美联储的美元大赌局

    美国制造业正在显示出复苏迹象，部分原因在于美元贬值已使美国国内生产的产品较外国产品更具竞争力。不过，甲之蜜糖，乙之砒霜。对于美国而言的好事对于其他国家而言就成了坏事，因为其他国家的产品将因价格相对上涨而被美国市场抛弃，并被迫在其他市场与更为便宜（以本币衡量）的美国商品展开竞争。

    作为经济刺激计划的一部分，日本新首相安倍晋三正在向日本央行施压，迫使它走日元贬值的路子。中国也正考虑类似路线。德国也在推动各项计划，它们名义上是为了帮助经济上陷入困境的欧元区国家，但实际上也将压低欧元汇率，使德国产品更具竞争力，虽然直接控制欧元的是欧洲央行，而非德国。

    美联储正在玩一个复杂的、高风险的游戏。美元是世界储备货币，这使得美国能够吸收来自世界各地的资金，并将这些资金用于贸易和解决预算赤字问题，而无需平衡账户。在美国国内情况（美元走低是利好）以及美元作为储备货币的角色（美元贬值过快可能会使投资者恐慌并导致其失去储备货币地位）之间存在矛盾关系。

    而美联储低利率政策的第二大副作用是纯粹的好事——即为解决联邦预算赤字问题提供资金。

    自四年前大力实施刺激计划以来，美联储已经获得巨额利润，而且这些利润几乎全部交给了美国财政部。去年，美联储宣布获利约910亿美元，其中889亿美元交给了美国财政部。2008年，也就是上一个近乎正常的年度，交付金额为317亿美元。2009年至2011年交付金额分别达474亿美元、793亿美元和754亿美元。

    美联储的利润不断飙升，因为其证券投资组合规模已从2007年年底的约7,500亿美元上升至去年年底的2.65万亿美元左右。美联储一直在大力收购美国国债和抵押贷款支持证券，以期推高它们的价格，而这会压低利率。

    美联储用实质上凭空创造出来的资金购买这些证券，然后将资金计入出售证券的金融机构在美联储的账户。美联储对卖家留在这些账户上的资金支付名义利息，而从这些账户中提取用于其他目的（如发放贷款）的资金则无利息支付。同时，美联储收取其已购买证券的利息。因此，扩大投资组合让美联储获得了巨大的盈利。

    新泽西州普林斯顿全球经济和金融市场研究公司四通麦卡锡研究协会（Stone McCarthy Research Associates）联席创始人雷•斯通是美联储问题领域的专家，他说：“美联储实施这些计划并不是为了寻求自身利润最大化，这只是一个副作用。”他预计，相比去年，今年美联储将实现更高利润，交付给美国财政部的资金也会更多。

    此外，预计美联储今年将收购约5,400亿美元的美国国债，而这将间接为今年的联邦预算赤字填补约一半资金缺口。如果您能搞明白这点，那可以说得上是相当了不起了。那就再接再厉吧！

    落健生发液和美联储降息之间还有一个关键区别：持久力。您可以一直使用落健生发液，但美联储不断降低利率的计划不具有无限的保质期。伯南克将美国利率推低至现代最低水平，但他不能将利率降至零以下。即便美联储不愿意收紧货币政策，但它无从控制世界——它不能无限期地承受来自金融市场及其他央行的压力。当美联储不可回避地开始加息时，美元将随之上涨，美联储的利润和交付给美国财政部的资金也将下降。总之，医药刺激是永恒的。但美联储的刺激不是。（财富中文网）

    U.S. manufacturing is showing signs of recovery, in part because the dollar's decline has made domestically produced products more competitive with foreign products. But what's good for us is bad for countries whose products are being priced out of our market and are being forced to compete with cheaper (in terms of their currencies) U.S. goods in other markets, including their own.

    The new Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is pushing his country's central bank to run down the value of the yen as part of his economic stimulus program. China is thinking along similar lines. Germany, which doesn't control the euro directly -- the European Central Bank does -- is pushing programs that are nominally aimed at economically struggling euro countries, but that will also drive down the euro's value, making Germany more competitive.

    The Fed is playing a complicated, high-stakes game here. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, which allows us to suck in money from all over the world to fund our trade and budget deficits without having to balance our accounts. There's a tension between our internal situation (a lower dollar is good) and our role as a reserve currency (a dollar that falls too rapidly risks spooking investors and costing us our reserve-currency status).

    By contrast, the second side effect of the Fed's low-rate policies -- helping finance our federal budget deficit -- is an unalloyed good thing.

    The Fed has been making huge profits since its stimulus programs kicked into high gear four years ago, and it has contributed virtually all of them to the Treasury. Last year, the Fed says, it made about $91 billion in profits and sent $88.9 billion of that to the Treasury. That's up from $31.7 billion it sent in 2008, the last almost-normal year, and $47.4 billion, $79.3 billion, and $75.4 billion from 2009 through 2011, respectively.

    The Fed's profit is soaring because the size of its securities portfolio has risen, to about $2.65 trillion at the end of last year from about $750 billion at year-end 2007. The Fed has been buying Treasury and mortgage-backed securities by the boatload in order to raise their prices, which has the effect of driving down interest rates.

    The Fed bought these securities with money that it essentially created out of thin air and then credited to the Fed accounts of the financial institutions that sold the securities. The Fed pays nominal interest on the money that sellers leave in those accounts, and no interest on the money withdrawn from them for other purposes, such as making loans. Meanwhile, the Fed collects interest on the securities it has bought. Thus, expanding the portfolio has been hugely profitable.

    "The Fed isn't running these programs to maximize its own profit; that's just a side effect," says Ray Stone of Stone McCarthy Research Associates of Princeton, N.J., a leading Fed maven. He predicts that the Fed will post higher profits -- and send more money to the Treasury -- this year than it did last year.

    On top of that, the Fed's projected purchases of about $540 billion of Treasury securities this year will indirectly fund about half of this year's federal budget deficit. Nice work if you can get it. And keep it.

    There's one crucial difference between Rogaine and Fed rate-cutting: staying power. You can take Rogaine indefinitely, but the Fed's keep-lowering-rates program doesn't have an indefinite shelf life. Bernanke has driven U.S. interest rates to their lowest level in modern times, but he can't drive them below zero. Even if the Fed is reluctant to tighten, it doesn't control the world -- and it can't indefinitely withstand pressure from financial markets and from other central banks. When the Fed's inevitable dial-back kicks in, the dollar will rise, and Fed profits and remittances to the Treasury will fall. The bottom line: Pharmaceutical stimulus is forever. But Fed stimulus isn't.