Thursday, May 21, 2015

Central Planners
On Monday, Josh Brown, a panelist on CNBC’s “Halftime Report,” commented that the major central bankers’ policy of “kicking the can down the road” seems to be working. Since the start of the bull market in stocks, the bears have argued that ultra-easy monetary policy was only postponing the “endgame.” They said that central banks were kicking the can down the road, implying that there was a cliff or a brick wall at the end of the road.

If you kick the can down the road, you delay a decision in hopes that the problem or issue will go away or somebody else will make the decision later. The phrase also means to defer conclusive action with a short-term solution. In this particular version of the game, there is no endgame as long as there is another short-term solution. The major central banks have been playing this game by providing additional rounds of monetary easing when the previous rounds didn’t revive growth or boost inflation as well as they had hoped. So ZIRPs (zero-interest-rate policies) have been followed by QEs and NIRPs (negative-interest-rate policies) and QQEs.

Brown was specifically talking about the Eurozone’s problem with Greece. It started in 2010, when the country needed a bailout to avoid a Grexit that threatened to unravel the monetary union. It was provided, and so was lots of easy money by the ECB. Brown opined that while the problem hasn’t been solved, the short-term fixes bought time for the Eurozone to reduce significantly the damage that would result from a Grexit. The strength in the EMU MSCI this year, despite the possibility that Greece might soon default after all, confirms Brown’s view.

The latest news is that Greece needs to borrow more to make its debt payments. The socialist government has rehired public employees and refuses to cut pensions. That news did unnerve Eurozone stock and bond markets last week. So ECB officials let it be known that their current QE bond-buying program will be front-loaded during June and July. Stocks and bonds recovered on this news.

The major central bankers have become central planners. They are using all the means available to them to manage their economies. Central planning invariably produces suboptimal economic performance. Central planners tend to be experimenters, like some mad scientists in a lab. When their plans don’t pan out as they predicted, they try something else or more of the same. If nothing else, it’s a good diversion. The public is told that while the previous plan was a disappointment, the next one will work great. If all else fails, blame a few of the planners and execute them.

So what’s the latest plan? More of the same, with an increased emphasis on driving stock prices higher. If so, then this raises the odds of a global stock market melt-up. The major central banks are run mostly by macroeconomists rather than bankers these days. They believe that one of the major “transmission mechanisms” between monetary policy and the economy is the wealth effect.

Their critics say that the policies of the central bankers have worsened income and wealth inequality and thereby perversely contributed to global secular stagnation. I’m inclined to agree. Needless to say, the monetary central planners reject this critique and insist that they’ve been relatively successful so far, at least in averting another global recession and financial crisis. Consider the following:

(1) China. Monday’s WSJ included an extremely germane article on this subject. It is titled “As Chinese Stocks Rise, Beijing Wins.” The main point is that the Chinese government, which in the past viewed the stock market as a casino for speculators, now is using it to boost the economy and enable reforms.

(2) Japan. They must be doing high-fives at the BOJ. Real GDP rose by an annualized 2.4% during Q1, much better than a revised 1.1% in Q4. It also beat a 1.5% growth forecast by economists in a WSJ survey. The BOJ continues to buy bonds under its QQE program. As a result, the monetary base is up 35% y/y. Japan’s central bank also continues to support the stock market, as a 5/13 Reuters article reported.

(3) Eurozone. The ECB isn’t buying stocks (just yet), but the bank’s officials are certainly doing their best to boost stock prices by depressing the euro and keeping a lid on interest rates. Last Thursday, ECB President Mario Draghi countered any notion that the bank’s QE might be tapered ahead of schedule. He was clearly concerned about the recent backup in bond yields, strength in the euro, and weakness in stock prices.

(4) US. So far, this year hasn’t been a good one for the Stay Home investment strategy. It’s been much better for the Go Global strategy. That’s mostly because the Fed has been out of sync with the other central banks. The FOMC terminated QE last October and has been chattering about whether liftoff for the federal funds rate should come sooner or later this year. The suspense has weighed on the US stock market.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)
Fed: Your Tax Dollars at Work
The Federal Reserve System employs hundreds of economists. Most of them work in the research departments of the Board of Governors in DC and in the 12 district banks. What do they do all day? A few spend most of their time providing an assessment of the economy that is summarized in the FOMC’s minutes. Most seem to write academic research papers that don’t seem to have much relevance to running monetary policy. They are very academic in nature, and mostly irrelevant for policymaking purposes.

I’ve spent some time scanning the papers posted on the Fed’s various websites from 2006-2008. Virtually none examined the credit excesses that set the stage for the financial crisis of 2008.

Nevertheless, there recently have been a few studies by the Fed’s staff that have some relevance to issues that actually matter:

(1) Picking on Piketty. Four Fed economists recently coauthored a paper titled “Measuring Income and Wealth at the Top Using Administrative and Survey Data.” Their conclusion will warm the hearts of those of us who believe that the income inequality arguments made by socialists like Thomas Piketty are based on questionable data and faulty analysis. I made a similar point in the 3/26 Morning Briefing:

(2) Season’s greetings. Did some “residual seasonality” distort Q1’s real GDP? That’s the hot debate among the economists at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the FRB-SF, and FRB-DC. Why is this technicality important? Well, the data-dependent Fed is relying on GDP and other economic indicators to determine when to start raising interest rates.

Real GDP rose just 0.2% (saar) during Q1. An analysis by the FRB-SF concluded that it actually might have been more like 1.8%. On the other hand, FRB-DC research points to a lack of “firm evidence” to support the former’s claims. Interestingly, the BEA itself is unsure that its algorithms are performing as intended. The problem largely centers on the unexpected impact of aggregating a significant amount of bottom-up data. Thus, the BEA is reviewing its methods for possible revision in July of this year.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Eurozone: Draghi’s Latest Pledge
ECB President Mario Draghi is the Fairy Godfather of the Eurozone’s bond market. Bond yields dropped dramatically in the region after he pledged to do whatever it takes to defend the euro. He said so on July 26, 2012. He has delivered on his promise so far. He had to renew his vows with the bond crowd along the way. He proved he meant what he said by lowering the ECB’s official lending rate from 1.00% to 0.05%, and even cutting the bank’s deposit rate below zero to minus 0.2%.

Then on March 9, he implemented a massive QE program, finally overcoming lots of resistance to it coming out of Germany in particular. All of his words and deeds pushed the euro down from last year’s high of $1.39 on May 6 to this year’s low of $1.05 on March 13.

However, better-than-expected economic indicators in the Eurozone and worse-than-expected ones in the US have pushed the euro back up to $1.14, though it retreated below $1.12 yesterday after an ECB policymaker hinted that the Bank is preparing to ramp up its bond-buying program before the summer. A few observers question whether QE was even necessary. Some are wondering whether the program should be terminated sooner rather than later. Furthermore, bond yields, which fell close to zero in mid-April, have subsequently spiked up.

So last Thursday, Draghi updated his pledge in a lecture at an annual IMF series in Washington, DC:
After almost 7 years of a debilitating sequence of crises, firms and households are very hesitant to take on economic risk. For this reason quite some time is needed before we can declare success, and our monetary policy stimulus will stay in place as long as needed for its objective to be fully achieved on a truly sustained basis.
Thus, he tried to sink the suggestion that the ECB might wind up its QE scheme early.

To make sure everyone got the message, Benoît Cœuré, a member of the ECB’s executive board, said in London on Monday evening that the bank will front-load some of their purchases of sovereign debt in May and June to deal with an expected shortage of liquidity in July and August. (His remarks were not published by the ECB until Tuesday morning, raising questions about the release of market sensitive information by the central bank.) Obviously, ECB officials want to squelch any notion that they will taper the pace of bond buying.

The markets got the message, as the euro edged down and stock prices jumped higher.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The Fed: Prepping the Markets
“This is Ground Control to Major Tom” are lyrics from David Bowie’s classic “Space Oddity.” In Bowie’s song, the astronaut responds to Ground Control: “This is Major Tom to Ground Control / I'm stepping through the door / And I'm floating / in a most peculiar way / And the stars look very different today.” Bond investors have recently had this lost-in-space experience.

Fed officials at Ground Control have been preparing the markets for lift-off, i.e., the first rate hike during the current economic expansion. Bond yields aren’t waiting; They’ve already blasted off. However, they are likely to orbit at their current altitude for a while even when the federal funds rate finally gets off the ground. That’s because Fed officials have said that once they start raising rates, they will do so very gradually. That’s especially likely if the recent backup in bond yields and mortgage rates slows economic growth.

One-and-done is an increasingly likely scenario for Fed policy this year, which means that the federal funds rate won’t be any higher than 0.50% by the end of the year. In other words, investors can expect that Fed policy will remain in inner space rather than go to outer space.

Since the FOMC’s latest meeting on April 28-29, three top Fed officials have spoken publicly and indicated that investors should prepare for lift-off, i.e., “take your protein pills and put your helmet on,” as the song says. A fourth one is still in no rush to lift interest rates. Let’s review:

(1) Yellen. On May 6, Fed Chair Yellen sat down with IMF Chief Christine Lagarde for a discussion at a conference in Washington. As I noted in Monday’s Morning Briefing, Yellen is obviously trying to do her best to prepare the financial markets for the start of Fed rate hikes:
We need to be attentive, and are to the possibility that when the Fed decides it's time to begin raising rates, these term premiums could move up and we could see a sharp jump in long-term rates. So we're trying to, you know, as I've repeatedly said, communicate as clearly about our monetary policy so we don't take markets by surprise.
(2) Dudley. On Tuesday, FRB-NY President William Dudley spoke at a conference in Zurich. In his prepared remarks, he commented on the timing of normalization:
To be as direct as possible: I don’t know when this will occur. The timing of lift-off will depend on how the economic outlook evolves. Since the economic outlook is uncertain, this means the timing of liftoff must also be uncertain.

At the same time, though, I can be clear about what conditions are needed for normalization to begin. If the improvement in the U.S. labor market continues and the FOMC is ‘reasonably confident’ that inflation will move back to our 2 percent objective over the medium-term, then it would be appropriate to begin to normalize interest rates.

Because the conditions necessary for liftoff are well-specified, market participants should be able to think right along with policymakers, adjusting their views about the prospects for normalization in response to the incoming data. This implies that liftoff should not be a big surprise when it finally occurs, which should help mitigate the degree of market turbulence engendered by lift-off.

Nevertheless, I think it would be naïve not to expect some impact. After more than six years at the zero lower bound, lift-off will signal a regime shift even though policy would only be slightly less accommodative after lift-off than it is before.
(3) Williams. Dudley had company this week. FRB-SF President John Williams echoed similar sentiments in a discussion on CNBC. He forecasted:
A year from now, yes, we will have unemployment below 5%. Broader measures of unemployment or underemployment will be down to more normal levels like we've seen in other good economic times. Inflation will be heading back to 2% and yes rates will be moving up.
Regarding the specific timing of rate hikes this year, Williams said:
My personal preference is that we don't have the most telegraphed policy decisions in history like we did in 2004. I do believe that the data dependence is what we should be doing. We should be coming together every six weeks discussing what the outlook looks like and what the right appropriate policy decisions at that meeting are and then adjusting policy going forward.
(4) Evans. On the other hand, FRB-Chicago President Charles Evans still thinks that the economy isn’t ready for rate hikes just yet. His research staff posted a paper on May 8 entitled “Changing Labor Force Composition and the Natural Rate of Unemployment,” obviously supporting the uber-dovish stance of their boss. Contrary to the Fed’s consensus view of a 5.0%-5.2% range for the natural rate of unemployment, the authors claim that the rate should be at or below 5.0%!

On May 4, Evans concluded a speech to the Columbus Economic Development Board as follows:
In summary, I think we should be cautious in the timing of the first rate hike and our pace of policy normalization thereafter. My current view is that my economic outlook and my assessment of the balance of risks will evolve in such a way that I likely will not feel confident enough to begin to raise rates until early next year. But there is no prescribed timeline that must be adhered to, and no preset script to follow, other than that we should let economic conditions and risks to the outlook be our guides. Given uncomfortably low inflation and uncertainties about the economic environment, I see significant risks, but few benefits, to increasing interest rates prematurely.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Monday, May 11, 2015

Yellen: The Valuation Question
Fed Chair Janet Yellen gave a speech titled “Finance and Society,” on Wednesday at a conference sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was founded in October 2009 with an initial pledge of $50 million from George Soros.

The prepared text of her short speech was mostly boilerplate, with Yellen claiming that the Fed is doing a good job of monitoring the financial system and maintaining its stability. She has said so several times before. On the other hand, her comments in a subsequent discussion with IMF Chief Christine Lagarde at the conference caught the markets off guard. In particular, she stated that equity valuations are “quite high.” She’s made similar comments before too, yet stock prices sold off on the “news” that she still thinks stocks aren’t cheap.

She’s obviously trying to do her best to prepare the financial markets for the start of Fed rate hikes:
We need to be attentive, and are to the possibility that when the Fed decides it's time to begin raising rates, these term premiums could move up and we could see a sharp jump in long-term rates. So we're trying to, you know, as I've repeatedly said, communicate as clearly about our monetary policy so we don't take markets by surprise.
Regarding the stock market, she added:
I guess I would highlight that equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high. Now they're not so high when you compare the returns on equities to the returns on safe assets, like bonds, which are also very low. But there are potential dangers there. And in interest rates, obviously not only short but long-term interest rates are at very low levels. And that would appear to embody low term premiums, which can move and can move very rapidly. We saw this in the case of the taper tantrum in 2013 where there was a very sharp upward movement in rates and you do have divergent monetary policies, potentially around the world.
On Thursday, the S&P 500 rose 0.4% following a report showing that weekly initial unemployment claims remain extremely low, averaging just 279,500 over the past four weeks. On Friday, following the release of April’s “Goldilocks” employment report, the S&P 500 soared 1.3% to close at 2116, only 0.1% below the record high on April 24. Investors seem to have concluded that notwithstanding her warnings about valuations, Yellen remains the Fairy Godmother of the Bull Market.

This isn’t the first time that Yellen has given investment advice. In her prior two semiannual congressional testimonies on monetary policy and accompanying Monetary Policy Reports, valuations were mentioned. Notably, her tone has become increasingly cautious. Yellen’s qualifiers have gone from “in-line with historical norms,” to “somewhat higher,” and now to “quite high.” Let’s review, with the key words italicized by us for emphasis:

(1) In Yellen’s 7/15/14 testimony, she said: “While prices of real estate, equities, and corporate bonds have risen appreciably and valuation metrics have increased, they remain generally in line with historical norms."

The Monetary Policy Report that accompanied her testimony noted: “…valuation measures for the overall market in early July were generally at levels not far above their historical averages, suggesting that, in aggregate, investors are not excessively optimistic regarding equities.”

(2) According to the same July report: "Nevertheless, valuation metrics in some sectors do appear substantially stretched--particularly those for smaller firms in the social media and biotechnology industries, despite a notable downturn in equity prices for such firms early in the year." Yellen added in her remarks: “In some sectors, such as lower-rated corporate debt, valuations appear stretched and issuance has been brisk.”

(3) The 2/24/15 Monetary Policy Report stated: "Overall equity valuations by some conventional measures are somewhat higher than their historical average levels, and valuation metrics in some sectors continue to appear stretched relative to historical norms."

(4) At her last press conference, on March 18, Yellen was asked to update her views on the overall valuation of the market and on the biotech and social media sectors. Her curt answer was: “Well, I don’t want to comment on those particular sectors. You know, as we said in the [February] report, overall measures of equity valuations are on the high side but not outside of historical ranges.”

(5) Last Wednesday, as noted above, she said: “I guess I would highlight that equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high.”

The S&P 500/400/600 forward P/Es were 15.6, 17.2, and 17.9 on July 15, 2014;17.2, 18.2, and 18.9 on February 24 of this year; 16.9, 18.3, and 19.4 on March 18; and 16.7, 18.1, and 19.0 last Wednesday.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Fed: Bond Bath
Fed officials are probably very confused right now. They all say that their policy is data dependent. Some of them have said that the decisions of the FOMC are also market dependent. The latest batch of economic data has been mixed, with some indicators on the strong side but many still on the weak side, as discussed below. In addition, the recent dramatic backups in bond yields and in the price of oil must be new concerns that they need to factor into their policymaking. In other words, they have quite a mess on their hands, which means that investors are also looking at a tricky situation right now. Here’s the Fed’s conundrum, and ours:

(1) Bonds. US bond yields have jumped recently. The 10-year Treasury is up from a recent low of 1.87% on April 17 to 2.26% yesterday. Everyone is blaming that development on the spike in Eurozone bond yields, particularly the surge in the 10-year German government yield from its all-time low of 0.033% on April 17 to 0.58% yesterday. That’s despite the implementation of QE by the ECB starting on March 9.

With the benefit of hindsight, the backup in yields isn’t a surprise. Yields simply fell too low at the start of the year on fears that plunging oil prices might trigger widespread deflation, especially in the Eurozone, and maybe cause another financial crisis if oil companies started to default on their debts. Now that oil prices have rebounded, those concerns are evaporating and yields are normalizing. I think it’s that simple.

In any event, the backup in bond yields is doing the same to mortgage rates in the US. That could stall the already lackluster recovery in the housing industry, which might explain why lumber prices are falling. So maybe the Fed should postpone its lift-off given the lift-off in bond yields?

(2) The dollar. Furthermore, global bond markets may also be responding to the possibility that the FOMC will start lifting interest rates sometime this year come what may, to show that they can do it. What’s confusing is that the trade-weighted dollar is down 3.5% from its recent high on March 13, suggesting that forex traders believe that the Fed won’t start tightening anytime soon. A weaker dollar would boost US exports and bolster inflation. How might the Fed’s next policy decision (or indecision) be influenced by developments in the bond and currency markets?

(3) Commodities. A weaker dollar tends to be associated with rising commodity prices, including oil prices. Sure enough, the price of a barrel of Brent crude is up 45% from this year’s low on January 13 to $67.52 on Tuesday. The CRB raw industrials spot price index seems to be bottoming now, led by rising copper, lead, and zinc prices. That should encourage the Fed to start tightening.

(4) Inflationary expectations. A weaker dollar also tends to be associated with rising inflationary expectations in the bond market. Sure enough, the spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the comparable TIPS yield has widened from the year’s low of 1.54% on January 13 to 1.94% on Tuesday. So tightening now makes more sense than it did earlier this year when inflationary expectations were lower.

(5) Wages & confidence. There are finally a few signs suggesting that wages are rising at a faster clip. During Q1, ECI wages & salaries rose 2.7% y/y, the highest since Q3-2008. Average hourly earnings rose only 2.1% y/y through March, but by 3.9% during the first three months of the year at an annual rate. Is that enough for the FOMC’s doves led by Fed Chair Janet Yellen to commence with raising interest rates? Or will they argue that doing so too soon might abort the recovery in wages, which may still be frail?

(6) Economy. The rebound in gasoline prices is already making the evening news shows. The nearby futures price is up 79 cents since this year’s low on January 13 to $2.06 a gallon. That increase will offset some of the wage-related rise in consumers’ purchasing power, and chip away at their confidence. Has the weather-related ice patch during the first three months of the year turned into the spring’s soft patch? I am leaning toward the soft-patch scenario.

(7) Conclusion. Confused by all this? You are not alone. I’m sure Fed officials are also confused. Maybe that’s why we haven’t heard as much from them over the past week as we usually do right after FOMC meetings. My takeaway is that bond yields are getting mighty attractive, though the 10-year Treasury probably bottomed earlier this year at 1.68% and should trade between 2.00%-2.50% over the rest of the year. I remain in the one-and-done camp on the Fed’s lift-off, and wouldn’t be surprised by none-and-done.

Stocks, bonds, and currencies should mark time at current levels through the summer until the Fed is less confused and less confusing.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Fed: Dudley's on First
March employment data were released on Friday, when the stock market was closed. Futures dropped sharply on the disappointing news. Nevertheless, the S&P 500 rose 0.7% on Monday. That day, FRB-NY President Bill Dudley was the first member of the FOMC to comment on the economy following the employment report. Here were his key points:

(1) Snow. He put a positive spin on the weakness of the economy during the first quarter. He blamed it mostly on the weather, as Debbie and I have been doing:
For example, some of the recent softness is likely due to yet another harsh winter in the Northeast and the Midwest. My staff’s analysis of a measure of both the amount of snow and the population affected indicates that January and February weather was 20 to 25 percent more severe than the five-year average. Such large deviations appear to have meaningful negative impacts on a number of economic indicators.
(2) Oil. As Debbie and I have noted, he agreed that the plunge in oil prices may have a negative impact on the economy, particularly the energy industry. However, he accentuated the positive impact:
Starting with the positives, since the U.S. is still a net importer of petroleum, this development has provided substantial benefits, with our oil import bill down by about a ½ percentage point of GDP. As I indicated earlier, that represents a significant boost to real disposable income for households. How much this energy windfall boosts consumption will depend, though, on how much is spent versus saved.
(3) Dollar. About the dollar, Dudley said:
Another significant shock is the nearly 15 percent appreciation of the exchange value of the dollar since mid-2014. Such an appreciation makes U.S. exports more expensive and imports more competitive. My staff’s analysis concludes that an appreciation of this magnitude would, all else equal, reduce real GDP growth by about 0.6 percentage point over this year.
(4) Liftoff. His mostly optimistic spin on the economy suggested that he is still expecting the Fed to start raising interest rates this year. Previously, he suggested that it could happen at mid-year. In his latest comments, he was vague about the timing. Nevertheless, he reiterated that the process of normalizing monetary policy will be very gradual:
For financial markets, the likely path of short-term rates after lift-off is just as important as the timing of lift-off. Here, I anticipate that the path will be relatively shallow. Headwinds in the aftermath of the financial crisis are still in evidence, particularly the diminished availability and tougher terms for residential mortgage credit.
(5) Hedged. Dudley hedged his optimism on the economy as follows:
The unemployment rate was 5.5 percent in March: analysis by my staff suggests that the unemployment rate is nearing the point where we may begin to see a pickup in the pace of real wage gains. If this proves correct and unemployment continues to decline as I expect, then these stronger wage gains could help support solid income growth even if the pace of employment growth slows. However, it will be important to monitor developments to determine whether the softness in the March labor market report evident on Friday foreshadows a more substantial slowing in the labor market than I currently anticipate.
Dudley is the consummate two-handed economist.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)
Fed: The Minutes
The minutes of the March 17-18 FOMC meeting were released yesterday. The key point was that Fed officials were split on whether to start raising interest rates in June:
Several participants judged that the economic data and outlook were likely to warrant beginning normalization at the June meeting. However, others anticipated that the effects of energy price declines and the dollar’s appreciation would continue to weigh on inflation in the near term, suggesting that conditions likely would not be appropriate to begin raising rates until later in the year, and a couple of participants suggested that the economic outlook likely would not call for liftoff until 2016.
The trade-weighted dollar was mentioned 9 times, up from 7 times in the previous minutes.

Yesterday, in an interview with Reuters, FRB-NY President Bill Dudley said the Fed could still hike rates in June despite a weak start to the year, if economic data pick up over the next two months:
I could imagine circumstances where a June rate hike is still in play. If the next jobs report is strong...if second-quarter GDP look like it is bouncing quite sharply.
He said there were still good reasons for the Fed to hold off on liftoff to make sure as many workers as possible are pulled into the labor force. In addition, the weak first-quarter data and recent weak jobs report mean “the bar is probably a little bit higher” for a June hike. Seems to me that Dudley has too much free time.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Fed: Deconstructing Yellen
Fed Chair Janet Yellen gave an important speech this past Friday updating her latest thoughts on monetary policy. It was titled, “The New Normal Monetary Policy.” As I’ve noted frequently in the past, stock prices tend to rise on days that Yellen speaks publicly about monetary policy and the economy. Sure enough, the DJIA rose 34 points on Friday. That’s not much, but last week was a tough one for stocks. (In any event, the DJIA soared 1.5% Monday on expectations the PBOC will join the Fed, ECB, BOJ, and BOE in pouring more liquidity into the financial markets.)

In my opinion, the key new insight in Yellen’s speech is how inflation might impact the course of monetary policy. She is obviously pleased with the performance of the labor market overall. However, she and most of her colleagues have recently lowered their estimate of the unemployment rate that is “normal in the longer run” down to 5.0%-5.2% from 5.2%-5.5%. The actual jobless rate fell from 10.0% at its peak to 5.5% during February, very close to the new normal range.

She believes that if this rate falls closer to 5.0%, then wage inflation should rise, which should push price inflation back up closer to the Fed’s 2% target. She is willing to start raising interest rates before this actually happens as long as she is “reasonably confident” that it will happen. I presume that an unemployment rate closer to 5.0% would make her reasonably confident. In other words, Yellen still believes in the Phillips Curve--i.e., the inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and wage (and price) inflation--although it doesn’t seem to be working so far this time.

Nevertheless, Yellen expects that rates will remain below a normal ascending trajectory for some time. As my friend Mike O’Rourke, the chief market strategist at Jones Trading, observes: “The basic take away is that the FOMC policy normalization process will be only a minor transformation from Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) to Low Interest Rate Policy (LIRP).” Here are some of the most relevant excerpts from her speech:

(1) Falling joblessness should boost inflation, justifying liftoff:
An important factor working to increase my confidence in the inflation outlook will be continued improvement in the labor market. A substantial body of theory, informed by considerable historical evidence, suggests that inflation will eventually begin to rise as resource utilization continues to tighten. It is largely for this reason that a significant pickup in incoming readings on core inflation will not [emphasis hers] be a precondition for me to judge that an initial increase in the federal funds rate would be warranted.
(2) If inflation weakens, liftoff will be postponed:
I have argued that a pickup in neither wage nor price inflation is indispensable for me to achieve reasonable confidence that inflation will move back to 2 percent over time. That said, I would be uncomfortable raising the federal funds rate if readings on wage growth, core consumer prices, and other indicators of underlying inflation pressures were to weaken, if market-based measures of inflation compensation were to fall appreciably further, or if survey-based measures were to begin to decline noticeably.
(3) Anything is possible:
Let me first be clear that the FOMC does not intend to embark on any predetermined course of tightening following an initial decision to raise the funds rate target range--one that, for example, would involve similarly sized rate increases at every meeting or on some other schedule. Rather, the actual path of policy will evolve as economic conditions evolve, and policy tightening could speed up, slow down, pause, or even reverse course depending on actual and expected developments in real activity and inflation.
(4) Asymmetries justify cautious approach to liftoff:
International experience therefore counsels caution in removing accommodation until the Committee is more confident that aggregate demand will continue to expand in line with its expectations--a view that is also supported by the research literature. A second reason for the Committee to proceed cautiously in removing policy accommodation relates to asymmetries in the effectiveness of monetary policy in the vicinity of the zero lower bound. In the event that growth in employment and overall activity proves unexpectedly robust and inflation moves significantly above our 2 percent objective, the FOMC can and will raise interest rates as needed to rein in inflation. But if growth was to falter and inflation was to fall yet further, the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates could limit the Committee's ability to provide the needed degree of accommodation. With an already large balance sheet, for example, the FOMC might be concerned about potential costs and risks associated with further asset purchases.
(5) Normalization shouldn’t be postponed for too long if jobless rate continues to fall:
Second, we need to keep in mind the well-established fact that the full effects of monetary policy are felt only after long lags. This means that policymakers cannot wait until they have achieved their objectives to begin adjusting policy. I would not consider it prudent to postpone the onset of normalization until we have reached, or are on the verge of reaching, our inflation objective. Doing so would create too great a risk of significantly overshooting both our objectives of maximum sustainable employment and 2 percent inflation, potentially undermining economic growth and employment if the FOMC is subsequently forced to tighten policy markedly or abruptly.
(6) Normalization is needed to discourage financial bubbles:
In addition, holding rates too low for too long could encourage inappropriate risk-taking by investors, potentially undermining the stability of financial markets. That said, we must be reasonably confident at the time of the first rate increase that inflation will move up over time to our 2 percent objective, and that such an action will not impede continued solid growth in employment and output.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)

Monday, March 30, 2015

Fed: Talking Heads
The FOMC certainly has lots of talkative personalities. They love to share their opinions with us on a regular basis, especially just before and just after their meetings, and in between. The only time we ever seem to get a break from them is during the “quiet period” of five business days in which they stop talking publicly about monetary policy as they prepare for their next policy meeting. It didn’t take them long to start yapping away after the latest meeting ended on March 18. The FOMC clearly has a split personality on the issue of when to start raising interest rates, a.k.a. “liftoff”:

(1) Lockhart. In a NYT interview on Wednesday, FRB-Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart said the following about the timing of liftoff: “So for me to say June-July-September [with] full confidence is probably overstating it, but I think it’s quite likely.” On Thursday, he hedged a bit, saying that he is paying more attention to the rising dollar to see if it’s weighing on the economy.

(2) Bullard. In a speech on Thursday in Frankfurt, FRB-SL President James Bullard said that current low levels of US inflation are likely temporary and the risks of keeping the federal funds rate zero for too long “may be substantial.” He believes that the FOMC should start tightening: “Now may be a good time to begin normalizing US monetary policy so that it is set appropriately for an improving economy over the next two years.”

(3) Evans. FRB-Chicago President Charles Evans warned that there were considerable risks in raising rates too early in an environment where core inflation is persistently below 2%. “Some say we are behind the curve, that interest rates are unusually low but we’re not at a point of business as usual,” he said during a FT interview.

(4) Yellen. In a speech on Friday, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said, “Like most of my FOMC colleagues, I believe that the appropriate time has not yet arrived, but I expect that conditions may warrant an increase in the federal funds rate target sometime this year.” She concluded her speech by saying, “Nothing about the course of the Committee's actions is predetermined except the Committee's commitment to promote our dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability.”

(5) YRI. Debbie and I are now assigning the following subjective probabilities to the three possible scenarios for the Fed’s liftoff this year: Normalization (20%), One-and-Done (60), and None-and-Done (20). I’m still expecting the one and only rate hike this year in June, while Debbie thinks September is more likely. The FOMC isn’t the only organization with split personalities.
(Based on an excerpt from YRI Morning Briefing)