> The BOE decided to intervene to get ahead of a potential crisis that could have hit within hours. It was concerned collateral requirements on liability-driven investment strategies, such as those at pension funds, would have turned many into forced sellers of long dated gilts, according to a person familiar with the situation.<p>I often hear people complain about the end of defined benefit pensions, but this is what inevitably always happens. There will be essentially bailouts, printing billions, leading to inflation, weakening the currency. Why? Because someone made an irresponsible promise to someone 30 years ago knowing they won't be around when it hits the fan. And now we all have to rearrange out entire economic system to accommodate them. And these people are all gone by now, no one to hold responsible. What would responsibility even look like? Firing someone?
I asked this in a different post but did not get any answer, so asking it here hoping someone can help me understand this.<p>Can someone more financially literate than me explain how BoE buying government bonds is going to restore financial stability? Will it slow down the falling pound? Will it reduce inflation? What mechanisms are at work here?
According to the FT, this is going to cost £65 billion. For any Americans reading, at current exchange rates that works out at $65 billion dollars.<p>Gallows humour.
Wouldn't it be better for the treasury the BoE to be pulling in the same direction. Rather than try to outdo each other in their conflicting aims (or tactics)?
BoE had a superstar: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney</a><p>Not sure what happened if he got ousted or what but that was a huge mistake on their part. They seem to be realizing their mistake now.