An independent review of the IMF’s economic forecasts out today basically gives the Fund a clean bill of health, but finds that when making big lending programmes, its initial forecasts tend to be optimistic on growth and pessimistic on budget deficits. Read more
I think people are confusing two separate questions in the recent debate about wage rises and spare capacity in the US economy: first, the amount of slack left in the labour market, and second, whether the Fed should deliberately try to overshoot its inflation objective of 2 per cent.
The extent of slack Read more
There could be serious financial turmoil when the Fed eventually raises interest rates, even without a lot of leverage in the financial system, according to this year’s paper at the US Monetary Policy Forum in New York. If the analysis is correct then it is an argument against very easy monetary policy – but the paper is quite limited.
(The USMPF, organised by the Chicago Booth business school, is a once-a-year event where a group of market economists present a paper to a gathering of Fed pooh-bahs. The authors this year are Michael Feroli of JP Morgan, Anil Kashyap of Chicago Booth, Kermit Schoenholtz of NYU Stern and Hyun Song Shin of Princeton.) Read more
After the Reserve Bank of India’s Raghuram Rajan took the Fed and other developed country central banks to task this week for ignoring turmoil in emerging markets, Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, gave the standard retort on Friday. He said the US central bank must make policy according to what is best for America.
Doing so means the only reason the Fed would change its monetary policy is if trouble in emerging markets had a direct effect on the US. There are two main channels – exports and financial markets – but neither looks likely to hurt the US unless the EM turmoil gets a lot more severe. Thus while the Fed may make a greater show of consultation, and soak up some flak at the G20, its actions this year are unlikely to change. Read more
A quick update as the hoopla builds ahead of today’s Fed decision.
Will they taper?
Based on reporting ahead of the blackout period I put the odds of a taper at roughly 50 per cent for December and 50 per cent for January. We’ve been reporting since October that a December taper was still on the agenda so this shouldn’t be regarded as a sudden or unconsidered development.
Since the blackout started there has been a succession of strong data on retail sales, industrial production and homebuilder confidence. We have also had a budget deal. Therefore, I think the chances of a taper today are more than 50 per cent.
It is hard to call this too confidently, however, because the case for waiting is so easy. Read more
I have written masses about the upcoming FOMC meeting, the upshot of which is that a small taper is likely on Wednesday, but not guaranteed because of uncertainty about the growth outlook (and the prospect of an imminent budget crisis). What I want to do here is proceed on the assumption that the Fed tapers and discuss how it might do so. NB: this is analysis based on insight into how the Fed works. If someone had told me exactly what was going to happen it would be on the front page of the paper.
(A) Designing a taper
The first thing to note is that the FOMC did the hard part in June when it set out a tapering scenario that would see asset purchases end in the summer of 2014 with an unemployment rate of about 7 per cent. That scenario explains why there is uncertainty about tapering in September: with the main parameters already decided, the details of September’s decision do not matter that much, so if individual FOMC officials are passionate about a particular point they may be able to influence the outcome. Read more
For the last three years, there has been no breakfast for journalists on the opening day of Jackson Hole, while we write up a dramatic, market-moving speech by Ben Bernanke. It’s a more sedate start this year with a thoroughly wonkish paper by Stanford’s Robert Hall.
There is not much new in it on policy. It starts with a fairly straightforward rundown on why the economy got into such a mess when interest rates hit zero after the financial crisis, and it ends by agreeing with last year’s paper by Michael Woodford on what to do with monetary policy (QE doesn’t work, you need commitments about future policy, not just guidance).
The meat of Mr Hall’s paper is about why inflation did not fall much after the crisis despite high levels of unemployment. This has been a surprise during the last few years: unemployment has not driven down wages in a way that led to deflation. Read more
The market thinks the June jobs report is taperific and that looks basically correct: at this pace of payrolls growth a September slowing of QE3 seems likely. But there are enough complications to make the market reaction – 10-year Treasury yield up eighteen basis points at 2.68 per cent – look over the top. Read more
When the Fed began its third round of quantitative easing last autumn, the most recent jobs report in hand was for August, which showed an unemployment rate of 8.1 per cent. Today the unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent. The Fed said it would keep buying assets, currently at a pace of $85bn-a-month, until there is a “substantial improvement” in the “outlook for the labour market”. The question is whether the current data meet that condition or at least bring it close enough that the Fed can start to taper its purchases.
(1) There is no need to panic. After the purchasing managers’ index for manufacturing came in below 50 on Monday there was some cause to worry about the health of the economy – but the rise in the services PMI, from 53.1 in April to 53.7, suggests that consumer demand is still there.