Tim Duy's Fed Watch

GDP Report

The second quarter GDP report, while not a blockbuster by any measure, will nudge the Fed further in the direction of a September rate hike. At first blush this might seem preposterous - 2.3% growth is nothing to write home about in comparison to history. But history is deceiving in this case. It remains important to keep in mind that 2% is the new 4%.

Year-over-year growth rates continue to hover around 2.5%:

While the 2.3% quarterly rate of the second quarter was below consensus forecasts, the first quarter figure was revised up from -0.2% to 0.6%. That said, the annual revisions from 2012-2014 disappointed. Average annual growth from 2011 to 2014 dropped from a previsouly reported 2.3% to 2.0%. Sad, very sad.

That was still enough growth, however, to sustain fairly solid job growth and sharp declines in the unemployment rate, suggesting that potential output growth is indeed fairly anemic. The Fed staff appear to agree; see their very low potential growth numbers in the accidentally released forecasts (and for more on the implications of those forecasts, see Gavin Davies). Note also the low end of the range of potential growth estimates from FOMC meeting participants is 1.8%. Furthermore, San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams wants the Fed to guide the economy to a 2.0% growth rate in 2016. Hence 2.3% growth when the economy is operating near full-employment is sufficient for many policymakers to pull the trigger on the first rate hike.

A second implication of the revisions is that they provide no relief for those pondering low productivity growth. Indeed, it is quite the opposite, and they suggest downward revisions to productivity. Low productivity plus low labor force growth equals low potential output growth. 2% is the new 4%. And don't expect that all the data will fall into the same nice, consistent patterns we typically see in a business cycle. Some indicators will point up, others down, leading to many erroneous calls that a recession is soon upon us.  

As an aside, solid research and development spending gives hope that productivity growth will accelerate:

We can only wait and see.

The inflation numbers also point to a September hike. Recall that the Fed is waiting until they are reasonably confident that inflation is heading back to target. Headline and core PCE rebounded to 2.15% and 1.81% annual growth rates in the first quarter, respectively, adding weight to the Fed's conviction that the inflation weakness of the first half was indeed transitory. To be sure, these gains have yet to translate into higher year-over-year numbers. But a forward looking Fed will expect they will head higher.

Separately, the forward-looking indicator of initial unemployment claims continues to hover at very low levels:

A reminder that layoffs are few and far between as we head into next week's employment report for July.

Bottom Line: An unspectacular recovery, but sufficient to keep the Fed on track for raising rates this year. The case for September further strengthens.

FOMC Recap

The July FOMC meeting yielded the widely expected outcome of no policy change. Very little change in the statement either - pulling out any useful information is about as easy as reading tea leaves or chicken bones. But that won't stop me from trying! On net, I would count it was somewhat more hawkish as the Fed gears up to hike rates later this year. By no means, however, did the statement make any definitive signal about September. The Fed continues to hold true to its promise to make the next move about the data. The era of handholding fades further into memory.

The first paragraph contained nearly all of the changes in the statement. Using the Wall Street Journal's handy-dandy Fed tracker:

In my opinion, this represents a not trivial upgrade of their thoughts on the labor market. Job growth is "solid," unemployment continues to decline, and a much more forceful conclusion on underemployment. No longer has underutilization diminished by a wishy-washy "somewhat." It now conclusively "has" diminished. Hence, it seems like the Fed is closer to declaring victory over one impediment to hiking rates - Fed Chair Janet Yellen's concerns about the high degree of underemployment.

I tend to regard the exclusion of the "energy prices appear to have stabilized" as the elimination of an artifact from the June statement. Energy prices are not in free-fall as the were at the end of last year, and have instead been tracking within a range since the beginning of the year. Hence the Fed can later repeat the inflation forecast as:

"...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 earlier declines in energy and import prices dissipate."

Some may interpret it as a more dovish signal in light of the recent declines in oil prices. I am wary of that interpretation.

The only other change to the statement was in the third paragraph:

The addition of the determiner "some" fits nicely with the changes to the first paragraph. The labor market has now shown sufficient improvement such that the bar to a rate hike is actually quite low. Essentially, meeting participants believe the economy is closing in on full employment. And that in and of itself will raise their confidence on the inflation outlook.

There was some early chatter regarding the continued description of the risks to the outlook as "nearly" balanced. This was taken as dovish. Had they said the balance is weighted toward inflation, however, the Fed would have essentially been promising a rate hike in September, and they have been very clear they do not want to make such a promise. So the failure to change the balance of risks should not be that surprising. In that vein, I suspect that when they do hike, they will say something like "with today's action, the risks to the outlook remain balanced" such that they leave no signal regarding the timing or the magnitude of the next move.

Bottom Line:  All else equal, the next two labor reports will factor strongly into the Fed's decision in September. A continuation of recent labor trends is likely sufficient to induce them to pull the trigger. Further signs of stronger wage growth would make a September move a certainty.

The Case For September

The Wall Street Journal reports that most economists still expect the Fed to raise rates in September:

Financial market participants tend to be less confident, with odds of a September hike running around 35%.  Still, the consideration of any rate hike may seem odd given the lackluster nature of the US economy. Notably, inflation wallows below trend and anemic wage growth suggests significant remaining labor market slack. The Fed, however, looks at the progress towards its goals, which on the unemployment side has been substantial, as well as the perceived need to act ahead of actual inflation.

In short, the Fed believes the risks to the economy are shifting toward overheating, even if the economy is not yet overheating. And, as Greg Ip at the Wall Street Journal identifies, this has important consequences for monetary policy:

Risk management suggests they ought to start in September, because then they retain the option of tightening once or twice before the end of the year. But if they wait until December, they forgo that option. (This assumes they do not move at their meeting in October, which is not followed by a press conference.)

This is probably the best argument for a September rate hike. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen made it fairly clear in her Congressional appearances this week that she would prefer to move earlier but more gradually than later and more rapidly. And even if you think she only anticipates a single rate hike this year,  that outcome is not precluded by a hike in September. Yellen has also said we should not expect a clearly identified path similar to the last tightening cycle. They can hike in September and pass on December.

Paul Krugman thinks the Fed's logic is completely backwards. From his Bloomberg interview this week:

If the Fed waits too long to raise rates, then we get a little bit of inflation. If the Fed raises rates too soon, we risk getting caught in another lost decade. So the risks are hugely asymmetric. I really find it quite mysterious that the Fed is eager to raise rates given that, they're going to be wrong one way or the other, we just don't know which way. But the costs of being wrong in one direction are so much higher than the costs of being the other.

The Fed, I think, believes the risks are asymmetric in the other direction - that inflation expectations are very fragile to the upside, and hence waiting too long risks a costly rise in actual inflation. 

If I had to bet who would be proven right, I would put my money with Krugman. Inflation and inflation expectations have proven substantially less fragile in the past twenty years than the Fed likes to admit. Consider first that inflation has tended to hover mostly below two percent since 1995: 

Core inflation averaged 1.70% since 1995, headline inflation 1.86%, both comfortably below target. Note the particular rarity of periods where core inflation rises more than 25bp above target. What used to be one of the Fed's favorite indicators, the 5-year, 5-year forward breakeven rate, isn't pointing toward high inflation in the medium term:

Although the Fed frets about unemployment, even at low levels of unemployment, inflation is more often than not below target:

And neither faster wage growth nor low unemployment triggers higher inflation expectations. Inflation expectations are remarkably stable, with relatively few deviations from 3% which tend to be traced back to gasoline prices:

The Fed would argue that their credibility explains stable inflation expectations. By acting ahead of inflation, the Fed ensures there is no above-target inflation, and that connection between policy and outcomes gives rise to that credibility. I would argue that two decades of generally below target inflation suggests an overly excessive pursuit of credibility at the cost of economic underperformance. We don't reach the target inflation consistently, but we do get recessions and slow job market recoveries.

Also, it seems that Yellen abandoned her enchantment with optimal control models. A recent version from the IMF indicates it would be still preferable to delay rate hikes in favor of a more aggressive normalization path later:

Under the optimal control approach, the Fed would accept the cost of temporarily higher inflation (still within a 25b range of target) in return for a faster return to potential output. Yellen now appears will to tolerate a return to the inflation target from below, rather than above, in order to avoid the possibility of a sharper rise in rates later.

Why the change of heart? Why the gradualist approach? It is reasonable to believe its about financial market instability. Back to Greg Ip:

... the effects of six years of zero rates on leverage and risk-taking are increasingly evident. As Ms. Yellen’s Monetary Policy Report noted, “Credit markets have been reflecting some signs of reach-for-yield behavior, as issuance of speculative grade bonds continues to be strong, yields are low, and credit spreads are somewhat narrow by historical standards.”

Fair enough, maybe it isn't about inflation, but financial markets. But that is kind of disconcerting as well - the gradualist approach didn't work so well last time around. Seems like if you were really worried about financial markets, you would want to follow the optimal control approach and move quickly when inflation warranted a policy shift. The error of the last cycle may not have been in waiting too long to hike, but hiking too slowly when the time came.

Bottom Line: Ultimately, as the crisis fades further into the rearview mirror, the Fed see the policy risks shifting. Many, including Yellen, will shift back toward the central banker's natural inclination to fight inflation, despite the lack of inflation for the past two decades. And that natural inclination keeps the September option alive. Given the Fed's penchant for tight policy on average, the risk is that while they don't trip the economy into recession in the near term, they instead lock the economy into a sub-par equilibrium.

More Mediocrity

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen will be playing a game of mixed messages with Congress tomorrow as she explains why she believes a rate hike approaches in spite of lackluster data. Today's data didn't help. The June retail sales report was a disappointment, slipping from May levels with generally soft internals in addition to downward revisions to previous months. Consequently, core spending growth is decelerating on a year-over-year basis to 2013 rates:

Maintaining the 2014 growth bump has been something of a challenge, to be sure.The report triggered downgrades to the second quarter growth forecast as it offset upward revisions attributable to last week's new estimates of federal spending and inventories:

More mediocre growth - stuck in that 2.5 percent range which is a touch higher than the Fed's longer-run central tendency of 2.0-2.3 percent. And therein lies the key to understanding the Fed's repeated calls that 2015 is the year for the first rate hike. I think they are concluding 2014 was sufficient to largely close the output gap, as evidenced by falling unemployment and other measures of labor underutilization. San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams even believes that optimally, US growth needs to DECELERATE in 2016:

Looking towards next year, what we really want to see is an economy that’s growing at a steady pace of around 2 percent. If jobs and growth kept the same pace as last year, we would seriously overshoot our mark. I want to see continued improvement, but it’s not surprising, and it’s actually desirable, that the pace is slowing.

With the output gap closing, Fed policymakers believe they need to begin reducing financial accommodation. They are not sufficiently sure of that hypothesis to begin hiking at anything more than a modest pace, but are sufficiently sure to comfortably declare that the first rate hike is upon us. Hence, Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren can say things to Reuters like:

"If we do continue to get improvement in labor markets, if we do become reasonably confident that we're moving back to 2-percent inflation, it may be appropriate as early as September," he said of raising rates from near zero. "I don't think we have seen that evidence yet but we still have a couple months of data to see whether it's more strongly confirmed."

Rosengren has long advocated for more monetary accommodation than most of his colleagues at the central bank, which has kept interest rates at rock bottom to boost the recovery. With wages showing early signs of a pick-up and U.S. unemployment down to 5.3 percent, he set a high bar for delaying a hike.

Only if labor markets unexpectedly weaken, if core inflation starts to drop off, or if the wage gains dissipated, "those would be the things that would make me want to pause and wait and see whether there is further evidence," he said.

And Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen says:

My own outlook for the economy and inflation is broadly consistent with the central tendency of the projections submitted by FOMC participants at the time of our June meeting. Based on my outlook, I expect that it will be appropriate at some point later this year to take the first step to raise the federal funds rate and thus begin normalizing monetary policy.

Whereas Cleveland Federal Reserve President is somewhat more aggressive in an interview with the Financial Times:

Loretta Mester, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said the case for “emergency” levels of interest rates was now gone given that the economy was “fundamentally sound”, as she signalled that she would support two increases in short-term rates this year.

To be sure, it is all data dependent. More solid wage growth would do the trick, I think, to draw the Fed to September. Without that wage growth acceleration, I suspect the more dovish side of the FOMC will pull the Fed toward December. No reason to rush given the lackluster numbers we are seeing. But one senses greater impatience on the more hawkish side of the FOMC. They will argue like Mester that the general consistency of underlying growth, steady improvement in labor utilization, and proximity to mandates signals it is time to leave behind the policies of the financial crisis.

Bottom Line: The basic theme is that the economy is that, in the Fed's eyes, the economy is sufficiently stable to justify a rate hike, but lacks any reason to rush that hike or the pace of subsequent hikes. That message I expect to hear tomorrow. In her appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, Yellen will reiterate the basic points of Friday's speech, maintaining faith that 2015 will be the year for the first rate hike since 2006. Heavy caveats, however, about data dependence. She may get asked directly about September. If so,  she will not rule out September. She will instead say maybe September, maybe later. But more interesting might be the questioning surrounding the Fed's perceived intransigence; Congress is looking for more of that transparency the Fed is always bragging about.

 

Mediocre Tranquility

The US economy is an island of mediocre tranquility in the midst of the stormy sea of the global economy. Tranquil enough to keep the Fed eyeing its first rate hike despite the surrounding storm, but sufficiently mediocre that they feel no reason to rush into that hike. As such, the Fed will remain on the sidelines until the forecast points toward sunnier skies. Uncertainty from Greece and China are likely raising the bar on the domestic conditions that would justify a rate hike.

Monetary policymakers are increasingly convinced that the first quarter weakness in US data was largely an aberration. From the minutes of the June FOMC meeting:

In discussing how to interpret the reported weakness in real GDP during the first quarter, participants considered alternative estimates of real economic activity based on various data-filtering models maintained by Board and Reserve Bank staff. These models yielded a range of estimates, but, overall, they suggested that real activity in the first quarter was likely stronger than the then-current official estimate of real GDP. Some participants indicated that the higher alternative estimates seemed more consistent with the increases in real gross domestic income and private domestic final purchases in the first quarter as well as the strength in employment and hours worked.

Effectively, policymakers believe the first quarter dissapointment  was largely noise; the underlying pace of growth remained fairly consistent with recent trends. Moreover, data since the June meeting suggests the Fed's confidence is warranted. Via the Atlanta Federal Reserve:

 

And while they believe risks to the economy are fairly balanced:

While participants generally saw the risks to their projections of economic activity and the labor market as balanced,...

they aren't all that comfortable with the outlook:

...they gave a number of reasons to be cautious in assessing the outlook.  

One group is concerned with the still too slow progress toward their goals:

Some pointed to the risk that the weaker-than-anticipated rise in economic activity over the first half of the year could reflect factors that might continue to restrain sales and production, and that economic activity might not have sufficient momentum to sustain progress toward the Committee's objectives. In particular, they were concerned that consumers could remain cautious or that the drag on sectors affected by lower energy prices and the higher dollar could persist.

Another thought growth would come roaring back:

Others, however, viewed the strength in the labor market in recent months as potentially signaling a stronger-than-expected bounceback in economic activity.

I suspect the last labor report - with its ho-hum headline NFP number and downward revisions to previous months - took some of the steam out of that argument. Some were looking abroad for problems:

Several mentioned their uncertainty about whether Greece and its official creditors would reach an agreement and about the likely pace of economic growth abroad, particularly in China and other emerging market economies.

And who knows what is going on with productivity? From the minutes:

Other concerns were related to whether the apparent weakness in productivity growth recently would be reversed or continue. On the one hand, a rebound in productivity growth in coming quarters might restrain hiring and slow the improvement in labor market conditions. On the other hand, if productivity growth remained weak, the labor market might tighten more quickly and inflation might rise more rapidly than anticipated.

And on and on it goes. Consumer spending has good fundamentals, but seems too weak relative to expectations. Housing markets are looking up, but remain historically soft and plagued by problems such as tight underwriting. Manufacturing is soft, but autos are strong and so too is the service sector. Labor markets are making progress toward goals, but slack remains. 

On labor markets, however, there does seem to be a growing conviction that we are coming close to full employment:

...Several other participants indicated that, in their view, labor market slack had already been largely eliminated.

The ongoing rise in labor demand appeared to have begun to result in a firming of wage increases. Recent readings on the employment cost index, hourly compensation, and average hourly earnings of employees suggested some acceleration in wages. According to business contacts in a number of Districts, many firms looking for new workers said they had been raising wages selectively to attract them; some had also begun to raise wages more generally...

But even this bright spot is not so bright:

...However, several participants pointed out that, even with the recent upturn, wage increases remain subdued...

Inflation remained low, but some participants offered evidence of better numbers in the future:

Participants discussed how the incoming information regarding inflation influenced their expectations for reaching the FOMC's 2 percent inflation objective over the medium term. Total PCE inflation continued to run below the Committee's objective. However, participants noted that the apparent stabilization of crude oil prices and the foreign exchange value of the dollar would reduce the downward pressure on inflation from falling prices of energy and imported goods. Core PCE price inflation, as measured on a 12-month change basis, had slowed slightly from an already low rate. However, several participants pointed out that the 3-month change in that index had firmed recently, signaling some improvement in the inflation outlook. In addition, some cited alternative measures of inflation, such as the trimmed mean and median consumer price indexes (CPIs) and the trimmed mean PCE, which continued to run at higher levels than overall PCE inflation.

The upshot for policy:

Most participants judged that the conditions for policy firming had not yet been achieved; a number of them cautioned against a premature decision. Many participants emphasized that, in order to determine that the criteria for beginning policy normalization had been met, they would need additional information indicating that economic growth was strengthening, that labor market conditions were continuing to improve, and that inflation was moving back toward the Committee's objective.

In short, the US economy is locked into the most mediocre of equilibriums. Consistent if uninspiring growth:

job growth sufficient to gradually eliminate labor market slack:

but not fast enough to rapidly raise wages 

 or push inflation back to or beyond target:

Nothing to panic about, nothing to write home about. The general improvement and proximity to full-employment points toward a rate hike this year so that policy is leading any incipient inflationary pressures, but they need see more progress to pull the trigger. This point was reiterated by San Fransisco Federal Reserve President John Williams Tuesday:

...I still expect inflation to move back up to our target over the next couple of years. With a strengthening economy, special factors dissipating, wages on the rise, inflation expectations stable at 2 percent, and, importantly, full employment right around the corner, I see all the factors in place to meet our inflation goal by the end of next year. But the point of being data dependent is that information drives your decisions; and while my forecast looks great, I am wary of acting before gathering more evidence that inflation’s trajectory is on the desired path...

...policy is data dependent. And the difficulty of being data dependent is that data can be all over the place. Until I have more confidence that inflation will be moving back to 2 percent, I’ll continue to be in wait-and-see mode...

Two other points from the Williams speech worth considering. First is that I suspect the Fed is cautious but not yet terribly worried about events abroad. I doubt Williams is much of an outlier when he says:

...I visited China recently, and I arrived fully cognizant of the concerns people highlight—slower growth, the unsustainability of the current export-driven model, debt buildup, bubbles in the equity and housing markets, the risk of falling investment, and the overall international implications of those risks. But I have to say that, after talking to officials and academics there, I was a lot less concerned about China’s near-term economic outlook on my return flight than I was heading over...

...As for Greece, an ultimate decision appears to be a moveable feast. What I can say is this: Yes, there are risks, but I see them as unlikely to overturn the otherwise strong fundamentals of the U.S. economy...

...While a worst-case scenario of a Greek exit from the euro leading to sizable financial and economic impacts on the global economy cannot be ruled out, it remains an unlikely tail risk...

Second is that Williams has a fairly depressing view of potential growth:

Looking towards next year, what we really want to see is an economy that’s growing at a steady pace of around 2 percent. If jobs and growth kept the same pace as last year, we would seriously overshoot our mark. I want to see continued improvement, but it’s not surprising, and it’s actually desirable, that the pace is slowing.

Mediocre with a capital "M."

Bottom Line: The US economy is plain vanilla. Clearly not accelerating enough to justify a faster pace of monetary policy normalization, but not slow enough for the Fed to abandon their hope of at least initiating the first rate hike this year. They are still looking for stronger numbers, however, to pull that trigger. Fed officials on average are cautiously optimistic the issues in China and Greece will not spill over to the US economy, giving them the opportunity to hike rates. Still, in the absence of confirmation of that hypothesis, those issues still decrease the odds of a rate hike this year. This is especially the case if the recent decline in commodity price places renewed downward pressure on inflation. Such an outcome would raise the bar on the strength of the remaining data to justify a rate hike. In her speech Friday, we will hopefully learn more of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's view on the importance of Greece and China for US monetary policy.  

 

Ahead of the Employment Report

A rare Thursday release of the employment report is on tap for tomorrow, and all eyes will be watching to see if it falls in line with the other, more optimistic US data of late. Indeed, it increasingly looks like this year's growth scare was driven by temporary factors, not a fundamental downturn in the US economy. Consequently, anything reasonably close to expectations would bolster the case of those FOMC members looking for a first rate hike later this year, as early as September.

The ISM report for June was in-line with expectations, with fairly good internal components. Note in particular the bounce-back in the employment component:

Other employment data also indicates the underlying trends in the labor market are holding. Initial unemployment claims - a leading indicator - give no cause for worry:

And the ADP employment report came in slightly ahead of expectations at a private sector job gain of 237k for June. All of this suggests that the consensus for tomorrow's headline number of 230k is reasonable, although I am inclined to bet that the actual number will beat consensus.

The usual headline numbers, however, may not be the stars of the show. Attention will rightly be on the wage numbers. Further evidence that wage growth is accelerating would indicate that the labor market is finally closing in a full employment. Such data would point to a rate hike sooner than later as it would raise the Fed's confidence that inflation will be trending toward target. See Federal Reserve Governor Stanley Fischer today:

Regarding inflation, an important factor working to increase confidence in the inflation outlook will be continued improvement in the labor market. Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that inflation will eventually begin to rise as resource utilization tightens. And while the link between wages and inflation can be tenuous, it is encouraging that we are seeing tentative indications of an acceleration in labor compensation.

Tantalizing evidence on wage growth comes from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank:

With fairly low inflation, this suggests that real wages growth is indeed accelerating, which helps account for the relatively solid consumer confidence numbers we are seeing. Demand for new cars and trucks also remains strong, although I sense that we are not likely to see higher numbers going forward.

Also from the Atlanta Fed is their GDP tracker, which continues to head back to consensus range:

This is in-line with Fischer's assessment of the economy:

The U.S. economy slowed sharply in the first quarter of this year, with the most recent estimate being that real GDP declined 0.2 percent at an annual rate. Household spending slowed, while both business investment and net exports declined. Much of this slowdown seemed to reflect transitory factors, including harsh winter weather, labor disputes at West Coast ports, and probably statistical noise. Confirming that view, the latest monthly data on real consumption provide welcome evidence that consumer demand is rebounding, and that economic activity likely expanded at an annual rate of about 2.5 percent in the second quarter.

What about Greece? St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard dismissed Greece as a reason for concern. Michael Derby at the Wall Street Journal reports:

What’s happening in Europe “would not change the timing of any rate hike. I would say September is still very much in play” for raising rates, Mr. Bullard told reporters after a speech in St. Louis. More broadly, he said “every meeting is in play depending on the data,” which he said had been “stronger” recently. He also described recent inflation data as being “more lively” and set to rise further over time.

I doubt other Federal Reserve officials are quite as confident, but they have plenty of time between now and September to assess the situation. As I said Monday, they will be looking for evidence of credit market spillovers. If they don't see it, the economic data will rule the day. Bullard also argued the case of a faster pace of rate hikes:

“The Fed should hedge against the possibility of a third major macroeconomic bubble in coming years by shading interest rates somewhat higher than otherwise” would be the case based on historical norms, Mr. Bullard said. “The benefit would be a longer, more stable economic expansion.”

Mr. Bullard warned “my view is that low interest rates tend to feed the bubble process.” He did not point to any major imbalances right now even as he flagged high stock market levels as something to watch, acknowledging the role of technology could be changing how the economy interacts with financial markets.

Derby correctly notes, however, that this places Bullard out of the Fed consensus:

Mr. Bullard’s suggesting that rates may need to be lifted more aggressively in the future puts him at odds with some of his central bank colleagues. Many key Fed officials are now gravitating to the view that changes in labor market demographics and other forces may mean the Fed could keep rates at a lower level relative to historic benchmarks. Most officials now expect that the long-term fed funds rate target, now at near zero levels, will likely stand at around 3.75%.

Fischer, for example, still argues for a gradual pace of normalization and is much more sanguine on the financial market excess:

Once we begin to remove policy accommodation, the Committee's assessment is that economic conditions will likely warrant raising the federal funds rate only gradually. Thus, we expect that the target federal funds rate will remain for some time below levels viewed as normal in the longer run. But that is only a forecast, and monetary policy will, in practice, be determined by the data--primarily data on inflation and unemployment.

What about financial stability? We are aware of the possibility that low interest rates maintained for a prolonged period could prompt an excessive buildup in leverage or cause underwriting standards to erode as investors take on risks they cannot measure or manage appropriately in a reach for yield. At this point, the evidence does not indicate that such vulnerabilities pose a significant threat, but we are carefully monitoring developments in this area.

Fischer is closer to the FOMC consensus than Bullard on these points.

Bottom Line: Incoming data continues to support the case that the underlying pace of activity is holding, alleviating concerns that kept the Fed on the sidelines in the first half of this year. I anticipate the employment report, or, more accurately, the sum of the next three reports, to say the same. Accelerating wage growth could very well be the trigger for a September rate hike, while Greece could push any rate hike beyond 2015. I myself, however, tend to be optimistic the Greece situation will not spiral out of control.