Wall Street has a new favorite phrase: fiscal quantitative easing, or “fiscal QE.” Unlike the Federal Reserve’s familiar bond-buying programs, this version doesn’t rely on the central bank expanding its balance sheet. Instead, it arises from a subtle change in how the US Treasury finances the federal deficit. Increasingly, the government is borrowing through short-term Treasury bills rather than longer-term Treasury notes and bonds. More than half of the current deficit is now being financed this way — a level not seen since the financing shift that followed the 2022 bear market.
Read more Photo celebrating Trump’s death displayed at the Orange County (CA) Fair
To many investors, this is welcome news. Treasury bills are effectively cash equivalents: highly liquid, extremely low-risk, and widely accepted as collateral throughout the global financial system. When the Treasury leans more heavily on bills it reduces the amount of long-duration debt that private investors must absorb. That matters because long-term bonds compete directly with stocks for investment dollars. If fewer bonds need to be purchased, there is less upward pressure on long-term interest rates and less “crowding out” of equities. Historically, periods in which more than half of the deficit has been financed through bills have coincided with unusually strong subsequent returns in the S&P 500.
The mechanics are technical but the intuition is straightforward. Bills circulate through money markets much like cash, while longer-term bonds tie up capital for years. A financial system supplied with more bills and fewer bonds tends to enjoy easier liquidity conditions, even if the Fed itself is not actively conducting quantitative easing. In effect, the Treasury can provide some of the same market support that investors once expected from the Fed: not by printing money, but simply by changing the maturity profile of government borrowing.
For financial markets, this may be bullish. For the broader economy, however, the picture is more complicated.
The first concern is that fiscal QE can obscure the true cost of government borrowing. Financing deficits with short-term debt makes today’s interest costs appear lower than they might otherwise be. But bills mature quickly, meaning they must be refinanced repeatedly. If interest rates remain elevated (or rise further) the Treasury will continually roll over large volumes of debt at prevailing market rates. The strategy therefore shifts interest rate risk into the future rather than eliminating it.
Read more Do We Have A Duty To Resist?
Second, easier financial conditions are not necessarily synonymous with greater economic prosperity. Higher equity prices benefit households that own substantial financial assets, but stock ownership remains highly concentrated. The wealthiest Americans own the overwhelming majority of equities, while many middle-income households have only modest retirement accounts and lower-income families often have little direct market exposure at all. If fiscal QE boosts asset prices without producing comparable gains in productivity, wages, or business investment, much of the benefit accrues to those already holding financial wealth.
Incentives raise another question. If policymakers discover that financing deficits with Treasury bills softens the market consequences of persistent borrowing — which may, by the way, explain why they’re doing so now — the already-weak political pressure for fiscal discipline may diminish further. Deficits that might otherwise push long-term yields sharply higher become easier to sustain, encouraging still more borrowing. Over time, this risks creating a feedback loop in which financial markets become increasingly dependent on favorable Treasury financing decisions rather than improvements in underlying economic fundamentals.
None of this means fiscal QE is inherently harmful. Liquidity matters, and functioning capital markets are essential to economic growth. During periods of financial stress, maintaining liquidity can prevent unnecessary disruptions that spill over into the real economy. But it’s critical that investors and non-investors alike resist equating higher stock prices with greater national prosperity. Asset price inflation is not the same thing as rising living standards.
America’s long-run economic health depends on productivity, innovation, investment, and sound public finances; not merely on whether government borrowing is packaged in three-month bills, ten-year notes, or thirty-year bonds. Fiscal QE may help buoy markets in the short run, but it cannot substitute for either entrepreneurship or the hard work of sustainable fiscal policy. If anything, the greatest danger is that rising asset prices may lull both Washington and investors into believing that an ever-expanding national debt has become easier to manage, or that rising stock markets are equivalent to human flourishing. They do not, and the bill — literally, in this case — will still come due.
Read more Argentina’s Milei Ends the Debt State
Image generated by ChatGPT.