UBS recently made a prediction: at the beginning of 2026, the Federal Reserve may buy $40 billion in short-term Treasuries every month.
How should we interpret this? Simply put, bond buying is like injecting money into the market. Although the authorities might not explicitly call this quantitative easing, the actual effect is pretty much the same—it all increases liquidity. This assessment actually matches a few previous signals: one is the potential appointment of Hassett, and another is Delphi’s forecast that 2026 will see rate cuts and a return to positive liquidity. Connect these dots, and the picture becomes clearer.
Is the market really about to shift?
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
16 Likes
Reward
16
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StakeTillRetire
· 12-06 04:50
It's the same old trick of "nominally not QE but actually is QE." I believe it—looks like they're really going to start pumping liquidity in 2026.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotDayLaborer
· 12-06 04:45
It's just QE in disguise again, so liquidity is going to explode next year.
View OriginalReply0
WalletWhisperer
· 12-06 04:43
Wait, $40 billion in monthly bond purchases? Isn't that just QE under a different name? The Fed can really pull this off.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-ccc36bc5
· 12-06 04:41
Same old trick, just changing the name to keep printing money.
View OriginalReply0
ContractCollector
· 12-06 04:33
Here comes another "nominally not QE, but actually QE" trick, hilarious.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketLightning
· 12-06 04:27
Same old trick, just a different package. They just need to change the name of QE.
UBS recently made a prediction: at the beginning of 2026, the Federal Reserve may buy $40 billion in short-term Treasuries every month.
How should we interpret this? Simply put, bond buying is like injecting money into the market. Although the authorities might not explicitly call this quantitative easing, the actual effect is pretty much the same—it all increases liquidity. This assessment actually matches a few previous signals: one is the potential appointment of Hassett, and another is Delphi’s forecast that 2026 will see rate cuts and a return to positive liquidity. Connect these dots, and the picture becomes clearer.
Is the market really about to shift?