Loading ...Thus we can also imagine some conference calls being made this weekend to coordinate intervention on whatever scale is necessary.
If central banks have learned anything since 2008, it’s that waiting around for the panic to deepen is not a winning strategy.
We can also ponder the psychological consequences of the vast expansion of intervention. Where prior to 2008 the Fed and other central state players might have viewed $10 billion as a major intervention, what do you think whatever it takes is now? Do you really think $1 trillion would give those in charge pause? Since we’re talking about propping up a $160+ trillion edifice ($80 trillion of assets in the U.S. alone), what’s a trillion or two between pals?
Some observers think it bearish that no central bank has stepped up and announced a new easing program. I reckon the central banks have fully grasped that the public is now skeptical of PR campaigns, and so the smart move is to avoid public jawboning in favor of buying the assets directly, in whatever quantities are deemed necessary.
Put yourself in their shoes. Isn’t this what you would do, given the dearth of alternatives and the very real risks of implosion? Anyone in their position with the tools at hand would not have any other real option other than to buy stocks in whatever quantity is needed to reverse the selling and blow the shorts out of the water.
If $1 trillion doesn’t do the job, make it $3 trillion, or $5 trillion. At this point, it doesn’t really matter, does it?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-13/will-fed-let-stock-market-crash-election