Category Archive for: Monetary Policy [Return to Main]

Friday, March 06, 2015

Fed Watch: 'Patient' is History

Tim Duy:

Patient' is History: The February employment report almost certainly means the Fed will no longer describe its policy intentions as "patient" at the conclusion of the March FOMC meeting. And it also keep a June rate hike in play. But for June to move from "in play" to "it's going to happen," I still feel the Fed needs a more on the inflation side. The key is the height of that inflation bar.

The headline NFP gain was a better-than-expected 295k with 18k upward adjustment for January. The 12-month moving average continues to trend higher:

NFPa030615

Unemployment fell to 5.5%, which is the top of the central range for the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Still, wage growth remains elusive:

NFPb030615

Is wage growth sufficient to stay the Fed's hand?  I am not so sure. I recently wrote:

My take is this: To get a reasonably sized consensus to support a rate hike, two conditions need to be met. One is sufficient progress toward full-employment with the expectation of further progress. I think that condition has already been met. The second condition is confidence that inflation will indeed trend toward target. That condition has not been met. To meet that condition requires at least one of the following sub-conditions: Rising core-inflation, rising market-based measures of inflation compensation, or accelerating wage growth. If any were to occur before June, I suspect it would be the accelerating wage growth.

I am less confident that we will see accelerating wage growth by June, although I should keep in mind we still have three more employment reports before that meeting. Note, however, low wage growth does not preclude a rate hike. The Fed hiked rates in 1994 in a weak wage growth environment:

NFPg030615

And again in 2004 liftoff occurred on the (correct) forecast of accelerating wage growth:

NFPf030615

So wage growth might not be there in June to support a rate hike. And, as I noted earlier this weaker, I have my doubts on whether core-inflation would support a rate hike either. That leaves us with market-based measures of inflation compensation. And at this point, that just might be the key:

NFPe030615

If bond markets continue to reverse the oil-driven inflation compensation decline, the Fed may see a way clear to hiking rates in June. But the pace and timing of subsequent rate hikes would still be data dependent. I would anticipate a fairly slow, halting path of rate hikes in the absence of faster wage growth.

Bottom Line:  "Patient" is out. Tough to justify with unemployment at the top of the Fed's central estimates of NAIRU. Pressure to begin hiking rates will intensify as unemployment heads lower. The inflation bar will fall, and Fed officials will increasingly look for reasons to hike rates rather than reasons to delay. They may not want to admit it, but I suspect one of those reasons will be fear of financial instability in the absence of tighter policy. June is in play.

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Fed Watch: Does The Fed Have a Currency Problem?

Tim Duy:

Does The Fed Have a Currency Problem?, by Tim Duy: The PCE inflation data was released today, and I have been seeing commentary on the relative strength of the core-inflation numbers. This, for example, from the Wall Street Journal:
A key gauge of U.S. consumer prices sank in January due partly to cheaper oil, undershooting the Federal Reserve’s goal of 2% annual inflation for the 33rd consecutive month. But a gauge of underlying price pressures remained resilient headed into 2015.
The picture:

PCEa030215

Core-PCE is hovering around 1.3%, and the stability relative to last month is supposedly supportive of Federal Reserve plans to hike interest rates later this year.  
I would caution against that interpretation just yet. While it is true that the year-over-year change is how the Fed measures its progress toward price stability, you should also be watching the near term changes to see the likely direction of the year-over-year message. And in recent months, near-term core inflation has been falling at a rapid pace:

PCEb030215

On a 3-month basis, core inflation is at its lowest since the plunge in 2008. Year-over-year inflation has been held up by a basis effect from a jump in early 2014, but unless we get another jump in the monthly data, you can guess where the year-over-year number will be heading in the next few months:

PCEc030215

Which means that unless the numbers turn soon, there is a fairly good chance the Fed's preferred inflation guide (I say guide because headline inflation is truly the target) drifts lower as the year progresses. Hence I am less eager to embrace that today's release is supportive of the Fed's plans.  
Why is core-inflation drifting lower?  Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen offered this in her testimony last week:
But core PCE inflation has also slowed since last summer, in part reflecting declines in the prices of many imported items and perhaps also some pass-through of lower energy costs into core consumer prices.
 While oil prices have stabilized, the dollar continues to gain ground, hitting an 11-year high today:

DOLLAR030215

If the dollar continues its upward gains - as might be expected given divergent monetary policy across the globe - further downward pressure on core-inflation is likely. This clearly throws a wrench into the Fed's plans. It would be hard to justify confidence in the inflation outlook if core-inflation trends lower in the months ahead.
The Fed could be headed for a very uncomfortable place. The dollar is rising, tightening financial conditions and placing downward pressure on inflation. At the same time, interest rates remain low while equities push higher, loosening financial conditions, arguably an equilibrating response to the rising dollar.  On net, then, the US economy keeps grinding upward, the labor market keeps improving, and the unemployment rate sinks lower. Yellen & Co. would want to resist tightening in the face of low inflation, but they would be increasingly tempted to react to low unemployment. Moreover, concerns of financial instability would mount if longer-term rates remained low and equities pushed higher. All in all, sounds like an increasingly hawkish FOMC coupled with a sluggish global economy and dovish central bankers elsewhere is raising the odds of a US policy error. 
Bottom Line: The rising dollar may be causing the Fed more headaches than they like to admit. To the extent that it is pushing inflation lower, the dollar should be delaying the time to the first rate hike as well as lowering the subsequent path of rates. The Fed may have to respond to the so-called "currency wars" whether they like it or not. That said, I can't rule out that they ignore the inflation numbers given the tightening labor market and what they perceive to be loose financial conditions. The Fed could fail to see the precarious nature of the current environment and move forward with plans to normalize policy. Increasingly likely to be a very interesting summer for monetary policy.

Monday, March 02, 2015

Fed Watch: Game On

Tim Duy:

Game On, by Tim Duy: Almost too much Fed news last week to cover in one post.

The highlight of the week was Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's testimony to the Senate and House. On net, I think her assessment of the US economy was more optimistic relative to the last FOMC statement, which gives a preview of the outcome of the March 17-18 FOMC meeting. Labor markets are improving, output and production are growing at a solid pace, oil is likely to be a net positive, both upside and downside risks from the rest of the world, and, after the impact of oil prices washes out, inflation will trend toward the Fed's 2% target. To be sure, some challenges remain, such as still high underemployment and low levels of housing activity, but the overall picture is clearly brighter. No wonder then that the Fed continues to set the stage for rate hikes this year. Importantly, Yellen gave the green light for pulling "patient" at the next FOMC meeting:

If economic conditions continue to improve, as the Committee anticipates, the Committee will at some point begin considering an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate on a meeting-by-meeting basis. Before then, the Committee will change its forward guidance. However, it is important to emphasize that a modification of the forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the Committee will necessarily increase the target range in a couple of meetings. Instead the modification should be understood as reflecting the Committee's judgment that conditions have improved to the point where it will soon be the case that a change in the target range could be warranted at any meeting.

She is under pressure from both hawks and moderates to leave June open for a rate hike, which requires pulling "patient" from the statement. But at the same time, they don't want the end of "patient" to be a guarantee of a rate hike in June. And that is the message Yellen sends here.

More broadly, though, Yellen is signaling the end of extensive forward guidance. They don't know how the data will unfold at this point, so they are no longer willing to guarantee one particular monetary policy path or another. This was also the message sent by Federal Reserve Vice Chair Stanley Fischer. Via the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Fischer said that while many believe the Fed will move rates steadily higher, meeting by meeting, in modest increments, it is unlikely the world will allow that to happen. “I know of no plans to follow one of those deterministic paths,” he said, adding, “I hope that doesn’t happen, I don’t believe that will happen.”

Instead, Mr. Fischer affirmed that whatever the Fed does with short-term rates will be determined by the performance of the economy, which will almost certainly offer the unexpected.

Mr. Fischer said there is value in making sure you don’t take markets “by surprise on a regular basis.” But at the same time, offering too much guidance can shackle monetary policy makers, and “there’s no good reason to telegraph every action.”

It's "game on" for Fed watchers! Figure it out, because the Fed will no longer be holding our hands.

Separately, San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams echoes Yellen's assessment of the US economy. Via the Wall Street Journal:

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Williams expressed a good deal of confidence in the U.S. outlook, especially on hiring. He said the jobless rate could fall to 5% by the end of the year, which means the central bank is getting closer to boosting its benchmark short-term interest rate from near zero, where it has been since the end of 2008.

“We are coming at this from a position of strength,” Mr. Williams said. “As we collect more data through this spring, as we get to June or later, I think in my own view we’ll be coming closer to saying there are a constellation of factors in place” to make a call on rate increases, he said.

He also gives guidance on why the Fed will soon be confident that inflation will trend back toward target. It's all about the labor market:

Mr. Williams said it is likely that the Fed will see a hot labor market that should in turn produce the wage pressures that will drive inflation back up to desired levels. He said much of the weakness seen now in price pressures is due to the sharp drop in oil prices, which he said isn’t likely to last.

“The cosmological constant is that if you heat up the labor market, get the unemployment rate down to 5% or below, that’s going to create pressures in the labor market” causing wages to rise, he said.

Williams also bemoans the failure of financial market participants to, as he sees it, catch a clue:

Mr. Williams said there is a “disconnect” between Fed officials’ and markets’ expectations for the path of short-term rates. He said he hopes that can be bridged by effective communication explaining central bank policy choices.

St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard has often stated the same concern, and does so again in yet another interview with the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Bullard said he is worried financial markets aren’t fully taking on board the likely path of monetary policy, and are underpricing what the Fed will do with interest rates.

“The market is pricing in a later and slower and shallower pace of increases” compared to what central bankers think, the official said. “The mismatch has to get resolved at some point, and I think there’s some risk it could be resolved in a violent way,” which he suspects no one would like to see.

Similarly, New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley warns that the Fed will need to choose a more aggressive rate path if financial market participants don't figure it out after the Fed starts raising rates:

As an example, one significant conundrum in financial markets currently is the recent decline of forward short-term rates at long time horizons to extremely low levels—for example, the 1-year nominal rate, 9 years forward is about 3 percent currently. My staff’s analysis attributes this decline almost entirely to lower term premia. In this case, the fact that market participants have set forward rates so low has presumably led to a more accommodative set of financial market conditions, such as the level of bond yields and the equity market’s valuation, that are more supportive to economic growth. If such compression in expected forward short-term rates were to persist even after the FOMC begins to raise short-term interest rates, then, all else equal, it would be appropriate to choose a more aggressive path of monetary policy normalization as compared to a scenario in which forward short-term rates rose significantly, pushing bond yields significantly higher.

All of which sounds to me like the Fed wants to see the term premium start drifting higher - in other words, the situation is now the opposite of the unintended climb in term premiums during the 2013 "Taper Tantrum" incident.

When will that first hike occur? Far too much attention is placed on that question says Fischer:

He said there has been “excessive attention” paid to the issue of when rates will be lifted, and not enough to attention to what happens with short-term rates once they’ve been boosted off of their current near-zero levels.

That I suspect is correct; I am more interested in how the Fed proceeds after the first rate hike (June still on the table, but I don't know if they will have sufficient data to be confident in the inflation outlook) than the timing of the rate hike itself. Is the Fed really as eager to challenge financial markets as Dudley suggests? I am a little nervous this is shaping up to be a repeat of the Riksbank incident.

Bottom Line: The Fed's confidence in the US economy is driving them closer to policy normalization. The labor market improvements are key - as long as unemployment is falling, confidence in the inflation outlook is rising. The more important message, however, is as the timing of the first rate hike draws closer, the level of uncertainty is rising. And it is not just about the timing of that rate hike. The Fed is sending a clear message that the subsequent path of rates is also very uncertain, and they don't think that uncertainty is being taken seriously by market participants. In their view, financial markets are too complacent about the likely path of interest rates.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

'What is the New Normal for the Real Interest Rate?'

Jim Hamilton:

What is the new normal for the real interest rate?: The yield on a 10-year Treasury inflation protected security was negative through much of 2012 and 2013, and remains today below 0.25%. Have we entered a new era in which a real rate near zero is the new normal? That’s the subject of a new paper that I just completed with Ethan Harris, head of global economics research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Jan Hatzius chief economist of Goldman Sachs, and Kenneth West professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin...
For the project we assembled annual data on the interest rate set by the central bank (or close substitute) along with inflation estimates for 20 different countries going back in some cases to 1800, along with more detailed quarterly data since 1970. ...
We found little support in these data for two of the popular conceptions many people have about real interest rates. First, although it is often assumed in theoretical models that there is some long-run constant value toward which the real interest rate eventually returns, our long-run data lead us to reject that hypothesis, consistent with other studies...
We also found little support for the popular assumption that the long-run economic growth rate is the primary factor driving changes in the equilibrium real interest rate over time. ...
We conclude that changes in personal discount rates, financial regulation, trends in inflation, bubbles and cyclical headwinds have had important effects on the average real rate observed over any given decade. We examine the secular stagnation hypothesis in detail. On balance, we find it unpersuasive, concluding that it confuses a delayed recovery with chronically weak aggregate demand. ...
It’s worth remembering that recoveries from financial crises often take many years. ... Our paper reviews a great deal of evidence that leads us to conclude that those who see the current situation as a long-term condition for the United States are simply over-weighting the most recent data from an economic recovery that is still far from complete...
Finally, our paper discusses the implications of these findings for monetary policy. ... We conclude that, given that we do not know the equilibrium real rate, there may be benefits to waiting to raise the nominal rate until we actually see some evidence of labor market pressure and increases in inflation. ...

Thursday, February 26, 2015

'Can Helicopter Money be Democratic?'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

Can helicopter money be democratic?: Helicopter money started as an abstract thought experiment..., in technical terms this is a combination of monetary policy (the creation of money) and fiscal policy (the government giving individuals money). Economists call such combinations a money financed fiscal stimulus. With the advent of Quantitative Easing (QE), it has also been called QE for the people.
Some have tried to suggest that central banks could undertake helicopter money for the first time without the involvement of governments. This is a fantasy that those who dislike the idea of government have concocted. Others who dislike the idea of fiscal policy have suggested that helicopter money is not really a fiscal transfer. That is also nonsense. ...
If initiation by the central bank is the defining feature of helicopter money, and this policy always requires the cooperation of government, might it be possible to imagine a form of helicopter money that was more ‘democratic’? ... A left wing government might decide that, rather than giving money to everyone including the rich, it would be better to increase transfers to the poor. A right wing government might decide it should only go to ‘hard working families’, and turn it into a tax break. We could call this democratic helicopter money.
I can see two problems with democratic helicopter money. ...
Given these problems, why even think about democratic helicopter money? One reason may be political. A long time ago I proposed giving the central bank limited powers to make temporary changes to a small set of predefined tax rates, and I found myself defending that idea in front of the UK’s Treasury Select Committee. To say that the MPs were none too keen on my idea would be an understatement. Making helicopter money democratic may be what has to happen to get politicians to support the idea.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Fed Watch: Yellen Heading to the Senate

Tim Duy:

Yellen Heading to the Senate, by Tim Duy: All eyes will be focused on Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen as she presents the semi-annual monetary policy testimony to the Senate Banking Committee. I anticipate that she will stick to an economic outlook very similar to that detailed in the last FOMC statement and related minutes. Expect her to indicate that the Fed is closing in on the time of the first rate hike - after all, this was clearly the topic of conversation at the January FOMC meeting. I anticipate the "Audit the Fed" movement will be on display in the Q&A, which will provide Senators the opportunity to display their ignorance of monetary policy. And with any luck, we will learn how "patient" the Fed really is.
That said, I am wary of expecting much in the way of insight on "patient." The Fed has trapped itself with that language, and I am thinking that it will take the collective power of the FOMC to devise a way out. And they have little choice but to deal with that issue at the March FOMC meeting. The basic problem is this: The hawks would be happy with pulling the trigger on 25bp at the March meeting. The center isn't ready to go along with that, but they want the option of being able to pull the trigger in June. But Yellen, in trying to signal in December that a rate hike was not imminent, linked the term "patient" to two meetings. So if they keep "patient" in the statement, it seems to imply that June is off the table, but that message will brings squeals of unhappiness from the hawks and even leave the center uncomfortable. But just pulling "patient" risks leaving the impression that a June hike is a certainty, which is a message the center doesn't want to send.
If you think this is a dumb way to manage monetary policy, you are correct. Now that the Fed is closer to meeting their employment mandate, they simply cannot credibly signal intentions six months in advance. They need to let the data start doing the work for them, but don't know how to make that transition.  
It something of a shame that Yellen couldn't leave well enough alone in December and let financial market participants believe that "patient" would be used as it had been in 2004. In that case, "patient" would have no time horizon other than that dropping the word "patient" meant that a rate hike was likely just one meeting away. They could credibly manage such a signal. Anything more than one meeting ahead is problematic.
On the economic outlook, I would say that if Yellen were to deviate from the January FOMC meeting, it would be in a generally positive direction. I think they will take the subsequently released upbeat employment report as strong evidence that underlying trends remain solid. The news that Wal-Mart is raising salaries will likely be viewed as just the tip of the iceberg. I doubt anyone on the FOMC believes Wal-Mart leadership acted out of the kindness of their hearts. Yellen herself will probably think something to the effect that "I told you that the quits rate was important."  

RETAILQUITS

Assuming the Greece situation holds together for another 24 hours, that coupled with easing by global central banks in recent weeks will lead FOMC members to believe that global risks have dissipated. And to top it off, US equities pushed back to record highs. What's not to like? Maybe the GDP numbers, but Cleveland Federal Reserve President Loretta Mester gave what I think is the consensus view on the topic:
WSJ: Putting aside the tailwinds that you’re seeing. The growth data look a little soft at the moment.
MESTER: Not really. The fourth quarter came in after two quarters of really robust growth. The employment report actually was revised up for those last couple of months. There is this tendency to look at the last data point. I’m just not that concerned. I think we’ve seen growth pickup. I think there is more momentum in the economy.
Hence why I also don't agonize about what a snowstorm means for monetary policy. It means nothing.
There is plenty on the docket beyond Yellen this week. Existing and new home sales, consumer confidence, regional Fed manufacturing indexes, durables goods orders, CPI, Case-Shiller, GDP revisions, and, if that weren't enough, speeches by Fed Presidents of Atlanta (Lockhart), Cleveland (Mester), and New York (Dudley), and Federal Reserve Governor Stanley Fischer. The fun just won't stop!
Bottom Line:  I expect the Fed will continue to walk the fine line between keeping June in play while signaling that the data will soon justify a rate hike though not necessarily in June. And watch for signs of an effort to shift the focus to the expected gradual pace of rate hikes in an effort to minimize adverse market reaction to the possibility of June. Expect generally positive views of recent data; the Fed thinks the economy is finally on the right path.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

'Helicopter Money and the Government of Central Bank Nightmares'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

Helicopter money and the government of central bank nightmares: If Quantitative Easing (QE), why not helicopter money? We know helicopter money is much more effective at stimulating demand. Helicopter money is a form of what economists call money financed fiscal stimulus (MFFS). In their current formulation independent central banks (ICB) rule out MFFS, because the institution that can do the stimulus (the government) is not allowed to cooperate on this with the institution that creates money (the ICB). In a world where governments - through ignorance or design - obsess about deficits when they should not, it turns out that MFFS or helicopter money is all we have left to prevent large negative demand shocks leading to deep and prolonged recessions. So why is it taboo? 
One reason why it is taboo among central banks is that they want an asset that they can later sell when the economy recovers. QE gives them that asset, but helicopter money does not. The nightmare (as ever with ICBs) is not the current position of deficient demand, but a potential future of excess inflation that they are unable to control. .... Helicopter money ... puts money into the system at the ZLB, in a much more effective way than QE, but it cannot be put into reverse by central banks alone. The central bank cannot demand we pay helicopter money back. [4] 
If the government cooperates, this is no problem. The government just ‘recapitalises’ the central bank, by either raising taxes or selling more of its own debt. Economists call this ‘fiscal backing’ for the central bank. In either case, the government is taking money out of the system on the central bank’s behalf. So the nightmare that makes helicopter money taboo is that the government refuses to do this. [1] ...

After explaining, he concludes

So this nightmare that makes helicopter money taboo is as unrealistic as most nightmares. The really strange thing is that ICBs have already had to confront this nightmare. It is more than possible that when central banks sell back their QE assets, they will make a loss, and so will be faced with exactly the same problem as with helicopter money. [3] A central banker knows better than not to worry about something because it might not happen. So the nightmare has already been faced down. It therefore seems doubly strange that the taboo about helicopter money remains. ...

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Fed Watch: January FOMC Minutes

Tim Duy:

January FOMC Minutes, by Tim Duy: Minutes from the January FOMC meeting were released today. It is fairly clear that the Fed is gearing up for rates hikes:

Participants discussed considerations related to the choice of the appropriate timing of the initial firming in monetary policy and pace of subsequent rate increases. Ahead of this discussion, the staff gave a presentation that outlined some of the key issues likely to be involved...

The debate sounds familiar. On one side are those concerned that the Fed's zero rate policy will overstay its welcome:

Several participants noted that a late departure could result in the stance of monetary policy becoming excessively accommodative, leading to undesirably high inflation. It was also suggested that maintaining the federal funds rate at its effective lower bound for an extended period or raising it rapidly, if that proved necessary, could adversely affect financial stability...

while on the other side doesn't want to pull the trigger too early:

In connection with the risks associated with an early start to policy normalization, many participants observed that a premature increase in rates might damp the apparent solid recovery in real activity and labor market conditions, undermining progress toward the Committee's objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. In addition, an earlier tightening would increase the likelihood that the Committee might be forced by adverse economic outcomes to return the federal funds rate to its effective lower bound.

I would say that "many" is greater than "several," which means that as of January, the consensus leaned toward later than sooner. Indeed:

Many participants indicated that their assessment of the balance of risks associated with the timing of the beginning of policy normalization had inclined them toward keeping the federal funds rate at its effective lower bound for a longer time...

Here it would be helpful to know the expected time horizons. How long is a "longer" time? My sense is that the possibility of a March hike was on the table at the request of the hawks, and "longer" meant sometime after March. But when after March? That is data dependent, but the Fed is challenged to describe exactly what conditions need to be met before justifying a rate hike:

Participants discussed the economic conditions that they anticipate will prevail at the time they expect it will be appropriate to begin normalizing policy. There was wide agreement that it would be difficult to specify in advance an exhaustive list of economic indicators and the values that these indicators would need to take.

Still, they have some broad guidelines:

Nonetheless, a number of participants suggested that they would need to see further improvement in labor market conditions and data pointing to continued growth in real activity at a pace sufficient to support additional labor market gains before beginning policy normalization. Many participants indicated that such economic conditions would help bolster their confidence in the likelihood of inflation moving toward the Committee's 2 percent objective after the transitory effects of lower energy prices and other factors dissipate.

It seems then that "many" participants are focused primarily on the labor market. It would be interesting to see how "many" of those "many" saw their confidence increase after the positive January numbers. Others pointed to inflation measures and wages as important indicators:

Some participants noted that their confidence in inflation returning to 2 percent would also be bolstered by stable or rising levels of core PCE inflation, or of alternative series, such as trimmed mean or median measures of inflation. A number of participants emphasized that they would need to see either an increase in market-based measures of inflation compensation or evidence that continued low readings on these measures did not constitute grounds for concern. Several participants indicated that signs of improvements in labor compensation would be an important signal, while a few others deemphasized the value of labor compensation data for judging incipient inflation pressures in light of the loose short-run empirical connection between wage and price inflation.

My take is this: To get a reasonably sized consensus to support a rate hike, two conditions need to be met. One is sufficient progress toward full-employment with the expectation of further progress. I think that condition has already been met. The second condition is confidence that inflation will indeed trend toward target. That condition has not been met. To meet that condition requires at least one of the following sub-conditions: Rising core-inflation, rising market-based measures of inflation compensation, or accelerating wage growth. If any were to occur before June, I suspect it would be the accelerating wage growth.

On communication, the Fed sees that is has trapped itself:

Participants discussed the communications challenges associated with signaling, when it becomes appropriate to do so, that policy normalization is likely to begin relatively soon while remaining clear that the Committee's actions would depend on incoming data. Many participants regarded dropping the "patient" language in the statement, whenever that might occur, as risking a shift in market expectations for the beginning of policy firming toward an unduly narrow range of dates. As a result, some expressed the concern that financial markets might overreact, resulting in undesirably tight financial conditions.

If "patient" means exactly two meetings as is widely believed, then why would dropping patient imply higher rates in an "unduly narrow range of dates"? Isn't "two" two? If "two" is two, why the need for the adjective "unduly"? The definition of "unduly" according to the dictionary is:

to an extreme, unreasonable, or unnecessary degree

So "two" is thus extreme or unreasonable? Either "two" isn't two or patient wasn't meant to imply always two meetings. Indeed, Cleveland Federal Reserve President Loretta Mester suggests that "two" is only one interpretation. Via the Wall Street Journal:

WSJ: When you say that, do you have April in mind or do you have June in mind?

MESTER: Given what we’ve communicated, June is a viable date. We have the patient language which has been interpreted as two meetings.

The language "has been interpreted" not "means" two meetings. If "two" is plainly two, how can it have any other interpretation? And "has been interpreted" by whom, for that matter?

You get the point. The Fed can't keep itself from making calendar dependent statements, and thus undermines it's own communications. Yellen should have said "patient" means "until the data says otherwise." But she couldn't help herself by not including some kind of calendar dependent qualifier. As a consequence, now the Fed is stuck with modifying the language to keep a June rate hike on the table.

Wait, is a June rate hike still on the table? Although the minutes were interpreted dovishly by financial market participants, I doubt the Fed will want to pull the plug on June just yet. Incoming Fed speak continues to signal a rate hike is coming (including Mester describing June as a "viable option" this week), the January labor report was solid, via the minutes the Fed sees external risks as dissipating, we have four more employment reports before the June meeting, and I doubt the Fed really wants to start signaling policy two periods in advance. Too early to pull June off the table, but they can't move in June without something solid on the inflation front. So the March statement, or subsequent press conference, will be about dealing with the "patient" language, and the April meeting will be about whether they really expect to move in June or not.

One more consideration. It has been noted that the length of the minutes ballooned in January. Less noted is that the FOMC has a new secretary, Thomas Laubach, who succeeds William English. The additional detail may reflect that change, and the additional detail may swing our interpretation of the minutes relative to past minutes.

Bottom Line: The Fed is plainly focused on raising rates. As a group, they sense the time is coming to begin policy normalization. But they don't yet know when exactly that time will be. They don't yet have everything they need to begin, and they don't know when they will have everything (which is why they need to end calendar-dependent language). We know not yet. June? Maybe, maybe not.

'Betting the House: Monetary Policy, Mortgage Booms and Housing Prices'

How risky is it when interest rates are held too low for too long?:

Betting the house: Monetary policy, mortgage booms and housing prices, by Òscar Jordà, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor: Although the nexus between low interest rates and the recent house price bubble remains largely unproven, observers now worry that current loose monetary conditions will stir up froth in housing markets, thus setting the stage for another painful financial crash. Central banks are struggling between the desire to awaken economic activity from its post-crisis torpor and fear of kindling the next housing bubble. The Riksbank was recently caught on the horns of this dilemma, as Svensson (2012) describes. Our new research provides the much-needed empirical backdrop to inform the debate about these trade-offs.
The recent financial crisis has led to a re-examination of the role of housing finance in the macroeconomy. It has become a top research priority to dissect the sources of house price fluctuations and their effect on household spending, mortgage borrowing, the health of financial intermediaries, and ultimately on real economic outcomes. A rapidly growing literature investigates the link between monetary policy and house prices as well as the implications of house price fluctuations for monetary policy (Del Negro and Otrok 2007, Goodhart and Hofmann 2008, Jarocinski and Smets 2008, Allen and Rogoff 2011, Glaeser, Gottlieb et al. 2010, Williams 2011, Kuttner 2012, Mian and Sufi 2014).
Despite all these references, there is relatively little empirical research about the effects of monetary policy on asset prices, especially house prices. How do monetary conditions affect mortgage borrowing and housing markets? Do low interest rates cause households to lever up on mortgages and bid up house prices, thus increasing the risk of financial crisis? And what, if anything, should central banks do about it?
Monetary conditions and house prices: 140 years of evidence
In our new paper (Jordà et al. 2014), we analyse the link between monetary conditions, mortgage credit growth, and house prices using data spanning 140 years of modern economic history across 14 advanced economies. Such a long and broad historical analysis has become possible for the first time by bringing together two novel datasets, each of which is the result of an extensive multi-year data collection effort. The first dataset covers disaggregated bank credit data, including real estate lending to households and non-financial businesses, for 17 countries (Jordà et al. 2014). The second dataset, compiled for a study by Knoll et al. (2014), presents newly unearthed data covering long-run house prices for 14 out of the 17 economies in the first dataset, from 1870 to 2012. This is the first time both datasets have been combined. ...

After lots of data and analysis, they conclude:

... We have established that loose/tight monetary conditions make credit cheaper/dearer and houses more expensive/affordable. But what about the dark side of low interest rates – do they also increase the risk of a financial crash?
The answer to this question is clearly affirmative, as we show in the last part of our paper using crisis prediction models. Over the past 140 years of modern macroeconomic history, mortgage booms and house price bubbles have been associated with a higher likelihood of a financial crisis. This association is even stronger in the post-WW2 era, which was marked by the democratization of leverage through the expansion of housing finance relative to GDP and a rapidly growing share of real estate loans as a share of banks’ balance sheets.
Conclusion
Our findings have important implications for the post-crisis debate about central bank policy. We provide a quantitative measure of the financial stability risks that stem from extended periods of ultra-low interest rates. We also provide a quantitative measure of the effects of monetary policy on mortgage lending and house prices. These historical insights suggest that the potentially destabilizing by-products of easy money must be taken seriously and considered against the benefits of stimulating flagging economic activity. Policy, as always, must strike a fine balance between conflicting objectives.
An important implication of our study is that macroeconomic stabilization policy has implications for financial stability, and vice versa. Resolving this dichotomy requires central banks to make greater use of macroprudential tools alongside conventional interest rate policy. One tool is insufficient to do two jobs. That is the lesson from modern macroeconomic history. ...

Monday, February 16, 2015

'The Congressional Reserve Board: A Really Bad Idea'

Cecchetti & Schoenholtz:

The Congressional Reserve Board: A Really Bad Idea: “We are – I’ll be blunt – audited out the wazoo. Every Federal Reserve Bank has a private auditor. We have our auditor of the system. We have our own inspector general. We are audited. What he’s talking about is politicizing monetary policy.” Richard Fisher, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Dallas Morning News, February 9, 2015.
What would you think if you were to open your morning newspaper to find the following headline?
“Congress Closes Down Fed, Takes Over Monetary Policy”
If you’re like us, you’d panic. In short order, you’d think that long-term inflation expectations would rise, pushing bond yields higher. You’d anticipate an increase in the volatility of growth, employment and inflation. That more volatile environment would drive up the risk premium required on new investments, hindering long-term economic growth. Finally, you'd be very worried about how these Congressional policymakers would manage the next financial crisis.
This is not a pretty picture. Why would anyone want it to become a reality? Well, these are surely not the intended goals, but they are the likely outcomes should lawmakers ever replace the Federal Reserve Board with what we would call a Congressional Reserve Board.
While the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015 – aka, the “Audit the Fed” Act – doesn’t shut down the Federal Reserve, it would go a long way to putting Congress directly in charge of monetary policy and to weakening the Fed’s effectiveness as a lender of last resort.
To explain our concerns, we will start by describing why it has become almost universally accepted practice to make the institution setting monetary (and regulatory) policy independent of political interference. That is, why most advanced and emerging market economies have opted to make their central banks “independent.” We will also explain why the “Transparency Act” is really about controlling monetary policy, not about making the Fed accountable (the short answer: it already is). And, finally, we will explain the bill’s impact on the Fed’s lender of last resort powers. ...

Friday, February 13, 2015

Paul Krugman: Money Makes Crazy

Why are conservatives so crazy about money?:

Money Makes Crazy, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Monetary policy probably won’t be a major issue in the 2016 campaign, but it should be. It is, after all, extremely important, and the Republican base and many leading politicians have strong views about the Federal Reserve and its conduct. And the eventual presidential nominee will surely have to endorse the party line.
So it matters that the emerging G.O.P. consensus on money is crazy — full-on conspiracy-theory crazy. ...
So monetary crazy is pervasive in today’s G.O.P. But why? Class interests no doubt play a role — the wealthy tend to be lenders rather than borrowers, and they benefit at least in relative terms from deflationary policies. But I also suspect that conservatives have a deep psychological problem with modern monetary systems.
You see, in the conservative worldview, markets aren’t just a useful way to organize the economy; they’re a moral structure: People get paid what they deserve, and what goods cost is what they are truly worth to society. ...
Modern money — consisting of pieces of paper or their digital equivalent that are issued by the Fed, not created by the heroic efforts of entrepreneurs — is an affront to that worldview. Mr. Ryan is on record declaring that his views on monetary policy come from a speech given by one of Ayn Rand’s fictional characters. And what the speaker declares is that money is “the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. ... Paper is a check drawn by legal looters.”
Once you understand that this is how many conservatives really think, it all falls into place. Of course they predict disaster from monetary expansion, no matter the circumstances. Of course they are undaunted in their views no matter how wrong their predictions have been in the past. Of course they are quick to accuse the Fed of vile motives. From their point of view, monetary policy isn’t really a technical issue, a question of what works; it’s a matter of theology: Printing money is evil.
So as I said, monetary policy should be an issue in 2016. Because there’s a pretty good chance that someone who either gets his monetary economics from Ayn Rand, or at any rate feels the need to defer to such views, will get to appoint the next head of the Federal Reserve.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

'A Fed Insider Calls for Reform'

Hmm. I must be missing something, for once I don't strongly disagree with Richard Fisher:

A Fed Insider Calls for Reform, by James Freeman, WSJ: Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, believes “there’s too much power concentrated in the New York Fed.” And that goes as well for the Fed’s Washington headquarters. ... It’s ... an effort to head off Congressional efforts that Mr. Fisher believes could threaten the independence of the central bank. ...
To reform the Fed while maintaining its independence, Mr. Fisher first proposes to end the long tradition of the New York Fed President serving as the vice chairman of the FOMC. ...
Mr. Fisher would further boost representation for those outside of Washington and New York. Today, the Washington-based Fed governors and the Chairman hold a total of seven votes on the FOMC. That would not change. But whereas today New York gets a permanent seat and the other 11 regional banks take turns sharing four remaining seats, the regional banks would hold six seats under the Fisher plan. New York would lose its permanent seat and instead take its turn in the rotation for one of the six regional seats. So the Fed governors and Chairman, selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would still have a majority on the FOMC, but power would be further dispersed outside of the Acela corridor. ...
And to address “the potential for regulatory capture,” Mr. Fisher says that teams in charge of supervision of a “systemically important” bank should come from a district outside where the giant bank is based. ...

There is resistance to giving the regional banks more power (in part because of people like Fisher), but I think the Fed is viewed suspiciously by most. If we can make typical households believe the Fed is representing their interests, it would help. Not sure this proposal is the best way to do that, but I do feel that most people have the perception (as opposed to the reality) that the Fed has been captured by interests other than their own.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Fed Watch: Fedspeak Points To June

Tim Duy:

Fedspeak Points To June, by Tim Duy: Federal Reserve speakers were out and about today. First off, Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker set a fairly high bar for NOT hiking in June. Via the Wall Street Journal:
“At this point, raising rates in June looks like the attractive option for me,” Mr. Lacker told reporters following a speech Tuesday in Raleigh, N.C. “Data between now and then may change my mind, but it would have to be surprising data.”...
...“The economy’s clearly growing at a more rapid, sustained pace than it was a year ago,” he said. “Economies that are growing faster need higher real interest rates, and a variety of indicators point to the need for higher real rates.”
What about inflation? It is all about oil:
Mr. Lacker said the effects of lower gasoline prices on inflation should be transitory, and he expects inflation will move back toward the Fed’s 2% annual target over the next year or two. “The inflation rate was clearly moving towards 2% before oil prices began falling last summer,” he said.
Here I worry, because Lacker is clearly ignoring the data, or least weighing the year-over-year changes far too heavily. Inflation actually accelerated in the second half of 2013, but was clearly decelerating by the beginning of 2014 (right idea, wrong dates) first half of 2014, but was clearly decelerating by June, prior to the oil shock. By July, the 3-month annualized change in core was just 0.97% while oil was still above $100 and gas above $3.50:

PCEb020215

But the Fed is close to achieving the employment mandate, so inflation data be damned! Still think the employment part of the dual mandate is really a good idea?
San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams digs in his heals and assures us a rate hike is coming. Via the Financial Times:
John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said the time for the US central bank to start raising rates is getting “closer and closer” amid faster-than-expected wage rises in January and “really strong” hiring. Some investors may be caught out by a rate increase, but that should not stop the Fed from tightening policy if necessary, he said.
What about inflation? No problem, it is all about the lags:
...Economists including Lawrence Summers, a former US Treasury secretary, have urged the Fed to leave rates unchanged until there is clear evidence that inflation, and inflation expectations, are set to breach its 2 per cent target.
However Mr Williams dismissed such calls, warning of the risk that the Fed gets behind the curve on inflation and that it could end up being forced to hike rates “much more dramatically” to rein in inflation, provoking market turmoil. Given the trails with which monetary policy operates it was better to start raising interest rates “gradually, thoughtfully”, he said.
Note that he pulled out the "if we don't hike now we will need to hike more later" argument. That, along with the financial stability argument, is how they will justify a rate increase in the absence of inflation. Williams, however, hedges on June:
A key question obsessing financial markets is whether the Fed pulls the trigger in the middle of the year or waits longer. Mr Williams did not commit himself to voting for a move in June, saying instead that the decision of whether to hike or delay a bit longer would be “in play” at that point.
Time is growing short for the wage gains necessary to begin hiking in June.
Importantly, Williams also rejects the idea that bond markets are signaling secular stagnation:
He dismissed arguments that low long-term bond yields in the US reflect fears of a gloomy outlook for the American economy, saying they more likely were a result of global financial conditions, amid slowdowns and policy easing in large parts of the rest of the world.
US policy would still be very accommodative even after the Fed raised rates, he stressed. “That first step of raising interest rates is just removing a sliver of that accommodation,” he said.
The last paragraph is key. Williams, like the rest of the FOMC argues that conditions will remain very accommodative after even a small rate hike. As I noted last night, this is not true under the secular stagnation hypothesis:

TAYLORb020815

It would be interesting if we had William's estimate of the equilibrium rate for comparison. Wait, we do - from his January 2014 Brookings paper:

WILLIAMS021015

Oh my, that brownish-greenish line appears to be a fairly pessimistic estimate of the natural rate, certainly one inconsistent the assertion that conditions remain accommodative after even just a small rate hike. Perhaps some journalists should start pressing Williams on the policy implications of his research. And, for that matter, I think the Fed's view on the equilibrium real rate should be a front-and-center topic for the next FOMC press conference.
Meanwhile, soon-to-retire Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher is pegging his rate outlook to wage gains:
“If we were to see employment continue to increase, we’re getting much, much better on that front and you begin to see the wage price pressures, that should govern what we do with interest rates.”
The Fed simply has no justification to raise rates in June absent acceleration in wage growth. Even Fisher agrees. Fisher also pushes back against the renewed "Audit the Fed" movement:
“We are — I’ll be blunt — we are audited out the wazoo. Every Federal Reserve Bank has a private auditor. We have our auditor of the system. We have our own inspector general. We are audited. That’s not what he’s talking about. What he’s talking about is politicizing monetary policy.”
That's the plain truth. It has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with politics.
Bottom Line: The Fed wants to hike in June. They continue to dismiss the inflation data, but they still need wage growth to hike. They dismiss the secular stagnation hypothesis. I hope they are right on that, or this is going to get ugly. Quickly.

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Only Raise Rates when Whites of Inflation’s Eyes are Visible

Larry Summers:

Only raise US rates when whites of inflation’s eyes are visible: ... Especially after Friday’s very strong employment report, there can be no doubt that cyclical conditions are normalising. ... All of this taken in isolation would suggest that interest rates should not remain at zero much longer.
On the other hand, the available inflation data suggests little cause for concern. ... Perhaps most troubling: market indications suggest inflation is more likely to fall than rise .
The Fed has rightly made clear that its decisions will be data dependent. The further key point is that it should allow the flow of information on inflation rather than on real economic activity to determine its timing in adjusting interest rates. And it should not raise rates until there is clear evidence that inflation, and inflation expectations, are in danger of exceeding its 2 per cent target. Here are four important reasons why. ...

Friday, February 06, 2015

Fed Watch: Upbeat Jobs Report

Tim Duy:

Upbeat Jobs Report, by Tim Duy: The January jobs report came in above expectations, with nonfarm payrolls growing by 257k and, more importantly, there were large upward revisions to the previous two months. Simply put rumors of the demise of the US economy continue to be premature.
The pace of job gains accelerated further on average:

NFPa020615

Oil and gas extraction jobs declined by 1.9k, but we all know more are coming. But outside of that sector, the economy added 255k jobs. The oil and gas extraction sector itself is only 200k jobs. In short, the fears that this sector is going to topple the US economy are just simply not going to come to pass.
In the context of data Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has previously signaled as important:

NFPc020615

NFPd020615

Ongoing general improvement with measures of underemployment still elevated. There was some excitement about the 12 cent gain in average hourly earnings. I myself am less impressed as to me this largely represents a correction from December's anomalous drop. Wage growth remains fairly anemic year-over-year:

NFPb020615

I would also like to see what happens after the impact of minimum wage hikes dissipates. The Fed, however, my take more comfort in the uptick than me. It goes without saying that a June rate hike remains on the table, although I think it is difficult to justify without faster wage growth. Still four jobs reports till then, so plenty of time to pull that number upward.
Jon Hilsenrath reiterates the view that if the Fed wants to keep the June option open they need to pull the word "patient" in March:
Second, Fed officials will decide at their March meeting whether to change or drop the language in their policy statement pledging to “be patient” in deciding when to raise their benchmark short-term interest rate from zero. That phrase means they won’t move for at least two more meetings.
After the March gathering, the Fed has meetings scheduled for April and June. If the policy makers keep the “patient” language in the statement, that would indicate they don’t think they’ll raise rates at those meetings. If they scrap the phrase, that would give them the option to move as early as June if the economic data hold up.
I doubt this is as black and white as Hilsenrath argues. I don't think Yellen intended to imply that "patient" always means two meetings. Perhaps I just have too many memories about "considerable time" first meaning six months and then not. Plus, the Fed is aware of its past history, and in 2004 "patient" turned to "moderate" just one meeting before the hike. But it was technically the second meeting after "patient" was dropped, so is that two meetings? Also, as we saw with the "considerable" to "patient" transition, the Fed has its own unique way of wordsmithing that can deliver something for everyone. And finally, Yellen has the press conference to redefine her interpretation of "patient." But maybe I am wrong. In any event, I am not taking a fixed stand on what "patient" means until the press conference.
Bottom Line: The US economy has very real momentum on its side at the moment. It is more resilient to shocks than commonly assumed. This isn't 2011. June is still on the table.

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Fed Watch: Fed Updates

Tim Duy:

Fed Updates, by Tim Duy: Some quick notes on monetary policy this afternoon:

1.) Another policymaker in favor of a first half rate hike.  Cleveland Federal Reserve President Loretta Mester supports a rate hike by June.  Via Michael Derby at the Wall Street Journal:

Expressing confidence weak inflation will eventually rise again, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland President Loretta Mester said Wednesday the U.S. central bank remains on track for raising rates in the next few months.

Noting that Fed policy isn’t on a “pre-set path,” Ms. Mester said “if incoming economic information supports my forecast, I would be comfortable with liftoff in the first half of this year.” Because Fed policy actions affect the economy over a long period of time, the central banker said the Fed will need to act before it has fully achieved its job and price mandates.

She is, however, watching the survey data:

The official told reporters after her speech that if inflation expectations began to weaken, especially ones derived from surveys, “that would give me pause” when it comes to advocating for rate increases.

While the timing of any policy move remains in flux, Mester's basic story is close to consensus: The Fed is looking at putting the economy on a glide path to achieving its mandates, which means moving ahead of those mandates.

2.) But another is pointing out the danger of low inflation. Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren doesn't speak to the timing of rate hikes, but low inflation is clearly on his mind:

Of course today, after significant labor market improvement, and with the horizon over which inflation will return to its target being uncertain, inflation has taken on a more prominent role in our deliberations.

Currently, an obvious caveat in interpreting the low inflation rate in the U.S. is the supporting role played by the recent decline in energy prices. Oil shocks have been associated with major changes in monetary policy before. The failure to control inflation in the United States during the 1970s, in the presence of an adverse oil supply shock, highlighted a serious dilemma facing monetary policy at that time. Importantly in that case, what might have been a temporary pass-through of oil to non-oil prices turned into a more lasting problem with overall inflation, as wage and price dynamics at that time helped turn increases in oil prices into fairly protracted increases in overall inflation. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Volcker is rightfully recognized for taking forceful action to address the situation and ultimately tame inflation in the United States.

Currently, a concern is that central banks are facing the mirror image of the problem in the 1970s. The problem of significantly undershooting inflation – a dynamic which could well keep interest rates at the zero lower bound – is likely to be a key challenge to central bankers in the first two decades of the 21st century. And I would say that as with the oil shock in the 1970s, the current shock has served to accentuate a potential monetary policy pitfall – in this case, the failure to quickly and vigorously address a significant undershooting of inflation targets, potentially leaving economies stagnant at the zero lower bound. 

He would support later rather than sooner with regards to the first rate hike.  

3.) Fed ready to lower NAIRU?  I have argued in the past that if the Fed is faced with ongoing slow wage growth, they would need to reassess their estimates of NAIRU.  Cardiff Garcia reminded me:

@TheStalwart @TimDuy Whether/extent to which Fed reverts nat-rate estimates to pre-2010 range is one of 2015's big Qs pic.twitter.com/CKieHx2zRC

— Cardiff Garcia (@CardiffGarcia) February 4, 2015

While David Wessel adds today:

JPMorgan run the Fed's statistical model of the economy and says the NAIRU (which was 5.6%+ through 2013 data) is now down to 5%.

— David Wessel (@davidmwessel) February 5, 2015

Jim O'Sullivan from High Frequency Economics says not yet:

"Hard-to-fill" @NFIB jobs series up to 26 in Jan (+1). Corroborates unempl decline, with no sign of lower #NAIRU pic.twitter.com/DVYGyGV4e6

— Jim O'Sullivan (@osullivanEcon) February 5, 2015

A reduction in the Fed's estimate of the natural rate of unemployment would likely mean a delayed and more gradual path of policy tightening, should of course the Fed ever get the chance to pull off the zero bound.  Keep an eye on this issue!

4.) Will the Fed remain "patient" in March?  Jon Hilsenrath at the Wall Street Journal says the Fed needs to remove "patient" from the FOMC statement in March if they want to move in June:

The “patient” assurance, Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen has said, means no rate increases for at least two more policy meetings. The next two policy meetings after March are in April and June. If officials think they might raise rates in June, they need to remove “patient” in March to give themselves the option to proceed if economic data justify a move by June.

Interesting - this is a stricter interpretation of "patient" than I had from Yellen's comments. I did not think that "patient" would always mean just two more meetings, only that in December "patient" meant two more meetings. During the last rate hike cycle, the Fed maintained "patient" until March, switched to "measured" in May, and hiked in June. So they hiked the second meeting after the last "patient." Does that meet the definition that Yellen gave in December? I don't know, but I an not sure she meant to imply that "patient" always and forever means no hike for the next two meetings. So I guess we have our first question for the next press conference. At the moment, following the last cycle, I don't think that keeping "patient" means they are taking June off the table.

5.) Employment report watch.  Calculated Risk notes that Goldman Sachs cut their forecast for tomorrow's employment report to a 210k gain in nonfarm payrolls and a 5.5% unemployment rate, at the low end of consensus and similar to my forecast. But the January number might be an even bigger crapshoot than usual anyway. Via Bloomberg:

 A significant risk to the January payroll print is that the seasonal adjustment may not be properly calibrated. If employers added more seasonal workers than usual based on a firmer assessment of economic conditions, then there may be more layoffs in January. If the seasonal factors do not properly account for this, then a weaker-than-expected payroll gain could result.

And note that one number doesn't make a trend:

Underlying labor market momentum is largely being sustained, as economic growth remains decent, albeit slower than the mid-year hot streak between Q2 and Q3 of 2014. As such, if January employment disappoints, it is probably an anomaly related to seasonal adjustment issues, not a meaningful downshift in the pace of hiring.

The ongoing improvement in consumer attitudes is an encouraging sign that households continue to sense a healthy labor market.

6.) Falling interest rates worldwide. The global push for easier monetary policy continues. China's central bank is now officially in easing mode, while the Danish Central Bank moves deeper into negative territory. The Fed wants to be able to move in the opposite direction, but financial markets are telling them this isn't the time to move off of zero. The Fed will resist - this isn't 2011 when the US economy was much further from reaching its employment mandate than it is today. That said, they eventually had to relent and ease in 1998, so holding steady would be familiar territory (they are not bringing QE back to life yet). But will they worry that easing then helped sustain an asset bubble, a situation they do not want to repeat? Increasingly, the Fed looks to be back in a place they hoped they had left behind - between a rock and a hard place.

And with that we await tomorrow's employment report. Sorry I don't have time to give each of these topics the time they deserve.

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Fed Optimism Could Cost the Economy Dearly

Me, at MoneyWatch:

Fed optimism could cost the economy dearly: Is the Fed overoptimistic about where the economy is headed? If so, that could cause the central bank to raise interest rates too soon, a policy error that could leave the economy stuck in a "deflationary trap" and remain at subpar growth levels for an extended time period.
The answer to that question is yes. The Fed's tendency to be overly optimistic about the economy is documented in a recent Economic Letter from the San Francisco Fed. In the Economic Letter, Kevin Lansing and Benjamin Pyle note that the Fed's economic forecasts "(1) did not anticipate the Great Recession that started in December 2007, (2) underestimated the severity of the downturn once it began, and (3) consistently overpredicted the speed of the recovery..."
The following two charts presented along with the researchers' findings show how far off the Fed's projections for the economy have been...
This had consequences. Although the central bank's monetary policy was much better than Washington's fiscal policy, the "green shoots" the Fed saw around every corner often caused policymakers to be too slow to put new policy in place (e.g. to turn from interest rate policy to quantitative easing, and then to new rounds of quantitative easing), and to be less aggressive than needed. ...
The risk now is that the Fed will repeat these mistakes. ...

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Fed Watch: Brief Comment

Tim Duy:

Brief Comment, by Tim Duy: It is always interesting to see how others perceive you. For instance, I wasn't sure what to make of this from Paul Krugman:

The monetary-policy gap between insiders and outsiders — between economists at the Fed and other policy institutions, who still seem eager to raise rates, and those of us on the outside, who think this is a really, really bad idea — continues to widen. This morning Tim Duy — one of the outsiders who, commenting from his perch at Mark Thoma’s invaluable blog, has seemed most sympathetic to the urge to hike rates — joins the what-are-they-thinking chorus.

When I read that I realized that perhaps I wasn't defining my space quite right. Primarily, I attempt - albeit, admittedly, not always successfully - to understand the world as Federal Reserve policymakers see it. Failing to put your personal opinion in the background is one of the biggest mistakes a Fed Watcher can make. Right now, for example, policymakers are somewhat hawkish relative to market expectations, so my writing has a hawkish tilt, which is what I think Krugman interprets as "sympathetic." 

Occasionally, however, my opinions become more evident, which is what Krugman interprets as joining the "what-are-they-thinking chorus."  In truth I am not particularly sympathetic with the Federal Reserve's campaign to normalize policy. That campaign is predicated on the belief that the economy is close to full employment. Krugman sees the natural rate of unemployment as mostly likely below 5%. I concur. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections, however, places the natural rate in the 5.2-5.5% range. My thinking is that is as much as 0.5 percentage points or even more too high. That is a big, big error, somewhere around 800,000 real lives impacted. A lot of jobs to risk when inflation is trending downward, in my opinion.

I also believe that the fact that we have experienced two recessions since 1991 yet no outbreak of inflation is prima facie evidence that the Fed, on average, maintains too tight a monetary policy.  Seems likely a little bit looser policy would yield significant welfare gains.

Anyway, I think readers probably get the idea at this point. My expectations of a particular Fed policy does not necessarily indicate support for that policy. In future writing I will endeavor to more clearly delineate between the two.

'Tough Fedding'

Paul Krugman hopes the Fed is listening:

Tough Fedding: The monetary-policy gap between insiders and outsiders — between economists at the Fed and other policy institutions, who still seem eager to raise rates, and those of us on the outside, who think this is a really, really bad idea — continues to widen. This morning Tim Duy — one of the outsiders who ... has seemed most sympathetic to the urge to hike rates — joins the what-are-they-thinking chorus. Core inflation is drifting downward, not upward, and is now well below the Fed’s target. So why hike?
The immediate answer appears to be a fixation on the unemployment rate, which is close to standard estimates of full employment. But is this really a solid justification for raising rates absent any actual sign of the rising inflation we’re supposed to see at full employment?
Actually, what do we mean by full employment, anyway? ...
You don’t want to push this too hard, but my point is that recent data are perfectly consistent with the view that full employment requires an unemployment rate below 5 percent; the most recent data would suggest an even lower rate. This might or might not be right; I don’t know. But the Fed doesn’t know either.
And in the face of that uncertainty, the crucial question is what happens if you’re wrong. And the risks still seem hugely asymmetric. Raise rates “too late”, and inflation briefly overshoots the target. How bad is that? (And why does the Fed sound increasingly as if 2 percent is not a target but a ceiling? Hasn’t everything we’ve seen since 2007 suggested that this is a very bad place to go?) Raise rates too soon, on the other hand, and you risk falling into a deflationary trap that could take years, even decades, to exit.
I really, really hope this is getting through.

Monday, February 02, 2015

'Persistent Overoptimism about Economic Growth'

An SF Fed Economic Letter from Kevin Lansing and Benjamin Pyle:

Persistent Overoptimism about Economic Growth: In November 2007, the Federal Open Market Committee began releasing projections for real GDP growth four times per year in its Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). The SEP reports the central tendency and range for real GDP growth forecasts from the Federal Reserve Board members and Federal Reserve Bank presidents. Over the past seven years, many growth forecasts, including the SEP’s central tendency midpoint, have been too optimistic. In particular, the SEP midpoint forecast (1) did not anticipate the Great Recession that started in December 2007, (2) underestimated the severity of the downturn once it began, and (3) consistently overpredicted the speed of the recovery that started in June 2009. The SEP growth forecasts have typically started high, but then are revised down over time as the incoming data continue to disappoint. Similar patterns are observed in the consensus private-sector growth forecasts compiled by the Blue Chip Economic Survey. This Economic Letter reviews the SEP’s track record of forecasting growth and considers some explanations for the optimistic bias. ...

Fed Watch: Fed's Preferred Inflation Measure Dives

Tim Duy:

Fed's Preferred Inflation Measure Dives, by Tim Duy: Not only is core-PCE inflation on a year-over-year basis trending away from the Fed's target:

PCEa020215

but the deceleration in recent months is truly shocking:

PCEb020215

It is hard to see how the Fed can be confident that inflation with trend back to target when looking at these numbers. They need some acceleration in wage growth to justify their intentions to begin normalizing policy, and even with such acceleration, I think their case is fairly weak in the context of the current inflation environment. If they make a case, they will base it on these three pillars:

1.) With unemployment nearing 5%, they have reached their employment mandate.
2.) Monetary policy is exceptionally accommodative even if they raise interest rates.
3.) Failure to raise rates invites asset bubbles.

On point three, refer to New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley:

Quickly, let me give two examples that illustrate how variable this linkage can be.  First, during the 2004-07 period, the FOMC tightened monetary policy nearly continuously, raising the federal funds rate from 1 percent to 5.25 percent in 17 steps.  However, during this period, 10-year Treasury note yields did not rise much, credit spreads generally narrowed and U.S. equity price indices moved higher.  Moreover, the availability of mortgage credit eased, rather than tightened.  As a result, financial market conditions did not tighten.  

As a result, financial conditions remained quite loose, despite the large increase in the federal funds rate.  With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that either monetary policy should have been tightened more aggressively or macroprudential measures should have been implemented in order to tighten credit conditions in the overheated housing sector.

It may be that the Fed looks at the tech and housing bubble episodes and concludes that zero interest rates are not desirable even if inflation is below trend. Yes, I know, macroprudential before interest rates when addressing asset bubbles. But at a point when the economy is at the Fed's idea of full-employment, and given the events of recent decades? Easy to see the Fed seeing danger in putting all of their eggs in the macroprudential basket. 

Bottom Line: Below trend inflation as the economy nears full-employment is a very uncomfortable position for the Federal Reserve. It will be interesting to see how Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen navigates these waters at the upcoming Congressional testimony.

Fed Watch: As of Yet, Fed Not Changing Tune

Tim Duy:

As of Yet, Fed Not Changing Tune, by Tim Duy: Early salvos by Federal Reserve policymakers in the wake of last week's FOMC non-event suggest that recent developments have had little impact on Fed thinking with regards to the appropriate timing of rate hikes. The middle of this year remains the internal forecast. Whether data or events cooperate is of course another question.

I think it is worth viewing Friday's two interviews with St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard at Bloomberg and San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams at CNBC. Bullard is fairly clear in his view that financial markets are doing it wrong:

“The market has a more dovish view of what the Fed is going to do than the Fed itself,” Bullard said in an interview Friday in New York. “Markets should take it at face value” from the Fed’s rate projections, and it’s “reasonable” to expect an increase in June or July.

In contrast, I would say that Williams is a bit more cautious:

Given this projection, Williams said he thought "around the middle of this year is the time that I think, in my view, that we'll be getting closer to 'Should we raise rates now, or should we wait a little longer, collect some more data, get more confidence in the forecast?'"

The baseline story, however, is generally the same. They believe the US economy has sufficient momentum to weather any external shocks. They both view the first quarter GDP report as consistent with their underlying forecast. So did I, for that matter. You need to be able to tease out the underlying trend when parsing the data. Calculated Risk gets it right. R-E-L-A-X:

There are legitimate concerns about a strong dollar, and weak economic activity overseas, impacting U.S. exports and GDP growth. However, overall, the Q4 GDP report was solid.

In short, neither Williams nor Bullard is seeing anything in the recent data to worry them significantly. Regarding the timing of a rate hike, I think that if you view the videos, you will see a line of logic fairly similar to what I described last week. They see unemployment falling to 5% or less this year. They do not think that such a situation as consistent with zero rates. They think they need to move ahead of actual inflation. They think that even after hiking rates, monetary policy will remain accommodative.

A couple of clarifications and extensions:

First, my take is that the Fed wants to pull the focus off of the first rate increase to the subsequent path of policy. What comes first is not as important as what comes after. The "comes after" is one reason they want to move sooner than later given the current economic environment. Bullard views it important to narrow the gap between zero and normal rates because he fears that falling behind the curve will necessitate a steeper subsequent policy path. This thinking is probably endemic within the Federal Reserve.

Second, notice that again Bullard dismisses market-based measures of inflation expectations as distorted by the massive drop in the price of oil. And his opinion is not illogical: There is no reason to think 5y5y forward exceptions to be impacted in lock step with the collapse in oil prices. He wants to see how that situation plays itself out.

Third, Bullard says that we are 400bp below normal policy and that his view of normal policy has not changed much. There is no new normal. This too I think is endemic in Fed thinking and where I think lies the greatest potential for a policy error. They should not be holding a dogmatic view of what is normal. The bond markets are telling me that would be a mistake.

Fourth, Bullard was not disturbed by the rise of the dollar as he sees it as a natural consequence of a stronger US economy and weaker economies abroad. This contrasts with the general view that the Fed is panicking over the dollar.

So what does Fed Chair Janet Yellen think? Well, both Bullard and Williams are coming right out of the gates of an FOMC meeting, and I doubt either would take a position that was strongly in contrast to Yellen. That said, expectations seem to be growing for Yellen to head a different direction. Via the Wall Street Journal:

“If the markets stay how they are today three months from now, the Fed would have a hard time raising interest rates,” Alan Rechtschaffen, a financial adviser at UBS, said this week. That would make Ms. Yellen’s twice-yearly testimony before the House and Senate, expected in the third week of next month, a potential opportunity for beginning to show increased concern about low inflation—particularly if measures of prices excluding energy and food costs keep moving lower.

“As early as the Humphrey-Hawkins testimony the Fed could begin to lay the groundwork for a transition in monetary policy” toward a later date for interest-rate increases, Mr. Rechtschaffen said.

Like I thought that there would be little change in the FOMC statement, I am cautious about expecting a change in Yellen's tone. It might be good to consider this anecdote from former Federal Reserve Governor Larry Meyer:

The final question is whether Janet is really a dove. Let me tell you a story. Janet and I held very similar views when we were colleagues on the Committee, despite the fact that I was immediately viewed as a hawk and she was already viewed as a dove. (I thought of myself at the time as being a “hawkish dove.”) In any case, when it comes to ensuring price stability and maintaining well-anchored inflation expectations, there are no doves on the Committee. Before the September 1996 FOMC meeting, Janet and I went to see the Chairman to talk about the policy decision at that meeting and at following meetings. This was the only time I ever visited the Chairman (at my initiative) to talk about monetary policy, before or after a meeting. Janet and I were both worried about inflation, even though it was very well contained at the time. We told the Chairman that we loved him but could not remain at his side much longer if he continued, as he had been doing for some time, to push the next tightening action into the next meeting, and then not follow through. He listened, more or less patiently. I recall, though this may have not been the case, that he just smiled and didn’t say a word. After an awkward silence, we said our good-byes. Needless to say, we didn’t win this argument. Yet, we never dissented. That is another matter of etiquette for the entire Board, at least since when I was there: The Board is a team, always votes as a block, and, therefore, always supports the Chairman.

The reason I bring this up is that if my analysis of the Fed's baseline thinking is generally correct, then Yellen will have a hard time staying a dove if her underlying framework is unchanged from 1996. And I think we are seeing that as the economy heads into more normal territory, that underlying framework is indeed unchanged. This is especially the case when she could view former Federal Reserve's Chair Alan Greenspan's 1996 bet as being a special case attributable to higher productivity, and she does not have productivity in her corner this time around. Just something to think about.

Bottom Line: I am not convinced the Fed is changing its thinking as quickly as markets think the Fed is changing its thinking. That means that Fedspeak might continue to be hawkish relative to expectations.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

'Bad Tayloring'

PK:

Bad Tayloring: Since they aren’t currently able to demand a return to the gold standard — and maybe a ban on paper money? — Republicans are pushing to mandate that the Fed follow the so-called Taylor rule, which relates short-term interest rates to unemployment (and/or the output gap) and inflation. John Taylor, not surprisingly, likes this idea. But it’s a really terrible idea, and not just for the reasons Tony Yates describes. ...
The world has turned out to be a much more dangerous place than Taylor-rule enthusiasts imagined, so why impose a rule devised, we know now, by economists who completely misjudged the risks?
Now Taylor himself has an excuse and rationale: he claims that the whole financial crisis thing was because the Fed departed slightly from his version of the rule in the pre-crisis 2000s. But as Yates points out, this assigns an importance to monetary policy that is wildly at odds with the kind of modeling used to justify the rule in the first place. It also, as Yates does not point out, has the distinct whiff of someone inventing ever-more bizarre stories to avoid admitting having been wrong about something. This is not the kind of argument on which to base rules that permanently constrain policy.

Friday, January 30, 2015

'Audit the Fed? Not So Fast'

Catherine Rampell:

Audit the Fed? Not so fast: Not this again.
Calls to “Audit the Fed” are back. And just as before, they are extraordinarily dangerous to the health of the U.S. economy.
First, a little background. Conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve’s wacky technical mumbo-jumbo voodoo have a long populist history. Monetary policy is complicated and abstract; entrusting it to a secretive, propeller-headed cabal naturally arouses suspicion. No surprise, then, that libertarian hero and former Texas congressman Ron Paul for years tried to persuade his colleagues to curb the central bank’s power and independence with recurrent calls to “Audit the Fed” (if not kill it entirely). He made Fed audits a centerpiece of his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
Now, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, he might finally get his way.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has picked up his father’s mantle and reintroduced the proposal as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — like Paul a likely 2016 presidential contender — has also joined the cause, along with 29 other co-sponsors. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). ...

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Fed Watch: FOMC Decision

Tim Duy:

FOMC Decision, by Tim Duy: If you were looking for fireworks from today's FOMC statement, you were disappointed. Indeed, you need to work pretty hard to pull a story out of this statement. It provided little reason to believe that the Fed has shifted its view since December. A June rate hike remains the base case.

The Fed's assessment of the current statement is arguably the best in years:

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in December suggests that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Labor market conditions have improved further, with strong job gains and a lower unemployment rate. On balance, a range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources continues to diminish. Household spending is rising moderately; recent declines in energy prices have boosted household purchasing power. Business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow.

The Fed is simply not seeing any warning signs in recent data. Regarding inflation:

Inflation has declined further below the Committee’s longer-run objective, largely reflecting declines in energy prices. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have declined substantially in recent months; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

They continue to dismiss headline inflation, and I think they will continue to do so. And if you continue to insist that the Fed is paralyzed with fear over market based measures of inflation expectations, note that they do not refer to these as "expectations" measures. It is inflation "compensation." From Fed Chair Janet Yellen's most recent press conference:

There are a number of different factors that are bearing on the path of market interest rates, I think, including global economic developments. It is often the case that when oil prices move down and the dollar appreciates, that that tends to put downward pressure on inflation compensation and on longer-term rates. We also have safe-haven flows that may be affecting longer-term Treasury yields. So I can’t tell you exactly what is driving market developments. But what I can say is that we are trying to communicate our thoughts as clearly as we can.

And:

Oh, and longer-dated expectations. Well, what I would say, we refer to this in the statement as “inflation compensation” rather than “inflation expectations.” The gap between the nominal yields on 10-year Treasuries, for example, and TIPS have declined—that’s inflation compensation. And five-year, five-year-forwards, as you’ve said, have also declined. That could reflect a change in inflation expectations, but it could also reflect changes in assessment of inflation risks. The risk premium that’s necessary to compensate for inflation, that might especially have fallen if the probabilities attached to very high inflation have come down. And it can also reflect liquidity effects in markets. And, for example, it’s sometimes the case that— when there is a flight to safety, that flight tends to be concentrated in nominal Treasuries and could also serve to compress that spread. So I think the jury is out about exactly how to interpret that downward move in inflation compensation. And we indicated that we are monitoring inflation developments carefully.

They are trying to tell us very clearly that TIPS are not giving a measure of pure inflation expectations. They do not want those measures by themselves to affect market expectations of the path of monetary policy.

Growth risks are balances and low inflation is transitory:

The Committee continues to see the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced. Inflation is anticipated to decline further in the near term, but the Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of lower energy prices and other factors dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

They make a small nod to international concerns when considering future policy actions:

This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.

The Fed remains patient and policy is data dependent:

Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. However, if incoming information indicates faster progress toward the Committee’s employment and inflation objectives than the Committee now expects, then increases in the target range for the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner than currently anticipated. Conversely, if progress proves slower than expected, then increases in the target range are likely to occur later than currently anticipated.

June remains on the table. Within the context of the current forecast, I think that June will be difficult to justify in the absence of wage acceleration. A sharp decline in the forecast, or the balance of risks to the forecast, would also prompt a delay. Importantly, at this point they see the current forecast as still the most likely outcome.

Bottom Line: At this point, the Fed does not see market turbulence as an impediment to raising rates. They are willing to hike rates even if stocks are moving sideways (which they probably think is reasonable in the context of expectations for less monetary accommodation). They do not see any data that threatens their baseline forecast. Maybe market participants have written off June, but for the Fed, June remains very much on the table.

'Somebody Is Inside an Echo Chamber. But Who?'

Brad DeLong:

Somebody Is Inside an Echo Chamber. But Who?: Paul Krugman fears that somebody is trapped inside an echo chamber, hearing only things that confirm what they already believe...

But how can we tell which side has lost contact with the reality out there? ...

I do not think we have to decide. I think that even if we are uncertain whether the optimistic “insiders” or the pessimistic “outsiders” are correct, elementary prudent optimal-control theory tells us that we should act as if the “outsiders” are right.

But I have gotten ahead of myself:...

So how would we tell whether, right now, it is the outsiders are overstating the dangers to premature tightening, or it is the insiders who are understating the dangers to premature tightening here in the United States?

To answer this question, I think we need to consider five points–the first about our decision procedure, the second about the level of spending consistent with full employment, the third about the degree of uncertainty and variability, the fourth about the vulnerabilities of the economy to spending deviations above and below the projected current-policy path, and the fifth about the effectiveness of our optimal-control levers in different scenarios.

The first point is that if it turns out that we cannot tell–that we have to split the difference–then the considerations that rule are the asymmetries in the situation.

The second point is that no one right now has a good and convincing read on what, exactly, the level of spending consistent with full employment at the currently-projected price level is. Uncertainty is rife: if there was ever a time for considering not just the central tendency of the forecast but the risks on either side and taking optimal control appropriately valuing these risks seriously, it is right now.

The third point is that we are not just uncertain about what the proper full-employment path for demand is, we have much more than the usual amount of uncertainty about nearly all other dimensions of the structure of the economy. To suppose that any of the emergent properties that are policy multipliers can be estimated from data collected during “normal” times is to make an enormous leap of faith.

The fourth point is that downside risks to the forecast greatly exceed upside opportunities. ...

And the fifth point is that, while the Federal Reserve has powerful levers to restrict demand if spending shoots above the desired policy path, its levers to expand demand if spending falls below have been demonstrated over the past six years to be relatively weak.

Thus, if it turns out that we cannot tell–and we cannot tell–then it is not correct that we should split the difference. The considerations that rule are then the asymmetries in the situation. It is, right now, much worse to undershoot than to overshoot full-employment demand...

These asymmetries mean that, as far as policy is concerned, the “outsiders” win any tie and win any near-tie: the “insiders” should govern what policy should be only if there is not just a preponderance of the but clear and convincing evidence on their side.

Yet the Federal Reserve appears to have decided:

  • that those who think that the economy is near full employment and is in a durable recovery have by far the better of the argument as to what the central tendency projected current-policy demand path is.
  • that it is appropriate to make policy via certainty-equivalance.

Given the inability of the Federal Reserve to attain traction at the ZLB, its current frame of mind–which appears to be doing certainty-equivalence policy–makes no sense to me. Certainty-equivalence is appropriate only with a symmetric loss function and a symmetric ability to compensate for deviations on either side of the target. We do not have either of those.

Has there been an explanation of why the Federal Reserve’s policy is appropriate, given the uncertainties, given the asymmetry of the loss function, and given the asymmetry of the control levers, that I have missed? If so, where is it?

Fed watch: While We Wait For Yet Another FOMC Statement...

Tim Duy:

While We Wait For Yet Another FOMC Statement...: The FOMC will reveal the outcome of this week's meeting later today. I think Calculated Risk hits the high points - "patient" is in, "considerable time" is completely out. Beyond this, we will be looking for clues on how the Fed is interpreting the current economic environment. I suspect little change in the overall tenor of the statement as they will want to leave June open as an option. I reiterate my position: The Fed needs to see an acceleration in wage growth to be confident that inflation will return to trend if they intend to raise rates in June. 

Why is the Fed focused on normalizing policy? This is one explanation I see tossed around, from Jeffrey Gunlock via Reuters:

"The Fed seems to want to raise interest rates simply because they don't want to be at zero when the next recession occurs," he said.

A similar statement from the Economic Cycle Research Institute:

In this context, ECRI explains the reasons for the declines in both measures, but also why they may ultimately not be that important to the timing of rates hikes. Above all, the Fed wants to remain relevant in case the economy is hit by recessionary shocks that require interest rates to return to the zero-lower-bound (ZLB). By definition, once on the ZLB, they need to rise before they can fall again.

I don't think these are accurate representations of Fed thinking. The Fed recognizes that hiking rates prematurely to "give them room" in the next recession is of course self-defeating. They are not going to invite a recession simply to prove they have the tools to deal with another recession.  

The reasons the Fed wants to normalize policy are, I fear, a bit more mundane:

  1. They believe the economy is approaching a more normal environment with solid GDP growth and near-NAIRU unemployment. They do not believe such an environment is consistent with zero rates.
  2. They believe that monetary policy operates with long and variable lags. Consequently, they need to act before inflation hits 2% if they do not want to overshoot their target. And they in fact have no intention of overshooting their target.
  3. They do not believe in the secular stagnation story. They do not believe that the estimate of the neutral Fed Funds rate should be revised sharply downward. Hence 25bp, or 50bp, or even 100bp still represents loose monetary policy by their definition.

I am currently of the opinion that there is a reasonable chance the Fed is wrong on the third point, and that they have less room to maneuver than they believe. If so, they will find themselves back at the zero bound in the next recession, very quickly I might add. This is not their expectation. They expect to remain relevant in the next recession and do not believe they need to quickly raise rates to achieve relevance. Again, they know this is self-defeating.

Whether or not they can maintain their mid-year target is of course the topic du jour. But the logic of those who believe the Fed will not have what it needs in June and thus expect the first hike much later is more convincing than those who argue that they will raise rates due to some pressing need to prepare for the next recession.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

'Did the Keynesians Get It Wrong in Predicting a Recession in 2013?'

Dean Baker:

Did the Keynesians Get It Wrong in Predicting a Recession in 2013?:  I have had several readers send me a blogpost from Scott Sumner saying that the Keynesians have been dishonest in not owning up to the fact that they were wrong in predicting a recession in 2013. The argument is that supposedly us Keynesian types all said that the budget cuts and the ending of the payroll tax cut at the start of 2013 would throw the economy back into recession. (Jeffrey Sachs has made similar claims.)
That isn't my memory of what I said at the time, but hey we can check these things. I looked at a few of my columns from the fall of 2012 and they mostly ran in the opposite direction. The Washington insider types were hyping the threat of the "fiscal cliff" in the hope of pressuring President Obama and the Democrats to make big concessions on Social Security and Medicare. They were saying that even the risk of falling off the cliff could have a big impact on growth in the third and fourth quarter of 2012.
My columns and blogposts (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here) were largely devoted to saying this was crap. I certainly agreed that budget cutbacks and the end of the payroll tax cuts would dampen growth, but the number was between 0.5-0.8 percentage points. This left us far from recession. (All my columns and blogposts from this time are at the CEPR website, so folks can verify that I didn't do any cherry picking here.)
I know Paul Krugman is the real target here, not me, but we've been seeing the economy pretty much the same way since the beginning of the recession. If he had a different story at the time I think I would remember it. But his columns and blogposts are archived too. I really don't think anyone will find him predicting a recession in 2013, although I'm sure he also said that budget cuts and tax increases would dampen growth. 
Anyhow, I'm generally happy to stand behind the things I've said, and when they are proven wrong I hope I own up to it. But I don't see any apologies in order. No recession happened in 2013 and none was predicted here.

I don't recall predicting a recession either (the "they" intended to tar all Keynesians refers to just a few people), just that it would be a drag on growth (the CBO predicted 0.6%). In any case, not much can be said unless one takes the time to estimate a model, use it as a baseline, and then ask the model how the economy would have done in an alternative world where policy was different. Just because we still had growth after the budget cuts does not prove or disprove anything. Even if growth rises under austerity, you can't say it would not have risen a bit more more without austerity (all else is far from equal) unless you have done the hard work of estimating a defensible model and then asking it these questions. Similarly, you can't say much about the degree of monetary offset unless you have taken the time to do the econometrics to support it. But with changes this small -- the impact was predicted to be much less than one percent of growth by most models -- it is very hard to get statistically significant differences in any case.

The problem is that there is no model that all economists agree is "best" for these purposes, and the answer one gets depends upon the particular choice of models. Choose a model that delivers small fiscal multipliers and you get one answer, use a model with bigger multipliers and the answer changes. But even the models with the largest multipliers did not predict a recession, only a drag on growth (generally less than one percent) so the fact that we still had growth says nothing about the impact of the policy, or the degree of monetary offset.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Paul Krugman: Much Too Responsible

Europe’s self-indulgent "archons of austerity" and "doyens of deflation":

Much Too Responsible, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The United States and Europe have a lot in common. Both are multicultural and democratic; both are immensely wealthy; both possess currencies with global reach. Both, unfortunately, experienced giant housing and credit bubbles between 2000 and 2007, and suffered painful slumps when the bubbles burst.
Since then, however, policy on the two sides of the Atlantic has diverged. In one great economy, officials have shown a stern commitment to fiscal and monetary virtue, making strenuous efforts to balance budgets while remaining vigilant against inflation. In the other, not so much.
And the difference in attitudes is the main reason the two economies are now on such different paths. ... No, it’s not morning in America... Recovery could and should have come much faster, and family incomes remain well below their pre-crisis level. Although you’d never know it from the public discussion, there’s overwhelming agreement among economists that the Obama stimulus of 2009-10 helped limit the damage..., but it was too small and faded away far too fast. ...
Europe, on the other hand ... did almost everything wrong. On the fiscal side, Europe never did much stimulus, and quickly turned to austerity ... despite high unemployment. On the monetary side, officials fought the imaginary menace of inflation, and took years to acknowledge that the real threat is deflation. ...
Monetary policy got much better after Mario Draghi became president of the European Central Bank in late 2011. ... But it’s not at all clear that he has the tools to fight off the broader deflationary forces set in motion by years of wrongheaded policy. ...
The terrible thing is that Europe’s economy was wrecked in the name of responsibility. ... In a depressed economy..., a balanced-budget fetish and a hard-money obsession are deeply irresponsible. Not only do they hurt the economy in the short run, they can — and in Europe, have — inflict long-run harm, damaging the economy’s potential and driving it into a deflationary trap that’s very hard to escape.
Nor was this an innocent mistake. The thing that strikes me about Europe’s archons of austerity, its doyens of deflation, is their self-indulgence. They felt comfortable, emotionally and politically, demanding sacrifice (from other people) at a time when the world needed more spending. They were all too eager to ignore the evidence that they were wrong.
And Europe will be paying the price for their self-indulgence for years, perhaps decades, to come.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Fed Watch: Policy Divergence

Tim Duy:

Policy Divergence, by Tim Duy: Increasingly, the Federal Reserve stands in stark contrast with its global counterparts. While the ECB readys its own foray into quantitative easing, the Bank of England shifted to a more dovish internal position, the central bank of Denmark joined the Swiss in cutting rates, and the Bank of Canada unexpectedly cut rates 25bp this morning. The latter move I found somewhat unsurprising given the likely impact of oil prices on the Canadian economy. The rest of the world is diverging from US monetary policy. How long can the Fed continue to stand against this tide?

Late last week, Reuters reported that the Fed's resolve was stiffening. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported the Fed was staying the course. This morning, Bloomberg says the Fed is getting weak in the knees:

Federal Reserve officials are starting to reassess their outlook for the economy as global weakness and disappointing data on American consumer spending test their resolve to raise interest rates this year.

San Francisco Fed President John Williams last week said he will trim his U.S. estimate because of slower growth abroad. Atlanta’s Dennis Lockhart said Jan. 12 that he advocates a “cautious” approach to rate increases and inflation readings “may be pivotal.” Both are voters on the Federal Open Market Committee in 2015 and repeated that rates could be raised in the middle of the year.

I doubt the Fed will place too much weight on the December retail sales report. It is fairly noisy data and there is no indication that the fundamental upward trend has been broken:

RETAIL012115

Moreover, I think they would be wary of reading too much into one data point given the upswing in consumer confidence in recent months. That, of course, only builds upon the upswing in employment data. And housing starts finished the year on a strong note - see Calculated Risk for more on that topic.

All that said, the Fed should of course be cautious about the impact of global weakness. But how does the Fed communicate such caution? The challenge I see for the Fed is that they will want to hold the statement fairly steady, with falling oil prices and global weakness as offsetting risks while holding the line on the "low inflation is transitory" story. They want to keep June alive. After all, it's still five months out - a lifetime at the speed of today's financial world. They don't want expectations to fall too far to the back of the year while they are still looking at a June hike.

Such a steady hand, however, may be viewed as hawkish, which is also a message the Fed does not want to send. My expectation is that they highlight the improving US economy, particularly the acceleration in job growth, while offering concerns about the global economy. Remember that the condition of the US job market is very different than during previous bouts of financial instability; the momentum looks more self-sustaining than it has in a long time. They may even point to policy action on the part of foreign central banks to help assuage some global weakness concerns.

Separately, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard gives no quarter in his argument for rate hike in the first quarter of this year in this Wall Street Journal interview:

I still think we should get off zero (interest rates). The kinds of things we’re observing now, it is not the constellation of data that would be consistent with a zero policy rate. I think it is important to get started and to start normalizing policy. Even once we start to normalize, interest rates would still be extremely low. We’re talking about levels of 50 basis points or 75 basis points. That is still extremely low and that would still be putting upward pressure on inflation even if we did that. So I’d like to get going. I don’t think we can any longer rationalize a zero interest rate policy.

Bullard thinks the data is not consistent with a zero rate policy, while I fear that the data is where it is at because of the zero rate policy. Moreover, I would tend to proceed more cautiously then Bullard given the current flattening of the yield curve. But Bullard is an outlier; the FOMC consensus is in favor of caution, which is why there is no rate hike on the table next week or in March. And it is why June is in no way guaranteed; they need something from wage growth that they just aren't getting. If they want to set up for a June rate hike without wage growth, they need to start telling a compelling alternative story soon.

Somewhat disappointing is that Bullard is flip-flopping. To date he has been a fairly reliable inflation-hawk - his opinions shift consistently with the inflation outlook. Not this week:

I do worry about TIPS-based inflation compensation and it has been down a lot recently and it does concern me. What I want to do with that is wait and see what happens in global oil markets, wait and see what equilibrium turns out to be and then see what happens with breakeven inflation at that point. I want to let the dust settle on the oil market and then go back and check breakeven inflation rates and see what’s happened.

Basically, Bullard wants to ignore the market-based inflation metrics that would have in the past told him to hold off on any tightening. He really, really wants to liftoff from the zero bound, the sooner the better. I don't think this level of immediacy is felt by other FOMC members, but I do think they are hoping and praying the data gives them enough to move by mid-year.

Bottom Line: The Fed finds itself in a familiar place - wanting to change policy but not quite getting the data they need while at the same time global stress in on the rise. Luckily for them, they weren't going to move off the zero-bound next week anyways; they still have months of data to sift through between now and then. And unlike past times of turbulence, the US is coming from a position of strength, eliminating the need for any panicky moves. Next week is mostly then just about communicating how and how not they are responding to overseas developments.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Fed Watch: Seconded

Tim Duy:

Seconded, by Tim Duy: I see Jon Hilsenrath at the Wall Street Journal seconds my take from this morning:

Federal Reserve officials are on track to start raising short-term interest rates later this year, even though long-term rates are going in the other direction amid new investor worries about weak global growth, falling oil prices and slowing consumer price inflation.

This is generally consistent with my view. The Fed is likely reacting more slowly than market participants. Hilsenrath adds something I forgot to mention:

Central to their internal deliberations ahead of the March meeting is a debate about how low the jobless rate can fall before it stirs wage and inflation pressure. Fed officials estimate the “natural rate” of unemployment—meaning the rate below which wage pressures increase—is between 5.2% and 5.5%.

Mr. Rosengren said he was considering revising this estimate down because the jobless rate has fallen to near the 5.2%-5.5% range without triggering any sign of wage pressure. He said he suspected some of his Fed colleagues also were considering moving this estimate down. The lower the estimate goes, the more patient they might be before raising rates.

Just as I think it will be hard for the Fed to raise rates if the unemployment rate continues to fall while wage growth remains subdued, it will also be difficult to justify current estimates of the natural rate of unemployment under those circumstances. Still, I would caution that lowering the estimate of the natural rate would be, I think, an implicit rejection of the "underemployment hypothesis." It would be easier to adjust estimates of the natural rate downward if measures of underemployment were more consistent with their traditional relationships with unemployment. In other words, the natural rate may be consistent with subdued wage growth due to the existence of high levels of underemployment.

My opinion is that the global disinflationary environment would support low inflation at levels of unemployment below the Fed's current estimate of the natural rate, similar to the situation of the late 1990s.

Fed Watch: Will The Fed Take a Dovish Turn Next Week?

Tim Duy:

Will The Fed Take a Dovish Turn Next Week?, by Tim Duy: As it stands now, we are heading into the next FOMC meeting with the growing expectation that the Fed will take a dovish turn. Is it not obvious that global economic turmoil, collapsing oil prices, weak inflation, and a stronger dollar are clearly pointing to rapidly rising downside risks to the US economy? For financial market participants, they answer is a clear "yes." Expectations of the first rate hike have been pushed out to the end of this year, seemingly in complete defiance of Fed plans for policy normalization. The Fed may get there as well and abandon their carefully crafted mid-year plan, but I suspect they will not move quite as rapidly as financial market participants desire.
As a general rule, the Fed tends to act in a more deliberate fashion. To be sure, this was not evident during the crisis. Indeed, "panicky" might be a better adjective during that period. But note that in comparison to past bouts of tumolt on global markets, the US economy is in a much better place, with accelerating job growth when unemployment is already near traditional mandate-levels. From their point of view, this is a whole different world compared to that of the last round of Euro-induced crisis.
This take from Jonathan Spicer and Ann Saphir at Reuters probably saw less play than it deserved:
Tumbling oil prices have strengthened rather than weakened the Federal Reserve's resolve to start raising interest rates around midyear even as volatile markets and a softening U.S. inflation outlook made investors push back the timing of the "liftoff."
Kind of a "Fed is from Mars, markets are from Venus" situation. It is important to recognize that the Fed sees falling oil prices as a significant, unexpected development that represents the realization of an upside risk to their forecast. They are thinking of an outcome not unlike that revealed in the most recent Bloomberg/UMich read on consumer sentiment:

CONSEN011815

Through the roof, one might say. So at this point the Fed will view the external threats to the economy as just risks, but the very real move in oil is at a minimum adding upside risk to their forecasts or already pushing their forecasts to the upside. With regards to external threats, they probably think that more aggressive ECB action is in the wings to put their immediate fears to rest. And the downward push on inflation is, from their perspective, a transitory issue and therefore a non-issue.
Consider this also from the Reuters article:
Interviews with senior Fed officials and advisors suggest they remain confident the U.S. economy will be ready for a modest policy tightening in the June-September period, while any subsequent rate hikes will probably be slow and depend on how markets will behave.
in light of this from St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard:
“The level of inflation is not so low that it can alone justify a policy rate of zero,” Mr. Bullard said in material prepared for a speech in Chicago.
and this from San Fransisco Federal Reserve President John Williams:
Placing heavy emphasis on the date of liftoff “suggests that you don’t have any other decisions to make,” Williams said. “We want to be very confident that we’re on the right path, that the data support that first move, but that first move on tightening is only one of many, many policy actions we’ll need to do during the normalization. It’s not the critical component.”
and this from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen:
So, I think you raise a very important point because, although there is a great deal of market focus on the timing of liftoff, what to matter in thinking about the stance of policy is what the entire path of interest rates will look like. And I really don’t have much for you other than to say that they will be data dependent—that, over time, the stance of policy will be adjusted to try to keep the economy on a track where we see continuing progress toward achieving our goals of maximum employment and price stability.
My takeway is that the Fed sees the timing of the first rate hike as less important than everything that comes after that hike. This will leave them less eager to delay the hike. Given where the economy currently stands, I suspect they see little chance of damage from that first hike alone.
This is also interesting:
Some of those interviewed stressed that in the light of last year's strong jobs gains waiting until mid-year represented a cautious approach rather than an aggressive one, allowing the Fed to delay the rate liftoff if needed, particularly if inflation expectations turned sharply down.
The suggestion here is that at least some Fed officials view signaling a mid-year rate hike as the cautious approach because the data increasingly suggests to them that they should be moving sooner than later.
Bottom Line: I reiterate my view that despite the generally positive data flow, and the upward boost from oil, I don't see how they can justify raising rates without some reasonable acceleration in wage growth. That said, perhaps by my own argument above they can justify it on the basis of 25bp won't hurt anyone anyways. But my broader point is this: During normal times the Fed moves methodically if not ponderously. The current state of the economy gives them room to move as such. So I would not be surpised to see a fairly steady hand revealed in the next FOMC statement.

Friday, January 09, 2015

Fed Watch: Wage Growth - or Lack of - Continues to Surprise

Tim Duy:

Wage Growth - or Lack of - Continues to Surprise, by Tim Duy: The December employment report, with its surprising combination of solid job gains and decelerating wage growth, leaves Fed policy up the air.
Headline nonfarm payrolls gained by 252k, while previous months were revised up a net 50k. Job growth continues to accelerate:

NFPa010915

Note the acceleration in aggregate hours worked:

NFPd010915

Such gains suggest the recent acceleration in GDP growth is real and likely to be sustained. From the household survey, we see that the unemployment rate continues to decline. Fed forecasts will once again soon be in jeopardy:

NFPc010915

In the context of indicators previously identified by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen:

YELLENa010915

YELLENb010915

Overall, the story is one of ongoing improvement in labor markets, including metrics of underemployment. Wage growth, however, nosedived during the month:

NFPb010915

I would be wary of this read on wages - strikes me as an aberration that is likely to be violently reversed, but I also stick to what I wrote yesterday:
I believe that an acceleration of wage growth would do the trick, which is why this remains the data to watch in the employment report. If June rolls around with no inflation and no greater wage growth, the Fed will find it challenging to begin normalization. In that case, they would need to focus on the employment mandate or pivot to some financial stability story to justify a rate hike.
Bottom Line: Generally a very solid report. But the wage numbers present a dilemma for the Fed. Simply put, no wage growth means the Fed can't be particularly confident that inflation will trend toward target. Not that a rate hike was imminent in any event; Fed is still looking at June, but they need some more help from the data. Of course, June is still a long way off - we have five more employment reports before that meeting. Time enough for these numbers to turn around. Note that if the wage trend does reverse quickly, policy expectations would shift just as quickly.

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Fed Watch: Volatile Week Ahead of Employment Report

Tim Duy:

Volatile Week Ahead of Employment Report, by Tim Duy: At the moment, there are many different competing threads in the tapestry of monetary policy, with another thread entering the pattern with tomorrow's employment report. In short, the Fed is balancing clear evidence of accelerating US activity in the back half of 2014 against the implications of declining oil prices and a host of international weaknesses that are roiling financial markets. The reality of volatility in asset prices was on full display this week. The Fed desire to begin normalizing policy with a rate hike in the middle of this year certainly appears in jeopardy. They very much need continued solid data on the US side of the equation to push forward with their plans.
Early 2015 US data in the form of ISM reports provides little new guidance. While the measures slipped from recent high, I would be hard-pressed to say that the underlying trend has changed after considering the volatility of this data:

NAPMa010814

NAPMb010814

Likewise, initial unemployment claims continue to hover below pre-recession lows, signaling solid labor demand:

CLAIMS010815

Plunging gasoline prices will almost certainly bolster consumer confidence:

GAS010814

The Fed anticipates that declining energy prices will have a net positive impact on the economy. Via the minutes of the most recent FOMC meeting:
In their discussion of the foreign economic outlook, participants noted that the implications of the drop in crude oil prices would differ across regions, especially if the price declines affected inflation expectations and financial markets; a few participants said that the effect on overseas employment and output as a whole was likely to be positive. While some participants had lowered their assessments of the prospects for global economic growth, several noted that the likelihood of further responses by policymakers abroad had increased. Several participants indicated that they expected slower economic growth abroad to negatively affect the U.S. economy, principally through lower net exports, but the net effect of lower oil prices on U.S. economic activity was anticipated to be positive.
I tend agree that the net impact will be positive, but note that the negative impacts will be fairly concentrated and easy for the media to sensationalize, while the positive impacts will be fairly dispersed. We all know what is going to happen to rig counts, high-yield energy debt, and the economies of North Dakota and at least parts of Texas. "Kablooey," I think, is the technical term. Easy media fodder. Much more difficult to see the positive impact spread across the real incomes of millions of households, with particularly solid gains at the lower ends of the income distribution. This will be most likely revealed in the aggregate data and be much less newsworthy.
The decline in energy prices, combined with the stronger dollar, confounds the Fed's inflation outlook, but for now they seem content to assume the impacts are transitory:
Participants generally anticipated that inflation was likely to decline further in the near term, reflecting the reduction in oil prices and the effects of the rise in the foreign exchange value of the dollar on import prices.Most participants saw these influences as temporary and thus continued to expect inflation to move back gradually to the Committee's 2 percent longer-run objective as the labor market improved further in an environment of well-anchored inflation expectations.
The Fed also, at least for now, is choosing to heavily discount market-based measures of inflation expectations:
Survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations remained stable, although market-based measures of inflation compensation over the next five years, as well as over the five-year period beginning five years ahead, moved down further over the intermeeting period.Participants discussed various explanations for the decline in market-based measures, including a fall in expected future inflation, reductions in inflation risk premiums, and higher liquidity and other premiums that might be influencing the prices of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and inflation derivatives.Model-based decompositions of inflation compensation seemed to support the message from surveys that longer-term inflation expectations had remained stable, although it was observed that these results were sensitive to the assumptions underlying the particular models used. It was noted that even if the declines in inflation compensation reflected lower inflation risk premiums rather than a reduction in expected inflation, policymakers might still want to take them into account because such changes could reflect increased concerns on the part of investors about adverse outcomes in which low inflation was accompanied by weak economic activity. In the end, participants generally agreed that it would take more time and analysis to draw definitive conclusions regarding the recent behavior of inflation compensation.
For example, the Cleveland Federal Reserve measure of inflation expectations over the next ten years was 1.83% in December, within spitting distance of the Fed's target. This kind of analysis, combined with survey-based measures, provides the Fed with a great deal of comfort regarding the inflation situation.
That said, inflation remains below target and, importantly, was decelerating before the impact of lower energy prices worked its way through the economy:

PCE33122314

Shouldn't this alone keep any talk of rate hikes at bay? You might think so, but the Fed already believed there was a good chance that they would raise interest rates while core-inflation was below target:
With lower energy prices and the stronger dollar likely to keep inflation below target for some time, it was noted that the Committee might begin normalization at a time when core inflation was near current levels, although in that circumstance participants would want to be reasonably confident that inflation will move back toward 2 percent over time.
So what is the bar for "reasonably confident"? I believe that an acceleration of wage growth would do the trick, which is why this remains the data to watch in the employment report. If June rolls around with no inflation and no greater wage growth, the Fed will find it challenging to begin normalization. In that case, they would need to focus on the employment mandate or pivot to some financial stability story to justify a rate hike.
Jon Hilsenrath offers a potential interpretation of the implications of the rally at the long end of the Treasury yield curve:
If falling yields are a reflection of diminishing inflation prospects, as is typically the case, it ought to prompt the Fed to hold off on raising short-term interest rates in the months ahead. If, on the other hand, lower long-term rates are a reflection of investors pouring money into U.S. dollar assets, flows that could spark a U.S. asset price boom, it might prompt the Fed to push rates higher sooner or more aggressively than planned.
The latter interpretation is less conventional, but it is one that New York Fed President William Dudley made at length in a speech in December. He argued the Fed had the wrong reaction to lower long rates in the 2000s, a mistake that might have contributed to the housing boom that ended disastrously.
I wrote about this last month, coming to the conclusion:
A second point is that Dudley is not taking seriously the possibility that the flattening yields curve suggests the Fed has less room to move than policymakers think they do. This is something I worry about - if the Fed leans on the short end too much, they risk taking an expansion that should last another fours years to one that has just two more years left. But that might be a story for next December.
I think the late-90's is a better comparator to the current envrionment, but that will take another post to deal with. For the moment, I will add that San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams hinted that current action in the bond market is in fact telling a less hawkish story. Via Greg Robb at MarketWatch:
Williams said he thinks a rate hike this year will be appropriate, but added he is in "no rush" to tighten. He said that mid-2015 is a reasonable guess of when the Fed will first ask "should we do it now or wait a little longer."
I have interpreted Williams remarks in the past as pointing at a June rate hike. Arguably, here he hedges and says June is when they should start considering the rate hike. Perhaps falling Treasury yields are having the traditional impact on Fed thinking after all.
Bottom Line: Fed wants to begin normalizing policy, but sees a murkier path compared to even just last month. They need hard US data to overwhelm the oil/international driven fears. An acceleration of wage growth would help put some light on the path they want to follow.

'Trying to Understand Current FedThink'

Brad DeLong:

Today’s Essay at Trying to Understand Current FedThink: Daily Focus, by Brad DeLong: The “more thoughts about this” I promised earlier below…

Jon Hilsenrath: Could Lower 10-Year Yields Spark A More Aggressive Fed?:
“Falling long-term interest rates pose a quandary for Federal Reserve officials….

…If falling yields are a reflection of diminishing inflation prospects… it ought to prompt the Fed to hold off on raising short-term interest rates…. If… lower long-term rates are a reflection of investors pouring money into U.S. dollar assets, flows that could spark a U.S. asset price boom, it might prompt the Fed to push rates higher sooner…. The latter interpretation is less conventional, but it is one that New York Fed President William Dudley made….

The Fed’s next policy meeting is three weeks away. It is clear officials will spend a considerable time debating the correct response to a perplexing lurch down in long-term rates. ...

Our current remarkably-low long-term interest rates has three possible interpretations:

  1. Ms. Market expects currently-planned near-term Fed policy to produce a very weak economy for a long time to come, and hence very low interest rates in the out years. Ms. Market is correct. In this case, low long-term interest rates are a signal that the Federal Reserve’s current liftoff plans are a mistake and should be revisited.

  2. Ms. Market expects currently-planned near-term Fed policy to produce a very weak economy for a long time to come, and hence very low interest rates in the out years. Ms. Market is wrong. In this case, low long-term interest rates are not a signal that the Federal Reserve’s current liftoff plans are a mistake and should be revisited. Rather, the Federal Reserve should act as in (3).

  3. Ms. Market expects currently-planned near-term Fed policy to produce a normal economy in the out-years, but the U.S. Treasury market has an unusually small or negative term premium because of the large number of foreign investors seeking U.S.-based political and economic risk insurance via holdings of U.S. Treasuries. In this case, low long-term interest rates are inappropriately stimulative and run the risk of generating an overheating economy, and the proper response by the Federal Reserve is to announce that it will raise interest rates sooner and faster in order to push long-term rates to where they need to be for a sustainable Goldilocks continued recovery.

The Federal Reserve strongly believes that Ms. Market has no information about the future course of the macroeconomy that the Federal Reserve does not have–that (1) is simply unthinkable. That leaves (2)–Ms. Market thinks the Federal Reserve’s currently-planned near-term policy path is risking another lost decade, but Ms. Market is wrong–or (3)–long-term rates have an anomalously-low term premium because of foreign-investor demand.

A glance at the graph above would seem to rule out (3): 10-Yr breakeven inflation has fallen from 2.5%/year just before the taper tantrum to 1.6%/year today, while the TIPS has risen from -0.7%/year to +0.4%/year today. If it were (3), the surge of foreign demand ought to have put downward pressure on both nominal Treasuries and TIPS, leaving the breakeven largely unchanged. That is not what has happened. If the Federal Reserve wants to hold to (3), therefore, it needs to add to it:

3′. Something else weird and unrelated has happened in the market for TIPS.

While that is possible, it is disfavored by Occam’s Razor.

Thus Dudley seems to be chasing down a red herring. The interpretation he wants to put forward ought to be this:

Today Ms. Market expects inflation over the next ten years to be 0.9%/year less than it expected it to be back in June 2013. But we know better: the economy is actually much stronger than Ms. Market thinks.

Coming from a Federal Reserve that has overestimated the future strength of the economy in every single quarter since the start of 2007, that is not a terribly reassuring posture for it to take.

Saturday, January 03, 2015

'In Defense of NGDP Targets'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

In defence of NGDP targets: Tony Yates had recently written a couple of posts (here, and here, but see also the discussion with Andy Harless on the second) slamming the idea of NGDP targets. (From now on I assume this refers to targeting the level of NGDP.) Now you might think that NGDP targets do not need any support from lukewarm advocates like me, given all the supporters in the econ blogging world. That would be wrong, because - as Tony rightly says - most advocates of NGDP targets tend to argue in a model free way. Both he and I want to stay close to the academic literature, at least as a starting point.
I think Tony is wrong when he says that “the case for levels based targets – including NGDP levels targets – is, both practically and analytically, extremely weak”. In making such a claim, Tony should be very worried that one of the supporters of NGDP targets is Michael Woodford, who literally wrote the book on modern monetary theory. ...

After explaining, he concludes with:

Having said all this, it is great that Tony is opening up the discussion on the correct level, so we can get away from what often seems like faith based arguments for NGDP targets. I think the framework that he seems to have in mind is also the correct one: the ultimate policy target would be inflation (and the output gap: I would want a dual mandate), and NGDP would be an intermediate target to achieving welfare maximising paths. So I hope this discussion continues. My one last plea is that arguments make clear whether a NGDP targeting regime is being compared to some form of optimal policy, or policy as currently practiced: as I suggest here these are (unfortunately) different things. 

Yates replies here.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

'On the Stupidity of Demand Deficient Stagnation'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

On the Stupidity of Demand Deficient Stagnation: In my last post I wrote about “why recessions caused by demand deficiency when inflation is below target are such a scandalous waste. It is a problem that can be easily solved, with lots of winners and no losers. The only reason that this is not obvious to more people is that we have created an institutional divorce between monetary and fiscal policy that obscures that truth.” I suspect I often write stuff that is meaningful to me as a write it but appears obtuse to readers. So this post spells out what I meant. ...

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

'Asymmetric Credibility at the Fed and Price-Level Targeting'

Jared Bernstein:

Asymmetric Credibility at the Fed and Price-Level Targeting: While we in the US don’t have the disinflation (positive but declining rates of inflation) problem facing the Eurozone, our benchmark inflation rate has consistently undershot its mark. The Federal Reserve target for the core PCE deflator is 2%, year-over-year, and yet it hasn’t hit that growth rate even once since April of 2012. Since then, the average rate of PCE core inflation is 1.5% (Euro area core inflation was last seen growing at 0.6%).
Note also that the 2% is a target, not a ceiling (though there’s often ambiguity around this), meaning if you’ve been below for a while, it’s consistent with hitting your target rate on average to be above it for a while as well.
And yet, the question of whether the Fed is adequately meeting the “stable prices” part of its dual mandate (the other part is, of course, full employment) seems almost uniformly to be whether it’s keeping inflation from going above 2%. In other words, the Fed’s inflation credibility is asymmetric: they only lose credibility points for going above 2%.
As a policy matter for a healthy economy, this is wrong...

Monday, December 22, 2014

Fed Watch: Looking Backward to See the Future

Tim Duy:

Looking Backward to See the Future, by Tim Duy: Is this our future, brought back from the past? A contact referenced the last hike cycle via the FOMC statements from 2003-04 (emphasis added):

October 28, 2003:

The Committee perceives that the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. In contrast, the probability, though minor, of an unwelcome fall in inflation exceeds that of a rise in inflation from its already low level. The Committee judges that, on balance, the risk of inflation becoming undesirably low remains the predominant concern for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the Committee believes that policy accommodation can be maintained for a considerable period.

December 9, 2003:

The Committee perceives that the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. The probability of an unwelcome fall in inflation has diminished in recent months and now appears almost equal to that of a rise in inflation. However, with inflation quite low and resource use slack, the Committee believes that policy accommodation can be maintained for a considerable period.

January 28, 2004:

The Committee perceives that the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. The probability of an unwelcome fall in inflation has diminished in recent months and now appears almost equal to that of a rise in inflation. With inflation quite low and resource use slack, the Committee believes that it can be patient in removing its policy accommodation.

March 16, 2004:

The Committee perceives the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. The probability of an unwelcome fall in inflation has diminished in recent months and now appears almost equal to that of a rise in inflation. With inflation quite low and resource use slack, the Committee believes that it can be patient in removing its policy accommodation.

May 4, 2004:

The Committee perceives the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal. Similarly, the risks to the goal of price stability have moved into balance. At this juncture, with inflation low and resource use slack, the Committee believes that policy accommodation can be removed at a pace that is likely to be measured.

June 30, 2004:

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to raise its target for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 1-1/4 percent.

"Patient" lasted for two meetings before being replaced by "measured." This is fairly consistent with my expectations. My baseline scenario is that the Fed drops "considerable" entirely in January, retains "patient" in March, drops "patient" in April, and raise rates in June. In her press conference, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said:

There certainly has been no decision, you know, decision on the part of the Committee to move at a measured pace or to use language like that. I think quite a few people looking back on the use of that language in the--I can't remember if it was 12 or 16 meetings, where there were 25 basis point moves. We'd probably not like to repeat a sequence in which there was a measured pace and 25 basis point moves at every meeting. So I certainly don't want to encourage you to think that there will be a repeat of that.

If she really believes this, Yellen will not push to replace "patient" with "measured," but instead some more vague data-dependent type language.

Bottom Line: Assuming the data holds, maybe history will repeat itself. If it really is this easy, I have no idea what I will be writing about for the next six months.

Fed Watch: Asked and Answered. Mostly.

Tim Duy:

Asked and Answered. Mostly, by Tim Duy: Last week I had six questions for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. Here is my attempt to piece together the answers from her post-FOMC press conference:

Question 1: If you want to know what the Fed is thinking at this point, a journalist needs to push Yellen on the secular stagnation issue at next week's press conference. Does she or the committee agree with Fischer? And does she see any inconsistency with the SEP implied equilibrium Federal Funds rates and the current level of long bonds?

Yellen, in answer to Peter Coke of Bloomberg Television: "(The Committee) are optimistic that those conditions will lift. They see the longer-run normal level of interest rates as around 3-3/4 percent. So there's no view in the Committee that there is secular stagnation in the sense we won't eventually get back to pretty historically normal levels of interest rates."

Yellen, in answer to Robin Harding of the Financial Times: "There are a number of different factors that are bearing on the path of market interest rates. I think including global economic developments. It is often the case that when oil prices move down, and the dollar appreciates, that tends to put downward pressure on inflation compensation and on longer-term rates. We also have safe haven flows that may be affecting longer-term Treasury yields. So I can't tell you exactly what is driving market developments. But what I can say is that we are trying to communicate our thoughts as clearly as we can."

The Federal Reserve believes that the current level of long rates is an artifact of safe-haven flows, not an indication of secular stagnation. They must anticipate that the yield curve will not flatten further or invert when they begin raising rates.

Question 2: I would like a journalist to press Yellen on her interpretation of the 5-year, 5-year forward breakeven measure of inflation expectations. Does she see this measure as important or too noisy to be used as a policy metric? What is her preferred metric?

Yellen, in answer to Greg Ip of the Economist: "Oh, and longer-dated expectations. Well I would say we refer to this in the statement as inflation compensation, rather than inflation expectations. The gap between the nominal yields on 10-year Treasuries for example. And TIPS have declined -- that's inflation compensation, and five-year, five-year forwards, as you've said, have also declined. That could reflect a change in inflation expectations. But it could also reflect changes in assessment of inflation risks. The risk premium that's necessary to compensate for inflation. That might especially have fallen if the probabilities attached to very high inflation have come down. And it can also reflect liquidity effects in markets and for example, it's sometimes the case that -- when there is a flight to safety, that flight tends to be concentrated in nominal Treasuries, and can also serve to compress that spread. So I think the jury is out about exactly how to interpret that downward move in inflation compensation. And we indicated that we are monitoring inflation developments carefully."

The Federal Reserve does not believe market-based measures of inflation expectations as indicative of actual inflation expectations. Watch surveys, Cleveland Fed-type measures, and actual inflation instead.

Question 3: Considering that recent updates of your optimal control framework now suggest that the normalization process should already be underway, how useful do you believe such a framework is for the conduct of monetary policy? What specific framework are you now using to dismiss the results of your previously preferred framework?

Yellen, in answer to Greg Ip of the Economist: "So you -- your first question is why is it that the committee sees unemployment as declining slightly below its estimate of the longer-run, natural rate? And I think in part, the reason for that is that inflation is running below our objective, and the committee wants to see inflation move back toward our objective over time. And a short period of a very slight under shoot of unemployment below the natural rate will facilitate slightly faster return of inflation to our objective. It is, I should say, a very small undershoot in a situation where there is great uncertainty about exactly what constitutes maximum employment, or a longer-run, normal rate of unemployment."

This is the general story of optimal control - hold unemployment below the natural rate to accelerate return to target inflation. Ignore any overshooting of inflation in such an analysis; Yellen was never really serious about that. Only thing preventing Fed from raising rates now is tweeking the optimal control results to account for still-high unemployment.

Question 4: St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard has defined a specific metric to assess the Fed's current distance from its goals. What is your specific metric and by that metric how far is the Fed from it's goals? What does this metric tell you about the likely timing of the first rate hike of this cycle?

Yellen, in answer to Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times: "And with respect to inflation -- and our forecast for inflation, and inflation expectations, let me start by saying I think it's important that monetary policy be forward-looking. The lags in monetary policy are long. And therefore the committee has to base its decisions on how to set the federal funds rate looking into the future. Theory is important, and theories that are consistent with historical evidence will be something that governs the thinking of many people around the table. Typically we have seen that as long as inflation expectations are well-anchored, that as the labor market recovers, we'll gradually see upward pressure on both wages and prices. And that inflation will tend to move back toward 2 percent. I think historically we have seen, as the economy strengthens and slack diminishes, that inflation does tend to gradually rise over time. And as long -- you know, I just -- speaking for myself, that I will be looking for evidence that I think strengthens my confidence in that view, and you know, looking at the full range of data that bears on, whether or not that's a reasonable view of how events will unfold. But it's likely to be a decision that's based on forecasts and confidence in the forecast."

No firm metrics. Raising rates is like pornography - we know it is time when we see it.

Question 5: Why is the Fed setting the stage for raising interest rates next year while inflation measures remain below target? What is the risk, exactly, of explicitly committing to a zero interest rate policy until inflation reaches at least your target?

Yellen, in answer to Greg Ip of the Economist: "But it's important to point out that the committee is not anticipating an over-shoot of its 2 percent inflation objective."

From the Fed's perspective, not an interesting question. Theory says monetary policymakers need to move ahead of seeing inflation at target. If inflation was actually at target, they would be behind the curve in this economic environment. Also refer to San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams, via the Wall Street Journal:

“There’s no question that core inflation will likely be below 2% when liftoff is appropriate,” Mr. Williams said.

You have to love that statement - only an economist could piece together a sentence with "no question" and "likely" in this context. In short, they have no intention of allowing inflation to drift above 2%. The 2% goal is a ceiling, not a target. They are perfectly happy tolerating modestly below-target inflation as long as unemployment is below 6%. If you thought that any mention of above-target inflation was anything more than an acknowledgement of potential forecast errors, you were wrong. As far as the Fed is concerned, 2% inflation was handed down by God. It's in the Bible. Look it up.

Question 6: High yield debt markets are currently under pressure from the decline in oil prices. Are you confident that macroprudential tools are sufficient to contain the damage to energy-related debt? If the damage cannot be contained and contagion to other markets spreads, what does this tell you about the ability to use low interest rate policy without engendering dangerous financial instabilities?

Yellen, in answer to Greg Robb of MarketWatch: "So I mean there is some--you're talking about in the United States exposure? I mean we have seen some impacts of lower oil prices on the spreads for high-yield bonds, where there's exposure to oil companies that may see distress or a decline in their earnings, and we have seen some increase in spreads on high-yield bonds more generally. I think for the banking system as a whole the exposure to oil, I'm not aware of significant issues there. This is the kind of thing that is part of risk management for banking organizations and the kind of thing they look at in stress tests. But the movements in oil prices have been very large, and undoubtedly unexpected.

We--in terms of leverage, and whether or not levered entities could be badly effected by movements in oil prices, leverage in the financial system in general is way down from the levels before the crisis. So it's not a major concern that there are levered entities that would be badly affected by this, but we'll have to watch carefully. There have been large and unexpected movements in oil prices."

I honestly think that Yellen was surprised the rest of us were worried about this. Don't worry, be happy -high yield energy debt problems are contained.

Bottom Line: Final result is data dependent, but nothing at the moment is dissuading the Fed from their intention to hike rates in the middle of 2015.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Fed Watch: Quick FOMC Recap

Tim Duy:

Quick FOMC Recap, by Tim Duy: Running short on time today....

Today's FOMC statement was a reminder that in normal times the Federal Reserve moves slowly and methodically. Policymakers were apparently concerned that removal of "considerable time" by itself would prove to be disruptive. Instead, they opted to both remove it and retain it:

Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. The Committee sees this guidance as consistent with its previous statement that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time following the end of its asset purchase program in October, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored.

If you thought they would drop "considerable time," they did. If you thought they would retain "considerable time," they did. Everyone's a winner with this statement.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen explained the change in language as necessary to shift away from the increasingly dated reference to the end of quantitative easing. In addition to the lower inflation and interest rate expectations in the Summary of Economic Projections, the statement was initially regarded as dovish. The press conference, however, was in my opinion anything but dovish.

During the presser, Yellen explained that "patience" was only likely guaranteed through the next "couple" of meetings, later clarified to be two. Hence, the April meeting is still on the table, although I still suspect that is too early. Yellen also said that a press conference was not required to raise rates; if necessary, they could always opt to have a presser even if one not scheduled. She dismissed falling market-based inflation expectations as reflecting inflation "compensation" rather than expectations. She dismissed the disinflationary impulse from oil, calling it transitory and drawing attention to the expected positive implications for US growth (much as she corrected described "noisy" inflation indicators earlier this year). She indicated that inflation did not need to return to target prior to raising rates, only that the Fed needed to be confident it would continue to trend toward target. She was very obviously unconcerned about the risk of contagion either via Russia or high yield energy debt - I think she almost seemed surprised anyone was worried about the latter.

In short, Yellen dismissed virtually all of the reasons to expect the Federal Reserve to delay rate hikes past its expectation of mid-2015. They have their eyes set firmly on June. My sense is that they see the accelerating economy and combine that with, as Yellen mentioned, the long lags of monetary policy, and worry that it will not be long before they are behind the curve.

To be sure, it is easy to outline a scenario that derails the Fed's plans. The impact of the oil shock on core inflation may be more than expected. Or rising labor force participation stabilizes the unemployment rate and wage growth continues to move sideways. My guess is that if they see an acceleration in wage growth between now and June, a June hike is pretty much in the bag.

Bottom Line: Like it or not, believe it or not, the Fed is seriously looking at mid-2015 to begin the normalization process. And there is no guarantee that it will be a predictable series of modest rate hikes. As much as you think of the possibility that the hike is delayed, think also of the possibility of 1994.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

How Fiscal Policy Failed During the Great Recession

I have a new column:

How Fiscal Policy Failed During the Great Recession: Fiscal policy failed us during the Great Recession. We did get a fiscal stimulus package shortly after Obama took office, and it helped. But it wasn’t big enough and did not last long enough to make the kind of difference that was needed. Fear of deficits stood in the way, though all the dire predictions that were made about the debt associated with the stimulus package did not come to pass. We could have done so much more. ...

Fed Watch: IP, Russia

Tim Duy:

IP, Russia, by Tim Duy: The string of solid US economic news continued with industrial production advancing 1.3% in November. Year-over-year growth (5.2%) is now comparable to the late-90's:

IP121514

Meanwhile, the international fallout from the oil price drop continues. Russia is a classic emerging market crisis story. The decline in energy prices reveals a currency mismatch between assets and liabilities. The decline in oil dries up the dollars needed to support those liabilities, so the value of the ruble is bid down as market participants scramble for dollars. One suspects that capital flight from Russia only aggravates the problem; those oligarchs are seeing their fortunes whither. Currency plummets, aggravating the cycle. The sanctions were the beginning of this crisis, the oil price shock the culmination.
The Central Bank of Russia is forced into defending its currency via either depleting reserves or hiking interest rates. Both are losing games in a full blown crisis. The Central Bank of Russia has tried both, upping the ante by jacking up rates to 17% this afternoon, a hike of 650bp. That, however, is no guarantee of stability. Tight policy will crush the financial sector and the economy with it, triggering further net capital outflows that my guess will swamp the net inflows the rate hike was intended to create. Everything heads into free-fall until a new, lower equilibrium is established.
It is all appears really quite textbook. At this point, an IMF program would be on the horizon. But that's where the textbook changes. Hard to see the IMF just handing out a lifeline to an economy probably viewed by most as currently invading its neighbor (that's the point of the sanctions after all). And I am guessing that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin is not going to easily acquiesce to an IMF program in any event. At the moment, looks like Russia is toast. (Update: Arguably I am being a little pessimistic here. Joseph Cotterill points out that the rate hike falls well short of 1998.)
Venezuela is heading down the tubes as well, but that was always a given. Just a matter of time on that one.
Back at the Federal Reserve ranch, a fascinating experiment is underway. Have policymakers been successful in insulating the financial sector from these kinds of shocks? There will be losses, but will those losses cascade throughout the financial sector and into the real economy, or will they be contained? If the answer is containment, then interestingly Russia will lose a bargaining chip and the Fed's willingness to counter the potential risks of low interest rates with macroprudential policy will look like a sustainable policy mix.
If, however, contagion takes hold, we will once again be revisiting regulatory policy. And if the proximate cause of the contagion is deemed high-yield energy sector debt, and the excessively low rates in high-yield in general is deemed a consequence of ZIRP, then the Fed will be pushed to rethink its faith in macroprudential policy. The Austrians would have plenty of grist to chew on.
Bottom Line: All of this will be on the table at tomorrow's two-day FOMC meeting. The Fed will be forced to balance the US picture against the global shock. The primary argument to pull "considerable time" is the current US economic momentum. Furthermore, changing the language is not a policy change in any event; arguably, the language itself is already meaningless if the Fed is truly data dependent. In addition, policymakers may be wary to appear overly sensitive to financial markets. They may also be concerned that not eliminating the language will make the Fed appear less hawkish and more pessimistic than it is, thus risking disrupting financial markets at a later time if data suggests a rate hike is appropriate. The issue of "considerable time" however, is in my opinion, no longer of much interest. The macroprudential/regulatory experiment is far more important now.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Fed Watch: More Questions for Yellen

Tim Duy:

More Questions for Yellen, by Tim Duy: FOMC meeting this week. We all pretty much know the lay of the land. "Considerable time" is on the table, and whether it stays or goes is a close call. The existence of the press conference this week argues for the change over just waiting until January. Stupid reason, I know, but we are just playing the Fed's game here. No real reason not to wait until January other than to keep a March rate hike in play, but only a few policymakers are seriously looking at March anyway. Uncertainty regarding the financial market impact of the oil price drop and its subsequent impact on credit markets seems sufficient to stay the Fed's hand - but they may be hesitant to appear reactive to every dip in financial markets. If the statement is changed, they will probably replace "considerable time" with the intention to be "patient" when considering the timing of the first rate hike.
They will be navigating some tricky currents when constructing the rest of the statement. The opening paragraph will need to acknowledge the improved data - the US economy clearly has some momentum. They will also acknowledge again the expected impact of energy prices on headline inflation, but emphasize the temporary nature of the impact and fairly stable survey-based expectations. This suggest another dismissal of market-based measures.
The Fed could argue that improving domestic indicators at a time of softening in the global economy leaves the risks to the outlook as nearly balanced. They can't both suggest that risks are weighted to the downside and pull the "considerable time" language. That would, I think, be just silly. If they want to suggest there is a preponderance of downside risks, then they will leave in "considerable time." It will be interesting to see if they mention the external environment at all - we know from the minutes of the previous meeting that they were concerned about appearing overly pessimistic.
I have previously suggested two questions for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen at the post-FOMC press conference:
If you want to know what the Fed is thinking at this point, a journalist needs to push Yellen on the secular stagnation issue at next week's press conference. Does she or the committee agree with Fischer? And does she see any inconsistency with the SEP implied equilibrium Federal Funds rates and the current level of long bonds?
and
I would like a journalist to press Yellen on her interpretation of the 5-year, 5-year forward breakeven measure of inflation expectations. Does she see this measure as important or too noisy to be used as a policy metric? What is her preferred metric?
Now I have four additional questions. The first refers to Yellen's previous endorsement of optimal control theory, which as stated in 2012 suggests the extension of zero rate policy well into 2015. Recent research from the Federal Reserve indicates that the same framework is now signaling that liftoff should occur in late 2014, suggesting that the Federal Reserve is now behind the curve. Did Yellen embrace this methodology only until it began to give results she did not like? The obvious question is thus:
Considering that recent updates of your optimal control framework now suggest that the normalization process should already be underway, how useful do you believe such a framework is for the conduct of monetary policy? What specific framework are you now using to dismiss the results of your previously preferred framework?
The second, arguably related, question refers to St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard's argument that the Fed is very close to reaching its monetary policy goals:

Bullard121214

Thus another question is:
St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard has defined a specific metric to assess the Fed's current distance from its goals. What is your specific metric and by that metric how far is the Fed from it's goals? What does this metric tell you about the likely timing of the first rate hike of this cycle?
A third question is obvious. Given current readings on inflation:
Why is the Fed setting the stage for raising interest rates next year while inflation measures remain below target? What is the risk, exactly, of explicitly committing to a zero interest rate policy until inflation reaches at least your target?
The fourth question addresses the potential financial instability related to oil price shock. Note that critics of Fed policy have posited that the low interest rate policy would encourage excessive risk taking in the reach for yield. High yield debt markets have come under particular scrutiny. The Fed has responded that they need to address any financial market instabilities first with macroprudential policy rather than tighter monetary policy. That approach is going to come under sharp criticism if the oil-related debt defaults cascade destructively throughout US financial markets. A natural question is thus:
High yield debt markets are currently under pressure from the decline in oil prices. Are you confident that macroprudential tools are sufficient to contain the damage to energy-related debt? If the damage cannot be contained and contagion to other markets spreads, what does this tell you about the ability to use low interest rate policy without engendering dangerous financial instabilities?
If anyone uses these questions or variations thereof, feel free to give me some credit. Or at least when you speak of me, speak well.
Bottom Line: Odds are high that the Fed alters the statement to increase their policy flexibility next year. But even if they drop "considerable time," Yellen will emphasize via the press conference that this change does not mean a rate hike is imminent. She will emphasize that the timing and pace of rate hikes remains firmly data dependent. The current oil-related disruptions in financial markets loom like a dark cloud over a both the FOMC meeting and the generally improving US outlook.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Fed Watch: Data Supportive of Fed Plans

Tim Duy:

Data Supportive of Fed Plans, by Tim Duy: Incoming data in the second half of this week continues to support the Federal Reserve's plans to begin normalizing policy in the middle of next year, with the removal of "considerable time" language next week a likely first step.
Retail sales for November were unquestionably strong and reveal an acceleration in the pace of core sales:

CORERETAIL121214

You were right if you dismissed the early earnings on the holiday shopping season as useless noise. Similarly, consumer confidence is pushing to pre-recession levels:

MICHSENT121214

And note this from Reuters:
"Expected wage gains rose to their highest level since 2008, and consumers voiced the most favorable buying attitudes in several decades," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.
As I have said before, nothing interesting happens until we get unemployment below 6%. Be prepared for a better equilibrium.
Even as the economic data improve, however, Wall Street remains on edge. Lower oil prices and the resulting impact on high yield bonds are resonating throughout credits markets while equity prices struggle. Despite warnings from Fed officials about the likely path of policy, long-dated US Treasury yields continue to remain under pressure. It is difficult to assess the impact on policy-making at this point. Fed officials will be torn between the market turmoil and expectations that lower energy prices will boost an already accelerating economy. And note that New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley was very dismissive of the idea that the Fed would respond to every financial market disruption as policy moved toward normalization:
Because financial market conditions affect economic activity only slowly over time, this suggests that we should look through short-term volatility and movements in financial markets. We should not respond until we become convinced that the movements will likely, without action on our part, prove sufficiently persistent to conflict with achievement of our objectives. Often, financial markets can be quite volatile and move a lot without disturbing underlying economic performance.
Similarly, he has been dismissive of market-based measures of inflation expectations.
In assessing inflation expectations, I currently put more weight on survey-based measures of inflation expectations as opposed to market-based measures. Survey-based measures have been generally stable, consistent with inflation expectations remaining well-anchored. However, market-based measures, such as those based on breakeven inflation derived from the difference between yields on nominal versus Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), have registered declines over the past few months, even on a 5-years forward basis. Research done by my staff suggests that much of this decline in market-based measures of inflation compensation reflects a fall in the inflation risk premium—that is, what investors are willing to pay to protect themselves against inflation risk. Adjusting for the fall in the inflation risk premium, inflation expectations appear to have declined much less than implied by TIPS inflation breakeven measures.
Market participants believe the Fed leans heavily on the 5-year, 5-year forward inflation metric. That measure is heading toward lows last seen on the eve of operation twist:

5Y5Y121214

The Fed dares not defy this chart. Or do they? Jim O'Sullivan at HFE accurately notes that the 5-year, 5-year forward breakeven has been inordinately driven by oil prices:
Why Fed prefers "survey based:" 5y5yf TIPS swing with oil even tho current infl irrelevant for pic.twitter.com/StxfsvubNh
— Jim O'Sullivan (@osullivanEcon) December 12, 2014
The Fed may be losing faith in these measures. As Dudley suggests, they may feel that such metrics are too simplistic, and find themselves favoring metrics like that offered by the Cleveland Fed that shows a firming of inflation expectations in recent months:

Image1

Note also that the resilience of survey-based metrics of inflation expectations. Back to Reuters and the confidence report:
The survey's one-year inflation expectation rose to 2.9 percent from 2.8 percent, while its five-year inflation outlook also rose to 2.9 percent from 2.6 percent last month.
And that leads me to my bottom line - another question for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen at next week's post-FOMC press conference.
Bottom Line: I would like a journalist to press Yellen on her interpretation of the 5-year, 5-year forward breakeven measure of inflation expectations. Does she see this measure as important or too noisy to be used as a policy metric? What is her preferred metric?

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Fed Watch: Challenging the Fed

Tim Duy:

Challenging the Fed, by Tim Duy: Both Paul Krugman and Ryan Avent are pushing back on the Federal Reserve's apparent intent to raise rates in the middle of next year. Why is the Fed heading in this direction? Krugman offers this explanation:

My guess — and it’s only that — is that they have, maybe without knowing it, been bludgeoned into submission by the constant attacks on easy money. Every day the financial press, many of the blogs, cable financial news, etc, are full of people warning that the Fed’s low-rate policy is distorting markets, building up inflationary pressure, endangering financials stability. Hard-money arguments, no matter how ludicrous, get respectful attention; condemnations of the Fed are constant. If I were a Fed official, I suspect that I would often find myself wishing that the bludgeoning would just stop, at least for a while — and perhaps begin looking for an opportunity to prove that I’m not an inflationary money-printer, that I can take away punchbowls too.

I don't think that the Fed is reacting to external criticism. What I think is that there are two basic views of the world. In one view, the post-2007 malaise is simply the hangover from a severe financial crisis. Time heals all wounds, including this one, and the recent data suggests such healing is underway. The alternative view is that the economy is suffering from secular secular stagnation similar although not to the same extreme as Japan. The latter view suggests the need for a very low or negative real interest rates to maintain full employment, the former view suggests a fairly significant normalization of monetary policy.

I believe that the consensus view on the Fed is the former, that the malaise is simply temporary ("a temporary inconvenience") and now ending. I think this is evident from the Summary of Economic Projections - the implied equilibrium Federal Funds rate is around 3.75%. Perhaps this is below what might have been perceived as normal ten years ago, but the difference could be attributed to slower potential growth rather than secluar stagnation.

If you don't like that argument, then take the more explicit route. Gavin Davies did the intellectual legwork here so we don't have to, and catches Vice Chair Stanley Fischer saying that he doesn't believe the situation calls for protracted negative interest rates. In other words, he rejects the main monetary policy implication of the secular stagnation hypothesis.

And, I don't know if Krugman agrees, but I find it hard to believe that Fischer carries anything but extreme intellectual weight within the Fed. So I would hardly be surprised that the Fed would be moving in a direction he defined. One wonders where Fed Chair Janet Yellen's leadership is on this point? That was always a risk of adding Fischer to the Board - that what might have seemed to be a dream team turned into a power struggle.

This is not to say that I do not share Krugman's and Avent's concerns. I most certainly do. Fischer claims that markets do not believe the secular stagnation story either, but in my mind the flattening of the yield curve is a red flag that the Fed has less room to maneuver than implied by the SEP. But maybe once the Fed actually starts hiking rates, market participants get the clue and the yield curve shifts up. I am not sure I am interested in taking that risk at this point, but no one is asking me to serve on the Federal Reserve Board.

One quibble with Krugman regarding his interpretation of the Phillips Curve:

Suppose the Fed waits too long. Well, inflation ticks up — probably not much, since the short-run Phillips curve looks very flat. And the Fed has the tools to rein the economy in. It would be annoying, unpleasant, and no doubt there would be Congressional hearings berating the Fed for debasing the dollar etc.. But not a really big problem.

Maybe two quibbles. First is that if you asked policymakers why the Phillips Curve was flat, I think they would say that nominal wages rigidities hold up the back end, while tighter policy holds down the front. In other words, the reason inflation does not accelerate at low unemployment rates is that the Fed tightens policy accordingly. Second, I think they equate "reigning the economy in" as triggering a recession. I think they find this more than unpleasant.

Bottom Line: If you want to know what the Fed is thinking at this point, a journalist needs to push Yellen on the secular stagnation issue at next week's press conference. Does she or the committee agree with Fischer? And does she see any inconsistency with the SEP implied equilibrium Federal Funds rates and the current level of long bonds?

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

'Profiles in Coreage'

Paul Krugman follows up on one of Tim Duy's posts:

Profiles in Coreage: Tim Duy, in the course of a discussion of the outlook for Fed policy, reminds us of the spring of 2011, when headline inflation had risen a lot mainly due to oil prices. He portrays Ben Bernanke as being all alone in insisting that the inflation bump was a blip, and would soon fade away. Actually, that’s not quite right; as far as I recall, most saltwater economists agreed. I was writing about it often. And the Fed, after all, routinely focuses on core inflation rather than headline numbers. Still, Bernanke was definitely under pressure.
What Duy doesn’t say is that the inflation fight of 2011 was about more than inflation; it was another aspect of the fight over how the economy works – and another big victory for the Keynesian view. The concept of core inflation arises out of the notion that most prices are “sticky” ... Standard measures of core inflation are imperfect ways of getting at this distinction, but they ... have been hugely vindicated by the experience of recent years. So I’m glad to see all the people who issued dire warnings about inflation in 2011 acknowledging that they had the wrong model. Hahahahaha.
And yes, this means that you should discount the effects of falling oil prices in the same way you discount the effects of rising oil prices. I would nonetheless urge the Fed to hold off on rate hikes, but for different reasons – the asymmetry in risks between raising rates early and raising them late. And I worry that the Fed may be losing the thread here (hi Stan!). But that’s another topic.

Fed Watch: Fed Updates Ahead of FOMC Meeting

Tim Duy:

Fed Updates Ahead of FOMC Meeting: I have tended to think that there is a tendency to underestimate the potential for a more hawkish Fed. From last week:

Dudley appears to be increasingly concerned that the evolution of financial conditions this year suggests the Fed needs to pursue a more aggressive policy stance or else risk a repeat of 04-07. If this concern is being felt more generally within the Fed, it clearly puts a more hawkish bias to the Fed's reaction function. And, in my opinion, I think the risk of a more hawkish Federal Reserve is under-appreciated. Few are expecting a hawkish Federal Reserve, reasonably so given the path of policy since 2008. But I don't think the data are that far from a tipping point for the Federal Reserve. Of course, take that in the context of my general optimism.

I think policymakers have been falling in line with the idea of a mid-2015 rate hike, somewhat earlier than market expectations. In a great piece, Gavyn Davies concurs:

One of the most successful rules for investors in the past few years has been never to underestimate the innate dovishness of the Federal Reserve. Whenever there has been a scare that the Fed might move in a hawkish direction, this has quickly proven to be a mistake. Forward curves for short term interest rates have consistently moved “lower for longer”, and incoming economic data have always ensured that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has remained comfortable with this tendency.

In recent months, however, the markets may have become over confident about the Fed’s dovishness in the face of a large and persistent decline in the US unemployment rate...

...The controlling group may be shifting towards the median dot, rather than the dovish end of the spectrum. This may even include Ms Yellen herself, if the Stanley Fischer interview is any guide. Mr Fischer is universally regarded as an intellectual heavyweight, but he has said very little about his personal views on monetary policy since taking office last May. He is unlikely to have broken this silence without the knowledge and support of the Chair.

Davies summarizes Federal Reserve Vice Chair Stanley Fischer's recent interview and concludes that "Mr Fischer is building a high hurdle to any delay in lift-off beyond mid 2015." Many policymakers are ready and eager to normalize policy, and they see economic improvements as consistent with normalization. Just like they wanted out of the asset purchase business, they want out of the zero rate business, and they see fewer and fewer reasons why this isn't possible.

A small step to that rate hike is the removal of the "considerable time" language in the FOMC policy statement on the basis that too much improvement in labor markets has occurred to justify a certain position on zero interest rates. If the Fed is looking for flexibility and does not want to surprise market participants with an unexpectedly hawkish position next year, they will soon need to loosen up the language. Hence sometime soon "considerable time" will be replaced, perhaps with the term "patience."

Jon Hilsenrath at the Wall Street Journal puts us on alert that next week may be just that time:

Federal Reserve officials are seriously considering an important shift in tone at their policy meeting next week: dropping an assurance that short-term interest rates will stay near zero for a “considerable time” as they look more confidently toward rate increases around the middle of next year.

Senior officials have hinted lately that they’re looking at dropping this closely watched interest-rate signal, which many market participants take as a sign rates won’t go up for at least six months.

“It’s clearer that we’re closer to getting rid of that than we were a few months ago,” FedVice Chairman Stanley Fischer said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week. New York Fed President William Dudleyhas avoided using the “considerable time” phrase in recent speeches and instead said the Fed should be “patient” before raising rates.

I find this piece of logic, however, to be irritating:

Fed officials have several tactical issues to consider that could prompt them to shift their rate assurance now, while they’re still taking measure of the economy’s strength. Ms. Yellen has a news conference after the policy meeting ends Dec. 17 to explain the central bank’s decision. The Fed doesn’t have another news conference scheduled until March. If officials wait to change the words until then, the market could take it as a signal officials are pushing off planned rate increases until the second half of next year.

It is not Hilsenrath I am irritated with, it is the Fed. It is fairly clear that the Fed has set expectations such that major policy moves can only be made in meetings with press conferences. It's the reason that June 2015 comes into focus for a rate hike - given the repeated warnings about the "middle of next year," March seems too early, and September too late. April and July are deemed not real policy meetings because they don't have press conferences. This really needs to end. The Fed needs to move to a press conference with every meeting.

If they feel they need a press conference to announce the end of the "considerable time" language, supporters of such a change will argue strongly for next week and probably win. It also opens up the possibility of a March hike, something the hawks would be keen on. Delaying the removal of "considerable time" to March would likely close off a June hike, but the moderates want to retain that option. I think both moderates and doves would be willing to wait until the January meeting, but that meeting has no press conference. So at this point I would be expecting that a change in the language next week is likely, and by the end of January is certain.

But make no mistake that I think that having to set policy by the timing of press conferences rather than the meetings is just stupid.

Finally, another line from Hilsenrath leaves me cautious:

At the same time, a stronger dollar and falling commodities prices—including the sharp decline in oil prices—are putting downward pressure on inflation.

I can certainly imagine that the stronger dollar is a consequence of stronger economic growth, which supports consumer prices. On the declining oil prices, I tend to view those as primarily supply side related and almost certainly a net positive for the US economy. Over the weekend Matt Busigin reminded us of this:

In April of 2011, Ben Bernanke was universally lambasted and lampooned for claiming that inflation, which was accelerating and running above 3%, was “transitory”. He used this view to justify loosening monetary policy. The next few months of CPI were not favourable to the Fed chairman’s views: it peaked at 3.8% (nearly double the implicit target at that point) in September of 2011, sparking a feverishly pitched cacophony of criticism that the Fed chair was out of touch, and tone-deaf in his theoretical ivory tower to the practical realities on the ground.

This, however, proved to be Bernanke’s finest hour. Yes, even more so than the extraordinary measures taken during the height of the credit crisis. His detractors then, of which there were still many, included people and institutions on the brink that needed the Fed to extend them a hand. In September of 2011, the chairman stood very much alone in his call for moderated inflation now that the acute disaster removed influential institutions and people from needing the Fed to act in order to survive....

...This is why Ben Bernanke’s 2011 triumph is relevant today. The same framework for understanding inflation through commodity prices and wages that successfully predicted the deceleration of inflation against the tidal wave of popular belief now finds itself in the inverse position: the expectations of inflation are very low, and despite low commodity prices, it expects inflation will accelerate...

You can read this for my similar take back in 2011. Rather than preventing inflation from returning to target, the oil price decline is likely to have the opposite impact and push inflation back to target. Hence the low-inflation argument for holding rates near zero will look weaker by June if not March.

Bottom Line: Fed is still positioning to begin normalizing rates in the middle of 2015. The data is less of an impediment with each passing day. The time to eliminate the "considerable period" language is fast approach. The press conference calendar argues for next week. Honestly, I hope they will skip this meeting in favor of the January meeting just to prove that every FOMC meeting is a live meeting. Alas, I think they believe they need the press conference to temper any adverse reactions from market participants. Finally, I am wary with the consensus view that the oil price decline in disinflationary. Open up to the possibility of the opposite. Look back to what you believed in 2011.

Friday, December 05, 2014

Fed Watch: Economy Clearly Gaining Momentum

Tim Duy:

Economy Clearly Gaining Momentum, by Tim Duy: The November employment report came in ahead of expectations, with a monthly nfp gain of 321k and 44k of upward revisions to previous months. Job gains were spread throughout the major sectors of the economy. The 2014 acceleration in job growth is clearly evident:

NFPa120514

The employment report in the context of indicators previously identified by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen as important to watch:

NFPb120514

NFPc120514

Measures of underemployment are generally moving in the right direction. To be sure, the labor force participation rate remains in a general downward trend, but on this point I think you have to accept that demographic forces are driving the train. Year-over-year wage growth remains anemic although average wages gained 0.37% on the month. While this indicates that wage gains are not dead and gone forever, I would find it more impressive if these kinds of gains repeated themselves in the next few months. As I have said before, I think that will happen as unemployment rates fall further. I read nothing of importance into the unchanged unemployment rate for the month.
The tenor of this report harmonizes well with the song sung by recent data. Of course, data are inherently variable, and not every report will be as bright (or as dark) as the last. Nor would we expect a string of 300k+ gains in employment just yet. But I think any reasonable single extraction effort tells you that activity is on a firmer footing than it has been in years, and there is little reason to expect the improvements will reverse quickly. The US economy has momentum. Do not discount the value of that momentum.
Fixed income markets quickly discerned what this report means for the Fed - the risk is that rate hikes will come sooner than expected. At time of writing, the yield on the two-year bond gained 11bp, while the ten-year yield rose 9bp. The Fed will be pleased by the upward though controlled gains at the longer end of the yield curve as they will associate those gains with modestly less financial accommodation. They may be less pleased that stocks keeps hitting record highs as it suggests that financial conditions are easing somewhat, thus perhaps necessitating a faster pace of rate hikes. Over the longer run, I remain wary of the flattening yield curve.
My guess is that the Fed will soon begin to believe that they stayed pessimistic on the recovery the year the recovery began to show significant signs of life. More on the Fed next week.
Bottom Line: A solid employment report. The risk that the first rate hike comes sooner than June continues to rise.

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Fed Watch: Ahead of the November Employment Report

Tim Duy:

Ahead of the November Employment Report, by Tim Duy: Data in the first week of December has told a generally bullish story for the US economy. The week began with an upbeat number from the ISM manufacturing index with solid underlying data:

ISM1120214

While this was seemingly at odds with the Markit manufacturing index, I would say that both of these series (like consumer confidence) exhibit far too much variability to place too much weight on any one month of data. If I look at the ISM measure in context with other US manufacturing data, the overall view is one of steadily improving activity in the sector (note the estimated 17.1 million auto sales rate for November):

IND120214

This also seems consistent with the anecdotal story told by the Beige Book:
Manufacturing activity generally advanced during the reporting period. The automotive and aerospace industries continued to be sources of strength. Steel production increased in Cleveland, Chicago, and San Francisco. Fabricated metal manufacturers in the Chicago and Dallas Districts noted widespread growth in orders. Dallas reported that domestic sales for plastics were strong, while demand for plastics was steady in Richmond and declined in Kansas City. Chemical manufacturers in the Boston District indicated that the falling price of oil relative to natural gas had made U.S. producers less competitive, because foreign chemical producers rely more heavily on oil for feedstock and production. St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Dallas reported that food production was little changed on balance, but production in Kansas City continued to decline. Chicago and Dallas indicated that shipments of construction materials increased. Manufacturers of heavy machinery in the Chicago District cited improvements in sales of construction machinery, but reported ongoing weak demand for agricultural and mining equipment. High-tech manufacturers in Boston, Dallas, and San Francisco noted steady growth in demand. Biotech revenue increased in the San Francisco District.
I would also add that the Beige Book had a decidedly optimistic tenor:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic activity continued to expand in October and November. A number of Districts also noted that contacts remained optimistic about the outlook for future economic activity.
The ISM's service sector report was equally upbeat:

ISM2120214

The ADP report fell somewhat short of expectations, but again this number is far too volatile to place much if any weight on a small miss. Or even a large miss, for that matter. Calculated Risk places the ADP number in context of other labor market indicators, concluding that:
There is always some randomness to the employment report. The consensus forecast is pretty strong, but I'll take the over again (above 230,000).
I don't have much to add here. As I have said before, predicting the monthly nonfarm payroll change is a fool's errand, yet an errand we all undertake. I would pick 235k with an upside risk. More important is what happens to wage growth. I expect that to pick up over the next six months, but would be surprised to see any large gain this month.
Jon Hilsenrath at the Wall Street Journal reports that top Federal Reserve policymakers are not deterred in their plans for policy normalization:
In public appearances this week, Janet Yellen’s two top lieutenants sounded like individuals who want to start raising short-term interest rates in the months ahead, despite mounting uncertainties about growth abroad and associated downward pressure on commodities prices...
...“It is clear we are getting closer” to dropping an assurance that rates will stay low for a considerable time, he said. Mr. Fischer repeatedly emphasized his desire to get back to normal. “We almost got used to thinking that zero is the natural place for the interest rate. It is far from it,” he said.
In case there is any doubt about where top Fed officials are going with this, New York Fed president Bill Dudley said bluntly: “Market expectations that lift-off will occur around mid-2015 seem reasonable to me.” Like Mr. Fischer, Mr. Dudley sees the recent decline in oil prices as a net positive for the U.S., a net importer of energy which benefits from a lower cost of imported oil.
I think the speech my New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley is a must read. I have been repeatedly drawn to this paragraph (emphasis added):
First, when lift-off occurs, the pace of monetary policy normalization will depend, in part, on how financial market conditions react to the initial and subsequent tightening moves. If the reaction is relatively large—think of the response of financial market conditions during the so-called “taper tantrum” during the spring and summer of 2013—then this would likely prompt a slower and more cautious approach. In contrast, if the reaction were relatively small or even in the wrong direction, with financial market conditions easing—think of the response of long-term bond yields and the equity market as the asset purchase program was gradually phased out over the past year—then this would imply a more aggressive approach. The key point is this: We will pursue the monetary policy stance that best generates the set of financial market conditions most consistent with achievement of the FOMC’s dual mandate objectives. This depends both on how financial market conditions respond to the Fed’s policy actions and on how the real economy responds to the changes in financial conditions.
Long term yields have been drifting down since the "taper tantrum," flattening the yield curve significantly:

RATESA120214

RATESB120214

Dudley seems to be saying that he does not think that financial conditions should be easing, especially since he thinks he has been clear that the time to begin policy normalization is fast approaching. Robin Harding at the Financial Times sees the implications:
Although Mr Dudley does not say it, this argument could apply to the timing of rate rises as well as their pace. Markets have not reacted much to the prospect of Fed rate rises: the ten-year yield at 2.22 per cent is no higher than it was before the taper tantrum in summer 2013; the S&P 500 is up by 15 per cent on a year ago. Mr Dudley explicitly cites the low level of 10-year Treasury yields, saying they are presumably due, “in part, to the fact that long-term interest rates in Europe and Japan are much lower”.
If markets are not reacting to potential Fed rate rises then, by Mr Dudley’s logic, rate rises could need to come earlier as well as faster. The initial rate rise, in particular, could help the Fed to learn about the financial market response. That may help to explain why Mr Dudley is still in June 2015 for rate lift-off despite his dovish views.
Take this all in context of an earlier passage from the Dudley speech:
...during the 2004-07 period, the FOMC tightened monetary policy nearly continuously, raising the federal funds rate from 1 percent to 5.25 percent in 17 steps. However, during this period, 10-year Treasury note yields did not rise much, credit spreads generally narrowed and U.S. equity price indices moved higher. Moreover, the availability of mortgage credit eased, rather than tightened. As a result, financial market conditions did not tighten.
As a result, financial conditions remained quite loose, despite the large increase in the federal funds rate. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that either monetary policy should have been tightened more aggressively or macroprudential measures should have been implemented in order to tighten credit conditions in the overheated housing sector...
Dudley appears to be increasingly concerned that the evolution of financial conditions this year suggests the Fed needs to pursue a more aggressive policy stance or else risk a repeat of 04-07. If this concern is being felt more generally within the Fed, it clearly puts a more hawkish bias to the Fed's reaction function. And, in my opinion, I think the risk of a more hawkish Federal Reserve is under-appreciated. Few are expecting a hawkish Federal Reserve, reasonably so given the path of policy since 2008. But I don't think the data are that far from a tipping point for the Federal Reserve. Of course, take that in the context of my general optimism.
A second point is that Dudley is not taking seriously the possibility that the flattening yields curve suggests the Fed has less room to move than policymakers think they do. This is something I worry about - if the Fed leans on the short end too much, they risk taking an expansion that should last another fours years to one that has just two more years left. But that might be a story for next December.
Bottom Line: Generally positive US data leave the Fed on track for a rate hike in the middle of next year. I am inclined to believe that the risk is that rate hikes come sooner and faster than anticipated outweigh the risk of later and slower.