Browse by Tags

Global Economic Watch » All Tags » recovery » FOMC (RSS)

KnowNOW!

Global Economic Watch

Syndication

Recent Posts

Tags

View more

Other Useful Blogs

Archives

  • FOMC Meeting Response

    The Federal Reserve decided yesterday to leave the federal funds target rate unchanged at 0-0.25%, citing the slowness of the economy's growth and stable longer term inflation expectations . The Fed will also sell some short term Treasuries, and in return buy some longer term Treasuries. While there were calls for more action from the Fed, Tim Duy called the Fed' stance "bold." Bottom Line: I think Fed official believe they are being bold; I see them as continuing to ease policy in 25bp increments. Expect that to continue. Assuming the economy fails to regain momentum, the Fed will follow up with additional action – QE3 will be the next stop. Ignore the dissents; they are background noise. Don’t expect miracles; expect small moves, the equivalent of 15bp here, 25bp there. The real leverage could potentially come from fiscal policy leveraging the easy monetary policy. Print the money and spend it. Open up the refinancing channel. Overall, make the objective of national economic policy simply be to decisively move us off the zero bound. Not deficits, not the dual mandate, just commit to pulling us off the bottom. Read Duy's Fed Watch response to the FOMC meeting here . For more analysis of the announcement and possible response today on Wall Street and in Washington, here's the Wall Street Journal's Evan Newmark , Jon Hilsenrath , and Thorold Barker :

  • Paul Volcker on 'A Little Inflation'

    In a New York Times op-ed, Paul Volcker expresses some concern that members of the Federal Reserv's Open Market Committee are starting to find the prospects of "a little inflation" tempting. The thinking that concerns Volcker is that 4 or 5% inflation might have a stimulating effect for the economy. Not so, says Volcker: My point is not that we are on the edge today of serious inflation, which is unlikely if the Fed remains vigilant. Rather, the danger is that if, in desperation, we turn to deliberately seeking inflation to solve real problems — our economic imbalances, sluggish productivity, and excessive leverage — we would soon find that a little inflation doesn’t work. Then the instinct will be to do a little more — a seemingly temporary and “reasonable” 4 percent becomes 5, and then 6 and so on. What we know, or should know, from the past is that once inflation becomes anticipated and ingrained — as it eventually would — then the stimulating effects are lost. Once an independent central bank does not simply tolerate a low level of inflation as consistent with “stability,” but invokes inflation as a policy, it becomes very difficult to eliminate. It is precisely the common experience with this inflation dynamic that has led central banks around the world to place prime importance on price stability. They do so not at the expense of a strong productive economy. They do it because experience confirms that price stability — and the expectation of that stability — is a key element in keeping interest rates low and sustaining a strong, expanding, fully employed economy. Read A Little Inflation Can Be a Dangerous Thing here .

  • Reactions to Fed's Quantitative Easing Efforts

    The Federal Open Market Committee announced yesterday that it has begun another round of quantitiative easing . Though they did not use that term. From the announcement: To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability. There has been a lot of public discussion among economists over whether this monetary policy measure is the right move. Karen Dynan , Vice President and Co-Director, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution , thinks it is, pointing to inflation being below the Fed's target and unemployment being, in a word, "weak": For more of Dynan's analysis, click here . Meanwhile, writing in the Financial Times , Martin Feldstein calls the policy a "dangerous gamble": Mr Bernanke’s argument for QE is based on the “portfolio balance” theory which stresses that, when the Fed buys bonds, investors increase their demand for other assets, particularly equities, raising their price and increasing household wealth and spending. Equity prices have already risen by 10 per cent since Mr Bernanke discussed this approach. But how much further will equity prices rise and what will that do to GDP? Neither theory nor past experience can answer the first question. Much of the share price increase induced by QE may already have occurred based on expectations. An optimistic guess would be another 10 per cent. Since households have about $7,000bn in equities, that would imply a wealth gain of $700bn, raising consumer spending by about one-quarter of one per cent of GDP, a welcome but trivially small effect on incomes and employment. The other ways in which QE would raise GDP are also small. A 20-basis-point reduction in mortgage rates would have little effect on homebuying at a time when house prices are again falling. The increase in banks’ liquidity would do nothing since banks already have massive excess reserves. Big corporations are sitting on vast amounts of cash. Small businesses that are not spending because they cannot get credit will not be helped, because the banks on which they depend have a shortage of capital. Read Feldstein's op-ed here .

  • The Fed's Options

    The Federal Open Market Committee is set to meet tomorrow to discuss the state of the US economy and ways to push recovery. The Financial Times is now reporting that the Fed will "downgrade its assessment" of the economy . So that opens up questions of what tools the Fed may use to stimulate the sluggish recovery. Will the Fed be able to inject additional fiscal stimulus measures? Is additional quantitative easing a possibility? The University of Oregon's Tim Duy is expecting a "small change." Bottom Line: The incoming data appears largely consistent with the Fed's priors - especially expectations of glacially slow improvement in the labor market. Yet the probability of any upside risk to the forecast have diminished markedly. The V-shaped recovery has not emerged. The elimination of that upside risk argues for additional easing, but the Fed appears hesitant to do more. Uncertainty about the effectiveness of additional easing argues against more action, especially given relatively quiescent financial markets and positive, albeit lackluster, growth. Moreover, any additional action now is essentially a promise to do more later, even if growth remains along its current trajectory. All of these points argue against additional easing tomorrow, and that remains my baseline scenario. The case becomes muddied by internal, staff level pressure to do more now, combined with rising expectations of imminent easing given the steady flow of leaks to the press. This opens the possibility of a small policy adjustment that eliminates that passive reduction of the balance sheet. Any more is off the table. Read Tim Duy's Fed Watch here .

  • Tim Duy: Fed Looking at 'Long Hard Road' of Recovery During FOMC Meeting This week

    The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is set to meet Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. Tim Duy points out that Ben Bernanke and friends will be meeting with a far more positive "economic backdrop" than they have had for a long time. But for all the relatively good economic news there is, uncertainty remains. Duy believes that the FOMC should continue to anticipate slow recovery, and he points to limited consumer credit as a primary reason: Given the steady anecdotal buzz surrounding the deterioration of the commercial real estate market, it is difficult to expect a rapid reversal of these trends. In short, if you think credit markets are still under stress, as the Fed certainly does, and are worried about the availability of credit to support future spending, also among Fed concerns, then shifting rhetorically to signal a tighter policy stance irrational. Moreover, it would seem inconsistent with plans to continue expanding the balance sheet via purchases of mortgage backed securities and TALF assets. So, it seems Duy is telling us not to expect a drastic change in Fed policy until we see a major shift in consumer credit and unemployment. Read Even With Growth, A Long, Hard Road here .