Las compras de bonos a largo plazo por parte de Trump y el resurgimiento de la demanda de bonos a largo plazo

The Trump administration's directive for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in Q1 2025 has reignited debates about the role of quasi-QE in shaping Treasury-MBS yield spreads and long-term bond demand. This policy, framed as a tool to lower mortgage rates and address housing affordability, has drawn comparisons to traditional quantitative easing (QE) programs. However, its efficacy, risks, and market implications remain contentious.

The Mechanics of Trump-Driven "Quasi-QE"

The $200 billion MBS purchase program, announced in late 2024, aimed to counteract the Federal Reserve's quantitative tightening by increasing demand for long-term debt. By injecting liquidity into the MBS market, the initiative sought to narrow the yield spread between Treasury securities and MBS, indirectly lowering mortgage rates. According to a Bloomberg report, the initial market reaction was swift: MBS spreads tightened by 20 basis points within 24 hours of the announcement, and the 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell to 5.99% by January 2025, the lowest level in nearly three years.

However, the program's scale is modest compared to traditional QE. The $200 billion injection represents roughly one month of new MBS issuance or less than a day's average trading volume. Analysts caution that this limited scope may constrain its long-term impact. As National Mortgage News notes, the GSEs' capital constraints and regulatory limitations could hinder sustained execution, raising concerns about taxpayer risk and the potential for another financial crisis.

Impact on Treasury-MBS Yield Spreads

The Trump-era MBS purchases have had a measurable, though temporary, effect on Treasury-MBS spreads. Data from Q1 2025 shows the spread narrowing to 182 basis points, approaching the historical average of 176 basis points. This compression reflects increased investor demand for MBS, driven by the GSEs' purchases. Yet, the spread remains wider than pre-pandemic levels, indicating lingering structural challenges in the housing market.

Critically, the program's influence on long-term bond demand appears muted. Unlike traditional QE, which alters investor expectations about central bank support, quasi-QE lacks the same "insurance effect." A UCLA Anderson study highlights that traditional QE reduced 10-year Treasury yields by 115 basis points between 2008 and 2020, with 75 basis points attributed to the insurance effect. In contrast, the Trump-driven intervention has not significantly altered institutional demand for long-dated bonds, which has been declining due to factors like pension fund reallocations and fiscal deficit concerns according to Janus Henderson.

Quasi-QE vs. Traditional QE: A Comparative Analysis

The distinction between quasi-QE and traditional QE lies in scale, credibility, and market psychology. Traditional QE, as practiced by the Federal Reserve, involves large-scale, open-ended asset purchases that reshape investor behavior. For instance, the Fed's 2020 MBS purchases reduced mortgage spreads by 0.4%, fueling a surge in home prices and originations. In contrast, the Trump-era program is a finite, targeted intervention with limited regulatory flexibility.

Moreover, quasi-QE's impact on corporate bond markets is less pronounced. Traditional QE stimulates corporate investment by reducing the supply of safe assets, pushing investors toward riskier corporate bonds. However, a 2025 study notes that the Trump-driven MBS purchases have not had the same stimulative effect, underscoring the challenges of replicating QE's broader economic benefits through quasi-QE.

Implications for Investors and the Housing Market

For investors, the Trump-era MBS program presents both opportunities and risks. The short-term tightening of mortgage spreads has boosted secondary market liquidity, offering potential rate relief of 25 basis points. However, the long-term outlook is clouded by structural housing shortages and the GSEs' capital constraints. As Pepperstone analysts note, much of the expected rate reduction may already be priced in, limiting the program's ability to drive sustained affordability gains.

The housing market's response has also been mixed. While mortgage rates have dipped, home prices remain elevated due to a nationwide shortage of 1.5 million homes. This suggests that quasi-QE alone cannot address the root causes of housing unaffordability.

Conclusion

Trump's MBS purchases have introduced a new dynamic to the Treasury-MBS yield spread and long-term bond demand. While the program has delivered short-term liquidity and rate relief, its long-term effectiveness hinges on execution details, regulatory support, and broader economic conditions. Compared to traditional QE, quasi-QE lacks the scale and credibility to transform market behavior. For investors, the key takeaway is to remain cautious: the Trump-driven intervention may offer temporary benefits, but it cannot substitute for structural reforms or sustained central bank action.