether HFT is good or bad for the market, I am not an expert and I am not very confident in my own opinion. Nevertheless, here's my take:    Let's say a pension plan buys a huge block of stock all at once and the market price moves against it. That's what is supposed to happen, and has always happened. HFT are able to offer tight spreads largely because they get picked off less then the market makers in earlier eras. I don't see that as HFT exploiting pension plans, I see it as them preventing themselves from being exploited.   I will acknowledge that some HFT shops have been caught doing actual market manipulation, but I believe that the vast majority of what they do is provide market making for cheaper than its ever been. FWIW the SEC [mostly agrees](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/sec-will-keep-thinking-about-high-frequency-trading) with me. Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods? QE is really interesting. I don't think there were ever any negative repercussions. We basically found a way to print money and use it in a way that doesn't cause massive inflation (i.e. Swapping assets out for cash, resulting in zero net value added into the economy). Is it ridiculous to assume we will just do this everytime there's a massive toxic asset bust?